Skip to content
Heavy Metal Index
Tomato, cucumber, green bell pepper, celery and asparagus illustrating tomato ingredient context.

Heavy metals in Tomato

Lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and nickel in fresh tomatoes: monitoring results, growing sites, irrigation water, greenhouse and hydroponic growing, washing, limits and testing.

Quick read

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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2European Commission · 2023Commission 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 →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2European Commission · 2023Commission 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2European Commission · 2023Commission 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.3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →10Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Alimohammadi M, Younesian M, Madihi-Bidgoli S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Jahed Khaniki GR, Hadi M, Ghanbari F · 2018Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14Abdolahpour Alamdari H, Sleman Ali H, Sadighara P, Jahed Khaniki G, Shahsavanpoor Landeh K, Dehghani MH · 2023The 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace 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.11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Unknown authors · 2025Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source →17Elbagermi MA, Edwards HGM, Alajtal AI · 2012Monitoring 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.2European Commission · 2023Commission 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 →4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed 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.18Codex Alimentarius Commission · 1995General 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →19Grochowska-Niedworok E, Nieć J, Baranowska R · 2020Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →17Elbagermi MA, Edwards HGM, Alajtal AI · 2012Monitoring 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.20Bazie SR, Compaore MKA, Bande M, Kpoda SD, Meda NSBR, Ouedraogo Kangambega TM, Ilboudo I, Sandwidi BY, Nikiema F, Yakoro A, Bassole IHN, Hien H, Kabre E · 2022Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentScientific ReportsRead source →21John Joseph, Toma Buba, Jalo Enoch, Ayuba Kaluri · 2025Assessment 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 →22Unknown authors · 2017Levels, 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →23Vela Doris, Simbana-Farinango Karina, Navarrete Hugo, Romero-Estevez David · 2023Determination 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →24Rossini-Oliva S, López Nuñez R · 2024Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →20Bazie SR, Compaore MKA, Bande M, Kpoda SD, Meda NSBR, Ouedraogo Kangambega TM, Ilboudo I, Sandwidi BY, Nikiema F, Yakoro A, Bassole IHN, Hien H, Kabre E · 2022Evaluation 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →19Grochowska-Niedworok E, Nieć J, Baranowska R · 2020Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →23Vela Doris, Simbana-Farinango Karina, Navarrete Hugo, Romero-Estevez David · 2023Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorRevista Internacional de Contaminacion AmbientalRead source →25Cherfi A, Abdoun S, Gaci O · 2014Food 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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →26Clair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, Lalanne F · 2021Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →20Bazie SR, Compaore MKA, Bande M, Kpoda SD, Meda NSBR, Ouedraogo Kangambega TM, Ilboudo I, Sandwidi BY, Nikiema F, Yakoro A, Bassole IHN, Hien H, Kabre E · 2022Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentScientific ReportsRead source →27Salem SH, Saber M, Gadow S, Kabary H, Zaghloul A · 2024Influence 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.

