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

Zhihong Du; Jiali Xing; Xiaohu Luo; Li Wang; Lihong Pan; Yulin Li; Ren Wang; Yuntao Liu; Xiaohong Li; Zhengxing Chen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226633

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 30, 2019
23 Jul 2019 Decision Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r001
Revision 1
15 Sep 2019 Author Response 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r002
3 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r003
Revision 2
14 Oct 2019 Author Response 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r004
21 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r005
Revision 3
27 Nov 2019 Author Response 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r006
4 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor 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: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r007
Formally Accepted
10 Dec 2019 Acceptance Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226633.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .