Fresh tomatoes are usually low in lead and cadmium: about 3% of monitoring results exceed the EU lead maximum of 50 µg/kg and about 4% the cadmium maximum of 20 µg/kg, and US market baskets were lower still.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
-
Metals of concern:
Cadmium and lead first; mercury, nickel, chromium and arsenic rise at exposed growing sites.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
-
Main drivers:
Growing site, irrigation water, nearby emitters and, after harvest, cookware.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →
-
Practical framing:
Ask where and how the tomatoes were grown, and for fresh-weight lead and cadmium results.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Tomato overview
Fresh tomato usually carries little lead or cadmium. In 2,778 WHO GEMS/Food lead results for fresh tomato from 1998 to 2020, about two in three were below the laboratory’s detection limit, the median lay between 0 and 7.5 µg/kg, and 86 (3.1%) were above 50 µg/kg, the EU maximum for fruiting vegetables.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Cadmium was detected in half of 3,197 results, with a median between 0 and 5 µg/kg, and 137 (4.3%) were above the EU maximum of 20 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →
United States market baskets were lower still. In 27 FDA Total Diet Study samples of raw tomato bought from 2017 to 2020, cadmium was found in 24 at 1.0–7.6 µg/kg (median 3.3 µg/kg), while lead, total arsenic, mercury, nickel, chromium and uranium were below reporting limits of 1–50 µg/kg in every sample.3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Retail and market surveys on a fresh-weight basis in Poland, Iran, Egypt and Romania found mean lead of 7–241 µg/kg and mean cadmium of 3–27 µg/kg.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →10Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source →
The high values in the literature come from exposed growing sites, from studies reporting on a dry-weight basis, and from papers whose figures do not survive a check. Tomatoes grown near two Chinese coal-fired power plants held 9.8–76 µg/kg mercury against 0.73 µg/kg in a grocery-store sample, and Cairo tomatoes irrigated with industrial wastewater held about two and a half times the nickel and chromium of Nile-irrigated fruit.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source → A tomato is about 94% water, so a dry-weight result is roughly 17 times the fresh-weight concentration of the same fruit; this page keeps the two bases apart, and holds values from 17 papers that conflict with their own methods or tables.11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source →17Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaISRN Analytical ChemistryRead source →
For a buyer, the supported priorities are the growing site and the irrigation water, and lot results on a fresh-weight basis with quantification limits well below the EU maxima of 50 µg/kg lead and 20 µg/kg cadmium.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Codex sets 50 µg/kg lead for fruiting vegetables in its 2025 edition, but its cadmium maximum for fruiting vegetables does not apply to tomatoes.18General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →
What counts as fresh tomato
This page covers fresh tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum) of any type, including cherry, plum and grape tomatoes, raw or of unstated preparation.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →19Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → Canned tomatoes, paste, purée, sauce, ketchup, juice, soup, dried tomato and dishes that contain tomato have their own pages, and their values are not used here; tree tomato (tamarillo) is a different plant.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
Weight basis matters more for tomato than for most foods. Fresh tomatoes were 94.0–94.3% water in the surveys that measured it, so a concentration per kilogram of dry matter is about 17 times the concentration per kilogram of fresh fruit.11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →17Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaISRN Analytical ChemistryRead source → Many surveys dry the samples before analysis and do not state which basis they report; those results are shown, but compared only within their own study, because they cannot be placed on either basis.20Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentScientific ReportsRead source →21Assessment of the Level of Heavy Metals in Irrigation Water, Farm Soil, and Vegetables Grown in Gobbiya Dam, Bogoro Local Government Area Bauchi State, NigeriaJournal of Energy Technology and Environment 7(4):79–92Read source →22Levels, dietary intake, and health risk of potentially toxic metalsPeer-reviewed articleRead source →
Place names need the same care. A GEMS/Food region is the region that reported the result, and its domestic and imported labels are relative to a reporting country the export does not name, while most surveys report the market where the tomatoes were bought.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →23Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorRevista Internacional de Contaminacion AmbientalRead source → Greenhouse, field and organic labels in the monitoring data are the submitters’ food names and were not verified.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Heavy metal contamination profile of tomato
The table holds every fresh-tomato result extracted from 38 studies and reports and two monitoring datasets: one row for each statistic a source reports for a subgroup and metal, so a mean, a median and a range from the same samples appear as separate rows.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →24Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →20Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentScientific ReportsRead source → Ratings place a mean, median or single result against pooled HMI tomato references on the same weight basis, built from WHO GEMS/Food subgroup medians, FDA market-basket samples and per-sample results printed by surveys in Poland, Ecuador and Algeria; non-detects remain intervals and are never read as zero.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →19Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →23Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorRevista Internacional de Contaminacion AmbientalRead source →25Food survey: Levels and potential health risks of chromium, lead, zinc and copper content in fruits and vegetables consumed in AlgeriaFood and Chemical ToxicologyRead source → Experimental treatments are compared only with their own controls, results of unstated basis only within their own study, and rows that failed a check against their own paper stay visible with the reason and are not compared.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →26Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →20Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentScientific ReportsRead source →27Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
Comparison methods and scope
Each row is one statistic a source reports for one subgroup and metal; a mean, median and range from the same samples are separate rows. Results on a fresh-weight basis, a dry-weight basis and an unstated basis are kept apart, because dried tomato is roughly ten to twenty times more concentrated than the fresh fruit. Ratings place a reported mean, median or sample result against a pooled HMI tomato reference on the same basis. Same-study contrasts compare a subgroup with its own study’s control, total or lowest subgroup. Experimental treatments, such as spiked irrigation water, are compared only with their own controls. Held rows failed a check against their own paper and are shown but not compared. Canned tomatoes, paste, sauce, ketchup and juice are separate foods with their own pages.
