Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Food Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/afres

Influence of Ƴ-irradiation and genotype on the structural and

techno-functional properties and microbial quality of Millet flour
Haroon Maqbool Wani 1,∗, Paras Sharma 1,2,∗, Khalid Gul 3, Jyoti Prabha Bishnoi 1,
Idrees Ahmed Wani 4, S.L. Kothari 1, Ali Abas Wani 5
1
Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University, 303007, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
2
Food Chemistry Division, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, 500007, Telangana State, India
3
Department of Food Process Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha, 769008, India
4
Department of Food Science & Technology, University of Kashmir, 190006, J&K, India
5
Fraunhofer Institute of Process Engineering & Packaging (IVV) 85354, Freising, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Barnyard(Echinochloautilis),Finger (Eleusinecoracana), Foxtail (Setaria italic), Kodo (Paspalumsetaceum) Little (Pan-
Millet flour icum sumatrense),Pearl (Pennisetumglaucum), and Proso(Penicummiliaceum) millets are staple foods for Indian and
Ƴ- irradiation African diets.Post harvest handling primarily the storage conditions during rainy season leads to significant losses
Microscopy
of millets in Asia and Africa.Poor storage conditions during rainy seasons lead to germination and fungal growth
FTIR
due to poor storage infrastructure facilities in Asia and Africa. To prevent food losses and to understand the
Microbial quality
Millet genotype irradiation influence on biopolymer functionality, the millets were irradiated at a dosage of 2.5 and 5 kGy at
Four irradiation 12% and 14% moisture contents and milled to prepare the flour.The flour was analysed for microbial count and
Functional properties changes in structural and functional properties to understand the implications on end-use. Post irradiation, oil
Gamma irradiation absorption, emulsion capacity, and water absorption decreased significantly (p≤0.05), while foaming capacity,
emulsion stability, and foaming stability increased. Hunter color values L∗ , a∗ , and b∗ showed different trends
with an increase in dosage of irradiation.FTIR studies revealed that there were shifts in the functional groups,
primarily a decrease in the intensities of O-H, C-H, and O=C stretches and the bending mode of water.Scanning
electron microscopy at 2500x magnification revealed different morphological shapes from spherical, polygonal,
and a few spherical granules. In our studies we observed that gamma irradiation decreases the nicrobial count
and at the same time deactivates the germinating enzymes.Therefore the irradiation treatment is an affordable
and effective methodology to prevent post harvest losses of millets In general, irradiation influenced the millet
flour functionality and a decrease in microbial with irradiation , therefore,irradiation can help prevent post-
harvestmillet lossesin developing nations. Studies on controlled irradiation can help improve the flour properties
for better end use

1. Introduction
Cereals play an important role in the human diet primarily due to
their easy handling, extended shelf life, and unique taste. Millets, to-
gether with maize, sorghum, and Coix are popular cereal grains be-
longing to the grass subfamily Panicoideae (Yang et al., 2012). They
are commonly grown in arid and semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia
with a totalproduction of 2715 million tonnes in 2019 (FAO, 2020). It is
the world’s sixth-highest yielding crop witha totaloutput of 31,019,370
tonnes. India is the leading millet producer, followed by Niger, Sudan,
and other countries (FAOSTAT, 2020). Millets can thrive in hot, dry
conditions, such as temperatures of 64°C and annual rainfall of 350–
400 mm (Chivenge, Mabhaudhi, Modi &Mafongoya, 2015). Looking at
the climate change in particular the temperature rise, millets represent
a potential future crop that can grow under extreme temperatures and
low water tables. Therefore, they are an important cereal crop to avoid
hunger and future food crisis.
Foxtail, Pearl, Proso or White, and Finger millets are the four main
genotypes grown globally (Obilina, 2003). Compared to other millets,
Pearl millet has large seeds and is therefore the most widely culti-
vated millet (Hoseney et al. 1987). Minor millets includingLittle, Kodo,
and Barnyard millets are often grown in marginal areas in agricul-
tural situations where large cereals fail to produce significant yields
(Adekunle, 2012; Baltensperger& Cai, 2004; Taylor, 2004). However,
Obilana, 2003, reported all except White and Barnyard as the cultivated
varieties of millets.

