See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365181503 Analysis of Minerals in Foods: A Three-year Survey from Costa Rican Market Products Article  in  Journal of Food Research · January 2023 DOI: 10.5539/jfr.v12n1p9 CITATIONS 0 READS 369 7 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Antimicrobials in feed and environment View project Nutritional Quality and Safety of Feed and Food View project Carolina Cortés University of Costa Rica 13 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Silvia vanessa Quirós Fallas University of Costa Rica 2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Josue Vasquez Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) 1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Fabio Granados-Chinchilla 47 PUBLICATIONS   635 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Fabio Granados-Chinchilla on 07 November 2022. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365181503_Analysis_of_Minerals_in_Foods_A_Three-year_Survey_from_Costa_Rican_Market_Products?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365181503_Analysis_of_Minerals_in_Foods_A_Three-year_Survey_from_Costa_Rican_Market_Products?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/project/Antimicrobials-in-feed-and-environment?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nutritional-Quality-and-Safety-of-Feed-and-Food?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carolina-Cortes-15?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carolina-Cortes-15?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University-of-Costa-Rica?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carolina-Cortes-15?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia-Quiros-Fallas?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia-Quiros-Fallas?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University-of-Costa-Rica?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia-Quiros-Fallas?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josue-Vasquez-8?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josue-Vasquez-8?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universidad_San_Francisco_de_Quito_USFQ?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josue-Vasquez-8?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fabio-Granados-Chinchilla?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fabio-Granados-Chinchilla?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fabio-Granados-Chinchilla?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fabio-Granados-Chinchilla?enrichId=rgreq-a39c2df5d8316605ee1415f81ef3520a-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM2NTE4MTUwMztBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTA5NTIwODI2NUAxNjY3NzkzNTc4ODI4&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf Journal of Food Research; Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 ISSN 1927-0887 E-ISSN 1927-0895 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 9 Analysis of Minerals in Foods: A Three-year Survey from Costa Rican Market Products Carolina Cortés-Herrera 1 , Graciela Artavia 1 , Silvia Quirós-Fallas 1 , Eduardo Calderón-Calvo 1 , Astrid Leiva 1 , Josué Vasquez-Flores 1 & Fabio Granados-Chinchilla 1 1 Centro Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Universidad de Costa Rica, Sede Rodrigo Facio, San José, Costa Rica Correspondence: Fabio Granados-Chinchilla, Centro Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Universidad de Costa Rica, Sede Rodrigo Facio 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica. Tel: 506-2511-7226. E-mail: fabio.granados@ucr.ac.cr Received: June 6, 2022 Accepted: October 12, 2022 Online Published: November 7, 2022 doi:10.5539/jfr.v12n1p9 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v12n1p9 Abstract Developing and carrying out analyzes that allow nutritional profiling of foods has become increasingly necessary in the food industry, especially when essential nutrients, such as minerals, are involved. In addition, having this type of information makes it possible to characterize the food, corroborate labeling, monitor regulations, improve food quality, and take public health measures when there are deficiencies or excesses in the population level of any nutrient. During this survey, total ash, Cl, Ca, P, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Na, and K, were analyzed in different foods (including meat, dairy, cocoa, baked products, fruits, vegetables, legumes, beverages, cocoa products), for a total of n = 2046, 190, 385, 101, 113, 718, 190, 79, 945, and 190 samples, respectively. These samples were compiled from January 2019 to December 2021 as part of routine surveillance of the food industry. Food mineral fraction was assessed by gravimetry, chloride by potentiometry, and the rest of the analytes by spectrometry. Descriptive statistics were produced to analyze the database, and the information was divided by type of food and minerals. Keywords: food analysis, food nutrition and quality, macro and micronutrients, ash and mineral content, guaranteed label 1. Introduction Nutritional value is vital as it is the first stage toward characterizing novel or staple food sources; it can be of interest in the food industry for product development, quality control, or regulatory purposes (Thangaraj, 2016). In this regard, ash content, as part of the proximate analysis (Cortés-Herrera et al., 2021), represents the total mineral content in foods. In turn, the mineral composition is an essential characteristic of foods, both from nutritional and food safety standpoints (Soni et al., 2010). Ash is the inorganic residue after the water, and organic matter have been removed by heating in the presence of oxidizing agents (Md Noh et al., 2020). Ash content determination is necessary for several reasons. i. It is a part of proximate analysis for nutritional evaluation ii. Furthermore, ashing may be considered a sample pretreatment step for analyzing specific minerals. Ash contents of fresh foods are usually bellow five g/100 g (Harris and Marshall, 2017; Okello et al., 2018). Nevertheless, some processed foods such as processed meats can have ash contents as high as 12 g/100 g, e.g., cooked fish tissue (Pushparajan et al., 2012). On the other hand, essential elements (e.g., Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, or K) are required for a balanced diet. Deficiencies should be avoided as they could lead to minor disorders but can also block some of the main activities of the body and be the reason for severe diseases (Cannas et al., 2020), as well as the cause of death of patients with extreme deficiencies. In the case of essential elements such as Fe, Zn, and Cu, their presence in foods at a high concentration level and their excess ingestion may produce toxic effects (Fraga, 2005). After that, an optimum concentration level for all those elements is responsible primarily for maintaining numerous metabolic functions in mammals (Prashanth et al., 2015). Hence, one could argue that balanced consumption of minerals from foodstuffs, particularly essential elements, is paramount from the quantitative perspective and that the essentiality or toxicity of a particular component of food items is closely related to its concentration. http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 10 Intuitively, essential mineral deficiencies can occur when mineral consumption is underestimated. Nevertheless, if consumed over the required level, toxicity effects can be found, and thus strict analytical control of our daily intake of minerals is needed. Therefore, there is a need to control the presence of mineral elements in foods methodically. In this regard, several international organizations have provided nutritional guidelines that include daily intake values of mineral elements (Council for Responsible Nutrition, 2014; EFSA, 2021; NIH, 2020; World Health Organization, 2005). As dietary reference values for essential trace elements are designed to meet requirements with minimal risk of deficiency and toxicity, risk-benefit analyses have been performed for some minerals, especially those with narrow margins of recommended consumption (Fairweather-Trait et al., 2010). Then their levels in food, especially those items of more common consumption, must be constantly monitored. Additionally, some research has been put forward that discusses the safety margins of mineral addition in foods (Flynn et al., 2017; Kloosterman et al., 2007; Rasmussen et al., 2006) as standards for food biofortification (Blair, 2013). From an analytical standpoint, techniques that provide information about the total mineral content are based on the fact that they are distinguishable from other matrix components. For example, most minerals are not lost during heating and have low volatility compared to other food components. Three main types of analytical procedures are used to determine the ash content of foods; dry ashing is the most commonly used process (Md Noh et al., 2020). The method chosen for a particular analysis depends on the reason for the study, the type of food analyzed, and the available equipment. In the specific case of minerals, atomic and ionic spectrometry methods are the most suitable for obtaining their profile in foods (Md Noh et al., 2020). These multi-elemental techniques are the most powerful tools for accurately determining mineral elements in nutrition at the low range of milligrams. Additionally, anions are usually quantified using various techniques including colorimetry, amperometry, and potentiometry/ion-specific electrode measurements, such is the case of Cl - (EFSA, 2019). Finally, in terms of guaranteed labeling for food, for example, according to the US FDA, about n = 14 inorganic ions may be listed on the Nutrition Facts label as minerals (i.e., calcium, chloride, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, sodium, and zinc) (Dumoitier et al., 2019, US FDA, 2022). Herein we describe each food type or group assessed during three years, i. a macro nutrient indicator related to mineral content such as dry ash content and ii. the determination of specific mineral content for those analytes considered relevant for label guarantee and nutritionally. This data can serve several interests as it can feed Food Composition Databases (FCDBs, Md Noh et al., 2020), which must be constantly updated with the introduction of new food products to avoid wrong decisions or interpretations. Additionally, FCDBs must be constructed with high-quality, reliable, up-to-date food composition databases and representative of the food consumed by the population. 2. Method 2.1 Reagents Nitric acid (ACS reagent 70 mL/100 mL, catalog number 438073), silver nitrate (ReagentPlus ® , ≥ 99.9 g/100 g, for titration, catalog number S6506), cesium chloride (ReagentPlus ® , 99.9 g/100 g, catalog number 289329), lanthanum oxide III (suitable for AAS, ≥ 99.9 g/100 g), sand (standard, washed and dried, catalog number SX0075), aluminum sulfate (99.99 g/100 g, trace metals basis, catalog number 202614), polyvinyl alcohol (molecular weight 89 000 - 98 000, ≥ 99 g/100 g hydrolyzed, catalog number 341584), sodium molybdate dehydrate (ACS reagent, ≥ 99 g/100 g, catalog number 331058), L-ascorbic acid (99 g/100 g, catalog number A929002), and sodium hydroxide (reagent grade, ≥ 98 g/100 g, catalog number S5881) were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Mineral standard solutions for Ca (catalog number 119778), Mg (catalog number 119788), Fe (catalog number 119781), Zn (catalog number 119806), Cu (catalog number 119786), Na (catalog number 170238), and K (catalog number 170230) were purchased from Supelco ® (Bellefonte, PA, USA) all nitrate salts, traceable to SRM from NIST in HNO₃ 0.5 mol L -1 , 1 000 mg L -1 Certipur ® . Phosphorus standard solution [CRM, traceable to NIST, 75.0 mg L -1 PO4 3- in H2O (total), Supelco ® ]. Ultrapure water (type I, 0.055 μS cm −1 at 25 °C, 5 μg L −1 TOC) was obtained using an A10 Milli-Q Advantage system and an Elix 35 system (EMD Millipore Burlington, MA, USA). 