About this table
Food formCollection scopeFindingComparisonEvidence
Fresh-tomato findings from every extracted survey, experiment, total diet study and monitoring dataset, in µg/kg with each source’s statistic, weight basis, growing system, irrigation source, censoring and sampling frame retained.
Food formCollection scopeFinding (µg/kg)ComparisonEvidence
98 findings · 30 studies
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2003–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2003–2019Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, field-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelled organicWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, field-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelled organicWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2003–2010Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2000–2017Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region SEARO2012–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2013Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO2009Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldAbdolahpour et al. 2023Tomatoes (Babol fields)2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Contaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020Tomato2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020Tomato2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Dakola open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Niankologo open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Total (all five markets)2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023Sample 2962021Basis not statednot detected.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoCherfi et al. 2014Tomatoes2012Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012Tomatoes2010Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024Tomato2022Basis not statedmean.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Jawor" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedFresh weightbelow LOD.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Koralik" cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Lima" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Ożarowski" pink tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020large-fruited "Gargamel" tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020orange tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012Tomatoes2007Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoMohod 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017Tomato2016–2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRusin et al. 2021Tomato, FreshCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSalhotra et al. 2017Tomato2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldSamma et al. 2024TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoSanusi et al. 2023Ajiwa Fadama farms2023Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoVela et al. 2023TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Control2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026SBLB2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
101 findings · 30 studies
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EMRO2014–2018Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EMRO2018Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EMRO2013Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2003–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2001–2019Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, greenhouse-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2003–2017Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region PAHO2015Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2010Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, fieldAbdolahpour et al. 2023Tomatoes (Babol fields)2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Contaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020Tomato2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAli et al. 2020Tomato2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAltunay et al. 2023Tomatoes (Sivas greengrocer)Collection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Dakola open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Niankologo open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Total (all five markets)2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023Sample 2962021Basis not statednot detected.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoCantoral et al. 2024Saladette Tomatoes 'Solanum2022–2023Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012Tomatoes2010Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024Tomato2022Basis not statedmean.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Jawor" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedFresh weightbelow LOD.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Koralik" cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Lima" tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020"Ożarowski" pink tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020cherry tomato on a twigCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020large-fruited "Gargamel" tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020mini plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020oblong plum tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightbelow LOD.
Organic fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020orange tomato (organic farming)Collection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Cherry tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoGrochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020small-fruited strawberry tomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012Tomatoes2007Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoMohod 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017Tomato2016–2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRusin et al. 2021Tomato, FreshCollection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSalhotra et al. 2017Tomato2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoVela et al. 2023TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Control2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026SBLB2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024CCT2021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024CCT2021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024CCU2021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024CCU2021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024T12021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T12021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T22021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024T32021Basis not statednot detected.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T32021Basis not statednot detected.
56 findings · 14 studies
