Characterization of the physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage.

Electron-beam irradiation (EBI) is a cold sterilization technology used in the irradiation processing of food, including rice. Herein, the effects of EBI on the swelling power, color, pasting, and sensory properties of white rice after short-term storage were analyzed. Samples were electron-beam irradiated at 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8 kGy and stored at 25 °C or 37 °C for up to 75 days. Results showed that swelling power and major pasting viscosities (including peak, breakdown, and setback viscosities) at both storage temperatures decreased with increased irradiation dose. Negative correlations were also observed between the major viscosities of pasting properties and irradiation dose at both storage temperatures. During sensory evaluation, extremely low scores for rice hardness, appearance, taste, and overall acceptability were obtained for rice subjected to high EBI dose (>4 kGy). However, rice stored at 37 °C showed lower performance than rice at 25 °C in terms of the abovementioned parameters. By contrast, the sensory properties at irradiation doses between 2 and 4 kGy were better than those of the control group at both storage temperatures. All these findings indicated the potential of low-dose (<4 kGy) EBI as pretreatment for improving the quality of white rice during storage.

Introduction

Rice is an important staple food in Asia. According to 2017 crop statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, rice accounts for approximately 7.4% of all crop production in Asia, with 90% of the world’s rice produced in the continent [1]. During prolonged storage, decreased rice quality and eventual rancidity (undesirable color, flavor, and taste) occur, resulting in extensive economic loss [2, 3]. The source of this deterioration is multifaceted, although the development of molds and insect activity are significant contributors [4]. In particular, such negative effects on crops are increasingly intensified under unfavorable storage conditions with poor drying treatments, high level of air relative humidity, strong light sources, or high temperatures [5, 6]. Thus, once produced, white rice normally needs to be consumed within several months before significant deterioration occurs. The shelf life of white rice in ordinary packaging is usually restricted to between 6–12 months. The shelf life of white rice at conventional bulk storage is not clearly defined but is usually considered to be 3 months in summer and 6 months in winter or autumn under optimal storage conditions. However, when white rice (especially those in bulk), is stored in open and uncontrolled environments, a considerably shorter shelf life than normal is expected.

Multiple treatments targeting molds and insects have been studied to extend the storage period of rice, with various types of irradiation being a common subject. These processes can exert significant reproduction–inhibition and inactivation effects on most microorganisms and insects by damaging cellular structures or disturbing the physiological functions of their living cells [7-9]. For example, an electron-beam irradiation (EBI) dose of 1 kGy can kill some pestilent insects and their eggs, such as rice weevil, red flour beetle, and Rhizopertha dominica, in grains during storage. Increased irradiation dose of 4 kGy can inactivate up to 99% of microorganisms [10]. Remarkably high doses are not recommended for phytosanitary purposes because these doses can considerably affect cereal quality and are usually adopted for investigating physicochemical changes of these samples. Irradiated foods are also not widely accepted by most consumers because of their safety uncertainty. Foods irradiated 10 kGy do not pose any toxicological, microbiological, or nutritional problems according to the World Health Organization [11].

EBI is a cold sterilization technology with evident advantages in food irradiation processing relative over other methods. The high-energy electron beam generated by an electron accelerator has a large beam power and rapid processing speed. The beam can also be efficiently utilized because the energy released by EBI is highly concentrated and always in the same direction, thereby effectively preventing energy loss. Apart from the convenient operation of an accelerator, its beam intensity can be tailored to various sizes, types, and quantities of cargo. Compared with gamma irradiation, whose safety problems are prominent, an EBI accelerator is relatively safe to use because its ray emission can be completely arrested whenever needed [12].

Unfortunately, studies on the effects of EBI on white rice during short-term storage and its proper irradiation dose are limited. By contrast, the effects of gamma irradiation on the physicochemical properties of grains and starch have been extensively investigated. For instance, the pasting properties, apparent amylose content, gelatinization temperature, swelling power, and texture parameters of grain and starch subjected to increasing gamma radiation doses have been studied and found to decrease [13, 14]. Long-term studies on the physiochemical and sensory properties of gamma-irradiated brown rice stored for 1 and 1.5-year periods have also demonstrated the feasibility of delaying rice deterioration [15-17]. EBI is speculated as an effective pretreatment for maintaining the quality of white rice quality during storage.

Starch is the main component of rice. Its pasting properties may largely represent the rice properties. However, rice and starch may also differ in pasting properties because of their varied nutrient amounts. For example, protein denaturation by heating results in structural changes, which induce hydrophilic groups (e.g.,–OH, −NH2, −COOH, and −SH) to form cross links with the starch matrix and obstruct swelling, leading to viscosity reduction [18]. Therefore, assuming that the pasting properties between rice flour and starch varied, this work aimed to test the hypothesis and determine if the difference can be weakened or enhanced by EBI treatment.

Furthermore, we have previously investigated the sterilization effects of EBI on brown rice and milled rice and proved this method’s effectiveness. Results showed that the total viable bacterial count in brown and milled rice was significantly reduced from approximately 3×103 CFU/g at 0 kGy to 10 and 0 CFU/g at 5 kGy, respectively [19]. Accordingly, this study did not focus on microorganisms and investigated instead the effects of EBI on the pasting, swelling, and sensory properties of white rice within 75 days of storage. The storage temperatures of 25 °C and 37 °C were selected to emulate the expected temperature range in a storage facility operating under ideal and high-temperature conditions, respectively.

Materials and methods

Materials

White rice (Daohuaxiang 2, Oryza L.) was bought in a local supermarket and it was cultivated in Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province.

Irradiation and storage of white rice

Before irradiation, 250 g of white rice was placed in polyethylene bags and sealed for each replicate. The bags were then irradiated at room temperature for 5 s by using an electron accelerator (AB5.0 type) at Wuxi ELPONT Irradiation Technology Co., with irradiation doses of 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 kGy. The dose was selected on the basis of previous studies [19, 20]. After irradiation, the rice samples were individually stored at 25 °C or 37 °C for 75 days. During testing, each rice sample was milled and sieved through a 40- and 100-mesh sieve (sieve diameter of 350 and 150 μm, respectively) to determine its water content and color difference and pasting properties and swelling power, respectively. Each sample was irradiated in triplicate.

Determination of chemical composition of white rice

Protein, total starch, total dietary fiber, fat, and ash of white rice and its water content during storage was determined in accordance with the Association of Official Analytical Chemists standard methods.

Starch isolation

Starch was isolated following the method described by Zhong et al. [21] with some modifications. White rice (50 g) was softened in distilled water for 4–8 h for wet milling. The slurry was then centrifuged for 10 min at 4000 r/min (LXJ-IIB, Shanghai Anting Scientific Instrument Factory), and the pellet was collected and dispersed in 200 mL of 0.2% aqueous NaOH at ambient temperature for 48 h (aqueous NaOH was replaced once at 24 h). The slurry was then filtered through 100- and 150-mesh sieve (sieve diameter of 150 and 106 μm, respectively), and then centrifuged. After draining off the supernatant, the pellet was washed 3–4 times with distilled water, and the top yellow layer of the pellet was simultaneously scraped off to remove protein. The remaining solids were dispersed in distilled water, and pH was adjusted to 7.0. This suspension was then centrifuged and washed three times with distilled water to wash off NaCl. The clean and white t was collected and dried for 24 h in a convection oven at 40 °C, milled, and screened with a 100-mesh sieve to test its pasting properties.