2.2 Ash Determination All ash determinations were performed using a muffle furnace (model BF518994C-1, Lindeberg/Blue M, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and based on AOAC OMA SM methods 920.117, 920.153, 920.93, http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 11 923.03, 925.11, 925.51, 930.229, 930.30, 935.39B, 940.26, and 950.14. All ISO 17025 accredited (Cortés-Herrera et al, 2021). 2.3 Chloride Determination Total chloride content was determined potentiometrically using an automated titrator (862 titrosampler, Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland) Coupled with an Ag electrode with Ag2S coating (catalog 6.0430.100S, Titrode, Metrohm). Method was based on AOAC OMA SM methods 937.07, 937.09, 935.47, 941.18, 960.29, 971.27, 976.18, and 2016.03. 2.3.1 Seasonings, Soups, Sauces From 10.0 to 25.0 g, samples were dissolved in ca. 500 mL of preheated water at 80 ºC. After cooling, the solution was made up to 1 liter and mixed. After adding 2 mL of a 2 mol L -1 nitric acid and 5 mL protective colloid (a 40 g/100 mL polyvinyl alcohol solution), the resulting mixture was titrated with AgNO3 solution at 0.1 mol L -1 after the first endpoint. 2.3.2 Dairy Products Approximately two grams or 20 mL of the dairy product was weighed and treated with 7 mL of a 2 mol L -1 NaOH solution and mixed with 20 mL of a 20 g/100 mL solution of aluminum sulfate and 50 mL preheated water. The mixture was allowed to settle and then filtered through an ashless filter paper (Whatman 541). 2.3.3 Meat Products The tissue was cut into small pieces (portions less than 1 cm edge) and homogenized using a knife mill (GRINDOMIX, GM200, Retsch, Hann, Germany). After that, 10 g of ground meat and 140 g of water were mixed until a homogeneous paste was achieved. Finally, 50 g of the previous mixture was transferred into a glass beaker with 50 mL water and 2 mL of a 2 mol L -1 HNO3 solution. 2.4 Mineral Determinations 2.4.1 Atomic Absorption with Flame Ionization An atomic absorption spectrometer (200 Series, 280 FS AA, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to assess mineral content. Coded single-element hollow cathode lamps were provided for each mineral (acquired from Agilent Technologies Ca (catalog number 5610101000), Mg (catalog number 5610103200), Fe (catalog number 5610102700), Zn (catalog number 5610106800), Cu (catalog number 5610101400), and Na (catalog number 5610105300), and K (catalog number 5610104200). Specific analysis conditions are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Atomic absorption analysis conditions Parameter/Element Ca Na Mg K Zn Cu Fe Wavelength, nm 422.7 589.0 285.2 766.5 213.9 324.8 248.3 Combustible gas used Air/Acetylene Bandpass, nm 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 Fuel flow, L min-1 2 Mode Absorption 2H/D2 correction Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Current, mA 10 5 4 5 5 4 5 Sample treatment was based on dissolving dry residue from ash determination (section 2.2). Specifical treatment conditions for each food group are based on AOAC OMA SM methods 967.08, 970.12, 970.19, 985.35, 987.03, 991.25, and 999.11. In general, to dry ash contained in a 50 mL porcelain crucible, 10 mL HCl 6 mol L -1 were added add heated to 80 ºC for 10 min using a plate. Afterward, the resulting mixture was filtered by gravity using ashless filter paper (ashless Whatman 541, 150 mm, GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom), and the filtrate was qualitatively recovered in a 100 mL flask. In the case of Na and K and Ca analyses, CsCl (as ion suppressor) and La2O3 (to reduce interferences produced by phosphates) are added, reaching final concentrations of 0.5 and 0.1 g/100 mL, respectively. In the case of non-pulp beverages, the analysis is performed directly after sonication (for degassing) and an appropriate dilution. 2.4.2 Spectrophotometry Total phosphorus determination was performed using the AOAC OMA SM method 995.11. Briefly, the oxidized dry-ashed residue is dissolved as previously described for mineral analysis. Therefore, 1.0-10.0 mL of the resulting solution is neutralized and transferred into a 50 mL volumetric flask and then diluted with 15 mL H2O. http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 12 After that, 20 mL of a molybdate–ascorbic acid solution (52 and 28 mmol L -1 , respectively) was added to the test and standard solutions. The resulting blue complex [i.e., (MoO2·4MoO3)2·H3PO4] was measured spectrophotometrically at 823 ± 1 nm (PharmaSpec, UV-1700, Shimadzu Corporation, Kioto Prefecture, Japan). 2.5 Reference Materials For all assays, each time an analysis batch was performed, reference material was run in parallel to assess method accuracy (see below). FAPAS ® (Fera Science, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom) quality control materials T2474QC, T01119QC, T2476QC, T2477QC, T25164QC, TET036RM, T2472QC, and T2475QC, were used for ash. Similarly, FAPAS ® T0119QC, T20157QC, and T25179QC were used during Cl - analysis. In the case of minerals, both FAPAS ® T1895QC and NIST SRM ® 1849a were used for quality control. 2.6 Samples and Statistical Analysis For all analytes, descriptive statistics were used to organize the data by type of food. All foods subjected to analysis from January 2019 to December 2021 were included in the survey. All study objects were randomly from routine monitoring performed by diverse food manufacturers and producers from the country (Figure 1). Figure 1. A. Cumulative and individual analysis performed per analyte per year B. number of assays expressed as the percentage of the total analysis Several categories were constructed based on typical food grouping due to intrinsic characteristics. For each analyte, a seven-point calibration curve was performed for mineral analysis. The final concentrations of the metal were as follows: Ca from 0.6 to 6.0; Na, K, Cu, and Zn from 0.15 to 1.5; Mg from 0.075 to 0.75, and Fe from 0.3 to 3.0 mg L -1 . In the case of alcoholic beverages, the calibration curves were matrix-matched accordingly using ethanol. Coefficients of determination (r 2 ≥ 0.98) and regression equations for each calibration curve prepared during this study were obtained using Sigmaplot 14.5 software (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Standard deviation certified by the manufacturer or calculated z values were used as method performance parameters. Acceptable z values (i.e., from − 2 to 2) were considered proof of the method 's proper bias, accuracy, and recovery during reproducibility conditions. In this scenario, z values indicate the number of standard deviations from the mean of a data point. Mathematically, z = (x – μ)/σ. Then, z values are calculated as follows: robust mean concentration (obtained from the method/analyte performance agreed among several laboratories) subtracted by the result from the laboratory divided by the robust standard deviation. Additional paired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess differences in mineral concentrations between selected samples (Figure 2). An α = 0.05 was used as a threshold to determine significance. These tests were performed using SPSS ® Statistics (version 28.0.0, IBM ® , Armonk, New York, USA). http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 13 Table 2. Summary results for reference materials used for batch analysis approval Ash Concentration, g/100 g Matrixa Assigned value Acceptable range Laboratory experimental mean value ± standard deviation Biscuit [2] 1.44 1.33-1.55 1.352 ± 0.002 Oat flakes [5] 1.69 1.56-1.81 1.657 ± 0.013 Wheat flour [14] 0.81 0.746-0.880 0.822 ± 0.024 Croutons [16] 3.02 2.82-3.23 2.975 ± 0.089 Canned meat [8] 2.10 1.95-2.25 2.097 ± 0.052 Milk powder [30] 5.62 5.58-5.66 5.612 ± 0.032 Milk powder [18] 6.82 6.59-6.85 6.794 ± 0.052 Meat [2] 2.10 1.95-2.25 2.155 ± 0.055 Biscuit [2] 1.21 1.11-1.30 1.190 ± 0.010 Corn flour [2] 1.197 1.104-1.290 1.200 ± 0.019 Chloride Tomato paste [10] 0.68 0.619-0.734 0.701 ± 0.032 Canned meat [7] 0.89 0.799-0.973 0.825 ± 0.056 Cheese [5] 0.289 0.233-0.345 0.264 ± 0.045 Minerals Concentration, g/100 g Matrix Assigned value Acceptable range Laboratory experimental mean value ± standard deviation Calcium Milk powder [6] 262.10 317.1-372.10 305.28 ± 8.31 Milk powder [32] 525.30 472.77-567.32 512.08 ± 62.15 Milk powder [5] 1 244.50 1 148-1341 1 219.36 ± 59.12 Infant formula [16] 281.10 253.90-308.3 279.93 ± 21.49 Phosphorus Milk powder [11] 399.0 359.10-430.92 391.12 ± 11.88 Infant formula [6] 166.35 148.90-183.80 169.85 ± 7.97 Magnesium Milk powder [7] 50.35 44.0-56.7 53.46 ± 3.72 Infant formula [17] 164.8 148.32-177.98 172.41 ± 14.92 Iron Milk powder [7] 5.20 4.29-6.09 5.82 ± 0.28 Milk powder [22] 5.01 4.12-5.90 5.51 ± 0.35 Infant formula [22] 175.60 149.26-193.16 184.76 ± 10.88 Copper Milk powder [8] 0.413 0.307-0.520 0.46 ± 0.11 Infant formula [14] 1.978 1.58-2.27 2.01 ± 0.65 Zinc Milk powder [15] 5.08 4.16-6.00 5.25 ± 0.33 Infant formula [23] 15.10 12.83-16.61 13.92 ± 2.69 Sodium Milk powder [8] 187.7 146.70-228.70 190.67 ± 19.28 Milk powder [38] 184.5 165.50-203.50 184.92 ± 41.04 Infant formula [24] 426.5 383.85-460.62 401.99 ± 77.36 Potassium Milk powder [6] 498.10 437.10-559.10 503.91 ± 37.92 Milk powder [15] 474.15 431.70-516.60 462.99 ± 34.29 Infant formula [15] 922.00 848.24-968.10 901.29 ± 53.59 aNumbers in square brackets embody the number of samples n. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Ash Content In general, the average ash content for various food groups is given in Table 3. The ash content of most fresh foods rarely exceeds five g/100 g. In the case of meat products, maximum ash levels, in decreasing order, are as follows: beef meat cuts > sausage > canned meat (i.e., 7.899, 4.711, and 4.205 g/100 g, Table 3). Mean values for sausage and hot dogs are among the highest for these types of products 3.373 and 3.032 g/100 g, respectively (Table 2). Data for meat products align with earlier reports, including chicken cuts (Hussain et al., 2016) and sausages (Khairy et al., 2021; Kolar, 1992; Perez and Andujar, 1980). In the case of dairy products, milk powder, some cheeses (specially matured ones), and whey exhibited the http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 14 highest mean values of this food group (i.e., 4.994, 4.689, and 4.055 g/100 g, Table 3). Some reports have stated that ash values represent 11.2% of the dry weight in the original whey (McDonough et al., 1974). Traditional whey protein concentration techniques can increase such values (i.e., up to 15.4 g/100 g after salting out, Tovar Jiménez et al., 2012). Fruits and fruit juices typically contain little ash (i.e., from ca. 0.2 up to 0.8 g/100 g). See, for example, a ripe banana or melon (Table 3). Exceptions arise for conventionally or freeze-dried fruits, and the latter has recently been trending as a commodity (Sadler, 2019). Freeze-dried fruits can reach up to ca. 8 g ash/100 g sample (e.g., tomatoes Table 3). Several soups and sauces have considerable amounts of ash content (outstanding mean values of 14.020 to 61.835 g/100 g, Table 2), which is probably translated into sodium intake, as salt concentrations in these products are usually high (Shahar et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2016). Interestingly, cocoa/cocoa powder exhibited a considerable ash content (i.e., 5.033 and 4.955 g/100 g, respectively, Table 3). On the other hand, within baked products, croutons and sponge cake have the most ash content (i.e., 2.983 and 3.386 g/100 g, Table 3). Again, croutons are seasoned and salted. Additionally, baked products may contain considerable levels of leavening agents (e.g., sodium or ammonium carbonates). Additional data for baked products can be found in an earlier report (Assis dos Passos et al., 2013). Finally, as expected, beverages and sweeteners have the lowest ash levels among most food groups tested (i.e., << 1 g/100 g, Table 3). Table 3. Ash content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Concentration, g/100 g Meat products, n = 446 Beef meat cuts [205, 10.02, 45.96] 1.278 ± 0.939 0.982 7.899 0.211 Sausage [92, 4.50, 20.63] 3.373 ± 0.387 3.380 4.711 2.529 Pâté [87, 4.25, 19.51] 1.983 ± 0.185 2.085 2.235 1.605 Tuna pâté [20, 0.98, 4.48] 1.812 ± 0.021 1.819 1.847 1.754 Canned meat [12, 0.59, 2.69] 2.819 ± 0.848 2.186 4.205 2.056 Pork butt [9, 0.44, 2.02] 1.386 ± 0.357 1.119 1.929 1.031 Hot dogs [8, 0.39, 1.79] 3.032 ± 0.198 3.007 3.537 2.792 Chicken breast [3, 0.15, 0.67] 2.409 ± 0.126 2.460 2.531 2.236 Fresh tuna [3] 1.572 ± 0.108 1.619 1.674 1.422 Ham [3] 3.132 ± 0.204 3.011 3.419 2.967 Ground beef [2, 0.10, 0.45] 0.899 ± 0.183 0.899 1.082 0.717 Sardines [2] 2.308 ± 0.127 2.308 2.436 2.181 Beverages and drinks, n = 82 Tea [35, 1.71, 42.68] 0.047 ± 0.018 0.042 0.088 0.013 Apple juice [21, 1.03, 25.61] 0.246 ± 0.210 0.151 0.780 0.015 Kombucha [10, 0.49, 12.20] 0.057 ± 0.037 0.044 0.146 0.017 Beer [5, 0.24, 6.10] 0.106 ± 0.032 0.111 0.146 0.049 Drink mix [3, 0.15, 3.66] 0.234 ± 0.134 0.271 0.376 0.055 Drink mix with probiotics [3] 0.290 ± 0.007 0.294 0.295 0.280 Guava juice [3] 0.294 ± 0.306 0.164 0.828 0.017 Instant tea mix [2, 0.10, 2.44] 1.072 ± 0.074 1.072 1.146 0.998 Dairy products, n = 269 Milk powder [112, 5.47, 41.64] 4.994 ± 1.992 5.658 7.946 2.126 Evaporated milk [64, 3.13, 23.79] 0.603 ± 0.184 0.552 1.411 0.478 Assorted cheese [40, 1.96, 14.87] 4.055 ± 2.461 3.198 14.102 1.247 Yogurt [28, 1.37, 10.41] 0.867 ± 0.168 0.809 1.334 0.694 Whey [13, 0.64, 4.83] 4.689 ± 3.374 6.930 8.782 0.434 Cow milk [10, 0.49, 3.72] 0.638 ± 0.231 0.725 0.828 0.174 Ice cream mix [2, 0.10, 0.74] 1.301 ± 0.607 1.301 1.908 0.693 Cocoa products, n =33 Cocoa liquor [13, 0.64, 39.39] 2.224 ± 0.395 2.291 2.883 1.538 Cocoa [6, 0.29, 18.18] 5.033 ± 1.073 5.118 6.793 3.679 Chocolate [6] 2.181 ± 0.395 2.140 2.738 1.707 Cacao nibs [4, 0.20, 12.12] 2.905 ± 0.019 2.917 2.919 2.879 Cacao paste [2, 0.10, 6.06] 3.301 ± 0.015 3.301 3.316 3.286 Cocoa powder [2] 4.955 ± 0.026 4.955 4.981 4.928 Fruits, n = 75 Dried tomato [20, 0.98, 26.67] 8.123 ± 0.919 8.206 10.149 6.500 Unripe banana [10, 0.49, 13.33] 1.245 ± 0.304 1.249 1.615 0.748 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 15 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [6, 0.29, 8.00] 5.131 ± 1.262 5.140 6.411 3.826 Melon (C. melo L.) [5, 0.24, 6.67] 0.553 ± 0.066 0.517 0.673 0.499 Fresh ripe banana [4, 0.20, 5.33] 0.842 ± 0.026 0.854 0.863 0.798 Bell peppers [4] 4.794 ± 1.943 5.118 7.010 1.929 Apple [3, 0.15, 4.00] 3.248 ± 0.034 3.233 3.294 3.215 Cashew (A. occidentale L.) [3] 2.148 ± 0.037 2.165 2.182 2.097 Costa Rican guava (P. friedrichsthalianum (O. Berg) Nied.) [3] 3.252 ± 0.117 3.327 3.342 3.086 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 2.248 ± 0.182 2.366 2.387 1.992 Passion fruit (P. edulis Sims) [3] 3.688 ± 0.031 3.672 3.731 3.661 Strawberry guava (P. cattleyanum Sabine) [3] 3.934 ± 0.143 4.010 4.058 3.734 Sweet granadilla/grenadia (P. ligularis Juss) [3] 6.089 ± 0.398 6.097 6.572 5.597 Sweet lemon (C. limetta Risso) [3] 3.671 ± 0.063 3.675 3.746 3.593 Dehydrated pineapple [2, 0.10, 2.67] 1.695 ± 0.064 1.695 1.758 1.631 Baked products and cereals, n = 45 Cookies [25, 1.22, 55.56] 1.644 ± 0.688 1.508 3.351 0.723 Crouton [7, 0.34, 15.56] 2.983 ± 0.033 2.944 3.016 2.899 Breakfast cereal [6, 0.29, 13.33] 0.830 ± 0.058 0.859 0.867 0.703 Sponge cake [5, 0.24, 11.11] 3.386 ± 0.596 3.120 4.515 2.995 Biscuit [2, 0.10, 4.44] 1.352 ± 0.001 1.352 1.354 1.351 Coffee products, n = 405 Pure roasted coffee [385, 18.82, 95.06] 4.396 ± 0.682 4.583 5.946 0.363 Sugar-enriched ―Torrefacto‖ coffee [20, 0.98, 4.94] 3.564 ± 0.053 3.551 3.687 3.479 Sweeteners and desserts, n = 54 Honey [30, 1.47, 55.56] 0.198 ± 0.213 0.086 0.851 0.075 Ice cream [9, 0.29, 11.11] 0.860 ± 0.256 0.917 1.157 0.313 Corn syrup [6, 0.29, 11.11] 0.309 ± 0.081 0.335 0.408 0.194 Caramel [4, 0.20, 7.41] 1.604 ± 0.153 1.650 1.745 1.369 Jell-O/Gelatin dessert [3, 0.15, 5.56] 0.406 ± 0.445 0.162 1.030 0.025 Refined sugar [2, 0.10, 3.70] 0.022 ± 0.008 0.022 0.030 0.014 Grains and cereals, n = 387 Corn flour [247, 12.07, 63.82] 0.918 ± 0.401 0.637 1.587 0.573 Wheat flour [68, 3.32, 17.57] 0.918 ± 0.401 0.637 1.587 0.573 Red/Black beans [45, 2.20, 11.63] 2.187 ± 0.945 1.228 3.853 0.942 Purple corn [7, 0.34, 1.81] 1.471 ± 0.084 1.480 1.582 1.329 Wheat grits [7] 0.880 ± 0.051 0.884 0.946 0.783 Oats [5, 0.24, 1.29] 1.661 ± 0.008 1.657 1.676 1.655 Corn [3, 0.15, 0.78] 1.287 ± 0.092 1.334 1.368 1.159 Canned sweet corn [3] 0.529 ± 0.026 0.524 0.563 0.500 White rice [2, 0.10, 0.52] 0.857 ± 0.374 0.857 1.231 0.483 Starchy foods, n = 87 Bread [50, 2.44, 57.47] 2.190 ± 0.661 2.227 3.552 0.704 Potato [15, 0.73, 17.24] 3.628 ± 0.769 3.734 4.219 0.901 Pasta [19, 0.93, 21.84] 0.891 ± 0.227 0.864 1.531 0.463 Tortilla [3, 0.15, 3.45] 1.639 ± 0.900 1.315 2.867 0.735 Condiments, Herbs, Spices & Seasonings, n = 54 Mayonnaise [22, 1.08, 40.74] 1.984 ± 0.437 2.133 2.748 1.106 Vanilla [6, 0.29, 11.11] 3.783 ± 0.479 3.931 4.359 2.815 Salad dressing [4, 0.20, 7.41] 1.853 ± 0.320 1.691 2.404 1.627 Seasoning [4] 8.423 ± 3.792 8.529 13.558 3.077 Black peppercorn [3, 0.15, 5.56] 2.315 ± 0.691 2.801 2.808 1.338 Chicken soup [3] 61.835 ± 4.987 59.819 68.696 56.989 Ginger (Z. officinale Roscoe) [3] 1.044 ± 0.034 1.051 1.082 1.000 Hot pepper sauce [3] 16.719 ± 0.306 16.635 17.128 16.394 Ketchup [3] 3.559 ± 0.950 4.219 4.242 2.216 Noodle soup [3] 14.020 ± 0.641 14.018 14.807 13.236 Misc, n = 66 Edible seaweed powder (dietary supplement) [8, 0.39, 12.12] 7.153 ± 2.110 6.387 11.992 4.484 Vitamin supplement [6, 0.29, 9.09] 0.326 ± 0.070 0.345 0.404 0.180 Canned mushrooms [5, 0.24, 7.58] 0.952 ± 0.197 0.926 1.205 0.674 Kelp [5] 0.839 ± 0.200 0.901 1.047 0.569 Vegetable oil [5] 0.035 ± 0.030 0.031 0.085 0.002 Banana chips [4, 0.20, 6.06] 2.020 ± 0.111 1.992 2.185 1.911 Granola [3, 0.15, 4.55] 2.055 ± 0.398 2.069 2.535 1.560 Grape wine [3] 0.201 ± 0.007 0.203 0.208 0.192 Marmalade [3] 0.757 ± 0.543 0.376 1.524 0.370 Pancake mix [3] 3.286 ± 0.237 3.286 3.524 3.049 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 16 Pickled vegetables [3] 0.590 ± 0.396 0.391 1.143 0.237 Banana flour [2, 0.10, 3.03] 4.005 ± 0.509 0.637 1.587 0.573 Banana peel [2] 8.578 ± 0.006 8.578 8.584 8.572 Burrito [2] 2.438 ± 0.051 2.438 2.489 2.388 Green beans [2] 2.443 ± 0.072 2.443 2.515 2.371 Lecithin [2] 5.608 ± 1.498 5.608 7.106 4.110 Onion [2] 2.519 ± 0.342 2.519 2.861 2.177 Starch [2] 0.093 ± 0.005 0.093 0.098 0.088 Refried beans [2] 2.022 ± 0.010 2.022 2.032 2.013 Taco [2] 3.170 ± 0.055 3.170 3.224 3.115 Foods with only one hit, n = 43 Concentration, g/100 g Black garlic [1, 0.05, 2.32] 5.007 Buffalo milk 0.726 Cannelloni 0.856 Carao extract (C. grandis L.f.) 0.684 Carrot cake 1.669 Cassava flour 2.194 Coconut caramel 1.450 Coffee drink 0.320 Coffee mucilage 0.665 Confection 1.991 Corn cake 2.857 Dry coconut Egg 0.878 Dried seaweed 5.895 Fresh shrimp 0.594 Fried plantain 1.027 Golden berry (Physalis peruviana L.) 3.191 Golden milk 8.101 Guava (P. guajava L.) 0.596 Hearts of palm 0.887 Heart of palm paste 0.985 Jam 0.441 Kola syrup 1.438 Lasagna 0.795 Malanga (C. esuclenta (L.) Schott) 1.273 Malt extract 0.675 Marshmallow 1.598 Meat balls 2.146 Nuggets 2.649 Orange juice 0.416 Pignut/chan seeds (M. suaveolens (L.) Poit.) 4.005 Pineapple juice 0.503 Pitahaya (H. costaricensis (F.A.C. Weber) Britton & Rose) 5.473 Popcorn 0.718 Sacha inchi (Plukenetia volubilis L.) 2.450 Soursop (A. muricata L.) 0.448 Soursop wine 0.176 Soymilk 3.078 Spanish sausage 3.752 Strawberry 0.386 Sugar cone 1.026 Sugarbeet wine 0.080 Yeast 4.724 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 2043), and percentage represented within each food category. 3.2 Chloride Content In the case of chloride, in descending order of concentrations, we found assorted seasonings > dressings or pickles >> ketchup > shrimp paste (i.e., mean values of 35.920, 19.562, 3.277, and 3.052 g/100 g, respectively, Table 3). Again, these concentrations can be translated to salt content and intake. In a fascinating result, canned tuna fish in water exhibited significantly more (p < 0.05, Table 3) salt than its oil-based counterpart; salt is probably adjusted during processing. Finally, table salt's mean value of 98.848 is closely related to the product's quality control assurance/purity (Table 4). http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 17 The number of assays requested historically for Cl - is less than those for other minerals (Table 4). Probably due to nutritional labeling guidelines focuses/requiring to declare sodium content and daily-recommended values rather than chloride or even salt (Dumoiter et al., 2019; Nieto et al., 2019). However, Capuano and coworkers (2013) already established that a more sound strategy is to determine both chloride and sodium to assess salt (sodium chloride) content, as they may originate from different sources. Interestingly, the authors' salt content using a chloride approach is underestimated (Capuano et al., 2013). In terms of proper analysis, conductimetry/potentiometry has been used as a practical approach to assay chloride content in foods; this is especially true for the cheese industry (see, for example, Aguirre-Londoño et al., 2019). Finally, some studies have found a close relationship between Na + and Cl - balances in the body (EFSA, 2019). Also, NaCl has been described as the main source of both electrolytes in some diets and similar urinary excretion molar levels of these electrolytes are typically observed in some populations (EFSA, 2019). Table 4. Chloride content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum % Daily Valueb Concentration, g/100 g % Ketchup [41, 21.58] 3.277 ± 3.850 2.198 16.411 1.630 142 Assorted seasonings [40, 21.05] 35.920 ± 14.629 36.852 77.346 8.961 1561 Whey [28, 14.74] 2.220 ± 1.487 0.950 4.004 0.891 96 Dressing/Pickle [21, 11.05] 19.562 ± 0.408 19.508 20.745 19.023 850 Salt [11, 5.79] 98.848 ± 1.021 99.242 99.491 96.434 4297 Canned tuna in oil [6, 3.16] 0.752 ± 0.213 0.723 1.169 0.496 33 Canned tuna in water [6] 0.971 ± 0.496 0.866 1.816 0.397 42 Mayonnaise [6] 1.672 ± 0.024 1.672 1.696 1.648 73 Beef meat cuts [5, 2.63] 1.483 ± 0.175 1.502 1.650 1.165 64 Grounded/Minced beef meat [5] 1.335 ± 0.033 1.324 1.401 1.305 58 Chocolate mixture [4, 2.11] 0.220 ± 0.008 0.220 0.0228 0.212 10 Vanilla mixture [4] 0.186 ± 0.030 0.180 0.231 0.153 8 Sausage [3, 1.58] 1.593 ± 0.019 1.593 1.612 1.574 69 Tartar sauce [3] 1.744 ± 0.034 1.729 1.791 1.711 76 White wine [3] 0.025 ± 0.003 0.025 0.028 0.022 1 Canned Peas/Peas and carrots [2, 1.05] 1.593 ± 0.019 1.593 1.612 1.574 69 Shrimp pâté [2] 3.052 ± 0.061 3.052 3.113 2.992 132 Foods with only one hit Concentration, g/100 g % Canned chickpeas 1.128 49 Heat of palm 0.643 28 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n and percentage represented from the total samples (i.e., n = 190). bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 2 300 mg for chloride); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. 