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2007–2022Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2014–2022Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2007–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2014–2022Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2007–2023Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, organic-labelledWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2014–2016Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region European Union2003–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region European Union2003–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region European Union2000–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2009Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO2009Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO2002–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldBedoya-Perales et al. 2023Sample 2962021Basis not statednot detected.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017Tomato2016–2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Amateur Farmers2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Red cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Yellow cherry tomatoBora et al. 2022Vegetable and Fruit Market2020–2021Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021All As-spiked irrigation2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021All levels of As-spiked irrigation2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 0 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 0 µg/L2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 1,000 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 1,000 µg/L2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 100 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 100 µg/L2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 500 µg/L2017–2018Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, pot trialClair-Caliot et al. 2021Irrigation water As 500 µg/L2017–2018Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Control2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026SBLB2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
5 findings · 3 studies
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2009–2022Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not stated, dry weightWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2011Dry weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2007Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomatoCentre 2012Tomato2010–2011Basis not statednot detected.
Fresh tomatoEuropean 2014Tomatoes2003–2012Fresh weightmean.
39 findings · 14 studies
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Contaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Dakola open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Niankologo open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Total (all five markets)2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoElbagermi et al. 2012Tomatoes2010Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024Tomato2022Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017Tomato2016–2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSanusi et al. 2023Ajiwa Fadama farms2023Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Control2024Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026SBLB2024Basis not statedbelow LOD.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024CCT2021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024CCT2021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024CCU2021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024CCU2021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024T12021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T12021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T22021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, fieldSalem et al. 2024T32021Basis not statedmean.
Cherry tomato, pot trialSalem et al. 2024T32021Basis not statedmean.
37 findings · 18 studies
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Contaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldAhmed et al. 2023Uncontaminated farms2021Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAlimohammadi et al. 2018Tomato2016Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoAmetepey et al. 2018TomatoesCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Bobo Diou-lasso open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Cinkasse open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Dakola open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Niankologo open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Ouagadougou open markets2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoBazie et al. 2022Total (all five markets)2020Basis not statedmedian.
Fresh tomatoCherfi et al. 2014Tomatoes2012Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoEFSA 2014Tomatoes2000–2012Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldFatai et al. 2024Tomato2022Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightbelow LOD.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoJaishree et al. 2015TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldJohn et al. 2025Tomato fruitsCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLoutfy et al. 2012Tomatoes2007Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoNawab et al. 2017Tomato2016–2017Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, urban gardenRossini-Oliva et al. 2024Tomato2021–2023Dry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldSamma et al. 2024TomatoCollection date unreportedBasis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Chemical Fertilizer2024Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026Control2024Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoRodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2026SBLB2024Basis not statedmean.
19 findings · 7 studies
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2004–2018Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2003–2017Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region EURO2001–2020Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2008Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2014Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldGurmu et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoHuang et al. 2014Tomato (n = 21), Zhejiang province2012Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoLi et al. 2017Control Sample2015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location A12015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location A22015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location B12015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location B22015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location B32015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomato, fieldLi et al. 2017Location B42015Fresh weightmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Half reclaimed water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoLu et al. 2016Underground water [third row2011–2014Basis not statedmean.
Fresh tomatoSaleem et al. 2025TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
2 findings · 1 study
Fresh tomatoDordevic et al. 2019Raw (tomato, before baking)Collection date unreportedDry weightmean.
Fresh tomatoDordevic et al. 2019Raw (tomato, before baking)Collection date unreportedFresh weightmean.
3 findings · 1 study
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998–2002Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1998Fresh weightmedian.
Fresh tomato, growing system not statedWHO GEMS/FoodWHO region WPRO1997–2005Fresh weightmedian.
2 findings · 2 studies
Fresh tomato, raw (market basket)FDA Total Diet StudyUnited States regional market2017–2020Fresh weightnot detected.
Fresh tomato, fieldAuthors 2007TomatoCollection date unreportedDry weightmean.
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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food11533%
FDA Total Diet Study2733%
Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020133%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference≤41360027000
Alternative weighting≤41360027000