∗
Corresponding author
E-mail address: haroonwani10@gmail.com (H.M. Wani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2022.100181
Received 28 October 2021; Received in revised form 8 June 2022; Accepted 28 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
2772-5022/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al. Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Millets are high in dietary carbohydrates (60-70%), protein (6-19%), 2. Material and methods
dietary fibre (12-20%), minerals (2-4%), and have low-fat content of
1.5-5.0% (Hadimani, Ali & Malleshi, 1995).Millets contain bioactive 2.1. Materials
compounds that may have anti-oxidant and anti-microbial properties
(Singh & Sarita, 2016; Nazari, Mohammadifar, Shojaee-Aliabadi, Feizol- M Millet genotypes of 2019 harvest namely Finger millet( Eleusinec-
lahi, & Mirmoghtadaie, 2018). The antioxidant properties of phenolics oracana), Kodo millet(Paspalumsetaceum), Kodo millet (Paspalumse-
are linked with the reduction of oxidative stress, which is aggravated by taceum),Little millet (Panicum sumatrense) Proso millet (Penicummili-
chronic illnesses (Soobrattee, Neergheen, Luximon-Ramma, Aruomab, aceum)and Proso millet (Penicummiliaceum)were procured from the Cen-
&Bahorun, 2005). Compared to wheat, millets are reported to be nutri- tre for Excellence of Millet, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Chennai,
tionally rich because of the presence of bioactive compounds such as India. Pearl millet (Pennisetumglaucum) was procured from Rajasthan
phenolic compounds (Amadou et al., 2013) that have anti-oxidant and Agriculture Research Institute, Jaipur India.
anti-microbial properties. The additional benefits of millet grains are
gluten-free, non-acidifying, easy to digest, and have a low glycaemic
2.2. Methods
index (Chandrasekaraet al., 2012; Ramashiaet al., 2019). The low gly-
caemic index of millets is suitable for people suffering from diabetes, as
2.2.1. Irradiation of seeds
it aids in blood glucose control (Jideani, 2012). New research has sub-
The grains were cleaned of impurities according to the methods of
stantiated their importance in the promotion of gut health reported be-
Wani et al. (2021). And then conditioned at 12 (g per 100 g) and 14 (g
ing due to the presence of high amounts of phytochemicals, dietary fibre,
per 100 g) moisture contents to separate the bran from the grain during
vitamins, minerals, and phenolic compounds (Hasan, Maheshwari, Garg,
the milling process. The conditioned seeds (100 g) were then packed
& Kumar, 2019; Srilekha, Uma Maheswari,Kamalaja, & Rani, 2019).
in airtight LDPE zip pouches and irradiated at 0, 2.5, and 5.0 kGy us-
Therefore, the high nutritional profile of millets is of great interest
ing gamma rays from a Cobalt-60 source irradiator at room temperature
for the consumers and the agro-industry to formulate new, sustainable
(20 °C) and relative humidity between 20% and 40%. The dosimeters
and nutrient-dense products (Saleh, Zhang, Chen, & Shen, 2013; Zhuetet
were kept along with the samples so that each sample received the ex-
al., 2018). Millets are consumed in different forms after dehulling, and
act irradiation dosage. A ceric-cerous dosimeter was used to measure
or milled into flours or meals. The allergen free food products made
the absorbed dose of gamma irradiation by the samples. The samples
from millets are getting popular in the EU infant food market due to
were irradiated at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), Srina-
their mild flavour, bioactive compounds, and hypo allergenicity(Wani,
gar, India. All samples were irradiated at least in duplicate.
Sharma, Wani, Kothari, Wani 2021). Millets areused for decades in other
indigenous,ethnic, traditional, and standard foods like roti, sambar,
dosa, vada, Khichdi, idli, chapati,porridge, biscuits (Jaybhaye, Pardeshi, 2.2.2. Preparation of flour
Vengaiah, & Srivastav, 2014; Singh & Sarita, 2016;Embashu&Nantanga, Millet seeds were milled and sieved through a 0.25mm BIS mesh
2019).In Asia and Africa, post-harvest losses of millets are associated sieve using domestic grinder ( Sujata Electronics, New Delhi, India) .
with poor storage conditions, especially in rainy seasons leading to The unseived meal was once again milled in the grinder, sieved, and
sprouting and fungal growth leading to spoilage and mycotoxin for- blended to make consistent flour.The native and irradiated flours were
mation respectively. The fungal growth leading to mycotoxin formation packaged in airtight LDPE zip pouches and held at -18°C until further
and spoilage is primarily due to excess microbial growth. This leads not studies.
only to food losses but is a food safety concern and finally leads to the
rejection of milled flour (ISO Standard 6322-1, 1996).
2.2.3. Physical properties of Milletgrains
In developing countries, fumigation is the method of choice to
2.2.3.1. 1000 kernel weight. 100 grains were randomly selected and
prevent spoilage and post-harvest losses. However, thecommon prac-
weighed on an electronic balance set to 0.01 gto assess thousand kernel
tice of fumigation is under consumer and regulatory scrutiny due to
weight (M1000 ). For a 1000 seed basis, the weight of 100 grains was
the health hazards of ethylene oxide or methyl bromide. Therefore,
multiplied by ten (Altunas, ÖzgÖz, Taser, 2005).
the non-thermal and non-hazardous methods of grain decontamina-
tion are attracting consumer attention. Methods such as Ƴ irradiation
have the potential to prevent grain spoilage by inhibiting enzyme ac- 2.2.2.2Length,. width, andthickness. The length, width and thickness of
tivity and microbial spoilage.An optimized dose of irradiation is used the grains were measured using a digital Vernier caliper with 0.01 mm
for bulk or packed products in a controlled atmosphere and there- accuracyand measuring the mean value of three main dimensions width
fore the method is safe and effective for the millets to enhance the (W), length (L) and thickness (T). (Altunas, ÖzgÖz, Taser, 2005).
shelf life by decontamination or reducing the microbial load (Codex
Committee on Food Additives & Contaminants, 2001). A dosage of 1– 2.2.2.3 Geometric meandiameter. The geometric mean diameter (Dg )
10 kGy has been used, however, the ideal dosage is determined by was calculated according to the methods of Sharma et al., (1985) as:
the consistency of the harvest and the product’s shelf life(Aziz Nagy,
Souzan, & Shahin Azza, 2006).However, contrary to other food ma-
𝐷𝑔 = (𝐿𝑊 𝑇 )1∕3 (1)
terials such as rice and wheat flour where research on 𝜸 -111 irra-
diation has extensively been conducted to study their pasting, physi-
cal and functional properties (Bhat,Wani, Hamdani &Masoodi, 2016;
Sultan,Wani, Gani&Masoodi, 2017), the information on 𝜸 - irradia- 2.2.2.4 Arithmetic meandiameter. The arithmetic mean diameter was de-
tion of millets is scanty.The irradiation is associated with the breaking termined by using the formula given by Mohsenin (1970) as:
down of the primary chemical bonds and secondary bonds holding the
𝐷𝛼 = (𝐿 + 𝑊 + 𝑇 )∕3 (2)
native structure of biopolymers (starch, proteins, enzymes) due to the
generation of free radicals. Therefore, it is important to understand the
influence of Ƴ-irradiation treatments on the millet flour functional prop-
2.2.2.5 Sphericity. Sphericity (𝜑) was calculated by using the following
erties and the microbial load.
formula (Jain & Bal,1997):
In the present study, we aim to understand the effect of Ƴ-irradiation
and millet genotype on the structural and techno-functional properties 𝜑 = (𝐷𝑔∕𝐿) × 100 (3)
of millet flour.