3.3 Mineral Analysis Calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium Calcium content Overall, foods have a considerable amount of Ca compared with other minerals studied. Food with significant Ca includes orange, tomato, and sweet lemon. In the specific case of tomato, mean levels of 180.42 mg/100 g were obtained (Table 5, Figure 2A), whereas, in comparison, ca. 7.08 mg/100 g has been reported near the Mediterranean Sea for this fruit (Rosa-Martínes et al., 2021); a reasonably high gap. On the other hand, dairy products (cheese, yogurt, milk, and ice cream) have a significant concentration of Ca (i.e., from 131.039 to 708.366 mg/100 g, respectively, Table 4). These present important concentrations of Ca compared to the rest of the foods. In comparison, Ca concentrations in milk from Northern Italy were 14.718 mg/100 g. In other European countries, higher mean values such as 147.710 mg/100 g have been reported. Such relatively low levels in milk are usually subject to compensation by enrichment (Vigolo et al., 2022). It is worth mentioning that meat has a concentration of Ca ranging from 117.22 to 699.59 mg/100 g (Table 4), one of the foods with a broader range of Ca concentration (Table 5, Figure 2A). Such elevated levels are attained in tissue, and dairy is related to animal nutrition and supplementation provided to the animal. Additionally, it is associated with the type of proteins present in these products (Stergiadis et al., 2019). In the case of coffee, values of Ca in ground roasted coffee are generally low. In fact, several fortification strategies exist (de Paula et al., 2014). However, values as high as 1 080 mg/100 g in coffee silverskin have been http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 18 reported (Nzekoue et al., 2022). Costa Rica is one of Latin America's largest coffee producers and consumers. It is said that the consumption of coffee per day (8 ounces) is equivalent to consuming 400 mg of caffeine per day (Reyes and Cornelis, 2018). Hence, it is vital to know the quality of this product. On a related note, reported values for tea are close to the maximum value reported elsewhere (Liu et al., 2022). In Costa Rica, tea consumption competes mainly with coffee (Kings and Cornelis, 2018). Finally, studies have shown that the consumption of Ca in Costa Rica is around 570.3 mg, one of the most consumed minerals, second only to K with 2 172.1 mg (Monge-Rojas et al., 2021). Table 5. Foods for which calcium analyses were surveyed from 2019 to 2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Dairy and dairy products, n = 203 Milk [96, 24.94, 47.29] 85.46 ± 43.83 75.16 192.84 25.68 6 Milk Powder [75, 19.48, 36.95] 708.37 ± 299.25 820.27 1264.8 3.53 54 Cheese [16, 4.16, 7.88] 629.48 ± 224.06 681.45 980.69 59.04 48 Yogurt [8, 2.08, 3.94] 131.04 ± 15.84 131.12 156.24 110.83 10 Cheese whey [5, 1.30, 2.46] 61.59 ± 47.45 41.39 152.36 15.02 4 Ice Cream [3, 0.78, 1.48] 155.42 ± 73.39 182.39 228.73 55.15 12 Misc, n = 104 Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) [26, 6.75, 25.00] 141.69 ± 166.08 68.94 545.22 10.82 11 Meat [13, 3.38, 12.50] 350.27 ± 178.00 310.12 699.59 117.21 27 Powdered drinks [11, 2.86, 10.58] 8.95 ± 7.16 5.92 23.15 0.02 0.7 Edible seaweed (Chlorophyta) [9, 2.34, 8.65] 257.06 ± 264.98 139.33 893.88 29.93 20 Cookies [7, 1.82, 6.73] 110.81 ± 115.22 44.37 378.48 28.86 8 Corn meal [6, 1.56, 5.77] 16.16 ± 3.25 14.63 21.90 12.98 1 Corn [6] 4.03 ± 3.65 5.94 8.91 3.71 0.3 Ham [4, 1.04, 3.85] 15.88 ± 9.29 12.96 31.25 6.34 1 Breakfast cereal [3, 0.78, 2.88] 4.45 ± 0.39 4.29 4.99 4.07 0.3 Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [3] 63.54 ± 49.12 29.02 133.00 28.60 5 Cassava fluor [3] 41.54 ± 8.59 44.53 50.25 29.86 3 Honey [3] 24.23 ± 18.88 14.96 50.55 7.19 2 Starch [2, 0.52, 1.92] 2.83 ± 0.22 2.83 3.05 2.62 0.2 Marshmellows [2] 12.51 ± 6.15 12.51 18.66 6.35 1 Pasta [2] 21.47 ± 4.82 21.47 26.29 16.65 1 Chicken [2] 2.76 ± 3.71 2.76 6.47 0.956 0.2 Tea [2] 1.87 ± 0.67 1.87 2.53 1.21 0.1 Fruits, n = 60 Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) [22, 5.71, 36.67] 180.42 ± 60.35 190.70 263.51 14.71 14 Dragon fruit (Hylocereus costaricensis (F.A.C. Weber) Britton & Rose) [12, 3.12, 20.00] 9.49 ± 3.67 10.18 14.97 3.82 0.7 Banana (Musa paradisiaca L.) [5, 1.30, 8.33] 12.53 ± 8.19 7.47 26.09 3.95 1 Jocote [Spondias purpurea L.] [3, 0.78, 5.00] 47.15 ± 2.09 47.02 49.77 44.66 3 Sweet Lemon (Citrus limetta Risso) [3] 194.47 ± 20.46 191.24 220.99 171.18 15 Malay (rose) apple (Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry) [3] 77.00 ± 7.40 72.35 87.44 71.20 6 Passion Fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims) [3] 21.66 ± 4.39 18.81 27.86 18.31 1 Peach Palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) [3] 71.36 ± 2.03 71.87 73.54 68.65 5 Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) [3] 12.62 ± 0.67 12.43 13.51 11.91 1 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 348.23 ± 59.64 370.49 407.55 266.64 27 Foods with only one hit, n = 18 Concentration, mg/100 g % Dressing [1, 0.26, 5.56] 19.32 1 Garlic (Allium sativum L.) 43.45 3 Biscuit 110.48 8 Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) 6.29 0.5 Onion (Allium cepa L.) 20.27 1 Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) 14.30 1 Candy 238.54 18 Caramel 277.86 21 Bread 13.87 1 Mushroom 21.67 1 Whole Egg 56.52 4 Jelly 40.86 3 Soy Milk 364.00 28 Coffee mucilage 24.10 2 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 19 Orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) 254.28 20 Pepper 258.56 20 Cream Cheese 247.17 19 Tartar Sauce 40.62 3 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 1 300 mg for calcium); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Phosphorus content Phosphorus is an intestinal-absorbed essential micronutrient in human nutrition (Gutiérrez, 2020). In its inorganic and organic forms (Gutiérrez, 2020; Schwerbel et al., 2022), it participates in several metabolic processes (e.g., phosphorylation reactions, intracellular acid-base balance) and is a component of nucleic acids, cellular membranes, and some organelles (Gutiérrez, 2020; Schwerbel et al., 2022), respectively. Daily requirements for the mineral in adults are 1 200 mg day -1 , with a Ca:P relationship of 1.7 (Gutiérrez et al., 2020). Foods with high protein content usually possess high P levels, including milk, eggs, meat products, legumes, and seeds. Nevertheless, vegetable sources of P tend to render it indigestible due to phytic acid; then, P bioavailability is higher in products of animal origin (Schwerbel et al., 2022; St-Jules, 2016 et al., 2016). In accordance with the above, Table 5 shows that the products with higher P levels are algae (1 194.31 mg/100 g), fruits (e.g., sweet granadilla, tomato, and tacaco with values of 246.71, 417.64, and 370.49 mg/100 g, respectively) followed by milk powder (i.e., 326.40 ± 218.31 mg/100 g) (Table 6, Figure 2B). Despite the nutritional relevance of P, a skewed balance in relation to its Ca counterpart can unleash severe metabolic issues (Gutiérrez et al., 2020; St-Jules et al., 2016; Tuominen et al., 2022). Currently, in the food industry, P-containing compounds are used to improve flavor and appearance and increase the shelf life of processed foods, among other applications. This has increased phosphorus concentrations in people's diets, as opposed to a decrease in calcium consumption (Gutiérrez et al., 2020; Tuominen et al., 2022). Table 6. Phosphorus content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Misc, n = 43 Cocoa and by-products [10, 9.90, 23.26] 139.89 ± 21.56 136.34 180.14 109.96 11 Edible seaweed [8, 7.92, 18.60] 1 194.31 ± 215.92 1 142.76 1 681.11 946.28 95 Milk powder [12, 11.88, 27.91] 326.40 ± 218.31 268.40 960.03 154.67 24 Whey [5, 4.95, 11.63] 31.29 ± 8.31 35.22 37.82 15.12 2 Beverage [3, 2.97, 6.98] 15.02 ± 5.85 13.26 24.41 7.92 1 Honey [3] 13.74 ± 9.22 8.47 26.71 6.04 1 Breakfast cereal [2, 1.98, 4.65] 55.90 ± 3.86 55.90 59.77 52.04 4 Fruits, Vegetables & Others, n = 53 Tomato [23, 22.77, 43.40] 417.64 ± 116.80 459.76 539.99 130.93 33 Dragon fruit [9, 8.91, 16.98] 24.80 ± 5.02 22.17 33.68 19.78 2 Cashew (A. occidentale L.) [3, 2.97, 5.66] 98.15 ± 8,61 102.54 105.79 86.11 8 Sweet granadilla/grenadia (P. ligularis Juss) [3] 246.71 ± 9.32 241.30 259.82 238.99 20 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 171.56 ± 3.87 170.78 176.64 167.27 14 Passion fruit [3] 231.54 ± 7.19 227.51 241.64 225.46 18 Peach-palm [3] 82.28 ± 3.00 81.09 86.41 79.36 6 Sweet lemon (C. limetta Risso) [3] 135.65 ± 2.38 135.19 138.77 133.00 11 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 370.49 ± 4.10 367.89 376.28 367.29 30 Foods with only one hit, n = 5 Concentration, mg/100 g % Corn [1, 0.99, 20.00] 308.84 25 Garlic 472.66 38 Coffee mucilage 19.87 1 Mushroom 692.72 55 Rice 295.93 24 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 1 250 mg for phosphorus); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 20 Magnesium content Another crucial dietary micronutrient is Mg, the second cation of most abundance within the cell. It is also stored within bones and is an enzymatic co-factor, which means it is involved in a variety of metabolic pathways (e.g., Ca and K active transport through membranes, protein synthesis, and parathyroid hormone secretion (Capozzi et al., 2020; Djinovic-Stojanovic et al., 2017; Jodral-Segado et al., 2003; Pardo et al., 2021). On the other hand, mineral deficiencies can directly affect bone structure by favoring the increase of osteoclasts over osteoblasts. In contrast, hypomagnesemia is also associated with chronic gastrointestinal diseases and liver and kidney diseases (Capozzi et al., 2020; Pardo et al., 2021). This mineral is present in a wide variety of foods, mainly green vegetables, dry seeds, and marine products (i.e., with reports as high as 500 mg kg -1 fresh weight; Jodral-Segado et al., 2003). Meanwhile, cereals, tubers, fruits, fats, and oils contribute just 100 mg kg -1 fresh weight (Djinovic-Stojanovic et al., 2017). Recommended daily consumption of Mg for women and men is set at 320 and 420 mg, respectively (Capozzi et al., 2020). Additionally, infant formula must be fortified at 54 – 100 mg day -1 (Capozzi et al., 2020). Following the above, vegetable sources exhibit higher Mg levels (Table 7, Figure 2C). Table 7. Magnesium content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Misc, n = 60 Cocoa and by-products [19, 16.81, 31.67] 265.78 ± 89.29 278.82 455.18 135.17 64 Milk powder [12, 10.62, 20.00] 108.97 ± 58.79 85.98 190.67 44.84 26 Edible seaweed [10, 8.85, 16.67] 317.49 ± 114.08 278.69 582.55 187.52 76 Beverages [8, 7.08, 13.33] 49.92 ± 64.75 13.59 161.65 3.29 12 Whey [5, 4.42, 8.33] 7.48 ± 3.87 8.20 13.21 1.80 2 Breakfast cereal [3, 2.65, 5.00] 15.31 ± 0.21 15.16 15.61 15.16 4 Honey [3] 31.09 ± 39.91 3.46 87.53 2.28 7 Fruits, Vegetables & Others ̧n = 48 Tomato [20, 17.70, 41.67] 136.3 ± 15.69 142.18 156.54 103.33 32 Dragon fruit [6, 5.31, 12.50] 15.49 ± 6.84 14.55 24.26 7.35 3 Passion fruit [4, 3.54, 8.33] 101.40 ± 18.97 106.08 122.47 70.96 24 Cashew (A. occidentale L.) [3, 2.65, 6.25] 44.51 ± 4.33 42.07 50.59 40.87 10 Sweet granadilla/grenadia (P. ligularis Juss) [3] 35.37 ± 2.27 34.87 38.37 32.89 8 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 62.04 ± 2.02 62.78 64.06 59.29 15 Peach-palm [3] 54.02 ± 0.73 54.02 54.92 53.12 13 Sweet lemon (C. limetta Risso) [3] 57.55 ± 5.32 54.06 65.07 53.51 14 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 183.50 ± 32.82 192.36 218.52 139.62 44 Malay (rose) apple [3] 148.41 ± 59.12 108.47 232.00 104.77 35 Foods with only one hit, n = 5 Concentration, mg/100 g % Cassava meal [1, 0.88, 20.00] 36.82 9 Corn 107.04 25 Garlic 100.22 24 Coffee mucilage 9.00 2 Mushroom 186.09 44 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 420 mg for magnesium); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Iron, zinc, and copper Iron content Compared to the rest of the foods present in this study, Fe is found in high concentrations in pasta, flours, cereals, and multivitamins (Table 7). Foods containing considerable concentrations of Fe are flour (5.57 mg/100 g), cereal (15.44 mg/100 g), and pancake (5.69 mg/100 g), all of which contain wheat or corn (Table 8, Figure 2D). Corn and wheat formulations contain high levels of Fe due to decrees made in Costa Rica for their fortification. The first decree was emitted in 1966, and the fortification levels were doubled in 1996 due to the need to have food with a nutritional status necessary for the population with highly bioavailable Fe species. With the arrival of fortification, surveillance programs were also implemented by corn flour and milk processing plants (Alfaro and Salas, 2006). In Costa Rica, the maximum fortification level of corn flour is 60 mg kg -1 (Decree No. 26371-s in 1997; PAHO, 2006). http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 21 Additionally, multivitamins stand out with a Fe concentration of 245.96 mg/100 g (Table 8, Figure 2D). In Costa Rica, it is indicated that the minimum amount of Fe dietary supplements should be a minimum of 3.6 mg and a maximum of 60 mg per day (Decree No.-36134-S). The Fe needed per day is ca. 18 mg daily (US FDA, 2022). Both this mineral and Zn are used chiefly in biofortification processes which increase the mineral value in food and thus, increase its nutritional value. Nevertheless, mineral levels must be supervised not to exceed the necessary amount of Fe per diet of an average person (Pachón et al., 2009). The biological relevance of Fe lies in the synthesis of the heme group (e.g., synthesis of protoporphyrin, hemoglobin, or reactions such as oxidation-reduction and enzyme peroxidases or catalases). Iron deficiency causes anemia (i.e., liver and bone marrow lack normal Fe reserves). Interestingly, although you can count on higher amounts of Fe in vegetables than in meats, the former reservoirs are less bioavailable (Trumbo et al., 2001). The beef consumption in Costa Rica at home is approximately 2.2 kg per week. Studies have shown that in Latin America and the Caribbean, there is a consumption of roughly 60 kilograms of meat per year per person, very similar to people in Europe and Oceania. In contrast, North Americans consume 96 kg of meat per person yearly (OECD-FAO, 2019). Table 8. Foods for which iron analyses were surveyed from 2019 to 2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Cereals, grains, seeds, and derived products, n = 351 Wheat flour [285, 39.69, 81.20] 5.57 ± 2.12 5.99 9.95 0.93 31 Pasta [19, 2.65, 5.41] 4.17 ± 2.31 5.09 7.58 1.49 23 Wheat semolina [13, 1.81, 3.70] 4.10 ± 0.58 4.08 5.03 2.68 23 Crackers [10, 1.39, 2.85] 5.31 ± 1.85 4.98 8.88 2.73 30 Cornmeal [7, 0.97, 1.99] 2.89 ± 0.82 2.40 4.34 2.28 16 Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [6, 0.84, 1.71] 3.25 ± 1.27 2.67 5.33 2.10 18 Corn (Zea mays L.) [6] 3.12 ± 0.73 2.96 4.46 2.27 17 Breakfast Cereal [5, 0.70, 1.42] 15.44 ± 1.80 15.28 18.77 13.47 86 Dairy products, n = 48 Milk Powder [35, 4.87, 72.92] 8.71 ± 5.79 2.40 4.34 2.28 48 Cheese [9, 1.25, 18.75] 0.36 ± 0.20 0.27 0.81 0.14 2 Yogurt [4, 0.56, 8.33] 0.30 ± 0.19 0.22 0.63 0.14 2 Misc, n = 78 Multivitamin [22, 3.06, 28.21] 245.96 ± 352.45 70.08 1 086.80 39.26 1 366 Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) [18, 2.51, 23.08] 2.46 ± 1.49 3.77 12.94 1.24 14 Corn syrup [11, 1.53, 14.10] 50.34 ± 10.70 49.14 69.39 32.01 280 Edible seaweed (Chlorophyta) [7, 0.97, 8.97] 127.93 ± 112.73 81.74 393.00 51.49 711 Flower flour [4, 0.56, 5.13] 7.11 ± 0.77 7.26 7.98 5.96 40 Honey [4] 0.65 ± 0.31 0.53 1.16 0.37 3 Powdered drinks [3, 0.42, 3.85] 0.30 ± 0.08 0.34 0.38 0.19 2 Tea [3] 2.15 ± 2.91 0.10 6.26 0.09 12 Starch [2, 0.28, 2.56] 0.71 ± 0.08 0.71 0.78 0.63 4 Cassava flour [2] 1.33 ± 0.42 1.33 1.76 0.91 7 Pancake [2] 4.33 ± 0.01 4.33 4.35 4.32 24 Meat and meat products, n = 158 Tuna Paté [88, 12.26, 55.70] 1.11 ± 0.30 1.10 2.54 0.64 6 Paté [61, 8.50, 38.61] 0.95 ± 0.65 0.83 5.55 0.57 5 Ham [4, 0.56, 2.53] 0.80 ± 0.59 0.47 1.83 0.43 4 Meat cuts [3, 0.42, 1.90] 7.09 ± 4.43 9.39 10.98 0.90 40 Chicken [2, 0.28, 1.27] 0.86 ± 0.19 0.86 1.05 0.67 5 Fruits, n = 65 Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Lam) [22, 3.06, 33.85] 4.76 ± 1.39 17.16 20.75 4.63 26 Dragon fruit (Hylocereus costaricensis (F.A.C. Weber) Britton & Rose) [9, 1.25, 13.85] 0.42 ± 0.28 0.30 0.84 0.15 2 Banana [5, 0.70, 7.69] 0.40 ± 0.12 0.47 0.53 0.20 2 Melon (Cucumis melo L.) [5] 1.21 ± 0.26 1.11 1.65 0.88 7 Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) [3, 0.42, 4.62] 1.10 ± 0.13 1.19 1.20 0.92 6 Granadilla (Passiflora ligularis Juss) [3] 2.40 ± 0.02 2.39 2.42 2.38 13 Jocote [Spondias purpurea L.] [3] 1.56 ± 0.08 1.53 1.67 1.49 8 Malay (rose) apple (Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry)) [3] 1.30 ± 0.06 1.31 1.37 1.21 7 Passion Fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims) [3] 3.62 ± 0.42 3.45 4.19 3.21 20 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 22 Peach Palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) [3] 1.12 ± 0.11 1.15 1.23 0.97 6 Sweet Lemon (Citrus limetta Risso) [3] 1.89 ± 0.46 1.58 2.55 1.54 10 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 4.87 ± 0.19 5.00 5.01 4.60 27 Foods with only one hit, n = 18 Concentration, mg/100 g % Dressing [1, 0.14, 5.56] 0.970 5 Garlic (Allium sativum L.) 2.806 15 589 Rice (Oryza sativa L.) 0.957 5 Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) 0.334 2 Shrimp 5.382 29 900 Onion (Allium cepa L.) 4.089 22 717 Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) 1.091 6 061 Candy 1.087 6 039 Caramel 0.259 1 Bread 1.308 7 267 Whole Egg 1.937 10 761 Jelly 3.796 21 089 Milk 1.357 7 539 Marshmellows 0.831 5 Coffee mucilage 3.991 22 172 Orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) 1.810 10 055 Pepper 6.047 33 594 Tartar Sauce 1.122 6 233 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 18 mg for iron); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Zinc content Zn is a significant enzyme co-factor, part of the antioxidant defense of the organism (e.g., Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase), necessary in cellular processes, and participates in the metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids (Bloom et al., 2021; Garagarza et al., 2022). The recommended amount of zinc in the diet is 8 and 11 mg day -1 for women and men, respectively. Like Mg, it is urgently required in the early stages of life. Therefore, 6 to 11 mg day -1 is required (Garagarza et al., 2022). According to table 8, most Zn food-related sources come from vegetables, milk powder (8.62 ± 4.81 mg/100 g), and cookies (13.60 ± 0.39 mg/100 g). One interesting finding is that prepared beverages, especially iced tea preparations, include Zn sources in their formulation (i.e., mean values 1.00 mg Zn/100 g). Still, also they have been constantly monitored for this mineral level (Table 9, Figure 2E). On the other hand, the primary sources of zinc are found in marine products, especially oysters, red meat, dairy products, chicken, eggs, and legumes such as beans (Garagarza et al., 2022). However, beans on their own are a highly nutritious food since they have high levels of fiber, vitamins, and minerals, including zinc. However, antinutritional factors such as phytic acid, polyphenols, lectins, and tannins decrease zinc absorption in the body (Huertas et al., 2022). This implies that vegetarian or vegan diets are the most susceptible to Zn deficiencies and the most vulnerable people include populations from countries in Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, and North America (Kumar et al., 2022; Pratap-Singh and Leiva, 2021). Dietary Zn deficiency can be associated with anorexia, alopecia, anemia, severe chronic diseases, a weak immune system, and growth retardation (Bloom et al., 2021; Huertas et al., 2022; Garagarza et al., 2022). Hence, multiple governments have relied on the strategy of fortifying and enriching foods, mainly with Fe, I, Zn, and vitamin A) to combat nutritional deficiencies, especially because malnutrition in children under five years of age can cause delays in their physical and mental development (Taghi Gharibzahedi and Mahdi Jafari, 2017). Either complete nutritional foods or nutrients widely consumed by a large part of the population (especially the population at socioeconomic risk) are used as vehicles for micronutrients (e.g., wheat, corn, rice, dairy products, sugar, salt) (Pratap-Singh and Leiva, 2021; Taghi Gharibzahedi and Mahdi Jafari, 2017). Table 9. Zinc content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Misc, n = 136 Iced tea preparations [76, 40.00, 55.88] 1.00 ± 0.13 0.97 1.31 0.76 9 Beverage mix [20, 10.53, 14.71] 1.39 ± 0.54 1.54 2.39 0.18 12 Milk powder [15, 7.89, 11.03] 8.62 ± 4.81 5.40 15.28 1.69 78 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 23 Cocoa and by-products [9, 4.74, 6.62] 3.90 ± 1.06 4.35 5.01 1.72 35 Edible seaweed [7, 3.68, 5.15] 3.73 ± 2.05 2.84 6.54 1.33 34 Honey [3, 1.58, 2.21] 0.30 ± 0.15 0.31 0.48 0.10 3 Biscuit [2, 1.05, 1.47] 13.60 ± 0.39 13.60 14.00 13.21 124 Breakfast cereal [2] 0.43 ± 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.42 4 Rice [2] 1.48 ± 0.07 1.48 1.55 1.41 13 Fruits, Vegetables & Others, n = 49 Tomato [20, 10.53, 40.82] 3.06 ± 0.81 2.88 5.44 2.24 28 Melon (C. melo L.) [5, 2.63, 10.20] 0.23 ± 0.05 0.23 0.30 0.17 2 Cashew (A. occidentale L.) [3, 1.58, 6.12] 1.70 ± 0.54 1.36 2.46 1.29 15 Sweet granadilla/grenadia (P. ligularis Juss) [3] 2.94 ± 0.16 2.83 3.17 2.82 27 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 1.18 ± 0.09 1.16 1.29 1.07 11 Passion fruit [3] 2.96 ± 0.17 2.94 3.17 2.76 27 Peach-palm [3] 0.88 ± 0.16 0.87 1.08 0.69 8 Sweet lemon (C. limetta Risso) [3] 1.31 ± 0.40 1.49 1.68 0.75 12 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 3.95 ± 0.08 3.95 4.05 3.85 36 Malay (rose) apple [3] 5.60 ± 3.06 5.12 9.56 2.11 51 Foods with only one hit ̧n = 5 Concentration, mg/100 g % Bean [1, 0.53, 20.00] 0.90 8 Cassava meal 2.16 20 Garlic 3.41 31 Coffee mucilage 0.44 4 Mushroom 0.83 7 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 11 mg for zinc); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Copper content Regarding Cu, cocoa is one of the foods that contain more Cu, with a concentration of 1.65 mg/100 g (Table 10, Figure 2F). The concentration of Cu in cocoa reported in the literature is approximately 0.610 mg/100 g. Differences arise primarily from the presence of this metal in the soil (Vriesmann et al., 2011). Related studies of Costa Rican soil, ranging from 60.0-307.0 mg Cu kg -1 , indicate that this mineral is at significantly higher levels than in other countries [i.e., a worldwide average of 13-24 mg kg -1 (Rigoberto et al., 2012)]. Additionally, the increased concentration of this metal in food may be related to using fungicides in plantations (Bllabio et al., 2018). Cocoa is economically relevant