Measurement of pasting properties

The pasting viscosity of rice flour and starch was determined using a rapid viscosity analyzer (RVA) (RVA 4500, Perten Instruments, Australia) through a method described by Du et al. [22] with slight modifications. Rice flour and starch (3 g) were dispersed in distilled water (25 g) in an aluminum container. The mixture was then stirred at 960 r/min for 10 s and at 160 r/min for the remainder of the test. Heating was sustained for 13 min beginning at 50 °C for 1 min and increased to 95 °C within 222 s for 150 s, and then cooled to 50 °C.

Swelling power measurement

The swelling power of rice flour and starch was measured following a method from Tananuwong et al. with some modifications [23]. The water-bath temperature was selected based on the pasting temperature of rice flour and starch in the RVA results. A flour slurry containing 0.5 g of flour and 15 mL of distilled water was mixed using a vortex oscillator. The flour slurry was heated in a 70 °C or 90 °C water bath for 30 min. This mixture was cooled to room temperature and centrifuged for 10 min at 4000 r/min (LXJ-IIB, Shanghai Anting Scientific Instrument Factory). The supernatant was dried for 3.5 h at 105 °C. The swelling power of white rice flour was calculated in accordance with the following equation:

Colorimetric assay

The colorimetric assay of the white rice flour (four spots measurement for each flour sample) was determined in terms of L* (lightness) and b* values (yellowness) by using a precise color reader (Shenzhen Wave Optoelectronics Technology Co).

Sensory analysis

Sensory analysis was conducted at the end of the storage and measured with a SATAKE STA1B (No. 42570149, SATAKE Corporation, Japan) for the rice appearance, taste, and overall acceptability. A SATAKE RHS1A (No 41930183, SATAKE corporation, Japan) was used to determine rice hardness, elasticity, and stickiness. The samples were placed (30 g) in an aluminum container, washed with water until turbidity ceased the water, and then left to soak. The total time for washing and soaking was 30 min. Water with a final mass of 42 g was poured into the aluminum container. The samples were then placed in an electronic steam cooker and left to steam for 30 min, prior to cooling for 20 min. The cooled rice was placed in a circular steel ring of about 4 cm diameter and 1 cm width and compacted before measurement by using SATAKE STA1B and SATAKE RHS1A.

Data analysis

Water content and RVA data are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Mean, SD, and ANOVA were computed using SPSS version 20.0. Data were analyzed using the least significance test, with graphing performed using Origin version 8.6. Correlation analysis was conducted using the pooled data of storage time, irradiation dose, and the following pasting properties: peak (PV), breakdown (BK), and setback (ST) viscosity, pasting temperature (PT), swelling power (Sp), color, and water content of rice flour and starch. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.05. Each sample was measured in triplicate.

Results and discussion

Water variance of white rice

White rice used for EBI contained 15.5% water at wet weight, 77.9% total starch, 5.75% protein, 0.355% total dietary fiber, 0.2% fat, and 0.28% ash. The variance of water content of native and irradiated white rice during storage is shown in Fig 1. The initial water content of white rice was 14.6%. During 75 days of storage, the water content of white rice at the storage temperature of 25 °C and 37 °C decreased to approximately 11.5% and 10.0%, respectively.

Fig 1

Water content variance of electronic -beam -irradiated white rice at 25 °C and 37 °C with 75 days of storage.

Error bar represents standard deviation (n = 3).

Pasting properties of rice flour and starch

The major pasting properties of rice flour and starch were measured by RVA every 15 days within 75 days of storage at 25 °C and 37 °C (Tables 1–4). Selected pasting properties of rice flour and starch, including peak, breakdown, and setback viscosity, decreased in a dose-dependent manner. The extent of decrease in PV, BK, and ST values between adjacent two doses higher 2 kGy (Tables 1–4) was larger than the decrease between 0 and 2 kGy. Table 1 shows that the PV of native to irradiated rice flour at 8 kGy without storage declined considerably (p < 0.05) from 2327.3 cP to 308.5 cP. The increase in viscosity during the heating of the starch-containing suspension resulted from the swelling of starch granules, and the viscosity breakdown was due to the rupture of the swollen granules [24, 25]. Native rice flour and starch have high PV owing to the high granule and integrity because of the presence of amylose [26]. After EBI, a disruption in granule integrity and rigidity and the rupture of rice and starch granules occurred, thereby reducing the PV of rice flour and starch [26-28].

Table 1

Pasting properties of irradiated white rice flour during 75 days of storage at 25 °C.

Pastingproperties	Treatment(kGy)	0	15	30	45	60	75
peak viscosity	0	2327.3±23.0a(4)	2455.3±45.6a(3)	2528.5±24.7a(2,3)	2517.5±24.7a(2,3)	2743.5±46.0a(1)	2557.0±32.5a(2)
	2	2062.0±101.8b(1,2)	2023.3±32.9b(2)	2014.8±49.2b(2)	2096.5±9.2b(1,2)	2188.0±25.5b(1)	2093±31.2b(1,2)
	4	1302.5±20.5c(2)	1244.3±32.9c(2,3)	1256.8±33.6c(2,3)	1194.5±24.7c(3)	1374.0±25.5c(1)	1294.5±24.7c(2)
	6	630.8±1.1d(1)	580.8±20.9d(2)	575.5±21.9d(2)	569.5±20.5d(2,3)	553.0±12.7d(2)	518.5±26.2d(3)
	8	308.5±29.0e(1)	239.5±23.3e(2)	240.3±25.8e(2)	223.0±19.8e(2)	219.0±12.7e(2)	215.0±7.1e(2)
breakdown viscosity	0	612.5±17.7b(4)	736.3±20.2b(3)	715.5±21.9b(3)	688.5±16.3c(3)	1121.0±29.7b(1)	963.5±27.6a(2)
	2	883.8±25.1a(2,3)	830.3±27.2a(3)	851.5±26.2a(2,3)	905.8±22.3a(2)	1186.5±23.3a(1)	852.0±25.5b(2,3)
	4	867.0±21.2a(2)	840.5±26.2a(2)	842.3±28.6a(2)	811.0±15.6b(2)	1007.0±24.0c(1)	944.5±34.6a(1)
	6	473.8±33.6c(1)	439.5±24.7c(1,2)	435.0±18.4c(1,2)	434.5±17.7d(1,2)	415.0±21.2d(1,2)	401.0±18.4c(2)
	8	240.0±25.5d(1)	182.3±17.3d(2)	181.3±15.9d(2)	169.0±12.7e(2)	151.0±15.6e(2)	151.5±16.3d(2)
setback viscosity	0	1009.5±41.7a(2)	1095.8±36.4a(2)	1067.0±38.2a(2)	1053.8±33.6a(2)	1381.0±25.5a(1)	1236.0±35.4a(1)
	2	967.5±38.9a(2)	914.8±20.9b(2)	943.8±33.6b(2)	963.5±33.2b(2)	1122.0±31.1b(1)	931.0±28.3b(2)
	4	515.5±21.9b(1)	478.3±25.8c(1,2)	480.5±14.8c(1,2)	452.0±31.1c(2)	495.0±21.2c(1,2)	460.0±14.1c(1,2)
	6	176.0±8.5c(1)	178.3±7.4d(1)	185.8±8.1d(1)	176.5±9.2d(1)	173.0±4.2d(1)	152.5±4.9d(2)
	8	88.8±2.5d(1)	74.0±1.4e(3)	82.5±3.5e(2)	72.0±2.8e(3)	71.0±1.4e(3)	61.5±2.1e(4)
pasting temperature	0	70.6±0.5c(2,3)	71.2±0.3d(2,3)	72.3±0.4c(1)	71.4±0.6c(1,2)	71.1±0.2cd(2,3)	70.3±0.2d(3)
	2	70.7±0.3c(3,4)	70.7±0.3d(3,4)	72.4±0.3c(1)	71.4±0.6c(2,3)	70.4±0.2d(4)	71.7±0.2c(1,2)
	4	71.2±0.3c(2)	72.3±0.3c(1)	72.3±0.5c(1)	72.3±0.4c(1)	71.5±0.5c(1,2)	72.3±0.4c(1)
	6	84.5±0.4b(4)	86.2±0.3b(3)	86.4±0.5b(2,3)	87.1±0.2b(1,2)	87.1±0.1b(1,2)	87.4±0.3b(1)
	8	90.3±0.4a(2)	90.4±0.5a(2)	92.2±0.3a(1)	91.3±0.4a(1,2)	92.4±0.6d(2,3)	92.4±0.6a(1)