2
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al. Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Table 1
Physical Properties of native millet grains (n=100).

Millet L (mm) W (mm) T (mm) Dg(mm) D𝜶(mm) 𝝋 BD (g/cm3) TD (g/cm3) TKW (g)
c bc a b bc bc b ab
Pearl 5.70±0.56 2.07±0.12 1.17±0.15 4.58±0.83 2.98±0.20 80.0±6.67 1.25±0.06 0.61±0.06 7.66±0.35d
Foxtail 5.10±0.44bc 1.90±0.10ab 1.13±0.15a 3.65±0.51b 2.71±0.16b 71.5 ±7.49ab 1.17±0.07b 0.59±0.15ab 2.56±0.03a
Proso 5.30±0.26 c 2.10±0.17bc 1.07±0.06a 3.95±0.30b 2.82±0.13bc 74.44±1.92bc 1.09±0.12b 0.53±0.12a 4.77±0.04b
Finger 3.03±0.15 a 1.67±0.15a 1.94±0.08a 1.90±0.21a 1.94±0.0a 62.56±5.12 a 0.90±0.13a 0.56±0.04a 2.52±0.15a
Kodo 5.60±0.72b 2.23±0.25c 1.10±0.10a 4.64±1.18b 2.98±0.30bc 82.11±13.5bc 1.24±0.12b 0.72±0.04b 6.46±0.65c
Little 4.50±0.30 b 2.23±0.15c 1.27±0.06a 4.26±0.64b 2.67±0.15b 94.4±10.0 c 0.87±0.02 a 0.62±0.05ab 2.30±0.05a
Barnyard 5.80±0.20 c 2.33±0.2bc 1.07±0.06a 4.80±0.29b 3.07±0.09c 82.78±5.52bc 1.10±0.11b 0.50±0.03a 2.64±0.25a

Results are expressed as means (n = 100) ± standard deviation.

Values followed by same superscripts in a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
L: length; W; width; T: thickness; Dg: geometric mean diameter; D𝛼:Airthmetic mean diameter𝜑: sphericity; BD: bulk density; TD: true den-
sity;TKW: 1000 kernel weight.

Table 2
Hunter color values of native and irradiated millet flours (n=3).