10 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020950%
Cherfi et al. 2014150%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference≤30.306–4 (bounded)3.3–4.1 (bounded)
Alternative weighting≤2.90.344–4 (bounded)3.3–4.1 (bounded)

109 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food7933%
FDA Total Diet Study2733%
Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 2020333%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference13.5363630
Alternative weighting13.5363630

14 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
Grochowska-Niedworok et al. 20201050%
Vela et al. 2023450%

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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food8250%
FDA Total Diet Study2750%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference≤4.05≤13.93.95–30 (bounded)
Alternative weighting≤4.05≤13.93.95–30 (bounded)

4 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food4100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference7.97.97.9
Alternative weighting7.97.97.9

1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food1100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
FDA Total Diet Study27100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
FDA Total Diet Study27100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference141001410014100
Alternative weighting141001410014100

1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
Cherfi et al. 20141100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food4350%
FDA Total Diet Study2750%

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)Q1MedianQ3
Primary HMI reference≤2020–200 (bounded)200–333 (bounded)
Alternative weighting≤2020–200 (bounded)200–333 (bounded)

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing familyReference unitsWeight
WHO GEMS/Food3100%

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)Q1MedianQ3
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 familyReference unitsWeight
FDA Total Diet Study27100%

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.

1 dataset

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.6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed 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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury 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.26Clair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, Lalanne F · 2021Uptake 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.27Salem SH, Saber M, Gadow S, Kabary H, Zaghloul A · 2024Influence 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.28Rodríguez-Rodríguez R, Sánchez-García A, Ruiz-Lozano JM, Aroca R · 2026Trace 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/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.8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →10Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Alimohammadi M, Younesian M, Madihi-Bidgoli S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Jahed Khaniki GR, Hadi M, Ghanbari F · 2018Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14Abdolahpour Alamdari H, Sleman Ali H, Sadighara P, Jahed Khaniki G, Shahsavanpoor Landeh K, Dehghani MH · 2023The 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.3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →29European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →30Centre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR · 2012The 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).3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →31European Commission · 2024Commission 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 →24Rossini-Oliva S, López Nuñez R · 2024Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →13Alimohammadi M, Younesian M, Madihi-Bidgoli S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Jahed Khaniki GR, Hadi M, Ghanbari F · 2018Heavy 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/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.8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →10Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →13Alimohammadi M, Younesian M, Madihi-Bidgoli S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Jahed Khaniki GR, Hadi M, Ghanbari F · 2018Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentToxin ReviewsRead source →14Abdolahpour Alamdari H, Sleman Ali H, Sadighara P, Jahed Khaniki G, Shahsavanpoor Landeh K, Dehghani MH · 2023The 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.26Clair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, Lalanne F · 2021Uptake 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.7Hobbie KA, Kamerud KL, Anderson KA · 2014Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →32Dordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, Kushkevych I · 2019Aluminum 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.33Buculei A, Gutt G, Amariei S, Dabija A, Constantinescu G · 2012Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storageJournal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 18(4), 299-303Read source →34Trandafir I, Nour V, Ionica ME · 2012Determination 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →7Hobbie KA, Kamerud KL, Anderson KA · 2014Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →32Dordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, Kushkevych I · 2019Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →27Salem SH, Saber M, Gadow S, Kabary H, Zaghloul A · 2024Influence 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.

About this table
ControlMaterialEffectsEvidence
Controls by production stage, retaining all paired analyte outcomes. Seasons and reused guidance do not add independent studies. No effectiveness ranking is implied.
ControlMaterialEffectsEvidence
Irrigate with groundwater rather than reclaimed watercultivation · As reportedTomato
Cd · Decreased
Cr · Decreased
Pb · Decreased
1

Lu 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialField tomatoes under groundwater or half reclaimed-water irrigation, China, four seasons
Stagecultivation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsIrrigated field production.
Tested scaleField trial
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Cadmium (Cd)As reportedLower with groundwater29 → 18 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedTable 4, p.7
Total chromium (Cr)As reportedLower with groundwater (p = 0.08)61 → 49 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedTable 4, p.7
Lead (Pb)As reportedLower with groundwater (not significant)68 → 55 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedTable 4, p.7

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Cr · Decreased
Ni · Decreased
1

Ahmed 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialFarms irrigated from the Nile or with industrial wastewater, south Cairo, summer 2021
Stagecultivation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsPeri-urban irrigated farms.
Tested scaleFarm survey
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Total chromium (Cr)As reportedLower with river irrigation (observational)760 → 290 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedTable 5, p.7
Nickel (Ni)As reportedLower with river irrigation (observational)1630 → 610 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedTable 5, p.7

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
tAs · Increased
1

Clair-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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialPot-grown tomatoes irrigated with water spiked with arsenate, Burkina Faso
Stagecultivation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsIrrigation from arsenic-bearing groundwater.
Tested scalePot experiment
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Total arsenic (tAs)As reportedHigher fruit arsenic with more arsenic in water180 → 430 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, dry weightTable 2, p.8

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Ni · Decreased
Ni · Decreased
1

Salem 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialCherry tomatoes in greenhouse and field plots irrigated with agricultural drainage water, Egypt
Stagesoil remediation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsPlots irrigated with drainage water.
Tested scaleField and greenhouse trial
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Nickel (Ni)As reportedLower fruit nickel (greenhouse)1000 → 250 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedFig. 2A, p.9
Nickel (Ni)As reportedLower fruit nickel (field)88 → 18 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedFig. 2B, p.9

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Pb · Decreased
Cd · Decreased
1

Chen 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialHydroponic and soil-grown tomatoes from Shanghai farms, 2022–2023
Stagecultivation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsProtected production with controlled nutrient water.
Tested scaleFarm survey
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Lead (Pb)As reportedLower lead plus cadmium (combined)47.9 → 5.6 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedSection 3.3, Figure 3, p.10
Cadmium (Cd)As reportedLower lead plus cadmium (combined)47.9 → 5.6 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedSection 3.3, Figure 3, p.10