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3).

Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences.

Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

Table 4

Pasting properties of irradiated white rice starch during 75 days of storage at 37 °C.

Pasting properties	Treatment(kGy)	0	15	30	45	60	75
peak viscosity	0	2971.5±58.7a(1)	2923.5±47.4a(1)	2967.5±53.0a(1)	2861.0±43.8a(1)	2478.0±39.6a(3)	2649.0±41.0a(2)
	2	2274.5±48.8b(2)	2220.0±28.3b(2)	2208.3±40.0b(2)	2295.5±21.9b(2)	2111.5±30.4b(3)	3468.0±39.6b(1)
	4	1346.0±50.9c(1)	1016.0±28.3c(3)	1259.8±22.3c(2)	1227.5±23.3c(2)	1250.5±24.7c(2)	1195.0±21.2c(2)
	6	531.5±16.3d(2)	424.5±19.1d(3)	620.3±14.5d(1)	623.0±18.4d(1)	618.5±12.0d(1)	567.5±10.6d(2)
	8	240.5±4.9e(2)	285.0±7.1e(1)	230.0±7.1e(2,3)	227.5±7.8e(2,3)	239.5±9.2e(2)	216.5±9.2e(3)
breakdown viscosity	0	1084.8±35.0a(2)	458.0±19.8c(5)	515.3±21.6b(5)	713.5±33.2c(4)	817.5±24.7c(3)	1231.5±44.5b(1)
	2	953.3±47.0b(4)	769.5±27.6a(5)	895.0±21.2a(4)	1276.5±37.5a(2)	1151.0±45.3a(3)	2991.0±58.0a(1)
	4	991.0±29.7b(1)	536.0±19.8b(2)	922.0±31.1a(1)	947.5±38.9b(1)	969.5±55.9b(1)	936.0±22.6c(1)
	6	455.5±21.9c(3)	282.5±17.7d(4)	530.5±14.8b(1,2)	550.0±15.6d(1)	543.0±14.1d(1)	490.5±14.8d(2,3)
	8	201.0±15.6d(1)	200.5±6.4e(1)	194.5±6.4c(1,2)	191.5±2.1e(1,2)	195.5±7.8e(1,2)	174.5±6.4e(2)
setback viscosity	0	1357.8±53.4a(1)	1081.8±44.9a(2,3)	1191.8±44.9a(2)	1430.5±43.1a(1)	1433.0±46.7a(1)	1044.0±46.7a(3)
	2	611.3±15.9b(4)	658.0±35.4b(3,4)	731.8±36.4b(3)	1163.0±26.9b(1)	954.5±30.4b(2)	534.5±20.5b(5)
	4	235.0±7.1c(4)	348.5±21.9c(2)	288.3±25.8c(3)	424.5±19.1c(1)	382.0±22.6c(1,2)	380.5±14.8c(1,2)
	6	75.0±14.1d(3)	141.5±12.0d(1)	106.0±8.5d(2)	153.0±7.1d(1)	127.0±14.1d(1,2)	150.5±9.2d(1)
	8	28.5±2.1d(5)	113.0±4.2d(1)	46.5±2.1d(4)	57.5±3.5e(2,3)	64.5±4.9d(2)	50.0±4.2e(3,4)
pasting temperature	0	73.3±0.3a(4)	76.1±0.2a(1)	75.3±0.4a(2)	74.5±0.4a(2,3)	75.3±0.3a(2)	74.2±0.3a(3)
	2	72.1±0.2b(2)	74.6±0.3b(1)	73.5±0.6b(1)	71.4±0.5b(2)	71.4±0.5c(2)	68.3±0.4c(3)
	4	71.5±0.5b(1)	71.3±0.4c(1)	71.4±0.6c(1)	71.4±0.6b(1)	70.6±0.5c(1)	71.3±0.4b(1)
	6	71.4±0.5b(1,2)	71.3±0.4c(1,2)	72.1±0.1c(1)	70.7±0.5b(2,3)	70.1±0.1c(3)	70.5±0.7b(2,3)
	8	71.4±0.6b(2)	73.8±0.4b(1)	72.4±0.5bc(1,2)	74.0±0.6a(1)	73.8±0.8b(1)	73.8±0.8a(1)

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3).

Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences.

Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

The BK of rice increased from approximately 600 cP (non-irradiated sample) to 800 cP at 2–4 kGy and decreased considerably to approximately 200 cP at 8 kGy before storage. By contrast, starch BK decreased from approximately 1000 cP at 0–4 kGy to 200 cP at 8 kGy. BK served as an indicator of granule fragility, the stability of flour and starch pastes and their resistance to shear force during heating. After irradiation, the surface of grain particles showed perforations, which gradually fell off to form a small, smooth, and spherical structures [12]. This result showed that rice starch granules can be destroyed by irradiation, and breakage intensified with increased dose [28]. These changes can inhibit the swelling of irradiated grains and cause the decrease in BK, leading to shear-thinning behavior [29]. Conversely, cooked white rice irradiated at above 4 kGy may exhibit low resistance to oral chewing, thereby producing an undesired taste.

The STs of rice and starch at 0 kGy without storage was 1009.5 and 1357.8 cP, respectively, which decreased to 88.8 and 28.5 cP with increased irradiation dosage to 8 kGy. ST represented the degree of retrogradation of starch and primarily amylose and was significantly correlated with the degree of polymerization [24]. With increased EBI dose, the breakage of starch chains increased, especially the degradation of amylose and the long, linear amylopectin in the amorphous region containing primarily amylose; consequently, the degree of polymerization decreased [26, 30]. Therefore, ST was reduced in a dose-dependent manner.

The pasting temperature (PT) of rice flour stored at 25 °C and 37 °C was approximately 72 °C at 0–4 kGy and increased to 90 °C at 8 kGy with increased irradiation dose without storage. PT of starch flour decreased from 73.3 °C at 0 kGy to 71.4 °C at 8 kGy at 0 day. This difference would be further discussed in the last paragraph of this section. The irradiated samples stored at 37 °C exhibited higher PT than samples stored at 25 °C (Tables 1 and 2). This difference became distinct at 4 kGy and higher irradiation dose during storage. The low PT of rice flour and starch indicated their tendency to swell. The high PT value indicated that a considerable amount of water had to be absorbed during pasting [31]. The cooked rice samples with excessively high PT (irradiation dose > 4 kGy) were likely to be excessively soft and sticky. Therefore, 2 and 4 kGy were satisfactory irradiation doses for improving the cooking quality of white rice and a storage temperature of 25 °C for the improved rice quality.