Irradiation dose Hunter Color

Millet Moisture (kGy)
L a b

Pearl 0 71.46±0.00j 2.05±0.28jk 13.18±0.00b

12% 2.5 68.96±1.172i 1.07±0fgh 19.53±1.00efg
5.0 67.17±1.44hi 0.8033±0.13efg 21.37±1.3ijk
14% 2.5 67.01±1.49h 0.816±0.54efg 22.28±0.7jk
5.0 70.83±0.51j -1.01±0.02a 20.01±1.07fgh

Foxtail 0 67.53±0.2hi 5.35±0o 24.20±0.23h

12% 2.5 62.45±1.56def 1.41±0.48hi 29.54±0.845j
5.0 61.6 ±0.60cde 1.17±0.48fghi 27.28±1.38i
14% 2.5 62.45± 1.56def 1.41±0.48hi 16.12±0.84d
5.0 61.59±0.43cde 1.21±0.31fghi 29.83±0.249j

0 74.82±0.00kl 3.4±0.00l 18.87±0.0def

Proso 12% 2.5 63.53±1.06efg 1.36±0.28hi 22.72±0.19k
5.0 63.53±1.06efg -0.12±0.04bc 22.79±0.1k
14% 2.5 67.11±2.09hi 0.41±0.29de 20.27±0.43ghi
5.0 61.80±0.78de -0.5± 0.134b 20.53±0.95ghi

Finger 0 73.7±0.0k 3.25±0.2l 7.13±0.21a

12% 2.5 74.84±0.23kl 1.366±0.07hi 15.74±1.54cd
5.0 71.96±0.97j 1.62±0.15i 15.21±0.31c
14% 2.5 76.19±0.76l 1.11±0.11fgh 15.05±0.51c
5.0 56.57±1.58b 2.35±0.21k 18.72±0.64ef

Kodo 0 57.44±0b 4.89±0.01n 12.25±0.0b

12% 2.5 53.47±1.70a 2.18±0.051k 18.24±0.29ef
5.0 56.57±1.58b 2.35±0.210k 18.72±0.64ef
14% 2.5 53.96±2.07a 2.18±0.05k 18.24±0.29ef
5.0 56.97±0b 2.05±0.28jk 18.06±0.57e

Little 0 60.57±0.00cd 3.8±0.00m 17.62±0.0d

12% 2.5 63.26±0.59ef 1.26±0.19ghi 21.54±0.6ijk
5.0 63.97±1.24fg 0.48±0.14de 19.88±0.15fgh
14% 2.5 57.10±1.15b 0.84±0.14efg 21.39±1.26ijk
5.0 56.96±0.412b 0.84±0.63efg 18.06±0.57d

Barnyard 0 63.55±0.10efg 3.76±0.00m 19.84±0.11

2.5 62.10±0.93def 0.85±0.15efg 22.38±0.99g
12% 5.0 59.83±1.25c 0.73±0.33ef 22.72±0.53gh
14% 2.5 63.32±0.77ef 0.2166±0.16cd 21.64±0.88g
5.0 58.10±0.48b 0.52±0.11de 21.96±0.82g

Results are expressed as means (n=3) ± standard deviation.

Values followed by same small letter superscripts in a columndo not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

2.2.2.6 Bulk and true density. Bulk density was determined by dividing weight of seed grains in the toluene.The ratio of sample weight to sam-
the weight of a given quantity of seeds by its volume, using the following ple volume was used to measure true density (Singh & Goswami,1996).
formula (AOAC, 1990):
2.2.2.7 Porosity. The porosity (𝜀) of bulk is the ratio of its spaces to its
bulk volume and was calculated according to the methods of Mohsenin,
𝜌𝑏 = 𝑀∕𝑉𝑏 (4)
(1970).
[ ( )]
The displacement method with toluene (C7 H8 ) was used to deter- 𝜀(%) = 100 1 − 𝑃𝑏 ∕𝑃𝑘 (5)
mine the true density. The quantity of toluene displaced was calcu- where 𝜀 is the porosity; Pb is bulk density (g/mL) and Pk is seed density
lated using the graduated scale on the cylinder after immersing a certain (g/mL).

3
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al. Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Table 3
Influence of irradiation and moisture on oil (OAC) water absorption capacity (WAC).

Millet Genotype Moisture Irradiation dose (kGy) OAC (Unit) WAC (Unit)
kl
Pearl 0 1.59±0.01 1.39±0.01p
12% 2.5 1.47±0.02ghij 1.27±0.00lmn
5.0 1.40±0.00fg 1.25±0.00lm
14% 2.5 1.41±0.00fgh 1.26±0.00lm
5.0 1.38±0.00ef 1.24±0.00l

Foxtail 0 1.62±0.02lm 1.40±0.05pq

12% 2.5 1.52±0.02jk 1.32±0.01o
5.0 1.5±0.01ij 1.28±0.01mn
14% 2.5 1.49±1.27hij 1.27±0.00lmn
5.0 1.43±0.01fghi 1.24±0.00l

Proso 0 1.11±0.01c 0.93±0.01d

12% 2.5 0.98±0.01b 0.83±0.01c
5.0 0.96±0.00b 0.82±0.00bc
14% 2.5 0.95±0.01b 0.83±0.01c
5.0 0.95±0.01b 0.81±0.01abc

Finger 0 1.86±0.01o 1.43±0.01q

12% 2.5 1.71±0.01n 1.30±0.00no
5.0 1.59±0.01kl 1.18±0.01j
14% 2.5 1.71±0.01n 1.30±0.00no
5.0 1.59±0.01kl 1.18±0.01j