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
tHg · Decreased
1

Li 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialField tomatoes around two coal-fired power plants in China, with a grocery-store comparison
Stagesourcing and procurement
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsField production near large combustion sources.
Tested scaleField survey
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Total mercury (tHg)As reportedLower mercury farther from the plant (observational)76.33 → 9.79 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTable 2, p.4

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Ni · Increased
Cr · Increased
1

Hobbie 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialCommercial tomato sauce cooked with stainless-steel coupons and a saucepan
Stagefood preparation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsLong cooking of acidic tomato foods.
Tested scaleLaboratory cooking
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Nickel (Ni)As reportedHigher nickel with new stainless steel150 → 5750 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightPoster Results
Total chromium (Cr)As reportedHigher chromium with new stainless steel100 → 5750 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightPoster Results

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Al · Context
1

Bassioni 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialTomato juice and meat-extract solutions with aluminium foil
Stagefood preparation
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsHome cooking with foil.
Tested scaleLaboratory test
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Aluminium (Al)As reportedMore aluminium released with acid, vinegar and spicesNumerical baseline not extractedAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTable 2, p.4503

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Al · Context
Guidance

BfR 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialConsumer guidance, Germany
Stagestorage and handling
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsHome storage of cut or prepared tomato.
Tested scaleAgency guidance
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Aluminium (Al)As reportedGuidance; effect not measuredNumerical baseline not extractedAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightpp.3, 7

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Pb · Context
Cd · Context
Guidance

EU 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialFresh fruiting vegetables placed on the EU market
Stagelot acceptance and release
AudienceIngredient suppliers · Brands
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsAny lot sold in the EU.
Tested scaleRegulation
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Lead (Pb)As reportedLegal maximum 50 µg/kgNumerical baseline not extractedAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightAnnex I 3.1.4.1
Cadmium (Cd)As reportedLegal maximum 20 µg/kgNumerical baseline not extractedAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightAnnex I 3.2.4.1

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
tAs · Decreased
Cd · Decreased
Pb · Decreased
1

Bora 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialMarket and garden tomatoes, south-eastern Romania, 2020–2021
Stagehome preparation
AudienceConsumers
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsHousehold or retail washing.
Tested scaleLaboratory preparation
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Total arsenic (tAs)As reportedLower after vinegar soak388.86 → 202.19 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTables 1–2
Cadmium (Cd)As reportedLower after vinegar soak16.48 → 12.2 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTables 1–2
Lead (Pb)As reportedLower after vinegar soak66.81 → 53.96 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTables 1–2

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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 reportedTomato
Al · Increased
1

Dordevic 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.

ContextSelected control
MaterialFresh tomatoes baked in retail aluminium foils, Czech Republic
Stagehome preparation
AudienceConsumers
PeriodAs reported
ConditionsHome and food-service cooking.
Tested scaleLaboratory cooking
Sample unitsSource sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offsOther metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
VerificationConfirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

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

AnalytePeriodEffectConverted valuesOriginal means (SD)BasisLocator
Aluminium (Al)As reportedHigher aluminium after foil baking80 → 370 µg/kgAbsolute values unextractedFresh tomato fruit, fresh (wet) weightTable 4, p.3351

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

Unresolved fieldNext action
controlled intervention effectKeep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

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.