for the country, as Costa Rica is considered one of the top producers in Latin America (Mustiga et al., 2018). Please note that tomato contains a concentration of 1.95 mg/100 g of Cu (Table 10, Figure 2F). In contrast, mean concentrations of 0.67 mg/100 g have been reported previously (Ali et al., 2020). The daily-recommended consumption of Cu is around 0.9 mg, whereas most foods have low concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 1.95 mg/100 g (US FDA, 2022). Cu is one of the essential minerals for the immune system and is an important co-factor for catalytic activity. The deficiency of this mineral can have adverse health consequences. Such as anemia and neutropenia (Vinha et al., 2019). However, excessive amounts of the mineral might also produce adverse health effects such as the production of free radicals that cause lipid peroxidation and interfere with metabolism leading to decreased cortex and bone strength (Vinha et al., 2019). Noteworthy, Zn and Cu directly compete for intestinal absorption (Vinha et al., 2019). Table 10. Foods for which copper analyses were surveyed from 2019 to 2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Misc, n = 30 Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) [9, 11.39, 30.00] 1.65 ± 0.26 1.76 2.03 1.32 183 Milk powder [9] 1.30 ± 0.75 1.69 2.11 0.44 144 Edible seaweed (Chlorophyta) [7, 8.86, 23.33] 1.59 ± 0.65 1.91 2.24 0.59 176 Honey [3, 3.80, 10.00] 0.05 ± 0.07 0.017 0.146 0.02 5 Powdered drinks [2, 2.53, 6.67] 1.04 ± 0.08 1.04 1.12 0.95 115 Fruits, n = 44 Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Lam) [20, 25.32, 45.45] 1.94 ± 0.42 1.50 3.18 0.42 215 Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) [3, 3.80, 6.82] 0.81 ± 0.06 0.78 0.89 0.76 90 Jocote [Spondias purpurea L.] [3] 0.47 ± 0.06 0.49 0.52 0.39 52 Malay (rose) apple (Syzygium malaccense (L.) 1.04 ± 0.12 1.03 1.20 0.90 115 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 24 Merr. & L.M. Perry) [3] Granadilla (Passiflora ligularis Juss) [3] 0.46 ± 0.06 0.45 0.49 0.42 51 Passion Fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims) [3] 0.46 ± 0.03 0.77 0.98 0.65 51 Peach Palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) [3] 0.59 ± 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.57 65 Sweet Lemon (Citrus limetta Risso) [3] 0.48 ± 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.40 53 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 1.40 ± 0.05 1.04 1.12 0.95 155 Foods with only one hit, n = 5 Concentration, mg/100 g % Garlic (Allium sativum L.) [1, 1.27, 20.00] 0.60 66 Confectionery/candy 0.14 15 Bean [Phaseolus vulgaris L.] 0.23 25 Cassava Flour 0.30 33 Coffee mucilage 0.19 21 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 900 µg for copper); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Sodium and potassium Sodium content An abundant component of extracellular fluids, Na participates in nutrient transport, blood and osmotic pressure regulation, and nerve impulse transmission (Cruz et al., 2011). Daily content needed to achieve normal physiological activities range from 200-500 mg Na (da Silva Amorim Gomes et al., 2021). In the food industry, employing sodium salts (e.g., Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 lists at least n = 190 sodium additives and n = 15 chloride-based salts) are used to process, preserve and flavor foods. In addition, they contribute to the water retention capacity, the color of the products, fat capture, and textures (Capuano et al., 2013; Rýdlová et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021). Excessive Na consumption shows adverse effects on human health, related to the cardiovascular system, coronary diseases, increases in blood pressure, reduces the concentration of beneficial microbiota in the intestine, as well as favoring some types of autoimmune diseases (Cruz et al., 2011; Rýdlová et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021). Ninety percent of the mineral intake in the diet comes from sodium chloride or salt (Rýdlová et al., 2022). Therefore, to reduce its consumption, the World Health Organization Health has recommended 2 g Na day -1 (Cruz et al., 2011; da Silva Amorim Gomes et al., 2021; Rýdlová et al., 2022). Among the non-exclusive strategies to reduce Na consumption are taxation and regulatory requirements that ensure manufacturers make foods low in salt, which may include reformulating products to lower Na components, substituting all or part of NaCl for KCl, MgCl2, and CaCl2 (Cruz et al., 2011). Also, campaigns and programs make the population aware of the health consequences of excess Na and guide them to make more accurate decisions in search of a more balanced diet. In line with the references above, processed foods contribute to the highest consumption of Na in the diet, particularly sources of salt from prepared foods, pastries, meat products, cheeses, snacks, sauces, and hot sauces. Analogously, table 11 and Figure 2G show that the products that mainly contribute sodium (in addition to salt itself) are meat products such as bread, sausages, biscuits, tuna pâté, chicken, cheese, turkey, ham, chili paste, and with mean values of 673.22, 738.07, 829.41, 949.31, 959.46, 986.08, 1 093.61, 1 208.49, and 2 563.71 mg/100 g, respectively. Finally, please note that the Na analysis can also be used to assess the purity of salt, whereas a pure compound should have 39.34 g/100 g (i.e., 22.99 g mol -1 for Na/58.44 g/mol -1 NaCl). According to our data, salt samples' mean values lay at 34.74 ± 1.35 g/100 g (i.e., the average purity of 88.31 %, Table 11, Figure 2G). Table 11. Sodium content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Meat and meat products, n = 245 Tuna pâté [100, 10.58, 40.82] 738.07 ± 547.82 538.82 3 096.01 430.71 32 Pâté [66, 6.98, 26.94] 463.94 ± 132.35 447.31 687.52 4.91 20 Sausage [36, 3.81, 14.69] 986.08 ± 178.28 979.76 1 333.58 598.12 43 Ham [20, 2.12, 8.16] 1 208.49 ± 332.72 1 254.69 1 523.26 4.55 52 Meat cuts [13, 1.38, 5.31] 547.60 ± 355.34 526.95 1 256.48 55.58 24 Chicken [5, 0.53, 2.04] 949.31 ± 360.18 858.99 1 644.03 669.94 41 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 25 Turkey [3, 0.32, 1.22] 1 093.61 ± 353.83 866.28 1 593.33 821.23 48 Lard [2, 0.21, 0.82] 1.39 ± 1.31 1.39 0.08 2.70 0.06 Dairy and dairy products, n = 118 Milk powder [34, 3.60, 28.81] 238.34 ± 102.52 198.06 430.43 5.65 10 Matured cheese [23, 2.43, 19.49] 472.53 ± 608.69 291.25 2 505.20 3.11 20 Yogurt [22, 2.33, 18.64] 57.96 ± 28.03 46.82 134.08 25.13 2 Fresh cheese [19, 2.01, 16.10] 959.46 ± 781.12 563.55 2 299.78 121.83 41 Ice cream [8, 0.85, 6.78] 64.81 ± 40.53 51.76 167.33 27.61 3 Whey [7, 0.74, 5.93] 559.72 ± 1 045.76 76.18 3 102.82 22.75 24 Cream cheese [3, 0.32, 2.54] 439.81 ± 68.40 426.10 529.59 363.75 19 Milk [2, 0.21, 1.69] 102.34 ± 47.95 102.34 150.29 54.40 4 Misc, n = 122 Edible seaweed [11, 1.16, 9.02] 1 011.09 ± 907.83 570.57 2 671.43 11.08 44 Chili paste [5, 0.53, 4.10] 2 563.71 ± 3 014.58 593.90 7 544.36 40.88 111 Cocoa and by-products [25, 2.65, 20.49] 24.07 ± 20.08 19.64 98.62 5.93 1 Coffee [7, 0.74, 5.74] 12.16 ± 14.24 4.99 43.01 0.80 0.5 Breader mix [2, 0.21, 1.64] 673.22 ± 174.33 673.22 847.55 498.89 30 Jam [10, 1.06, 8.20] 17.92 ± 17.13 10.42 60.12 3.74 0.7 Mayonnaise [28, 2.96, 22.95] 705.46 ± 166.39 696.74 1 076.20 411.79 31 Oil [4, 0.42, 3.28] 2.49 ± 1.34 2.52 4.02 0.90 0.1 Rice [2, 0.21, 1.64] 2.68 ± 1.04 2.68 3.72 1.64 0.1 Seasoning [5] 431.45 ± 246.64 355.91 904.84 180.43 19 Salt [3, 0.32, 2.46] 34 742.20 ± 1 348.76 33 788.49 36 649.63 33 788.49 1 510 Assorted nuts [2] 20.67 ± 1.09 20.67 21.76 19.59 1 Snacks [16, 1.69, 13.11] 303.86 ± 144.24 299.92 536.93 4.43 13 Starch [2] 23.25 ± 0.25 23.25 23.50 23.00 1 Beverages, n = 40 Beverage mix [34, 3.60 85.00] 87.64 ± 200.27 7.32 915.53 1.02 4 Tea [4, 0.42, 10.00] 24.33 ± 29.89 3.42 66.60 2.96 1 Wine [2, 0.21, 5.00] 7.80 ± 4.44 7.80 12.24 3.36 0.3 Bakery and pastry products, n = 125 Bread [93, 9.84 74.4] 567.91 ± 187.82 585.16 1 000.71 4.35 25 Biscuit [5, 0.53, 4.00] 829.41 ± 174.17 747.94 1 168.91 690.39 36 Cookies [27, 2.86, 21.6] 331.63 ± 200.26 277.72 877.89 89.36 14 Candies & other sweets, n = 16 Honey [12, 1.27, 75.00] 18.67 ± 38.05 7.05 144.62 4.41 1 Coconut caramel [2, 0.21, 12.5] 11.59 ± 5.02 11.59 16.62 6.57 0.5 Caramel [2] 150.24 ± 3.74 150.24 153.98 146.49 6 Cereals & Pasta, n = 8 Cereal [3, 0.32, 37.5] 211.66 ± 3.75 211.23 216.45 207.29 9 Pasta [5, 0.53, 62.5] 76.91 ± 147.38 3.19 371.66 2.33 3 Fruits. Vegetables & Others, n = 156 Bean [62, 6.56, 39.74] 113.93 ± 150.32 29.49 611.79 2.46 5 Tomato [32, 3.39, 20.51] 206.49 ± 266.38 66.54 1 325.74 22.66 9 Dragon fruit [12, 1.27, 7.69] 10.27 ± 2.18 10.75 13.24 4.42 0.4 Corn [10, 1.06, 6.41] 28.62 ± 35.89 7.88 85.30 1.50 1 Banana [5, 0.53, 3.21] 210.57 ± 170.30 242.65 453.16 11.09 9 Mushroom [4, 0.42, 2.56] 160.47 ± 62.47 176.99 228.06 59.86 7 Cashew (A. occidentale L.) [3, 0.32, 1.92] 22.86 ± 1.69 21.74 25.25 21.61 1 Sweet granadilla/grenadia (P. ligularis Juss) [3] 12.34 ± 4.48 11.08 18.34 7.59 0.5 Granola [3] 289.22 ± 267.61 199.81 652.40 15.44 12 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 2.15 ± 0.72 2.29 2.96 1.20 0.09 Passion fruit [3] 60.88 ± 14.25 56.81 80.01 45.81 3 Peach-palm [3] 935.86 ± 12.18 940.92 947.58 919.06 40 Sweet lemon (C. limetta Risso) [3] 21.82 ± 3.95 22.53 26.27 16.66 1 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 7.34 ± 0.29 7.47 7.61 6.93 0.3 Malay (rose) apple [3] 42.31 ± 12.92 45.20 56.49 25.24 2 Onion [2, 0.21, 1.28] 718.32 ± 157.74 718.32 876.06 560.58 31 Sweet pepper [2] 10.07 ± 0.12 10.07 10.19 9.95 0.4 Flours and meals, n = 71 Wheat meal [59, 6.24, 83.10] 3.24 ± 2.26 2.71 13.55 0.91 0.1 Corn meal [8, 0.85, 11.27] 35.22 ± 20.59 31.37 79.07 12.01 1 Banana meal [2, 0.21, 2.82] 13.31 ± 6.88 13.31 20.19 6.42 0.6 Cassava meal [2] 18.14 ± 4.84 18.14 22.98 13.30 0.8 Seafood, n = 24 Sardine [2, 2.22, 87.5] 530.94 ± 51.56 530.94 582.51 479.38 23 Tuna [3, 0.32, 12.5] 389.33 ± 97.53 393.64 506.57 267.79 17 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 26 Foods with only one hit, n = 20 Concentration, mg/100 g % Cake [1, 0.11, 5.00] 297.97 13 Candy 80.63 3 Cassava 348.12 15 Coconut 15.72 0.6 Corn cake 388.34 17 Garlic 78.37 3 Egg 136.00 6 Malta 34.29 1 Marshmallows 10.12 0.4 Coffee mucilage 54.97 2 Pancakes 712.91 31 Pignut/chan seeds (M. suaveolens (L.) Poit.) 12.56 0.5 Sauce 464.85 20 Shrimp 42.98 2 Soy milk 212.54 9 Strawberry 4.68 0.2 Sugar 1.06 0.05 Sugar cone 247.77 11 Syrup 19.40 0.8 Tartar sauce 589.79 26 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 2 300 mg for sodium); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Potassium content The foods with the most K are tomato and orange, with mean values of 3 269.31 and 1 020 mg/100 g, respectively (Table 12, Figure 2H). The intake of K per day should be approximately around 3 500-4 700 mg (US FDA, 2022). In addition, levels of K are among those with the most variability (i.e., 65-3 269 mg/100 g, Table 11). Foods with lower concentrations include tea and starch (7.17 and 5.58 mg/100 g, respectively, Table 11). Dairy products also exhibited a relatively high concentration of K (e.g., yogurt and milk powder with mean values of 159.30 and 620.08 mg/100 g, respectively, Table 12, Figure 2H). In contrast, levels of K for northern Italy milk around 154.72 mg/100 g have been reported; likewise, the authors found that K was the mineral with the highest concentration overall (Vigolo et al., 2022). Several studies have shown that the concentrations of K and Na in milk are directly related to the supplements given to cattle, where the amount of mineral