Kodo 0 1.52±0.02jk 1.21±0.03k

12% 2.5 1.43±0.01fghi 1.16±0.015ij
5.0 1.40±0.01fg 1.14±0.00hi
14% 2.5 1.41±0.00fg 1.11±0.00gh
5.0 1.40±0.00fg 1.10±0.01fg

Little 0 1.10±0.01c 0.94±0.00d

12% 2.5 0.99±0.00b 0.83±0.01c
5.0 0.98±0.01b 0.813±0.00abc
14% 2.5 0.82±0.005a 0.79±0.00ab
5.0 0.80±0.00a 0.78±0.00a

Barnyard 0 1.44±0.02fghi 1.17±0.02ij

2.5 1.32±0.02de 1.08±0.02ef
12% 5.0 1.28±0.01d 1.06±0.02e
14% 2.5 1.63±0.05lm 1.1±0.00fg
5.0 1.66±0.05mn 1.16±0.05ij

Results are expressed as means (n = 3) ± standard deviation.

Values followed by same letter in a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

2.3. Colour follows;

{ }
𝑒𝑣
𝐸𝐶 = × 100 (6)
The colorvalues [L∗ (lightness), a∗ (redness), and b∗ (yellowness)]of 𝑡𝑣
the native and irradiated flour samples weremeasured using a Color Where eʋ is the emulsion volume and tʋ is the total volume.
Flex Spectrocolorimeter(Hunter Lab Colorimeter D-25, Hunter Lab As- The emulsions were heated in a water bath at 80 ºC for 30 minutes
sociates Laboratory, Ruston, USA.). and centrifuged at 800 g for 10 minutes to measure theemulsion stability
(ES) at high temperatures.ES was calculated as:
{ }
2.4. Functional properties of native and irradiated flours 𝑓 𝑒𝑣
𝐸𝑆 = × 100 (7)
𝑖𝑒𝑣
2.4.1. Water and oil absorption capacity
Where feʋ is the final emulsion volume and ieʋ is the initial emulsion
The water and oil absorption were determined according to the
volume.
method of Each sample (1 g, db) was mixed with 10 mL of distilled
water or mustard oil in a pre-weighed centrifuge tube, followed by vor-
2.4.3. Foaming capacity & foam stability
texing at 25 ºC for 30 min. After centrifuging for 15 minutes at 5000 g
The foaming capacity (FC) and foaming stability (FS) were deter-
and10o C (5810R, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany), the supernatant was
mined according to the method of (Wani et al., 2014). 5g flour/100 g
decanted, and residue weightwas measured. The gain in weight was ex-
H2 O suspension were homogenised for 1 minute in a high speed ho-
pressed as percentage of water/oil absorption capacity.
mogeniser (WiseTis Homogenizer, Wisd Laboratory Instruments, Seoul,
South Korea). The percent increase in the volume of the flour dispersion
2.4.2. Emulsion capacity and stability was used to measure the foaming capacity (FC).
The method of Martnez et al.(2014a) was used to determinethe emul-
sion capacity and stability of native and irradiated millet flours.Flour 2.5. Light transmittance
suspensions, 5% (w/v) were mixed with refined mustard oil (20 mL) and
homogenised for 1 minute in a vortex at maximum speed (Wise Tis Ho- The method of Wani et al. (2012) was used to measure the light
mogenizer, Wisd Laboratory Instruments, Seoul, Korea).The suspension transmittance of flour gels. Flour gels were made by heating an aqueous
was centrifuged for 10 minutes at 800 × g at 10o C (5810R, Eppendorf, flour suspension (1%, db) with constant stirring in a water bath (SWB-
Hamburg, Germany).The emulsifying capacity (EC) was determined as 10L-1- Taiwan) at 90ºC for 30 minutes. The suspension was allowed

4
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al. Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Table 4
Functional properties of native and irradiated millets

Millet Moisture Irradiation dose EC ES FC FS

(kGy)

Pearl millet 0 42.40±2.36op 53.54±2.08a 29.9±1.5gh 15.3±1.3a

12% 2.5 40.82±1.02n 61.23±1.05def 32.8±2.1h 8.9±0.6a
5.0 38.73±0.97klm 70.73±0.50a 41.2±1.1kl 14.5±0.4a
14% 2.5 38.4±0.36kl 81.4±1.15lmn 40.3±0.6i 15.1±1.7a
5.0 37.45±0.07k 84.43±0.40lm 41.2±1.1ij 21.3±1.1a

Foxtail millet 0 51.65±0.96r 63.26±0.87fg 23.3±1.0de 10.5±0.5a

12% 2.5 43.06±1.60p 75.66±0.50l 25.5±1.0f 11.3±0.1a
5.0 43.43±0.49op 83.01±2.99mn 28.9±1.3g 13.7±0.5 a
14% 2.5 40.5±0.43n 90.73±0.41r 30.1±0.6gh 14.5±0.8a
5.0 40±0.17lmn 100±0.00t 31.7±0.7hi 12.0±0.7a