Table 2

Pasting properties of irradiated white rice flour during 75 days of storage at 37 °C.

Pasting properties	Treatment(kGy)	0	15	30	45	60	75
peak viscosity	0	2327.3±23.0a(4)	2321.0±29.7a(4)	2706.8±57.6a(3)	2815.3±54.1a(2)	3019.0±43.8a(1)	2953.0±46.7a(1)
	2	2062.0±101.8b(3)	2380.3±28.6a(1)	2152.5±43.1b(2,3)	2197.0±24.0b(2)	2328.0±39.6b(1)	2189.5±27.6b(2,3)
	4	1302.5±20.5c(1)	1237.5±23.3b(2)	1084.8±20.9c(3)	1048.5±37.5c(3)	1084.0±24.0c(3)	940.0±28.3c(4)
	6	630.8±1.1d(1)	510.0±14.1c(2)	346.8±19.4d(3)	311.5±16.3d(3,4)	298.0±14.1d(4)	256.0±17.0d(5)
	8	308.5±29.0e(1)	321.5±14.8d(1)	136.0±7.1e(2)	122.5±3.5e(2)	135.5±6.4e(2)	114.0±4.2e(2)
breakdown viscosity	0	612.5±17.7b(6)	900.5±14.8b(4)	825.0±19.8b(5)	970.8±15.2b(3)	1471.5±30.4a(1)	1360.5±29.0a(2)
	2	883.8±25.1a(5)	952.5±27.6a(4,5)	994.5±20.5a(3,4)	1061.5±44.5a(2,3)	1127.5±24.7b(2)	1201.5±19.1b(1)
	4	867.0±21.2a(1)	840.5±26.2c(1)	722.5±16.3c(2)	710.0±14.1c(2)	755.0±18.4c(2)	636.5±20.5c(3)
	6	473.8±33.6c(1)	380.3±14.5d(2)	241.3±15.9d(3)	227.0±8.5d(3)	208.5±12.0d(3,4)	175.5±12.0d(4)
	8	240.0±25.5d(1)	242.0±4.2e(1)	84.0±5.7e(2)	76.5±2.1e(2)	82.0±2.8e(2)	63.0±4.2e(2)
setback viscosity	0	1009.5±41.7a(5)	1107.0±26.9a(4)	1232.3±30.1a(3)	1319.8±27.9a(2)	1476.5±30.4a(1)	1454.5±34.6a(1)
	2	967.5±38.9a(4)	1107.0±38.2a(2,3)	1058.0±39.6b(3)	1124.5±34.6b(1,2,3)	1201.5±30.4b(1)	1191.5±16.3b(1,2)
	4	515.5±21.9b(1)	460.8±15.2b(2)	444.5±16.3c(2,3)	445.0±17.0c(2,3)	474.0±11.3c(2)	406.5±9.2c(3)
	6	176.0±8.5c(1)	174.3±6.0c(1)	155.8±8.1d(2)	141.5±4.9d(2,3)	142.0±5.7d(2,3)	124.5±9.2d(3)
	8	88.8±2.5d(2)	114.0±5.7d(1)	62.0±2.8e(3)	64.0±4.2e(3)	64.5±3.5e(3)	51.0±2.8e(4)
pasting temperature	0	70.6±0.5c(3)	71.3±0.4d(2,3)	72.8±0.4c(1)	72.3±0.4e(1,2)	71.4±0.6d(2,3)	73.0±0.7c(1)
	2	70.7±0.3c(4)	71.2±0.3d(4)	73.4±0.6c(2)	74.1±0.2d(1,2)	74.3±0.2c(1)	72.2±0.3c(3)
	4	71.2±0.3c(4)	74.5±0.4c(3)	84.4±0.5b(2)	85.3±0.4c(2)	84.4±0.6b(2)	87.1±0.2b(1)
	6	84.5±0.4b(4)	87.3±0.4b(3)	91.2±0.2a(2)	92.3±0.4b(1,2)	91.6±0.5a(1,,2)	92.5±0.6a(1)
	8	90.3±0.4a(4)	91.3±0.5a(3,4)	92.0±0.0a(2,3)	93.3±0.4a(1,2)	92.0±0.7a(2,3)	93.5±0.7a(1)

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3).

Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences.

Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

The discrepancy of pasting properties of rice flour and starch at the same storage temperature in Tables 1–4 was partly due to the more extensive presence of protein, lipid, and sugar in rice than in alkali-isolated starch. For the starch samples, the pasting viscosities were higher than in the corresponding rice flour on average. This finding can be due to the fact that compared with the starch samples, rice flour had a higher protein content that prevented the penetration of water into the starch matrix upon denaturation [32]. The amylose–lipid complex formed in rice during heating resulted in entanglements in amylopectin molecules, which restricted the swelling of granules and caused the high PT and low PV [33]. The presence of sugars can increase PT because the water-binding ability of sugars decreases the availability for starch gelatinization [34, 35]. The discrepancy in pasting viscosity between rice and the corresponding starch subjected to EBI showed a dose-dependent decrease, as shown in Tables 1–4.

Swelling power of the irradiated rice flour

RVA results showed that the pasting temperature of rice flour and starch was mostly between 70 °C and 90 °C. Therefore, the swelling power of rice flour and starch at 70 °C (Sp70) and 90 °C (Sp90) was analyzed because it can indicate the capacity of water absorption and swelling of the starch granules. Fig 2 shows that the swelling power of rice flour before storage decreased with increased irradiation dose and it was consistent with the results of Atrous et al. [36] and Liu et al. [13]. The mechanism of restricted swelling power of irradiated rice was similar to that of the PV reduction. EBI caused the rupture of rice and starch granules; as such, the granules exhibited less-complete structure and water-absorption ability that obstructed their swelling abilities [37]. The reduction in swelling power can also be explained by the ability of EBI to degrade the amylopectin chains, the gelatinized starch inhibited the diffusion of water into the starch matrix during heating [32]. The swelling power of irradiated rice stored at 25 °C and 37 °C and at 70 °C and 90 °C decreased after 75 days of storage. Furthermore, the swelling power of rice flour at each water bath temperature decreased more between adjacent doses at the storage temperature of 37 °C. The swelling power of starch depends on the water-holding capacity of starch molecules due to hydrogen bonding. During gelatinization, the hydrogen bonds that can stabilize the double helices in the crystallites are broken and replaced by hydrogen bonds with water [38]. From previous results of water variation during storage, the water content of rice flour stored at 25 °C was usually higher than at 37 °C, leading to increased hydrogen bonds among starch molecules, stable crystallite structure, and swelling.

Fig 2

Swelling power changes at 70 °C and 90 °C of the electronic -beam -irradiated white rice stored at 25 °C and 37 °C for 75 days of storage.

Error bar represents standard deviation (n = 3).

Rice color

With increased irradiation dose at 25 °C and 37 °C, L* (lightness) and b* (yellowness) values of the irradiated rice flour decreased and increased (in Fig 3), respectively, and were highly evident for irradiation doses above 4 kGy. These trends in color change may be due to the decomposition of glycosidic and peptide bonds during irradiation. In brief, the free radicals, including hydroxyl and hydrogen atoms, generated during irradiation can attack glycosidic bonds in carbohydrates and lead to depolymerization (degradation) and Maillard reaction [14]. The cleavage of the glycosidic bonds subsequently causes the starch granules to rupture, accelerating browning [15]. Moreover, the caramelization reaction of monosaccharides via the degradation of starch polysaccharide during irradiation can be another explanation for the color change, as described by Sc et al. [39].