fortification in the diet depends on the region (Stergiadis et al., 2019). The highest K concentrations are found in fruits and vegetables (e.g., tomato, tacaco, orange, Malay (rose) apple, jocote, cocoa, and seaweed, Table 12, Figure 2H). Accordingly, in the US, the ten foods that contain the highest amount of K have been studied, and these are shown to be fruits, vegetables, and milk (Sebastian et al., 2018). In Costa Rica, there is a greater consumption of vegetables than fruits. Nevertheless, the most consumed are tropical, subtropical, and citrus fruits (Gómez et al., 2021). People in this country consume about 220.1 g of vegetables and fruits daily, an average below WHO recommendations of at least 400 g (Gómez et al., 2021). Regular consumption of K may provide health benefits as it reduces cardiovascular problems produced by Na because it works as a vascular protector (Sebastian et al., 2018). Table 12. Potassium content in assorted foods assayed during 2019-2021 Matrixa Mean ± SD Median Maximum Minimum Daily Valueb Concentration, mg/100 g % Dairy and dairy products, n = 36 Milk powder [22, 61.11, 11.58] 620.08 ± 289.19 480.54 1 684.82 405.44 13 Cheese [10, 27.78, 5.26] 82.78 ± 26.41 75.13 136.43 41.25 2 Yogurt [4, 11.11, 2.11] 159.30 ± 31.71 149.08 209.10 129.96 3 Misc, n = 95 Cocoa [Theobroma cacao L.] [23, 24.21, 12.11] 1 505.49 ± 606.38 1 641.49 2 386.07 74.41 32 Powdered drinks [19, 20.00, 10.00] 72.71 ± 72.17 52.02 233.31 0.17 2 Crackers [10, 10.53, 5.26] 201.89 ± 92.66 69.39 400.39 198.53 4 Edible seaweed [7, 7.37, 3.68] 1 631.31 ± 1 396.77 1 069.24 4 962.04 623.59 35 Ham [7] 65.47 ± 69.86 36.90 233.73 20.85 1 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 27 Cornmeal [6, 6.32, 3.16] 390.28 ± 35.14 380.66 440.53 347.59 8 Breakfast cereal [3, 3.16, 1.58] 95.51 ± 9.10 92.99 107.71 85.84 2 Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [3] 344.99 ± 84.65 382.37 424.790 227.81 7 Honey [3] 70.94 ± 49.03 47.31 139.21 26.31 2 Candy [2, 2.11, 1.05] 252.50 ± 12.84 252.50 265.34 239.65 5 Caramel [2] 326.16 ± 6.70 326.16 332.85 319.46 7 Cassava flour [2] 819.38 ± 100.02 819.38 919.40 719.36 17 Pasta [2] 369.98 ± 180.84 369.98 550.82 189.14 8 Pepper [2] 351.80 ± 219.25 351.80 571.05 132.55 7 Starch [2] 5.58 ± 0.63 5.58 6.21 4.95 0 Tea [2] 7.12 ± 0.52 7.17 7.69 6.65 0 Fruits, n = 51 Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Lam) [21, 41.18, 11.05] 3 269.31 ± 790.86 311.71 4 309.38 790.86 70 Dragon fruit (H. costaricensis (F.A.C. Weber) Britton & Rose) [9, 17.65, 4.74] 269.19 ± 32.11 269.39 331.70 217.77 6 Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) [3, 5.88, 1.58] 707.38 ± 167.10 760.87 877.26 430.52 15 Granadilla (Passiflora ligularis Juss) [3] 1 858.90 ± 27.12 1 840.88 1 897.23 1 838.59 40 Jocote (Spondias purpurea L.) [3] 1 157.22 ± 39.11 1 181.94 1 187.71 1 102.01 25 Malay (rose) apple (Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry) [3] 1 566.74 ± 466.60 1 296.44 2 223.21 1 180.56 33 Peach Palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) [3] 617.25 ± 36.50 620.67 660.16 570.94 13 Sweet Lemon (Citrus limetta Risso) [3] 1 322.22 ± 48.17 1 294.92 1 389.92 1 281.81 28 Tacaco (Sechium tacaco (Pittier) C. Jeffrey) [3] 2 332.73 ± 89.45 2 295.30 2 456.10 2 246.79 50 Foods with only one hit, n = 8 Concentration, mg/100 g % Dressing [1, 12.5, 0.53] 87.13 2 Rice 186.97 4 Coffee 167.76 4 Onion 237.51 5 Pepper 183.29 4 Whole egg 117.20 2 Marshmellows 70.29 1 Orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) 1 020.55 22 aNumbers in square brackets embody in respective order: the number of samples n, percentage represented from the total of samples (i.e., n = 190), and percentage represented within each food category. bDaily values according to US FDA, 2022 (i.e., 4 700 mg for potassium); mineral input calculated per 100 g food matrix. Further remarks: Mineral profile and nutritional fulfillment Deficits in micronutrients, such as Ca, Fe, and Zn, are common in home-based complementary diets fed to young children in developing countries. Food composition data (including the above mineral ingredients) has been used in formulating complex diets for children, including consistency and economic constraints (De Carvalho et al., 2015). Furthermore, mineral profiling results extremely useful in, for example, the preparation and formulation of diets for patients with specific afflictions (e.g., hyposodic diets tailored for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, Borelli et al., 2020; Patel and Joseph, 2020; Solis et al., 2010) and including nutritional-epidemiologic studies (Byers, 1999). A small Costa Rican study demonstrated that 22% of a population sample aged 15 and above suffered from hypertension (Zumbado Sánchez and Zumbado Ulate, 2011). The mineral composition is required for food-guaranteed labeling (such as front-of-pack nutrition labels). Food labeling is a consumer guide toward healthier food choices and comprehensive strategies to prevent diet-related non-communicable diseases (Egnell et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019). In Costa Rica, the technical regulation (RTCA 67.01.60:10, "Nutritional Labeling of Prepackaged Food Products for Human Consumption for Population from 3 years"), which is voluntary, requires only the report of Na; the yearly increase of other minerals analysis probably corresponds to the industry's export needs. This is reflected in the food industry's requirements and, more importantly, increased interest in their products and raw ingredients. For example, annual trends in figure 1A demonstrate that analysis requests for some minerals have risen as high as 40% from one year to another (e.g., Ca and Zn, Figure 1B). On the other hand, Table 13 shows the analysis of the mineral profile provided by a typical Costa Rican meal such as Gallo Pinto, which is widely consumed by the Costa Rican population at breakfast time, as well as at lunch and dinner. Describing the mineral profile of Gallo Pinto allows us to analyze and visualize the mineral consumption by the Costa Rican population. The table first shows the distribution of each mineral by ingredient and the total global mineral contribution by the meal at the end. In the case of P, in a single meal time, more than http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 28 50% of the recommended daily values were consumed, in contrast to the Ca values, which generate a Ca:P ratio below the recommended 1.7 (Gutierrez et al., 2020). However, Ca is the mineral most consumed by the Costa Rican population, in part due to the high consumption of dairy products in Costa Rica (217 kg per capita), as well as the enrichment and fortification programs with this mineral (Monge-Rojas et al., 2021) (National Council of Milk Producers., 2017). P sources, in this case, are primarily of plant origin, so P bioavailability analyses should be carried out. Another interesting fact is the contribution of Cu (90.19%) in a single meal time, which can be counterproductive as it is a mineral that competes with Zn in intestinal absorption (Vinha et al., 2019). The remaining minerals maintain expected values, considering that a single meal time was analyzed. Therefore, it is possible to comply with the recommended daily consumption values throughout the day. Table 13. Description of the mineral profile of Gallo Pinto with coffee Gallo Pinto & Coffee Mineral Profile mg per serving (% Daily Value) Ingredients 1 Serving (g) Ca P Mg Fe Zn Cu Na K Rice 112.50 27.00a (2.08) 332.92 (26.63) 22.50a (5.36) 1.08 (5.98) 1.46a (13.30) 0.20 (22.50) 3.02 (0.13) 210.34 (4.48) Beans 75.00 47.66 (3.67) 93.53b (7.48) 32.25b (7.68) 2.44 (13.54) 0.68 (6.14) 0.17 (19.17) 85.45 (3.72) 258.74 (5.51) Garlic 10.00 4.35 (0.33) 47.27 (3.78) 10.02 (2.39) 0.28 (1.56) 0.34 (3.10) 0.06 (6.67) 7.84 (0.34) 4.88c (1.10) Onion 10.00 2.03 (0.16) 30.92d(2.47) 8.62d (2.05) 0.41 (2.27) 0.27d (2.44) 0.25d (27.48) 71.83 (3.12) 23.75 (0.51) Sweet pepper 10.00 10.41e (0.80) 17.04e (1.36) 1.20e (0.29) 0.74e (4.09) 0.19e (1.69) 0.08e (8.82) 1.01 (0.04) 0.33e (0.01) Salt 1.50 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 521.13 (22.66) 0.00 Whole egg 100.00 56.52 (4.35) 179.00f (14.32) 0.03f (0.01) 1.94 (10.76) 1.12f (10.18) 0.05f (5.56) 136.00 (5.91) 117.20 (2.49) Coffee 15.00 0.94 (0.07) 32.31g (2.59) 32.01g (7.62) 0.05 (0.28) 0.15g (1.35) NI 1.82 (0.08) 25.16 (0.54) TOTAL 334.00 148.90 (11.45) 732.98 (58.64) 106.63 (25.39) 6.93 (38.48) 4.20 (38.20) 0.81 (90.19) 828.10 (36.00) 640.40 (13.63) Carcea (2021)a, Dhul et al., (2021)b, Khan et al., (2016)c, Akinwande and Olatunde (2015)d, Guilheerme et al., (2020)e, Roe et al., (2013)f, Janda et al., (2020)g. Calculation of the mineral contribution according to Daily Values US FDA, 2022. http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 29 Figure 2. Mineral trends and comparison for food matrices with the highest analyte levels for A. Calcium, B. Phosphorus, C. Magnesium, D. Iron, E. Zinc, F. Copper, G. Sodium, and H. Potassium. Asterisks denote significant differences at p < 0.05 http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 30 4. Conclusions With nutritional information, additional efforts must be made to attain knowledge regarding the consumption behavior for products listed herein, especially those with high mineral input on a diet. Perspective data, such as this, provides composition data and aids in understanding consumption and production behavior. In the case of fruits, it shows instances of biodiversity and may hint toward Costa Rican main exports. Knowing the concentrations of minerals in foods will aid in balancing their consumption. Additionally, the routine analyses of the nutritional profile of foods in general, and specifically on micronutrients, allows for maintaining food quality control, complying with current legislation on minimum dietary content, as well as on enrichment and fortification programs of defined food groups (such as flours, dairy products, cereals, rice, among others). Furthermore, having at hand the nutritional information of the types of foods of a population, as well as their composition and consumption, allows social and political decisions to be made at the country level to combat malnutrition in people at risk, as is the case of Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn, essential in the early stages of life. Finally, direct the food industry and the population to reduce sodium consumption in food, promote better health, and combat chronic diseases, which in the long term, generate expenses in the health system. Acknowledgments Technological Support Program for Industry (PATI project 917-02) partially financed this research. Deysilia Alpizar is acknowledged for performing some of the chloride analyses. References Aguirre-Londoño, J., Aristizabal-Ferrerira, V. A., Castro-Narváez, S. P., & Ramírez-Navas, J. S. (2019). Conductimetry: a rapid alternative technique for chlorides determination in cheese. Universitas Scientiarum, 24(2), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.SC24-2.cara Akinwande, B. A., & Olatunde, S. J. (2015). Comparative evaluation of the mineral profile and other selected components of onion and garlic. International Food Research Journal, 22(1), 332-336. Retrieved from http://agris.upm.edu.my:8080/dspace/handle/0/11332 Ali, M. Y., Sina, A. A. I., Khandker, S. S., Neesa, L., Tanvir, E. M., Kabir, A., Khalil, M. I., & Gan, S. H. (2021). Nutritional composition and bioactive compounds in tomatoes and their impact on human health and disease: A review. Foods, 10(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010045 Assis dos Passos, M. E., Figuereido Moreira, C. F., Bertoldo Pacheco, M. T., Takase, I., Mendes Lopes, M. L., & Valente-Mesquita, V. L. (2013). Proximate and mineral composition of industrialized biscuits. Food Science Technology Campinas, 33(2), 323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.268 Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Huang, J. H., Orgiazzi, A., ... Montanarella, L. (2018). Copper distribution in European topsoils: An assessment based on LUCAS soil survey. Science of the Total Environment, 636, 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.268 Blair, M. W. (2013). Mineral Biofortification Strategies for Food Staples: The Example of Common Bean. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 61(35), 8287-8294. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf400774y Bloom, A., Bloom, S., Silva, H., Nicoli, A., & Sawhney, R. (2021). Zinc supplementation and its benefits in the management of chronic liver disease: An in-depth literature review. Annals of Hepatology, 25, 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aohep.2021.100549 Borelli, S., Provenzano, M., Gagliardi, I., Ashour, M., Liberti, M. E., … Andreucci, M. (2020). Soidum intake and chronic kidney disease. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(13), 4744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21134744 Byers, T. (1999). The role of epidemiology in developing nutritional recommendations: past, present, and future. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(suppl), 1304S-1308S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/69.6.1304S Cannas, D., Loi, E., Serra, M., Firinu, D., Valera, P., & Zavattari, P. (2020). Relevance of Essential Trace Elements in Nutrition and Drinking Water for Human Health and Autoimmune Disease Risk. Nutrients, 12(7), 2074. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12072074 Capozzi, A., Scambia, G., & Lello, S. (2020). Calcium, vitamin D, vitamin K2, and magnesium supplementation and skeletal health. Maturitas, 140, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.020 Capuano, E., van der Veer, G., Verheijen, P. J. J., Heenan, S. P., van de Laak, L. F. J., Koopmans, H. B. M., & van Ruth, S. M. (2013). Comparison of a sodium-based and a chloride-based approach for the determination of sodium chloride content of processed foods in the Netherlands. Journal of Food Composition and http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 31 Analysis, 31(1), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2013.04.004 Carcea, M. (2021). Value of Wholegrain Rice in a Healthy Human Nutrition. Agriculture, 11, 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080720 Cortés-Herrera, C., Quirós-Fallas, S., Calderón-Calvo, E., Cordero-Madrigla, R., Jiménez, L., Granados-Chinchilla, F., & Artavia, G. (2021). Nitrogen/protein and one-step moisture and ash examination in foodstuffs: Validation case analysis using automated combustion and thermogravimetry determination under ISO/IEC 17025 guidelines. Current Research Food Science, 4, 900-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2021.11.015 Cruz, A., Faria, J., Pollonio, M., Bolini, H., Celeghini, R., Granato, D., & Shah, N. (2011). Cheeses with reduced sodium content: Effects on functionality, public health benefits and sensory properties. Food Science and Technology, 22(6), 276-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.02.003 Da Silva Amorim Gomes, M., Seiko Kato, L., & Azevedo de Carvalho, A., Castro Cardoso de Almeida, A., & Conte-Junior, C. (2021). Sodium replacement on fish meat products - A systematic review of microbiological, physicochemical and sensory effects. Trends Food Science and Technology, 118(Part A), 639-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.10.028 Daničić, M., Vraneš, M., Putnik-Delić, M., Tot, A., Weihs, P., & Maksimović, I. (2021). Mineral composition and growth of tomato and cucumber affected by imidazolium-based ionic liquids. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 167, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.07.035 Dhull, S., Kidwai, M., Noor, R., Chawla, P., & Rose, P. (2021). A review of nutritional profile and processing of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Legume Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/leg3.129 Djinovic-Stojanovic, J., Nikolic, D., Vranic, D., Babic, J., Milijasevic, M., Pezo, L., & Jankovic, S. (2017). Zinc and magnesium in different types of meat and meat products from the Serbian market. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 59, 50-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2017.02.009 Dobrowolska-Iwanek, J., Zagrodzki, P., Galanty, A., Fołta, M., Kryczyk-Kozioł, J., … Pásko, P. (2022). Determination of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements in Edible Sprouts from Different Botanical Families—Application of Chemometric Analysis. Foods, 11(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030371 Dumoitier, A., Abbo, V., Neuhofer, Z. T., & McFadden, B. R. (2019). A review of nutrition labeling and food choice in the United States. Obesity Science and Practice, 5(6), 581-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.374 [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. (2021). Dietary reference values. Retrieved from https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dietary-reference-values [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. (2019). Dietary reference values for chloride. EFSA Journal, 17(9), 5779. Egnell, M., Crosetto, P., d’Almeida, T., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Ruffieux, B., Hercberg, S., Muller, L., & Julia, C. (2019). Modelling the impact of different front-of-package nutrition labels on mortality from non-communicable chronic diseases. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0817-2 Esquivel Solís, V., & Jiménez Fernández M. (2010). Nutritional aspects in the prevention and treatment of hypertension. Revista Costarricense de Salud Pública, 19, 42-47. Fairweather-Tait, S. J., Harvey, L. J., & Collins, R. (2011). Session 2: Balancing benefits and risks of micronutrient intakes Risk-benefit analysis of mineral intakes: case studies on copper and iron. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 70(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665110003873 Flynn, A., Kehoe, L., Hennesy, Á., & Walton, J. (2017). Estimating safe maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in fortified foods and food supplements. European Journal of Nutrition, 56(8), 2529-2539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1288-8 Fraga, C. G. (2005). Relevance, essentiality and toxicity of trace elements in human health. Molecular Aspects in Medicine, 26(4-5), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2005.07.013 Garagarza, C., Valente, A., Caetano, C., Ramos, I., Sebastíao, J., Pinto, M., Oliveira, T., Ferreira, A., & Sousa, C. (2022). Zinc deficient intake in hemodialysis patients: a path to a high mortality risk. Journal of Renal Nutrition, 32(1), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jrn.2021.06.012 Gómez Salas, G., Quesada, D., & Chinnock, A. (2020). Consumo de frutas y vegetales en la población urbana http://jfr.ccsenet.org Journal of Food Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 32 costarricense: Resultados del Estudio Latino Americano de Nutrición y Salud (ELANS)-Costa Rica. Población y Salud Mesoamericana, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.15517/psm.v18i1.42383 Guilherme, R., Reboredo, F., Guerra, M. Ressurreição, S., & Alvarenga, N. (2020), Elemental Composition and Some Nutritional Parameters of Sweet Pepper from Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Plants, 9, 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070863 Gutiérrez, O. (2020). Chapter 20: Phosphorus. Nutrition, Volume 1. International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-66162-1.00020-2 Gutiérrez, O., Porter, A., Viggeswarapu, M., Roberts, J., & Beck Jr, G. (2022). Effects of phosphorus and calcium consumption ratio on mineral metabolism and cardiometabolic health. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 80, 108374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2020.108374 Harris, G. K., & Marshall, M. R. (2017). Ash Analysis. In Food Analysis. S. Nielsen (Ed.) Springer International Publishing, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_16 Hernández-Colorado, R. R., Alvarado, A. L., & Romero, R. M. (2012). Acumulación de cobre en plantas silvestres de zonas agrícolas contaminadas con el metal. Ciencia y Tecnología, 28(1-2), 55-61. Hussain, P., Somoro, A. H., Hussain, A., & Arshad, M. W. (2016). Evaluation of Quality and Safety Parameters of Poultry Meat Products Sold In Hyderabad Market, Pakistan. World Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(3), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjar-4-3-4 Huertas, R., Allwood, J., Hancock, R., & Stewart, D. (2022). Iron and zinc bioavailability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is dependent on chemical composition and cooking method. Food Chemistry, 387, 132900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132900 Janda, K., Jakubczyk, K., Baranowska-Bosiacka, I., Kapczuk, P., Kochman, J. Rębacz-Maron, E., & Gutowska, I. (2020). Mineral Composition and Antioxidant Potential of Coffee Beverages Depending on the Brewing Method. Foods, 9. 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020121 Jodral-Segado, A., Navarro-Alarcón, M., López-G de la Serrana, H., & López-Martínez, M. (2003). Magnesium and calcium contents in foods from SE Spain: influencing factors and estimation of daily dietary intakes. Science of the Total Environment, 312(1-3), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-9697(03)00199-2 Jones, A., Neal, B., Reeve, B., Ni Mhurchu, C., & Thow, A. (2019). Front-of-pack nutrition labeling to promote healthier diets: current practice and opportunities to strengthen regulation worldwide. BMJ Global Health, 4, e001882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001882 Khairy, N., Karmi, M., & Abdelfattah, Maky, M. (2021). Proximate composition analysis of beef sausage. Aswan University Journal of Environmental Studies, 3(2), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.21608/aujes.2021.71850.1018 Khan, M., Quershi, N., Jabeen, F., Asghar, S., & Shakeel, M. (2016). Analysis of minerals profile, phenolic compounds and potential of Garlic (Allium sativum) as antioxidant scavenging the free radicals. International Journal of Biosciences, 8(4), 72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/8.4.72-82 Kloosterman, J., Fransen, H. P., de Stoppelaar, J., Verhagen, H., & Rompelberg, C. (2007). Safe addition of vitamins and minerals to foods: setting maximum levels for fortification in the Netherlands. European Journal of Nutrition, 46(4), 220-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-007-0654-y Kolar, K. (1992). Gravimetric Determination of Moisture and Ash in Meat and Meat Products: NMKL1 Interlaboratory Study. Journal AOAC International, 75(6), 1016-1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/75.6.1016 Kumar, R., Singh, S., Rai, G., Krishnan, V., Berwal, M., Goswami, S., Vinutha, T., Mishra, G., Satyavathi, T., Singh, B., & Praveen, S. (2022). Iron and zinc at cross-road: a trade-off between micronutrients and antinutritional factors in pearl millet flour for enhancing the bioavailability. Journal Food Composition and Analysis, 111, 104591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104591 MacDonough,