First displayed analyte: Lead: 98 findings from 30 sources. Each row retains its statistic and measurement basis.
Filter findings
362 of 362 findings · 10 analytes
About this table
| Food form | Collection scope | Finding (µg/kg) | Comparison | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
98 findings · 30 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2003–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2003–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, field-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelled organicWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, field-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelled organicWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2003–2010Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2000–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region SEARO2012–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2013Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAbdolahpour et al. 2023 | Tomatoes (Babol fields)2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Contaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020 | Tomato2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020 | Tomato2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018 | TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Dakola open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Niankologo open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Total (all five markets)2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023 | Sample 2962021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoCherfi et al. 2014 | Tomatoes2012Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024 | Tomato2022Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Jawor" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedFresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Koralik" cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Lima" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Ożarowski" pink tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | large-fruited "Gargamel" tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | orange tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014 | Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025 | Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2007Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoMohod 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017 | Tomato2016–2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRusin et al. 2021 | Tomato, FreshCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSalhotra et al. 2017 | Tomato2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldSamma et al. 2024 | TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSanusi et al. 2023 | Ajiwa Fadama farms2023Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoVela et al. 2023 | TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Control2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | SBLB2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
101 findings · 30 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EMRO2014–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EMRO2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EMRO2013Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2003–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2001–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2003–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO2015Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2010Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAbdolahpour et al. 2023 | Tomatoes (Babol fields)2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Contaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020 | Tomato2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020 | Tomato2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAltunay et al. 2023 | Tomatoes (Sivas greengrocer)Collection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018 | TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Dakola open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Niankologo open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Total (all five markets)2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023 | Sample 2962021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoCantoral et al. 2024 | Saladette Tomatoes 'Solanum2022–2023Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024 | Tomato2022Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Jawor" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedFresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Koralik" cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Lima" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | "Ożarowski" pink tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | large-fruited "Gargamel" tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | orange tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014 | Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025 | Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2007Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoMohod 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017 | Tomato2016–2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRusin et al. 2021 | Tomato, FreshCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSalhotra et al. 2017 | Tomato2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoVela et al. 2023 | TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Control2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | SBLB2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | CCT2021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | CCT2021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | CCU2021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | CCU2021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | T12021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T12021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T22021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | T32021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T32021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
56 findings · 14 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2007–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2014–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2007–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2014–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2007–2023Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2014–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2003–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2003–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2000–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023 | Sample 2962021Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014 | Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025 | Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017 | Tomato2016–2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022 | Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | All As-spiked irrigation2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | All levels of As-spiked irrigation2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 0 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 0 µg/L2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 1,000 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 1,000 µg/L2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 100 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 100 µg/L2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 500 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Irrigation water As 500 µg/L2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Control2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | SBLB2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
5 findings · 3 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2009–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not stated, dry weightWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2011Dry weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2007Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoCentre 2012 | Tomato2010–2011Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomatoEuropean 2014 | Tomatoes2003–2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
39 findings · 14 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Contaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Dakola open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Niankologo open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Total (all five markets)2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024 | Tomato2022Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025 | Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017 | Tomato2016–2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSanusi et al. 2023 | Ajiwa Fadama farms2023Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Control2024Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | SBLB2024Basis not stated | below LOD. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | CCT2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | CCT2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | CCU2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | CCU2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | T12021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T12021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T22021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024 | T32021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024 | T32021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
37 findings · 18 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Contaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023 | Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018 | Tomato2016Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018 | TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Dakola open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Niankologo open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022 | Total (all five markets)2020Basis not stated | median. | ||
| Fresh tomatoCherfi et al. 2014 | Tomatoes2012Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoEFSA 2014 | Tomatoes2000–2012Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024 | Tomato2022Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | below LOD. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025 | Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012 | Tomatoes2007Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017 | Tomato2016–2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024 | Tomato2021–2023Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldSamma et al. 2024 | TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | Control2024Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026 | SBLB2024Basis not stated | mean. | ||
19 findings · 7 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2004–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2003–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2008Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014 | Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLi et al. 2017 | Control Sample2015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location A12015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location A22015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location B12015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location B22015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location B32015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017 | Location B42015Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016 | Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Fresh tomatoDordevic et al. 2019 | Raw (tomato, before baking)Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Fresh tomatoDordevic et al. 2019 | Raw (tomato, before baking)Collection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
3 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998–2002Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1998Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO1997–2005Fresh weight | median. | ||
2 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet Study | United States regional market2017–2020Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| Fresh tomato, fieldAuthors 2007 | TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
Shared dataset methods and interpretation
Source summaries retain their original statistic, material, basis and censoring. Each source drawer identifies methods and overlapping samples. No matched reference or pooled distribution is inferred.