Intervention evidence

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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →24Rossini-Oliva S, López Nuñez R · 2024Is 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.27Salem SH, Saber M, Gadow S, Kabary H, Zaghloul A · 2024Influence 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.7Hobbie KA, Kamerud KL, Anderson KA · 2014Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →35Bassioni G, Mohammed FS, Al Zubaidy E, Kobrsi I · 2012Risk 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.8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.2European Commission · 2023Commission 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Unknown authors · 2025Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andPeer-reviewed articleRead source →17Elbagermi MA, Edwards HGM, Alajtal AI · 2012Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaISRN Analytical ChemistryRead source →23Vela Doris, Simbana-Farinango Karina, Navarrete Hugo, Romero-Estevez David · 2023Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorRevista Internacional de Contaminacion AmbientalRead source →36Fatai MI, Ibrahim M, Ibrahim MA, Ndriza BJ, Matthew EO, Saheed MB, Dayo UO · 2024Concentration 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationFoods 13, 1151Read source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →37EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) · 2014Scientific 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy 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.2European Commission · 2023Commission 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 →18Codex Alimentarius Commission · 1995General 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.2European Commission · 2023Commission 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 →29European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →31European Commission · 2024Commission 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.18Codex Alimentarius Commission · 1995General 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesPeer-reviewed articleRead source →26Clair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, Lalanne F · 2021Uptake 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →38EL Daouk S, Pineau A, Taha M, Ezzeddine R, Hijazi A, Al Iskandarani M · 2020Aluminum 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.11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis 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.39Food Standards Australia New Zealand · 201925th 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →19Grochowska-Niedworok E, Nieć J, Baranowska R · 2020Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsRoczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene)Read source →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Unknown authors · 2025Detection 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.39Food Standards Australia New Zealand · 201925th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New ZealandRead source →37EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) · 2014Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking waterEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595Read source →40Huang Z, Pan XD, Wu PG, Han JL, Chen Q · 2014Heavy 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchRead source →6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/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.19Grochowska-Niedworok E, Nieć J, Baranowska R · 2020Assessment 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.3U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →10Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsScientific ReportsRead source →5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace 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.33Buculei A, Gutt G, Amariei S, Dabija A, Constantinescu G · 2012Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storageJournal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 18(4), 299-303Read source →34Trandafir I, Nour V, Ionica ME · 2012Determination 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.12Loutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, Fuerhacker M · 2012Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptToxicological & Environmental ChemistryRead source →39Food Standards Australia New Zealand · 201925th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New ZealandRead source → Measured concentrations are not a safety verdict for any individual diet.

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%.9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.26Clair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, Lalanne F · 2021Uptake 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.7Hobbie KA, Kamerud KL, Anderson KA · 2014Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingSociety of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster)Read source →32Dordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, Kushkevych I · 2019Aluminum 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →29European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →30Centre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR · 2012The 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.1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →9Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification 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.5Ahmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, ElSayed M · 2023Trace 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.6Unknown authors · 2015reclaimed 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.8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.8Shanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, Zhenpeng Kai · 2024Occurrence 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.4Li R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, Li Y · 2017Mercury 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).24Rossini-Oliva S, López Nuñez R · 2024Is 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.11Ali Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · 2020Concentration 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 →15Jaishree, Khan TI · 2015Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →16Unknown authors · 2025Detection 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.32Dordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, Kushkevych I · 2019Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesFood Science & NutritionRead source →35Bassioni G, Mohammed FS, Al Zubaidy E, Kobrsi I · 2012Risk 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.7Hobbie KA, Kamerud KL, Anderson KA · 2014Stainless 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.32Dordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, Kushkevych I · 2019Aluminum 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.2European Commission · 2023Commission 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 →31European Commission · 2024Commission 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 →18Codex Alimentarius Commission · 1995General 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.