Fig 3

Brightness (L*) and yellowness value (b*) changes of electronic -beam -irradiated white rice at 25 °C and 37 °C with 75 days of storage.

Error bar represents standard deviation (n = 3).

The L* value of the samples decreased within the first month and then increased to approximately the initial L* value within the remaining storage time. The b* value of samples irradiated at 4 kGy and above increased notably after storage for half a month, whereas the b* value slightly increased at irradiation doses of 0 and 2 kGy. The magnitude of the decreased b* and L* values among different irradiation dose of samples stored at 37 °C was more pronounced than those at 25 °C. Considering that rice with high brightness and low brown values is favorable to consumers, low irradiation dose (less than 4 kGy) with room temperature storage is the preferred treatment for commercial applications.

Correlations among the properties of irradiated rice and starch

Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the relationship among different functional properties of rice subjected to EBI during storage at 25 °C and 37 °C are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The rice storage time at 25 °C exhibited a negative correlation with Sp70 (r = −0.672, p < 0.01), Sp90 (r = −0.739, p < 0.01), and water content (r = −0.654, p < 0.01), whereas the correlation coefficients were −0.693 (p < 0.01), −0.747 (p < 0.01), and −0.859 (p < 0.01) at 37 °C. Storage time was negatively correlated with L* value (r = −0.386, p < 0.05) at the storage temperature of 37 °C. No other significant relationships were found between storage time and the functional properties of irradiated rice and starch. This result differed from that for long-term storage of rice reported by Chen et al. [15], showing that storage time had a negative relationship with ST and PT at a significance level of p < 0.01. The discrepancy may be due to disparate sources of irradiation, storage conditions, and rice variants, i.e., storage significantly decreased PT at 15 months (not significant within 6 months) and may have been due to rice aging, which can form disulfide bonds among proteins that accumulate with prolonged time [40]. The lipid and protein content were relatively higher in brown rice than in white rice. During storage, lipid is hydrolyzed by lipase into free fatty acid, thereby accelerating rice aging and PT reduction [15]. Starch is fragmented into short linear polymers after EBI or gamma irradiation and may be unable to form a helical structure with fatty acids during storage; as such, the passage of water may be restricted, and thus decrease the pasting viscosities with prolonged storage [16, 41]. The damage to starch at the same dose can be worsened by gamma irradiation, which has a high penetration power. A significant negative correlation between storage time and PT or ST was not observed because the duration of storage in the current study was not sufficiently long. The rice water content showed significant correlation with Sp70 and Sp90 at 37 °C, and the correlation coefficients were 0.625 (p < 0.01) and 0.515 (p < 0.01), respectively. At 25 °C storage, a positive correlation with only Sp90 (r = 0.54323, p < 0.01) was observed.

Table 5

Correlation coefficients among various functional properties of the irradiated rice sample at 25 °C.

st

dose

PV-F

BK-F

ST-F

PT-F

PV-S

BK-S

ST-S

PT-S

Sp90

Sp70

L*

b*

dose

PV-F

0.02

-0.989**

BK-F

0.118

-0.800**

0.812**

ST-F

0.043

-0.966**

0.991**

0.799**

PT-F

0.041

0.902**

-0.897**

-0.935**

-0.861**

PV-S

-0.047

-0.981**

0.977**

0.704**

0.956**

-0.847**

BK-S

0.198

-0.754**

0.739**

0.816**

0.705**

-0.844**

0.692**

ST-S

0.047

-0.936**

0.946**

0.626**

0.939**

-0.757**

0.958**

0.641**

PT-S

-0.349

-0.457*

0.489**

0.365*

0.496**

-0.445*

0.458*

0.001

0.467**

Sp90

-0.739**

-0.521**

0.504**

0.341

0.478**

-0.527**

0.553**

0.340

0.438*

0.401*

Sp70

-0.672**

-0.306

0.270

0.324

0.241

-0.384*

0.268

0.190

0.190

0.318

0.695**

L*

-0.176

-0.555**

0.560**

0.498**

0.555**

-0.560**

0.537**

0.556**

0.495**

0.034

0.596**

0.583**

b*

0.158

0.926**

-0.925**

-0.802**

-0.903**

0.896**

-0.897**

-0.730**

-0.846**

-0.436*

-0.604**

-0.500**

-0.725**

w

-0.654**

-0.048

0.054

-0.017

0.056

-0.057

0.111

-0.069

0.024

0.195

0.543**

0.311

0.069

-0.031

a * and ** indicate significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.

Abbreviations: F = flour, S = starch, st = storage time, PK = peak viscosity, BK = breaking viscosity, ST = setback viscosity, PT = pasting temperature, Sp90 = swelling power at 90 °C, Sp70 = swelling power at 70 °C, and w = water content.

Table 6

Correlation coefficients among various functional properties of the irradiated rice sample at 37 °C.

st

dose

PV-F

BK-F

ST-F

PT-F

PV-S

BK-S

ST-S

PT-S

Sp90

Sp70

L*

b*

dose

PV-F

-0.005

-0.966**

BK-F

0.071

-0.882**

0.918**

ST-F

0.072

-0.950**

0.993**

0.918**

PT-F

0.232

0.909**

-0.933**

-0.891**

-0.908**

PV-S

0.029

-0.955**

0.950**

0.847**

0.953**

-0.900**

BK-S

0.284

-0.550**

0.543**

0.667**

0.582**

-0.558**

0.676**

ST-S

0.041

-0.924**

0.932**

0.777**

0.924**

-0.812**

0.887**

0.384*

PT-S

-0.153

-0.329

0.400*

0.165

0.376*

-0.285

0.277

-0.406*

0.485**

Sp90

-0.747**

-0.564**

0.546**

0.444*

0.478**

-0.722**

0.529**

0.163

0.453*

0.205

Sp70

-0.693**

-0.509**

0.480**

0.381*

0.407*

-0.605**

0.449*

0.023

0.458*

0.327

0.854**

L*

-0.386*

-0.664**

0.642**

0.607**

0.594**

-0.747**

0.669**

0.460*

0.511**

0.086

0.790**

0.693**

b*

0.234

0.913**

-0.926**

-0.885**

-0.893**

0.947**

-0.884**

-0.522**

-0.812**

-0.285

-0.731**

-0.632**

-0.833**

w

-0.859**

0.012

-0.003

-0.085

-0.067

-0.174

-0.056

-0.266

0.037

0.072

0.625**

0.515**

0.247

-0.160

b * and ** indicate significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.

Abbreviations: F = flour, S = starch, st = storage time, PK = peak viscosity, BK = breaking viscosity, ST = setback viscosity, PT = pasting temperature, Sp90 = swelling power at 90 °C, Sp70 = swelling power at 70 °C, and w = water content.

Conversely, increased irradiation dose led to negative correlations with nearly all functional properties (Tables 5 and 6) except for PT-F and b*. The correlation coefficients between PT-F and irradiation dose at storage temperature of 25 °C and 37 °C were 0.902 (p < 0.01) and 0.909 (p < 0.01), respectively. The positive correlation coefficients between b* and irradiation dose were 0.926 (p < 0.01) and 0.913 (p < 0.01) for the storage temperatures of 25 °C and 37 °C, respectively.