HMI tomato Pb reference, fresh weight · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Pb reference, fresh weight · 3 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤4 | ≤4 | ≤4 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤4 | ≤4 | ≤4 |
143 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 115 | 33% |
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 33% |
| Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-Pb:8fc27f3f9bc3
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Pb reference, dry weight · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Pb reference, dry weight · 2 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, dry weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤4 | 13600 | 27000 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤4 | 13600 | 27000 |
10 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | 9 | 50% |
| Cherfi et al. 2014 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible dry weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a dry weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-dry-Pb:392df711fc3e
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Cd reference, fresh weight · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Cd reference, fresh weight · 3 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤3 | 0.306–4 (bounded) | 3.3–4.1 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤2.9 | 0.344–4 (bounded) | 3.3–4.1 (bounded) |
109 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 79 | 33% |
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 33% |
| Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | 3 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-Cd:e031d30aecac
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Cd reference, dry weight · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Cd reference, dry weight · 2 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, dry weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 13.5 | 363 | 630 |
| Alternative weighting | 13.5 | 363 | 630 |
14 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020 | 10 | 50% |
| Vela et al. 2023 | 4 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible dry weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a dry weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-dry-Cd:40e24920d2ae
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato tAs reference, fresh weight · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato tAs reference, fresh weight · 2 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤3 | ≤3 | ≤5 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤3 | ≤3 | ≤5 |
109 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 82 | 50% |
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-tAs:f28e542cdb00
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato iAs reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato iAs reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤4.05 | ≤13.9 | 3.95–30 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤4.05 | ≤13.9 | 3.95–30 (bounded) |
4 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 4 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-iAs:e72f9e99a549
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato iAs reference, dry weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato iAs reference, dry weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, dry weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
| Alternative weighting | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible dry weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a dry weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-dry-iAs:1d6dc4faf703
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Ni reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Ni reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤40 | ≤40 | ≤40 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤40 | ≤40 | ≤40 |
27 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-Ni:641efa35a101
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Cr reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Cr reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤50 | ≤50 | ≤50 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤50 | ≤50 | ≤50 |
27 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-Cr:78f5e6d6c0c4
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Cr reference, dry weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Cr reference, dry weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, dry weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 14100 | 14100 | 14100 |
| Alternative weighting | 14100 | 14100 | 14100 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Cherfi et al. 2014 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible dry weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a dry weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-dry-Cr:21a9ce739d93
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato tHg reference, fresh weight · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI tomato tHg reference, fresh weight · 2 sampling families. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤0.35 | ≤1 | ≤1 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤0.35 | ≤1 | ≤1 |
70 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 43 | 50% |
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-tHg:1896e872be40
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato Sn reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato Sn reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤20 | 20–200 (bounded) | 200–333 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤20 | 20–200 (bounded) | 200–333 (bounded) |
3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 3 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-Sn:c9464bdc7744
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI tomato U reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI tomato U reference, fresh weight · 1 sampling family. Fresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weight, µg/kg. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤1 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤1 |
27 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA Total Diet Study | 27 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible fresh weight fresh-tomato sampling family in the evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food medians by reporting region, year, growing-system label and origin label (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study market-basket samples, per-sample results printed by surveys, single-composite means and published subgroup medians. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima of several samples never enter as observations. Experimental treatments, wastewater or effluent irrigation and mining or power-plant exposure sites never enter.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An evidence-library reference for fresh tomato on a fresh weight basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into one another, because few sources report the moisture of the tomatoes they measured. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:tomato-fresh-U:2ea472a58045
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
The source reports only a percentile, range or maximum for these samples, with no mean or median to place against the reference. Spread figures that do have a mean or median are shown on that row instead.
The value could not be reconciled with its own paper, so it is shown but not compared.
The result is below a reporting limit, and the range from zero to that limit crosses more than one band.
No medians or sample values exist for this form and metal, so no HMI reference could be built.
The HMI reference for this form has fewer than four units or no measurable spread, below the display minimum.
The result is on a basis (dry weight, or not stated) that no HMI reference for this form uses, so it cannot be placed.
Reporting limits overlap the study comparison, so no direction can be shown.
No findings match these filters. Change the selection or reset to show all source findings.
How metals reach tomatoes
Most of what reaches tomato fruit reflects the growing site: soil, irrigation water and air. In a four-year Chinese field trial, fruit irrigated with half reclaimed water held more cadmium (29 against 18 µg/kg) and chromium (61 against 49 µg/kg) than fruit irrigated with groundwater, although only the chromium difference approached statistical significance.6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source → In Cairo, fruit from farms irrigated with untreated industrial wastewater held 760 µg/kg chromium and 1,630 µg/kg nickel against 290 and 610 µg/kg on farms irrigated from the Nile; the same paper’s lead and cadmium values cannot be reconciled with its own soil data and are held.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
Air is the main route for mercury near large emitters. Around a Chinese coal-fired power plant, tomato mercury fell from 76.3 µg/kg at the nearest site to 9.8 µg/kg at the farthest, and two sites near a second plant held 71.8 and 29.8 µg/kg, against 0.73 µg/kg in tomatoes from a grocery store.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →
Experiments show the same dependence on water and soil. Fruit arsenic rose to 0.18 and 0.43 µg/g dry weight when irrigation water was spiked to 500 and 1,000 µg/L arsenic in Burkina Faso, about 0.02 and 0.05 µg/g on a fresh-weight basis.26Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → In Egypt, fruit grown with agricultural drainage water held 1,000 µg/kg nickel in a greenhouse plot and 88 µg/kg in a field plot, and remediating the soil with clay minerals and treating the water lowered these to 250 and 18 µg/kg; cadmium was not detected in any treatment.27Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source → In a Dominican greenhouse trial, lead, cadmium and arsenic stayed below 10 µg/kg in fruit whether the plants received mineral fertiliser, a seaweed-based biofertiliser or nothing.28Trace Element Content in Tomato Fruit Grown with Sargassum-Based BiofertilizerAgronomyRead source →
Which tomatoes and growing conditions measured lower
For lead, the lowest results came from the United States and from Americas monitoring submissions. All 27 FDA market-basket samples were below 4 µg/kg, and in GEMS/Food the detected lead results had a median of 2.1 µg/kg in the Americas, 4.3 µg/kg in the Western Pacific and 18 µg/kg in Europe, with 2.2%, 2.6% and 3.7% of results above 50 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Part of that difference is analytical: European lead results had a median detection limit of 8 µg/kg, often 10–50 µg/kg, against 1 µg/kg in the Americas, so this is a tentative pattern among reporting regions, not a sourcing preference for a country.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Growing-system labels did not separate lead in the monitoring data, but one controlled comparison did. In Americas submissions from 2014 to 2016, greenhouse-labelled tomatoes had a detected lead median of 2.2 µg/kg (54 of 156 detected), organic-labelled 1.7 µg/kg (19 of 46) and unlabelled 2.0 µg/kg; only three of ten field-labelled results were detected, too few to compare.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → In Shanghai, hydroponically grown tomatoes held 5.6 µg/kg lead and cadmium combined against 47.9 µg/kg for soil-grown tomatoes from 20 and 22 farm samples, a significant difference; the paper does not give the two metals separately for tomato or state the weight basis.8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Type also mattered in one Romanian survey. After washing in tap water, red cherry tomatoes from the market held 18.6 µg/kg lead and no detectable cadmium against 66.8 µg/kg lead and 16.5 µg/kg cadmium in standard tomatoes, while yellow cherry tomatoes held 51.3 µg/kg lead and 23.5 µg/kg cadmium.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → Total arsenic did not follow: it was 334 µg/kg in red cherry and 389 µg/kg in standard tomatoes, so the type lowest in lead was not lowest in arsenic.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →
For cadmium, fresh-weight means were lowest in Poland and western Iran and highest in Egypt and northern Iran. Ten Polish tomatoes averaged 3 µg/kg and 50 composites from Hamadan 3 µg/kg, against 9–15 µg/kg in Tehran, 25.5 µg/kg in Ismailia and 27 µg/kg in Babol; the GEMS/Food detected medians were 5 µg/kg in Europe and 9–12 µg/kg in the Americas, Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →10Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source → These are single surveys with different methods, so they describe the lowest observed means rather than reliably cleaner regions.