Prosomillet 0 14.84±1.49c 50.46±0.64a 66.6±1.5r 21.2±1.1a

12% 2.5 11.96±0.20b 65.33±0.90 61.3±0.9q 15.5±0.7 a
5.0 11.36±0.40ab 75.23±0.15l 63.6±0r 13.9±3.2a
14% 2.5 10.83±0.05ab 78.7±0.78 69.6±1.6s 13.9±3.2a
5.0 9.83±0.05a 81±1.05mn 63.2±1.0qr 12.5±1.0a

Finger millet 0 43.28±2.13p 60.48±0.62de 15.8±0.3a 9.6±0.6a

12% 2.5 40.94±0.15no 65.96±0.68h 16.3±0.1a 6.8±0.6a
5.0 38.33±2.12ij 72.7±0.26ij 18.5±0.8b 8.5±1.0a
14% 2.5 37.53±0.61i 82.7±2.26mn 16.2±0.3a 7.7±0.7a
5.0 37.33±0.61i 85.66±0.30m 18.3±0.8b 9.0±0.4a

Kodo millet 0 27.38±1.47g 62.7±1.6ef 41.2±1.0ij 22.0±1.7a

12% 2.5 25.0±0.36g 73.9±1.27jkl 46.3±1.0m 17.7±2.3a
5.0 24.03±0.15f 80.77±0.77m 48.4±1.2n 17.0±3.3a
14% 2.5 21.6±0.60e 89.73±1.33r 50.6±0.5o 19.0±0.9a
5.0 19.96±0.32d 93.73±3.1s 54.0±1.4p 14.7±3.1a

Little Millet 0 45.56±0.55r 61.25±0.98def 32.9±2.1i 13.3±1.0a

12% 2.5 41.56±0.55nop 73.0±1.04ij 42.9±2jk 22.5±1.0a
5.0 41.23±0.05no 81.51±1.20mn 43.5±2.1k 14.0±1.4a
14% 2.5 40.2±0.1mn 86.23±1.00n 45.9±0.6l 14.7±0.8a
5.0 39.83±0.15lmn 91.33±1.12 40.8±0.5ij 16.4±0.8a

Barnyard 0 36.93±0.59i 50.52±0.58a 21.30±1.0cd 11.1±1.0a

Millet 2.5 34.34±1.00h 57.02±3.0a 23.7±1.7ef 9.3±0.8a
12% 5.0 32.61±1.00i 58.96±1.2cd 24.7±1.4ef 9.4±0.8a
14% 2.5 32.1±0.95hi 61.03±1.18def 20.7±0.8c 7.2±1.0a
5.0 30.9±0.3h 84.16±0.28lm 23.6±2.1ef 12.5±2.5a

Results are expressed as means (n = 3) ± standard deviation.

Values followed by same small letter superscripts in a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

to cool to room temperature (23-25 ºC). The samples were kept in the
refrigerator (4ºC) and the transmittance was measured every 24 hours at
640nm using a (UV visible spectrophotometer, Model U-2900 2JI-0003,
Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan)
2.6. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy
FTIR-ATR was used to characterize the structural properties of both
native and irradiated samples (Cary 630 FTIR, Agilent Technologies,
Virginia, USA). Resolution Pro software version 2.5.5 was used to mon-
itor the samples at room temperature with a resolution of 4 cm (Agilent
Technologies, USA).
2.7. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
A scanning electron microscope was used to determine the structure
and surface morphology of flour samples (JSM-IT700HR, USA). Samples
were coated with gold and an accelerating voltage of 5.0 kV was used
and electron micrographs were taken at different magnifications.
milliliter was done after incubation at 30 °C for 72 h for the TAPC while
for yeasts and molds the plates were incubated at 25 °C for 5 days.
2.8.2. Microbial growth during storage
The native and irradiated millet flour samples were stored for
90 days at a relative humidity of 60% and storage temperature of 25 °C.
The microbial count was performed following the procedures laid in
section 2.8.1.
2.9. Statistical analysis
Except the physical properties data (n=100), all otherdata (n=3) was
analyzed for one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a 5% signifi-
cance level was tested to evaluatesignificant effectson Millet flour prop-
erties with different irradiation and moisture treatments. Duncan’s test
was used to determine variations using commercial statistical software
(SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Result and discussion SPSSS

2.8. Microbiological analysis 3.1. Physical properties of millet grains

2.8.1. Total mesophile flora, yeasts, and moulds Physical properties of millet flours as thickness, length, width,
The total aerobic bacteria (TAPC), yeasts and moulds were ana- geometric mean diameter, arithmetic mean diameter, bulk density,
lyzed according to the methods of Mustapha, Bousselmi, Jerbi, Bettaïeb, sphericity, true density, and thousand kernel weight are presented in
Fattouch (2014). The microbial count as colony forming units (CFU) per Table 1.The millers use physical properties as a buying criterion and to

5
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al. Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181

Table 5
Surface properties (foaming and emulsion) of native and irradiated millet flours (n=3).