  1. GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsWorld Health Organization · GEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme · 2026 · extranet.who.intDataset
  2. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006European Commission · Official Journal of the European Union · 2023 · eur-lex.europa.euRegulation
  3. FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsU.S. Food and Drug Administration · FDA Total Diet Study · 2022 · www.fda.govDataset
  4. Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal-fired power plantsLi R, Wu H, Ding J, Fu W, Gan L, and Li Y · Scientific Reports · 2017 · doi.org/10.1038/srep46545Peer-reviewed
  5. Trace metal concentrations in tomato fruits irrigated with industrial wastewater in Cairo and health risk assessmentAhmed A, Hassan I, Abd-Elrahman S, and ElSayed M · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · 2023 · doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25157-8Peer-reviewed
  6. reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoesUnknown authors · Peer-reviewed article · 2015 · doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030298Peer-reviewed
  7. Stainless Steel Leaches Nickel and Chromium into Foods During CookingHobbie KA, Kamerud KL, and Anderson KA · Society of Toxicology 2014 Annual Meeting (poster) · 2014 · fses.oregonstate.eduConference
  8. Occurrence and Risk Assessment of Pesticides, Phthalates, and Heavy Metal Residues in Vegetables from Hydroponic and Conventional CultivationShanshan Chen, Chunxia Yao, Jiaxin Zhou, Haiyao Ma, Jing Jin, Weiguo Song, et al. · Foods 13, 1151 · 2024 · doi.org/10.3390/foods13081151Peer-reviewed
  9. Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaBora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, et al. · Horticulturae · 2022 · doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111034Peer-reviewed
  10. Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsRusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, and Szymala I · Scientific Reports · 2021 · doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91554-zPeer-reviewed
  11. Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranAli Heshmati, Fereshteh Mehri, Javad Karami-Momtaz, and Amin Mousavi Khaneghah · Journal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107 · 2020 · doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-312Peer-reviewed
  12. Analysis and exposure assessment of some heavy metals in foodstuffs from Ismailia city, EgyptLoutfy N, Mentler A, Shoeab M, Ahmed MT, and Fuerhacker M · Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry · 2012 · doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2011.638445Peer-reviewed
  13. Heavy metal(oid)s concentration in Tehran supermarket vegetables: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessmentAlimohammadi M, Younesian M, Madihi-Bidgoli S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Jahed Khaniki GR, Hadi M, et al. · Toxin Reviews · 2018 · doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2018.1522644Peer-reviewed
  14. The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranAbdolahpour Alamdari H, Sleman Ali H, Sadighara P, Jahed Khaniki G, Shahsavanpoor Landeh K, and Dehghani MH · International Archives of Health Sciences · 2023 · doi.org/10.48307/IAHSJ.2023.177176Peer-reviewed
  15. Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentJaishree and Khan TI · International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology · 2015 · doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0407014Peer-reviewed
  16. Detection of heavy metals concentration in vegetables andUnknown authors · Peer-reviewed article · 2025 · doi.org/10.11591/ijphs.v14i4.26823Peer-reviewed
  17. Monitoring of Heavy Metal Content in Fruits and Vegetables Collected from Production and Market Sites in the Misurata Area of LibyaElbagermi MA, Edwards HGM, and Alajtal AI · ISRN Analytical Chemistry · 2012 · doi.org/10.5402/2012/827645Peer-reviewed
  18. General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius Commission · Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme) · 1995 · www.fao.orgGovernment
  19. Assessment of cadmium and lead content in tomatoes and tomato productsGrochowska-Niedworok E, Nieć J, and Baranowska R · Roczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny (Annals of the National Institute of Hygiene) · 2020 · doi.org/10.32394/rpzh.2020.0126Peer-reviewed
  20. Evaluation of metallic trace elements contents in some major raw foodstuffs in Burkina Faso and health risk assessmentBazie SR, Compaore MKA, Bande M, Kpoda SD, Meda NSBR, Ouedraogo Kangambega TM, et al. · Scientific Reports · 2022 · doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08470-zPeer-reviewed