For arsenic and nickel, within-study comparisons point to water and site rather than to a country. Total arsenic was below 3 µg/kg in every FDA sample and inorganic arsenic below 3 µg/kg in four Hong Kong total-diet composites, and EFSA put mean inorganic arsenic in 484 European tomato results at 1.5–7.7 µg/kg, mostly estimated from total arsenic; tap-washed Romanian tomatoes, by contrast, held 255–389 µg/kg total arsenic.3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →29Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →30The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source → Nickel was below 40 µg/kg in every FDA sample and 161–232 µg/kg in Tehran, against an EU maximum of 400 µg/kg; in Seville urban gardens it ranged from 160 µg/kg dry weight in a peri-urban garden to 460 µg/kg in market tomatoes, the reverse of cadmium, which was highest in that peri-urban garden (228 against 73 µg/kg).3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →31Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source →24Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →13Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →
Are greenhouse or organic tomatoes lower in lead?
Not clearly in the monitoring data: Americas submissions labelled greenhouse or organic had detected lead medians of 2.2 and 1.7 µg/kg against 2.0 µg/kg for unlabelled tomatoes.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → The one controlled comparison of growing systems found hydroponic tomatoes far lower in lead and cadmium combined than soil-grown tomatoes, 5.6 against 47.9 µg/kg.8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Which places measured the lowest cadmium in fresh tomatoes?
On a fresh-weight basis, the lowest means were 3 µg/kg in Poland and in Hamadan, Iran, and the FDA median was 3.3 µg/kg; Tehran, Ismailia and Babol were higher at 9–27 µg/kg.3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →10Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source → Each figure comes from one survey, so these are lowest observed values, not a ranking of countries.
Washing, cooking and processed products
Washing removes part of the metal measured on tomatoes, and an acidic soak removed more. In Romania, soaking tap-washed market tomatoes in 5% vinegar lowered total arsenic from 389 to 202 µg/kg, cadmium from 16.5 to 12.2 µg/kg and lead from 66.8 to 54.0 µg/kg on a fresh-weight basis; a 10% soak gave similar results.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → The paper’s text reports larger reductions than its own tables, and there was no unwashed comparison, so the measured effect is the tables’ smaller one.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →
Cooking cannot destroy a metal, and cookware can add one. Boiling Burkina Faso tomatoes in arsenic-free water did not lower arsenic per gram of dry matter in fruit from spiked irrigation: it was 0.43 µg/g before and 0.71 µg/g after.26Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Baking fresh tomato in aluminium foil raised aluminium from 80 to as much as 370 µg/kg fresh weight, and simmering commercial tomato sauce with stainless steel for six hours raised nickel from about 0.15 to about 5–6 mg/kg, an effect that fell to about 0.7 mg/kg once the steel had been used for six cooking cycles.7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →32Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →
Canned and concentrated products are separate foods. Studies of canned tomato products measured tin migrating from the can during storage, which fresh tomato does not carry; those results are on the canned tomato and tomato paste pages.33Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storageJournal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 18(4), 299-303Read source →34Determination of Tin in Canned Foods by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass SpectrometryPolish Journal of Environmental StudiesRead source →
Mitigation from field to kitchen
Controls for tomato act mostly before harvest. The measured comparisons concern irrigation water, distance from industrial emitters, soil remediation and growing system, with acidic washing, cookware choice and lot testing after harvest.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →32Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →27Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source → Most are single studies or observational comparisons, so the table records their direction and size without implying they would transfer unchanged to another farm.