Sensory qualities of cooked rice

In accordance with the instruction manual of SATAKE RHS1A and STA1B, the standard values of rice stickiness, elasticity, and hardness ranged between 0.5–0.6, 0.7–0.72, and 4–5, respectively. No standard scores were given for appearance, taste, and overall acceptability, with high values, corresponding to good rice quality. The full scores for the stickiness, elasticity, hardness, appearance, taste, and overall acceptability of the irradiated rice samples were 1, 1, 10, 10, 10, and 100, respectively. Fig 4 shows that the value of elasticity and hardness of the rice sample decreased with increased EBI dose. The value of elasticity and hardness of rice stored at 37 °C was higher than that of rice stored at 25 °C. Cooked white rice irradiated at 2 and 4 kGy at each storage temperature achieved scores near the standard scores and performed better than other irradiated rice in terms of elasticity and hardness. White rice irradiated at above 4 kGy evidently exhibited a low score of hardness (approximately 3), consistent with the results of the swelling power testing. The stickiness value of samples irradiated at 8 kGy was much higher when stored at 37 °C that than upon storage at 25 °C. Moreover, rice irradiated at 2 kGy at each temperature exhibited a higher stickiness value (0.62–0.67) than rice irradiated at other doses (0.38–0.51). For taste, appearance, and overall acceptability, the scores decreased significantly (p < 0.05) with a high irradiation dose (4 kGy and above). In comparison, the sensory evaluation of white rice irradiated at 2 kGy were better compared with those of non-irradiated samples. Therefore, white rice with relatively low doses was the most acceptable.

Fig 4

Effects of EBI on the sensory qualities of cooked rice stored for 75 days at 25 °C and 37 °C.

Different letters/numbers above the bar indicate significant differences at p < 0.05. Error bar represents standard deviation (n = 3).

Conclusion

The physicochemical and sensory properties of irradiated white rice during short-term storage at 25 °C and 37 °C were characterized. At 25 °C and 37 °C, low or medium doses of EBI from 2 kGy to 4 kGy decreased the major pasting properties and improved the storage performance of white rice. Conversely, when white rice was irradiated at above 4 kGy, poor performance in color and sensory evaluation was observed at high storage temperatures. Therefore, EBI doses between 2 and 4 kGy were suitable for white rice treatment prior to short-term, low temperature storage. These results support the basis for developing an alternative method for white-rice storage.

Water content of electronic -beam -irradiated white rice at 25 °C and 37 °C with 75 days of storage.

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3). Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences. Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3). Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences. Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3). Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences. Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3). Different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-15367

Characterization of physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Elfalleh, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Zhengxing Chena.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, authors investigate in the effect of electron-beam-irradiation on physical properties of white rice and starch during short-term storage. This is a highly important topic and there are many interesting results. However, there are some weak points relative to the method and sometimes the language should be improved throughout the manuscript. In the present form it is not possible to recommend publication for the paper. Yet, with a lot of additional work to improve the manuscript it may be possible to develop the paper into a publishable manuscript. Some other remarks are listed below:

Introduction : Explain well the topic but it is concentrated on irradiation effect on microorganisms which is not treated in this work.

A section of studying the effect on microorganisms should be added in this manuscript.

MM :

line 98-99 should be in the result

Line 96-97: you have to explain the choice of the dose spectrum

Irradiation, starch isolation, pasting proprieties: lack of reference

Results and discussion: well explained

Figures are not clear

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-19-15367

Comments to Authors-

-The authors extensively investigate the effect of electronic-beam irradiation on the storage quality of white rice at two different ambient temperatures. In general, the data collection is complete. However, there are some issues in the data presentation, result demonstration and discussion as well. Detailed comments are as follows:

Introduction-

-The difference between rice flour and starch should be better described in the introduction section. Indeed, this should be closely related to the results/discussion part where the effects of EBI on the rice quality properties are presented in Table1-4.

Materials and methods-

-L90-91 it is not clear that where these nutrient data come from. This should be better explained.

-L95- ‘a dose rate of 2kGy/h’ needs to be deleted because multiple doses of irradiation were applied, as stated in L96-97. Moreover, the duration of the irradiation treatment (which I think is critical) should be mentioned.

-L98- it was not described how the moisture content (at wet basis) was measured in the method section, and what the changes of this parameter would affect other properties such as Sp, rice color and storage time. In addition, the moisture content should also be included in the correlation analysis.

Results and discussion-

- Discussion is not sufficient (for example, L165-167, L216-218, L239-242, L284-285); it is suggested to refer to more relevant literatures and analyze each measure parameter on by one.

-The effect of EBI on the microbes should be mentioned and discussed somewhere as well.

Tables and Figures -

-In Table1-4, what do those numbers following the lower letters mean? It should be explained in the table footnote. In the footnote of all the four tables: ‘In a row, no numbers in common are significantly different (p < 0.05). In a column within one RVA pasting property, no letters in common are significantly different (p < 0.05)’. Consider revising - ‘different numbers in either a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05’. And the same footnote doesn’t need to be repeated four times.

-The font in Fig 1-3 looks small and unnormal. Consider revising.

- In Fig.3, the meaning of the letters/numbers above the bars should be explained in the figure legend.

Overall, the text should be carefully checked for English spelling and grammar (singular/plural, tenses, use of articles…); it is suggested to find a native English-speaking expert or a professional editing service to modify the whole manuscript. The literatures format should be carefully checked as well.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Hamza Hammadi

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments to Authors.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Sep 2019

Response to Reviewer #1

Comments 1: Introduction: Explain well the topic but it is concentrated on irradiation effect on microorganisms which is not treated in this work.

A section of studying the effect on microorganisms should be added in this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestion. This work was based on the effect of electron-beam irradiation (EBI) on microorganisms. Thus, we discussed the topic in depth in the introduction. In our previous work entitled “Effect of electron beam irradiation on storability of brown rice and milled rice,” we found that the total viable bacterial count was significantly reduced from around 3×103 CFU/g at 0 kGy to 10 and 0 CFU/g at 5 kGy. Therefore, the present work did not anymore focus on the effects of EBI on microorganisms. The explanation for this point has been added in the introduction (seen in page 5, 6, line 86-90). We hope that you will be satisfied with our revisions.

Comments 2: Line 98-99 should be in the result

Response: Thank you for this comment. The water content analysis was added in the results (seen in page 11, line 167-177; Fig 1).

Comments 3: Line 96-97: you have to explain the choice of the dose spectrum Irradiation, starch isolation, pasting proprieties: lack of reference

Response: The explanation on the choice of the dose spectrum irradiation (seen in page 6, line 101) and references of starch isolation (seen in page 7, line 112-113) and pasting properties (seen in page 8, line 126-127) has been added in the manuscript.

Comments 4: Figures are not clear

Response: The figures have been modified (seen in Figs 1-4). Thank you very much.

Response to Reviewer #2

Comments 1: Introduction-

-The difference between rice flour and starch should be better described in the introduction section. Indeed, this should be closely related to the results/discussion part where the effects of EBI on the rice quality properties are presented in Table1-4.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The difference between rice flour and starch has been discussed in the introduction (seen in page 5, line 79-85), and the pasting properties related to it have also been presented (seen in page 19, 20, line 237-247).

Comments 2: Materials and methods-

-L90-91 it is not clear that where these nutrient data come from. This should be better explained.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this point. The determination methods and references of nutrient data have been added in the manuscript (seen in page 7, line 107-109).