Irradiation
Cultivar Moisture dose (kGy) 0h 24 h 48 h 72 h 96 h 120 h

Pearl Millet 0 28.31±3.25defg 21.56±1.02bc 18.07±0.87def 11.73±1.49b 11.82±1.59defg 9.39±1.26c

2.5 30.00±1.73fgh 24.05±0.57def 17.98±1.88def 14.25±0.83cd 13.30±0.77fghi 11.47±1.61ef
12% 5.0 35.49±0.82lmn 27.14±1.29ijk 15.53±1.86bc 19.21±0.88ijk 13.81±0.32hij 13.09±0.46ghi
14% 2.5 29.52±0.68efgh 25.12±0.58fghi 23.09±0.82jklm 19.35±0.52ijk 17.13±0.81mn 15.25±0.20klm
5.0 37.77±2.18nop 27.34±0.96jk 15.52±1.82bc 17.98±1.88ghi 14.57±0.52ijkl 14.59±1.10ijklm

Foxtail Millet 0 24.18±0.86ab 22.74±0.80bcde 20.73±0.27hi 16.86±0.59efgh 9.86±0.26bc 9.85±0.26cd

12% 2.5 25.71±0.59abcd 17.12±0.61a 16.60±0.58cd 15.26±0.54cde 14.13±0.37hijk 14.04±1.02hijkl
5.0 28.41±1.00defg 23.45±0.54cdef 20.90±0.48hi 18.62±0.43hijk 16.61±0.76mn 14.79±0.34jklm
14% 2.5 27.12±0.36cdef 24.18±0.86defgh 18.20±0.42ef 14.46±0.33cd 11.59±0.87def 11.34±1.11def
5.0 29.52±0.68efgh 23.99±0.55defg 18.62±0.93efg 16.68±2.09efg 15.49±0.36jklm 15.14±0.35klm

Proso Millet 0 23.13±1.74a 21.23±1.03b 12.67±10.38 13.40±0.65c 10.94±1.43cd 10.86±1.49cde

12% 2.5 26.73±1.25bcde 22.75±1.10bcde 19.96±0.46gh 17.79±0.41fghi 13.93±0.66hij 13.31±1.00ghij
5.0 31.38±0.42hijk 26.31±0.61hij 24.17±0.33lm 20.42±0.47k 18.20±0.42no 17.65±0.23p
14% 2.5 29.52±0.6efgh 25.12±0.58fghi 23.09±0.82jklm 19.35±0.52ijk 17.13±0.81mn 15.25±0.20klm
5.0 32.86±0.44ijkl 27.77±0.98jk 23.81±0.32klm 19.96±0.46jk 18.20±0.42no 17.26±0.99op

Finger Millet 0 28.19±0.65defg 23.09±0.82bcdef 19.21±0.68fg 20.12±0.95jk 19.07±0.88o 18.09±1.29mno

12% 2.5 39.52±1.3p 23.10±1.10bcdef 18.34±0.65efg 16.75±1.26efgh 15.85±0.36klm 15.59±0.36ijklm
5.0 36.06±1.75mno 29.07±1.03kl 20.92±1.25hi 16.62±1.03efg 14.70±1.04ijkl 14.81±0.92jklm
14% 2.5 39.22±1.39p 18.34±0.65a 15.73±0.55bc 14.46±0.35cd 13.81±0.64hij 14.02±0.19hijkl
5.0 37.29±3.86nop 22.69±4.41bcde 14.81±0.92b 13.39±1.45c 8.50±0.81b 7.69±1.17b

Kodo Millet 0 28.19±0.65defg 23.09±0.82bcdef 19.21±0.68fg 20.12±0.95jk 19.07±0.88o 17.64±1.29o

12% 2.5 30.44±1.08ghij 23.10±1.10bcdef 18.34±0.65efg 16.75±1.26efgh 15.85±0.36klm 15.49±0.36lmn
5.0 33.38±1.18klm 30.43±0.41l 21.88±0.50ij 18.31±0.65ghij 16.74±0.98mn 16.86±0.59nop
14% 2.5 33.63±0.45klm 22.23±0.78bcd 16.99±0.39cde 14.47±0.89cd 14.46±0.33ijkl 14.91±0.39jklm
5.0 35.12±0.47lmn 21.39±2.99bc 15.73±0.59bc 14.45±0.69cd 13.39±0.47ghi 12.78±0.17fgh

Little Millet 0 35.54±2.45lmn 17.25±0.60a 11.27±1.30a 8.75±1.10a 6.93±2.82a 5.79±1.16a