Filter findings
12 control comparisons
About this table
| Control | Material | Effects | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigate with groundwater rather than reclaimed watercultivation · As reported | Tomato | Cd · Decreased Cr · Decreased Pb · Decreased | 1Lu et al. 2016 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower with groundwaterFruit cadmiumReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (18 − 29) / 29 × 100 = -37.9%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Total chromiumDecreasedLower with groundwater (p = 0.08)Fruit chromiumReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (49 − 61) / 61 × 100 = -19.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. LeadDecreasedLower with groundwater (not significant)Fruit leadReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (55 − 68) / 68 × 100 = -19.1%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Groundwater versus half reclaimed-water irrigation in the same field trial. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Fruit irrigated with half reclaimed water held 29 against 18 µg/kg cadmium, 61 against 49 µg/kg chromium and 68 against 55 µg/kg lead; only the chromium difference approached significance.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Irrigated field production. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
One trial; third treatment row unlabelled and held. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Irrigated field production. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Avoid irrigation with untreated industrial wastewatercultivation · As reported | Tomato | Cr · Decreased Ni · Decreased | 1Ahmed et al. 2023 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total chromiumDecreasedLower with river irrigation (observational)Fruit chromiumWastewater versus NileFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (290 − 760) / 760 × 100 = -61.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. NickelDecreasedLower with river irrigation (observational)Fruit nickelWastewater versus NileFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (610 − 1630) / 1630 × 100 = -62.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Three farms per irrigation source. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Fruit from wastewater-irrigated farms held 760 µg/kg chromium and 1,630 µg/kg nickel against 290 and 610 µg/kg on Nile-irrigated farms.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational comparison. Peri-urban irrigated farms. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; lead and cadmium values from the same table are held for integrity conflicts. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Peri-urban irrigated farms. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Use irrigation water low in arseniccultivation · As reported | Tomato | tAs · Increased | 1Clair-Caliot et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total arsenicIncreasedHigher fruit arsenic with more arsenic in waterFruit total arsenic500 versus 1,000 µg/L in waterFresh tomato fruit, dry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (430 − 180) / 180 × 100 = 138.9%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Spiked irrigation water at increasing arsenic concentrations. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Fruit arsenic was 0.18 and 0.43 µg/g dry weight at 500 and 1,000 µg/L arsenic in irrigation water; values at 0 and 100 µg/L are held because they fall below the paper’s own reporting threshold.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Irrigation from arsenic-bearing groundwater. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
One composite of six pots per treatment. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Irrigation from arsenic-bearing groundwater. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Remediate soil with clay minerals and treat drainage water before irrigationsoil remediation · As reported | Tomato | Ni · Decreased Ni · Decreased | 1Salem et al. 2024 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators NickelDecreasedLower fruit nickel (greenhouse)Fruit nickelUntreated versus remediatedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (250 − 1000) / 1000 × 100 = -75.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. NickelDecreasedLower fruit nickel (field)Fruit nickelUntreated versus remediatedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (18 − 88) / 88 × 100 = -79.5%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Untreated soil and drainage water versus remediated soil and treated water. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Fruit nickel fell from 1,000 to 250 µg/kg in the greenhouse and from 88 to 18 µg/kg in the field with clay-mineral remediation and treated water; cadmium was not detected in any treatment.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Plots irrigated with drainage water. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Values read from figure labels; one site. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Plots irrigated with drainage water. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grow hydroponically with clean nutrient watercultivation · As reported | Tomato | Pb · Decreased Cd · Decreased | 1Chen et al. 2024 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators LeadDecreasedLower lead plus cadmium (combined)Fruit lead plus cadmiumSoil versus hydroponicFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5.6 − 47.9) / 47.9 × 100 = -88.3%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedLower lead plus cadmium (combined)Fruit lead plus cadmiumSoil versus hydroponicFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5.6 − 47.9) / 47.9 × 100 = -88.3%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Hydroponic versus soil-grown farm samples. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Hydroponic tomatoes held 5.6 µg/kg lead and cadmium combined against 47.9 µg/kg for soil-grown tomatoes (20 and 22 samples), a significant difference.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Protected production with controlled nutrient water. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Lead and cadmium not reported separately for tomato; basis not stated. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Protected production with controlled nutrient water. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source tomatoes away from coal-fired power plantssourcing and procurement · As reported | Tomato | tHg · Decreased | 1Li et al. 2017 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total mercuryDecreasedLower mercury farther from the plant (observational)Fruit total mercury by siteNearest versus farthest site, Plant BFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (9.79 − 76.33) / 76.33 × 100 = -87.2%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Sites at increasing distance from each plant, and a grocery-store sample. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Tomato mercury fell from 76.3 µg/kg at the nearest site to 9.8 µg/kg at the farthest around one plant, and was 71.8 and 29.8 µg/kg near a second, against 0.73 µg/kg in grocery-store tomatoes.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational comparison. Field production near large combustion sources. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; site counts and samples per site not reported. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Field production near large combustion sources. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Avoid simmering tomato sauce in new stainless steelfood preparation · As reported | Tomato | Ni · Increased Cr · Increased | 1Hobbie et al. 2014 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators NickelIncreasedHigher nickel with new stainless steelSauce nickelWithout versus with steelFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5750 − 150) / 150 × 100 = 3733.3%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Total chromiumIncreasedHigher chromium with new stainless steelSauce chromiumWithout versus with steelFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5750 − 100) / 100 × 100 = 5650.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Sauce cooked with versus without stainless steel, and over repeated cycles. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Six hours with grade 304 steel raised sauce nickel from about 0.15 to 5–6 mg/kg and chromium from about 0.1 to about 5.8 mg/kg; release fell to about 0.7 mg/kg each by the sixth cooking cycle.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Long cooking of acidic tomato foods. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Conference poster; values read from bar charts; tomato sauce, not fresh tomato. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Long cooking of acidic tomato foods. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Do not cook acidic or salty tomato dishes in aluminium foilfood preparation · As reported | Tomato | Al · Context | 1Bassioni et al. 2012 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators AluminiumMore aluminium released with acid, vinegar and spicesFoil weight lossRecipe comparisonsFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Foil weight loss across solution recipes. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Foil lost 20.2 mg in an acidified tomato-juice and meat solution at pH 2.8, 70.9 mg with vinegar and 82.0 mg with spices; the authors advise against cooking acidic food in foil.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Home cooking with foil. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Foil weight loss, not measured food aluminium; mixed dish, not fresh tomato. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Home cooking with foil. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Do not wrap cut tomatoes in aluminium foil or store tomato purée in uncoated aluminiumstorage and handling · As reported | Tomato | Al · Context | GuidanceBfR 2020 HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators AluminiumGuidance; effect not measuredAluminium transferFoil or aluminium contact versus noneFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Guidance; no measured comparison. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment advises against wrapping acidic foods such as cut tomatoes in aluminium foil and against storing tomato purée in uncoated aluminium containers.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Author, agency or review guidance. Home storage of cut or prepared tomato. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Guidance only. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Home storage of cut or prepared tomato. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Test lots against the fruiting-vegetable maxima for lead and cadmiumlot acceptance and release · As reported | Tomato | Pb · Context Cd · Context | GuidanceEU 2023/915 HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators LeadLegal maximum 50 µg/kgLot leadResult versus maximumFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. CadmiumLegal maximum 20 µg/kgLot cadmiumResult versus maximumFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Lot result against the legal maximum. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context The EU sets 50 µg/kg lead and 20 µg/kg cadmium for fruiting vegetables on a fresh-weight basis, applying after washing and separating the edible part; Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 adds 400 µg/kg nickel from July 2025.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Author, agency or review guidance. Any lot sold in the EU. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Detection only; a passing lot is not a lower-exposure guarantee. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Any lot sold in the EU. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Soak tap-washed tomatoes in 5% vinegarhome preparation · As reported | Tomato | tAs · Decreased Cd · Decreased Pb · Decreased | 1Bora et al. 2022 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total arsenicDecreasedLower after vinegar soakFruit total arsenicTap wash versus vinegar soakFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (202.19 − 388.86) / 388.86 × 100 = -48.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedLower after vinegar soakFruit cadmiumTap wash versus vinegar soakFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (12.2 − 16.48) / 16.48 × 100 = -26.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. LeadDecreasedLower after vinegar soakFruit leadTap wash versus vinegar soakFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (53.96 − 66.81) / 66.81 × 100 = -19.2%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Tap-water washing versus tap-water washing followed by a vinegar soak. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context After a 5% vinegar soak, market tomatoes held 202 against 389 µg/kg total arsenic, 12.2 against 16.5 µg/kg cadmium and 54.0 against 66.8 µg/kg lead compared with tap-water washing alone.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Household or retail washing. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Text reports larger reductions than the tables; no unwashed comparison; quality not measured. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Household or retail washing. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Avoid baking tomatoes wrapped in aluminium foilhome preparation · As reported | Tomato | Al · Increased | 1Dordevic et al. 2019 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators AluminiumIncreasedHigher aluminium after foil bakingTomato aluminiumRaw versus baked in foilFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (370 − 80) / 80 × 100 = 362.5%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Raw tomato versus tomato baked in foil. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Aluminium rose from 80 µg/kg in raw tomato to as much as 370 µg/kg fresh weight after baking in foil.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Home and food-service cooking. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Highest of five foils; number of tomatoes not stated. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed. Not assessed. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Home and food-service cooking. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No matching controls in this selected evidence. This is a coverage boundary, not proof that no control exists. Change or reset the filters.
Trade-offs and limits of controls
No single lever lowered every metal. In Seville urban gardens, the peri-urban plot had the lowest chromium and nickel but the highest cadmium and, narrowly, lead, and among Romanian tomatoes the cherry type lowest in lead was not lowest in arsenic.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →24Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source → In the Egyptian trial, the greenhouse plot carried about ten times the fruit nickel of the field plot on a different soil, so “greenhouse” alone is not a lower-metal label.27Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
Some post-harvest controls have their own costs. A vinegar soak also changes the fruit, and the Romanian study did not measure quality; stainless steel’s nickel and chromium release fell with repeated use, so a new pan matters more than an old one; and more acidic or spiced tomato dishes leached more aluminium from foil.7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →35Risk Assessment of Using Aluminum Foil in Food PreparationInternational Journal of Electrochemical ScienceRead source → Hydroponic growing lowered lead and cadmium in one study, but its nutrient water itself carried lead (0.036 mg/L), and the authors recommend pollution-free water.8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Testing tomatoes for metals
A useful tomato test reports lead and cadmium on a fresh-weight basis, with quantification limits well below the 50 µg/kg and 20 µg/kg EU maxima.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → FDA reported lead and cadmium down to 4 and 1 µg/kg; in GEMS/Food the median European lead detection limit was 8 µg/kg, and eight non-detect records with limits of 1,000–3,000 µg/kg could not place a result at all.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
Most of the academic literature is less informative than its numbers suggest. Many papers report neither detection limits nor weight basis, several compare dry-weight results with fresh-weight limits, and 17 had values that conflict with their own methods, units or tables, including lead of 26 mg/kg in four different vegetables and a table with no unit at all.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source →17Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaISRN Analytical ChemistryRead source →23Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorRevista Internacional de Contaminacion AmbientalRead source →36Concentration and Health Risk Assessment of Selected Heavy Metals (HMs) in African spinach (Amaranthus hybridus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Grown around Ashaka Community, Gombe State, NigeriaJournal of Chemistry and Nutritional BiochemistryRead source →
Record the growing site, irrigation source, growing system and type with every result, and report non-detects with their limit.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → Chromium results are total chromium; no source in the ledger measured hexavalent chromium or methylmercury in tomato.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →37Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking waterEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595Read source →
Why do some studies report very high metals in tomatoes?