Comments 3: -L95- ‘a dose rate of 2kGy/h’ needs to be deleted because multiple doses of irradiation were applied, as stated in L96-97. Moreover, the duration of the irradiation treatment (which I think is critical) should be mentioned.

Response: The part “a dose rate of 2 kGy/h” has been deleted (seen in page 6, line 100). Moreover, the irradiation duration was fixed because the item was placed on a speed-constant conveyor belt and passed through fixed distance. The variance during electron beam irradiation was irradiation intensity controlled by electronic speed flow that varied with the irradiation dose. The 5 s duration of irradiation has been added to the manuscript following your suggestion (seen in page 6, line 99).

Comments 4: -L98- it was not described how the moisture content (at wet basis) was measured in the method section, and what the changes of this parameter would affect other properties such as Sp, rice color and storage time. In addition, the moisture content should also be included in the correlation analysis.

Response: The methods of determining the moisture content of white rice and the corresponding results (including the figure legend) have been added in the manuscript (seen in page 7, line 107-108; page 11, line 167-177; and Fig 1). The moisture content has also been included in the correlation analysis (seen in Tables 5-6). In accordance with the correlation analysis, water content has a significant correlation with storage time and swelling power (seen in page 23, line 300-301; page 24, line 317-320). Therefore, the relationship between water and Sp was discussed (seen in page 21, line 262-267).

Comments 5: Results and discussion-

- Discussion is not sufficient (for example, L165-167, L216-218, L239-242, L284-285); it is suggested to refer to more relevant literatures and analyze each measure parameter on by one.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have analyzed each parameter individually, which we hope will now meet your standard (seen in page 12, line 186-191; seen in page 13, line 203-208; seen in page 20, line 254-259; seen in page 23, 24, line 307-317).

Comments 6: The effect of EBI on the microbes should be mentioned and discussed somewhere as well.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestion. In our previous work entitled “Effect of electron beam irradiation on storability of brown rice and milled rice,” we found that total viable bacterial count was significantly reduced from approximately 3×103 CFU/g at 0 kGy to 10 and 0 CFU/g at 5 kGy (seen in page 5, 6, line 86-90). Therefore, the present work did not anymore focus on the effects of EBI on microorganisms. A relevant explanation has been added in the introduction.

Comments 7: Tables and Figures -

-In Table1-4, what do those numbers following the lower letters mean? It should be explained in the table footnote. In the footnote of all the four tables: ‘In a row, no numbers in common are significantly different (p < 0.05). In a column within one RVA pasting property, no letters in common are significantly different (p < 0.05)’. Consider revising - ‘different numbers in either a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05’. And the same footnote doesn’t need to be repeated four times.

Response: We appreciate your helpful suggestions. The numbers that follow the lowercased letters indicate significant differences. This point has been explained in the table footnote. The footnote was as follows: “In a row, no numbers in common are significantly different (p < 0.05). In a column within one RVA pasting property, no letters in common are significantly different (p < 0.05)” has been revised to “Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.” The repetitive footnotes have been deleted (seen in page 18, line 224-225).

Comments 8: -The font in Fig 1-3 looks small and unnormal. Consider revising.

Response: We appreciate this comment. The font in Figs. 1–3 has been revised (seen in Figs. 2–4).

Comments 9: - In Fig.3, the meaning of the letters/numbers above the bars should be explained in the figure legend.

Response: Thank you for this reminder. The meaning of the letters above the bars has been explained in the figure legend (seen in page 28, line 356).

Comments 10: Overall, the text should be carefully checked for English spelling and grammar (singular/plural, tenses, use of articles…); it is suggested to find a native English-speaking expert or a professional editing service to modify the whole manuscript. The literatures format should be carefully checked as well.

Response: We appreciate your helpful suggestions. The entire manuscript has been rechecked by a professional editing service. The literature format has been carefully checked. We hope that the revised version would meet the standard of PLOS ONE.

We are grateful for your helpful comments.

References:

1. Goel PK, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR. Studies on interactions of corn starch with casein and casein hydrolysates. Food Chemistry. 1999; 64(3): 383-9. doi: 10.1016/s0308-8146(98)00134-4. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000077881500014.

2. Luo XH, Li YL, Yang D, Xing JL, Li K, Yang M, et al. Effects of electron beam irradiation on storability of brown and milled rice. Journal of Stored Products Research. 2019; 81: 22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2018.12.003. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000463305500004.

3. Chen X, Jin Y, Meng Y, Xie J, Liu C. Effect of high-energy electron beam irradiation on eating quality of rice. Food Science. 2016; 37(3): 71-4. PubMed PMID: CSCD: 5638309.

4. Zhong F, Li Y, Ibanz AM, Oh MH, McKenzie KS, Shoemaker C. The effect of rice variety and starch isolation method on the pasting and rheological properties of rice starch pastes. Food Hydrocolloids. 2009; 23(2): 406-14. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.02.003. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000260283900019.

5. Du SK, Jiang HX, Ai YF, Jane JL. Physicochemical properties and digestibility of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) starches. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2014; 108: 200-5. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.03.004. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000336193600026.

6. Rani MRS, Bhattacharya KR. Rheology of rice-flour pastes: Relationship of paste breakdown to rice quality, and a simplified Brabender viscograph test. Journal of Texture Studies. 1995; 26(5): 587-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1995.tb00806.x. PubMed PMID: WOS: A1995TR67700008.

7. Vandeputte GE, Vermeylen R, Geeroms J, Delcour JA. Rice starches. III. Structural aspects provide insight in amylopectin retrogradation properties and gel texture. Journal of Cereal Science. 2003; 38(1): 61-8. doi: 10.1016/s0733-5210(02)00142-x. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000183868800006.

8. Bashir K, Swer TL, Prakash KS, Aggarwal M. Physico-chemical and functional properties of gamma irradiated whole wheat flour and starch. Lwt-Food Science and Technology. 2017; 76: 131-9. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.10.050. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000390726400017.

9. Ai Y, Jane JL. Gelatinization and rheological properties of starch. Starch-Starke. 2015; 67(3-4): 213-24. doi: 10.1002/star.201400201. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000350977700001.

10. Beleia A, Miller RA, Hoseney RC. Starch gelatinization in sugar solutions. Starch-Starke. 1996; 48(7-8): 259-62. doi: 10.1002/star.19960480705. PubMed PMID: WOS: A1996VH67900004.

11. Kohyama K, Nishinari K. Effect of soluble sugars on gelatinization and retrogradation of sweet-patato starch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1991; 39(8): 1406-10. doi: 10.1021/jf00008a010. PubMed PMID: WOS: A1991GC08700010.

12. Sasaki T, Matsuki J. Effect of wheat starch structure on swelling power. Cereal Chemistry. 1998; 75(4): 525-9. doi: 10.1094/cchem.1998.75.4.525. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000074899600024.

13. Sung WC. Effect of gamma irradiation on rice and its food products. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2005; 73(4): 224-8. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2004.08.008. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000229717200006.

14. Martin M, Fitzgerald MA. Proteins in rice grains influence cooking properties. Journal of Cereal Science. 2002; 36(3): 285-94. doi: 10.1006/jcrs.2001.0465. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000178869300002.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-15367R1

Characterization of the physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 17 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Elfalleh, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

• The abstract should be improved an introductive sentence should be added

• Authors need to add references to the text in introduction section. (ex. Line 35 to 40)

• The whole manuscript should be revised for some syntax and grammar errors before final acceptance

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all of my questions and concerns, so I have no further questions. Thank you.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Oct 2019

We would like to express our sincere thanks to your comments.

Response to Editor Comments

Comments 1: The abstract should be improved an introductive sentence should be added.

Response: An introductive sentence has been added in manuscript. (seen in page 2, line 20-21)

Comments 2: Authors need to add references to the text in introduction section. (ex. Line 35 to 40).

Response: References to the text in introduction section (ex. Line 35 to 40) have been added. (seen in page 3, line 38-41)

Comments 3: The whole manuscript should be revised for some syntax and grammar errors before final acceptance.

Response: We appreciate your kind suggestions. The entire manuscript has been rechecked by a professional editing service. We hope that the revised version would meet the standard of PLOS ONE.

References:

1. FAO. Database: figshare [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.

2. Zhou Z, Wang X, Si X, Blanchard C, Strappe P. The ageing mechanism of stored rice: A concept model from the past to the present. Journal of Stored Products Research. 2015; 64: 80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2015.09.004. PubMed PMID: WOS:000366780900013.

3. Yadav DN, Anand T, Sharma M, Gupta RK. Microwave technology for disinfestation of cereals and pulses: An overview. Journal of Food Science and Technology-Mysore. 2014; 51(12): 3568-76. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0912-8. PubMed PMID: WOS:000345916400004.

4. Gregory AG, Toshitaka U, Fumihiko T, Daisuke H. Effect of vapors from fractionated samples of propolis on microbial and oxidation damage of rice during storage. Journal of Food Engineering. 2008; 88(3): 341-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.02.019. PubMed PMID: WOS: 000256815400007

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-15367R2

Characterization of the physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Elfalleh, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The current version of the manuscript seems improved. before finale acceptance, please consider the following comments :

The authors indicated in the text that there is a significant variation in different parameters however no statistical analysis is done to confirm. Please add ANOVA to figures (figures 1 to figures 4) and specifies if the comparison is made between groups with different irradiation doses or different storage time (days).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Nov 2019

Response to Editor Comments

Comments 1: The authors indicated in the text that there is a significant variation in different parameters however no statistical analysis is done to confirm. Please add ANOVA to figures (figures 1 to figures 4) and specifies if the comparison is made between groups with different irradiation doses or different storage time (days).

Response: Thank you for your helpful comments. a) We have made some mistakes in using “significant” and “significantly”, and we have revised the content in the manuscript to make the statement more rigorous (seen in page 11, line 169-170 and 180; page 20, line 250-252 and line 257-258; page 21, line 272-273; page 22, line 285-286; page 27, line 338-340; page 35 and 36, line 480-493). b) The ANOVA has been added in Tables S1-4 in supporting files. c) we have revised figure 4 to make it more reasonable and have rechecked the font in other three figures.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Dec 2019

Characterization of the physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage

PONE-D-19-15367R3

Dear Dr. Luo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Walid Elfalleh, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-15367R3

Characterization of the physical properties of electron-beam-irradiated white rice and starch during short-term storage

Dear Dr. Luo:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Walid Elfalleh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 3

Pasting properties of irradiated white rice starch during 75 days of storage at 25 °C.

Pasting properties	Treatment(kGy)	0	15	30	45	60	75
peak viscosity	0	2971.5±58.7a(1)	3006.5±51.6a(1)	2905.3±35.7a(1)	2936.5±51.6a(1)	2628.5±40.3a(2)	2511.5±30.4a(3)
	2	2274.5±48.8b(1)	1962.5±46.0b(3)	2106.8±37.8b(2)	2253.0±46.7b(1)	1724.0±33.9b(4)	2065.0±49.5b(2,3)
	4	1346.0±50.9c(1)	1048.0±39.6c(4)	1217.0±24.0c(2,3)	1288.5±26.2c(1,2)	1313.0±18.4c(1)	1177.0±15.6c(3)
	6	531.5±16.3d(4)	570.3±14.5d(2,3)	616.3±23.0d(1,2)	645.0±21.2d(1)	618.5±26.2d(1,2)	617.5±24.7d(1,2)
	8	240.5±4.9e(2)	308.3±11.7d(1)	248.3±11.7d(2)	223.5±17.7d(2)	246.0±18.4d(2)	242.0±12.7d(2)
breakdown viscosity	0	1084.8±35.0a(2)	508.8±15.9b(4)	507.0±18.4c(4)	1048.0±39.6ab(2)	950.5±43.1a(3)	1324.5±62.9a(1)
	2	953.3±47.0b(3)	752.3±45.6a(4)	725.3±35.7b(4)	1122.5±31.8a(2)	738.5±23.3b(4)	1335.0±49.5a(1)
	4	991.0±29.7b(1)	711.3±15.9a(3)	829.0±25.5a(2)	973.0±32.5b(1)	1003.5±33.2a(1)	976.0±36.8b(1)
	6	455.5±21.9c(2)	466.3±23.0b(2)	526.8±22.3c(1)	565.0±28.3c(1)	546.5±19.1c(1)	549.0±22.6c(1)
	8	201.0±15.6d(2)	267.8±11.0c(1)	208.3±11.7d(2)	188.5±12.0d(2)	208.5±12.0d(2)	205.5±7.8d(2)
setback viscosity	0	1357.8±53.4a(1)	1233.3±47.0a(2)	1183.8±33.6a(2,3)	1428.5±40.3a(1)	1433.5±47.4a(1)	1083.0±32.5a(3)
	2	611.3±15.9b(4)	998.3±40.0b(2)	690.3±18.7b(3)	1057.0±49.5b(1,2)	733.5±16.3b(3)	1089.0±32.5a(1)
	4	235.0±7.1c(4)	412.8±18.0c(1)	279.8±13.8c(3)	342.5±13.4c(2)	324.0±18.4c(2)	399.5±16.3b(1)
	6	75.0±14.1d(4)	148.3±11.7d(1)	100.0±8.5d(3)	132.0±8.5d(1,2)	122.5±6.4d(2,3)	129.5±6.4c(1,2)
	8	28.5±2.1d(4)	78.5±3.5d(1)	52.0±2.8d(3)	62.5±4.9d(2)	48.5±3.5e(3)	53.0±4.2d(3)
pasting temperature	0	73.3±0.3a(2)	75.0±0.0b(1)	75.3±0.3a(1)	72.0±0.2ab(3)	73.2±0.2b(2)	70.3±0.5b(4)
	2	72.1±0.2b(3)	76.5±0.7a(1)	74.9±0.2a(2)	72.3±0.4ab(3)	75.0±0.0a(2)	71.5±0.4ab(3)
	4	71.5±0.5b(2,3)	74.3±0.4b(1)	72.3±0.4c(2,3)	71.4±0.6bc(2,3)	71.3±0.4c(3)	72.6±0.5a(2)
	6	71.4±0.5b(1,2)	72.3±0.4c(1)	72.5±0.4c(1)	70.6±0.6c(2)	70.6±0.5c(2)	68.4±0.9c(3)
	8	71.4±0.6b(2,3)	71.4±0.5c(2,3)	72.3±0.4a(2)	72.8±0.4a(1)	72.3±0.4b(1,2)	70.6±0.6b(3)

Values are means ± SD of three determinations (n = 3).

Numbers following the lowercased letters mean significant differences.

Different numbers in a row or a column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.