  21. Assessment of the Level of Heavy Metals in Irrigation Water, Farm Soil, and Vegetables Grown in Gobbiya Dam, Bogoro Local Government Area Bauchi State, NigeriaJohn Joseph, Toma Buba, Jalo Enoch, and Ayuba Kaluri · Journal of Energy Technology and Environment 7(4):79–92 · 2025 · doi.org/10.37933/jete/7.4.2025.2568Peer-reviewed
  22. Levels, dietary intake, and health risk of potentially toxic metalsUnknown authors · Peer-reviewed article · 2017 · doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0764-xPeer-reviewed
  23. Determination of cadmium and lead in vegetables marketed in Quito, EcuadorVela Doris, Simbana-Farinango Karina, Navarrete Hugo, and Romero-Estevez David · Revista Internacional de Contaminacion Ambiental · 2023 · doi.org/10.20937/rica.54656Peer-reviewed
  24. Is it healthy urban agriculture? Human exposure to potentially toxic elements in urban gardens from Andalusia, SpainRossini-Oliva S and López Nuñez R · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · 2024 · doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33500-wPeer-reviewed
  25. Food survey: Levels and potential health risks of chromium, lead, zinc and copper content in fruits and vegetables consumed in AlgeriaCherfi A, Abdoun S, and Gaci O · Food and Chemical Toxicology · 2014 · doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.044Peer-reviewed
  26. Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoClair-Caliot G, Marks SJ, Hug SJ, Bretzler A, N’guessan ND, Tihe SFK, et al. · Frontiers in Water · 2021 · doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.667308Peer-reviewed
  27. Influence of the use of remediated soil and agricultural drainage water on the safety of tomato fruitsSalem SH, Saber M, Gadow S, Kabary H, and Zaghloul A · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · 2024 · doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33187-zPeer-reviewed
  28. Trace Element Content in Tomato Fruit Grown with Sargassum-Based BiofertilizerRodríguez-Rodríguez R, Sánchez-García A, Ruiz-Lozano JM, and Aroca R · Agronomy · 2026 · doi.org/10.3390/plants15060901Peer-reviewed
  29. Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597 · 2014 · doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3597Government
  30. The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR · Centre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region · 2012 · www.cfs.gov.hkGovernment
  31. Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsEuropean Commission · Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024) · 2024 · data.europa.euRegulation
  32. Aluminum contamination of food during culinary preparation: Case study with aluminum foil and consumers’ preferencesDordevic D, Buchtova H, Jancikova S, Macharackova B, Jarosova M, Vitez T, et al. · Food Science & Nutrition · 2019 · doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1204Peer-reviewed
  33. Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storageBuculei A, Gutt G, Amariei S, Dabija A, and Constantinescu G · Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 18(4), 299-303 · 2012 · journal-of-agroalimentary.roPeer-reviewed
  34. Determination of Tin in Canned Foods by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass SpectrometryTrandafir I, Nour V, and Ionica ME · Polish Journal of Environmental Studies · 2012 · www.pjoes.comPeer-reviewed
  35. Risk Assessment of Using Aluminum Foil in Food PreparationBassioni G, Mohammed FS, Al Zubaidy E, and Kobrsi I · International Journal of Electrochemical Science · 2012 · www.electrochemsci.orgPeer-reviewed
  36. 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, NigeriaFatai MI, Ibrahim M, Ibrahim MA, Ndriza BJ, Matthew EO, Saheed MB, et al. · Journal of Chemistry and Nutritional Biochemistry · 2024 · doi.org/10.48185/jcnb.v5i2.1175Peer-reviewed
  37. Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking waterEFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) · EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 · 2014 · doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3595Government
  38. Aluminum exposure from food in the population of LebanonEL Daouk S, Pineau A, Taha M, Ezzeddine R, Hijazi A, and Al Iskandarani M · Toxicology Reports · 2020 · doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.08.018Peer-reviewed
  39. 25th Australian Total Diet StudyFood Standards Australia New Zealand · 2019 · www.foodstandards.gov.auGovernment
  40. Heavy metals in vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, ChinaHuang Z, Pan XD, Wu PG, Han JL, and Chen Q · Food Control · 2014 · doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.08.036Peer-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.