Some reflect dry-weight reporting, which multiplies a fresh concentration by about 17, and some reflect exposed sites such as coal-plant surroundings.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source → Others do not survive a check against their own papers, such as Cairo fruit lead of 22–361 mg/kg on farms whose soil held 0.5–92 mg/kg, or an Indian table with no unit that the abstract gives in mg/g.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →
Buying and verifying tomatoes
Ask for lot-specific lead and cadmium results on a fresh-weight basis with the laboratory’s quantification limit, compared with the limit in the destination market.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →18General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source → The EU applies 50 µg/kg lead, 20 µg/kg cadmium and, from July 2025, 400 µg/kg nickel to fruiting vegetables on a fresh-weight basis after washing, and EFSA’s food classification places tomatoes among fruiting vegetables.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →29Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →31Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source → Codex sets 50 µg/kg lead for fruiting vegetables and no cadmium maximum for tomatoes.18General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →
Ask where and how the tomatoes were grown, not only where they were packed. The supported reasons are distance from coal-fired power plants for mercury, irrigation with wastewater or reclaimed water for chromium, nickel and cadmium, and arsenic in irrigation water.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →26Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Hydroponic production measured lower lead and cadmium in one study; greenhouse, field and organic labels did not separate lead in monitoring data.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Exposure from tomato
Tomato is eaten in large amounts, so even low concentrations matter for intake. Adults ate 109 g of tomato a day in an Iranian survey and 75.6 g of fresh tomato a day in Lebanon, the second-highest intake of any food in that survey.11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →38Aluminum exposure from food in the population of LebanonToxicology ReportsRead source → In Hamadan, tomato gave an estimated 0.011 µg/kg body weight a day of lead and 0.005 µg/kg of cadmium, and in Ismailia it supplied 16% of estimated cadmium intake and 9% of lead intake.11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →
National diet studies put tomato among the minor sources. Australia’s 25th Total Diet Study found that tomatoes, eggplant and okra together supplied 2–3% of cadmium exposure, and no source in the ledger estimated tomato’s share of arsenic or mercury intake.3925th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New ZealandRead source →
Evidence review and remaining gaps
Every record and dataset row that names tomato, or that discovery matched through the alias list, was decided on its content: 38 studies and reports and two datasets contribute fresh-tomato results.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Values from 17 papers are held because they conflict with their own methods, units or tables, among them Cairo lead and cadmium, Indian effluent-irrigated values with no unit, Polish fresh-mass values above their own dry-mass results, and Ethiopian lead identical across four vegetables.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →19Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Gaps remain: no source measured hexavalent chromium or methylmercury in tomato, Australia’s raw-tomato results sit in an appendix not in the library, and some surveys print their tomato values only in figures.3925th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New ZealandRead source →37Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking waterEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595Read source →40Heavy metals in vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, ChinaFood ControlRead source →
References identify the sources used in these answers. The Sources index preserves additional discovery links; inclusion there does not mean a source has been reviewed for this assessment. Corrections, completed searches, new direct evidence and changes in requirements should reopen the relevant answer.
Tomato FAQs
What heavy metals are found in tomatoes?
Cadmium is the metal most often detected in fresh tomato, usually at a few µg/kg: half of 3,197 GEMS/Food results and 24 of 27 FDA samples had measurable cadmium.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Lead is detected less often, and arsenic, mercury, nickel and chromium were below reporting limits in every FDA sample, though exposed growing sites can raise any of them.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
How do heavy metals get into tomatoes?
Mainly from the soil and irrigation water at the growing site, and from air near large emitters.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Fruit near a coal-fired power plant held up to 76.3 µg/kg mercury against 0.73 µg/kg in a grocery-store sample.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →
Are organic tomatoes free from heavy metals?
No. Organic-labelled tomatoes in Americas monitoring data had a detected lead median of 1.7 µg/kg and cadmium of 8.2 µg/kg, close to unlabelled tomatoes.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Organically grown Polish tomatoes measured on a dry-weight basis held 26–139 µg/kg lead and 71–216 µg/kg cadmium.19Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →
Which types of tomato have the lowest levels?
In one Romanian survey, red cherry tomatoes held 18.6 µg/kg lead and no detectable cadmium against 66.8 µg/kg lead and 16.5 µg/kg cadmium in standard tomatoes.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → Their arsenic was similar, and no other study compared types under one method, so this is a single observation.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →
Which growing regions have the lowest levels?
United States market baskets were lowest for lead (all below 4 µg/kg) and among the lowest for cadmium (median 3.3 µg/kg), and Polish and western Iranian surveys found fresh-weight cadmium means of 3 µg/kg.3FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →10Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source → These are purchase markets or single surveys; the evidence supports avoiding exposed sites more than choosing a country.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
Do tomato products contain more heavy metals than fresh tomatoes?
They are different foods: concentration removes water, and canned products can take up tin from the can during storage.33Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storageJournal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 18(4), 299-303Read source →34Determination of Tin in Canned Foods by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass SpectrometryPolish Journal of Environmental StudiesRead source → Their results are on the canned tomato, tomato paste and tomato sauce pages rather than on this page.
What do the levels in tomatoes mean for health?
Tomato is eaten in large amounts, so it contributes to intake even at low concentrations; it supplied 16% of estimated cadmium intake in Ismailia, Egypt, but 2–3% together with eggplant and okra in Australia.12Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →3925th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New ZealandRead source → Measured concentrations are not a safety verdict for any individual diet.
Are there legal limits for heavy metals in tomatoes?
Yes. The EU limits fruiting vegetables, the food group in which EFSA classifies tomatoes, to 50 µg/kg lead and 20 µg/kg cadmium on a fresh-weight basis after washing, and to 400 µg/kg nickel from July 2025.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →29Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →31Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source → Codex sets 50 µg/kg lead for fruiting vegetables in its 2025 edition, and its cadmium maximum for fruiting vegetables does not apply to tomatoes.18General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →
Does washing tomatoes remove heavy metals?
Partly. In a Romanian study, soaking tap-washed tomatoes in 5% vinegar lowered total arsenic by about half, cadmium by 26–61% and lead by 19–24%.9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source → Metal taken up into the fruit is not removed by washing.
Does cooking destroy heavy metals in tomatoes?
No. Boiling did not lower arsenic per gram of dry matter in tomatoes from arsenic-spiked irrigation.26Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Cookware can add metals: foil baking raised aluminium from 80 to 370 µg/kg, and new stainless steel raised nickel and chromium in simmered tomato sauce.7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →32Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →
Is the arsenic in tomatoes the more toxic inorganic form?
Few results separate the forms: 11 of 38 European GEMS/Food inorganic arsenic results were detected, at up to 38.8 µg/kg, four Hong Kong composites were below 3 µg/kg, and EFSA estimated a mean of 1.5–7.7 µg/kg across 484 European results.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →29Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →30The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source → Most studies measured total arsenic only.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →9Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →
Does irrigating tomatoes with wastewater raise heavy metals?
In the studies that compared it, yes for chromium, nickel and cadmium: Nile-irrigated Cairo fruit held 290 µg/kg chromium and 610 µg/kg nickel against 760 and 1,630 µg/kg with industrial wastewater.5Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source → Half reclaimed water in a Chinese trial raised cadmium from 18 to 29 µg/kg and chromium from 49 to 61 µg/kg, smaller differences that were not clearly significant.6reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →
Are hydroponic tomatoes lower in heavy metals?
In one Shanghai study, yes: hydroponic tomatoes held 5.6 µg/kg lead and cadmium combined against 47.9 µg/kg for soil-grown tomatoes.8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source → Its nutrient water still carried lead (0.036 mg/L), so the result depends on clean water.8Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →
Do tomatoes grown near power plants or mines contain more metals?
Near Chinese coal-fired power plants, tomato mercury reached 71.8–76.3 µg/kg at the closest sites against 0.73 µg/kg in a grocery-store sample.4Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source → In Seville, tomatoes from gardens in a mining district held less lead than city-garden tomatoes (89 against 165 µg/kg dry weight).24Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →
Why are some reported tomato values so much higher than others?
Dry-weight results are about 17 times the fresh-weight concentration, and several papers report values that conflict with their own methods.11Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →15Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source → This page shows those values with the reason and does not compare them.
Can cooking tomatoes in aluminium or stainless steel add metals?
Yes. Baking tomato in foil raised aluminium about four-fold, and acidic tomato and meat dishes leached more aluminium from foil as acidity rose.32Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →35Risk Assessment of Using Aluminum Foil in Food PreparationInternational Journal of Electrochemical ScienceRead source → Simmering tomato sauce with new stainless steel raised nickel and chromium sharply, an effect that faded after several cooking cycles.7Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →
Is there aluminium in fresh tomatoes?
Fresh Czech tomatoes held 80 µg/kg aluminium before cooking, about 1,700 µg/kg on a dry-weight basis.32Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source → Aluminium is not limited in fresh vegetables by the EU or Codex instruments verified here.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →31Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source →18General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →
References
Works cited on this page, in citation-number order. See Sources for this page’s source inventory. Each title links to a source record with bibliographic details, reported findings, and document provenance.
- GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsDataset
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Regulation
- FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsDataset
- Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsPeer-reviewed
- Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentPeer-reviewed
- reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed
- Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingConference
- Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationPeer-reviewed
- Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaPeer-reviewed
- Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsPeer-reviewed
- Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranPeer-reviewed
- Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentPeer-reviewed
- The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentPeer-reviewed
- Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed
- Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaPeer-reviewed
- General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Government
- Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsPeer-reviewed
- Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentPeer-reviewed
- Assessment of the Level of Heavy Metals in Irrigation Water, Farm Soil, and Vegetables Grown in Gobbiya Dam, Bogoro Local Government Area Bauchi State, NigeriaPeer-reviewed
- Levels, dietary intake, and health risk of potentially toxic metalsPeer-reviewed
- Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorPeer-reviewed
- Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainPeer-reviewed
- Food survey: Levels and potential health risks of chromium, lead, zinc and copper content in fruits and vegetables consumed in AlgeriaPeer-reviewed
- Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoPeer-reviewed
- Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsPeer-reviewed
- Trace Element Content in Tomato Fruit Grown with Sargassum-Based BiofertilizerPeer-reviewed
- Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationGovernment
- The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicGovernment
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsRegulation
- Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesPeer-reviewed
- Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storagePeer-reviewed
- Determination of Tin in Canned Foods by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass SpectrometryPeer-reviewed
- Risk Assessment of Using Aluminum Foil in Food PreparationPeer-reviewed
- Concentration and Health Risk Assessment of Selected Heavy Metals (HMs) in African spinach (Amaranthus hybridus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Grown around Ashaka Community, Gombe State, NigeriaPeer-reviewed
- Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking waterGovernment
- Aluminum exposure from food in the population of LebanonPeer-reviewed
- 25th Australian Total Diet StudyGovernment
- Heavy metals in vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, ChinaPeer-reviewed
Sources
Browse Tomato Sources for sources cited on this page and additional discovery candidates. The searchable index distinguishes verified citation use from discovery relationships whose relevance has not been established.
Update history
22 October 2026: Rebuilt from every tomato record in the library: WHO GEMS/Food and FDA Total Diet Study fresh-tomato results, 38 studies and reports, fresh and dry weight kept apart, pooled tomato comparisons, verified EU and Codex limits and stage-led controls.