12% 2.5 38.31±0.51nop 26.12±1.26ghij 19.50±0.45fgh 13.68±1.88c 12.40±1.83defgh 11.90±1.45efg
5.0 38.91±0.90op 24.38±1.18defgh 18.21±0.73ef 10.31±0.14ab 8.51±1.30b 7.97±0.82b
14% 2.5 38.69±3.11op 21.39±0.99bc 14.28±1.40b 13.68±1.88c 11.40±0.83cde 11.05±0.39de
5.0 39.59±3.18p 24.38±1.18defgh 18.07±0.87def 14.05±1.13c 11.82±1.59defg 11.82±1.59efg

Barnyard 0 30.91±0.71ghij 27.86±0.32jk 24.27±0.28m 16.79±0.19efgh 13.03±0.15efghi 13.03±0.15ghi

12% 2.5 33.12±0.76jklm 38.46±0.44mn 32.36±0.00p 22.65±0.26l 16.99±0.78mn 16.22±0.37mnop
5.0 33.38±1.18klm 30.91±0.71l 24.55±0.57m 18.93±1.09ijk 16.22±0.37lm 15.85±0.36mno
14% 2.5 33.89±0.78klm 36.88±1.29m 27.14±1.29n 23.47±1.45l 21.38±0.49p 21.06±0.28q
5.0 36.88±0.99nop 38.91±0.90n 31.15±1.10p 27.13±0.96m 20.90±0.48p 21.06±0.28q

Results are expressed as means (n = 3) ± standard deviation.

Values followed by same small letter superscripts in a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 6
Effect of Ƴ irradiation on the micro flora of native and irradiated millet flour (Pearl Millet)

Total plate count CFU/g (Days)

Cultivar Radiation dose (kGy)
0 30 60 90

Pearl 0 5.1 ± 1.4 x105 5.5± 1.2 x 105 6.8± 1.7 x105 7.5± 1.5 x 105
2.5 1.3± 0.3 x 102 1.5± 0.5 x 102 1.7± 0.4 x 102 1.9± 0.5 x 102
5.0 ˂101 ˂101 ˂101 ˂101

Yeast and mold count (Days)

0 3.9 ± 0.7 x 102 4.4 ± 0.9 x 102 4.8 ± 1.1 x 103 5.5 ± 1.4 x 104
2.5 ˂101 ˂101 ˂101 ˂101
5.0 ND ND ND ND

design and develop grain handling equipment(Davies, 2009). The dif-
ferent densities like bulk, true, and tapped densities are used to de-
sign the container tanks. The mean values of width (W), length (L),
thickness (T), sphericity (𝜑), and geometric mean diameter (Dg) of mil-
let graingenotypes are shown in Table1. The geometric mean diame-
ter of different millets varied between 1.90 mm (Finger) to 4.80 mm
(Barnyard) with lowest and highest values respectively. Sphericity var-
ied from 62.5 to 94.4indicating that the grains resembled sphereswith
less or no elongation (Hamadani et.al., 2014). The bulk density,1000-
grain weight, and true density of millet cultivars were measured and
are reportedin the range of 0.87-1.25 g/cm3 , 2.30-7.66 g, and 0.50-0.72
g/cm3 (Table 1).These findings were similar to Finger and Pearl millet
grains reported by Pawase et. al., 2018. Similar findings have been re-
ported in wheat cultivars by Kheiralipour et al., 2008 and Boz et al.,
2012.
Table 2 represents the Hunter Colour values of millet samples. The
range of L∗ , a∗ and b∗ values for native millets were 57.4- 74.82, 2.05-
5.35, and 7.13-24.20 respectively. The results indicated that the irradi-
ation treatment led to the decrease in L∗ value for Pearl, Fox, Proso, and
Kodo millets. Ramashia et al. (2017) reported a similar decrease in hue
values of Finger millet. In this study the L∗ value showed a decrease with
irradiation treatment. Previous studies reported by Abu et al (2005) and
Abu and Amanda (2009) Abu and Amanda (2009). However, a mild
decrease was seen in Finger and Barnyard millets at two irradiation

6
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al.
dosages leading to a non-significant decrease in L∗ value (p<0.5). Our
findings were in agreement with the color changes for L∗ value caused
by Ƴ-irradiation of Pearl millet cultivars (Falade and Kolawole, 2012).
Consequent to the irradiation treatment, the b∗ values increased in mil-
lets samples and were found in the range of 15.05 to 29.54, with Fin-
ger and Foxtail millet respectively representing the lowest and high-
est values. The Pearl and Proso millet changed from cream to slight
green at 5kGY irradiation dosage. Irrespective of the genotype, a∗ val-
ues showed a significant (p<0.5) decrease with irradiation treatments.
Kang et al. (1999) reported a non-significant change in a∗ value but a
significant increase in the b∗ value of irradiated corn starches. In our
investigations, we noticed a significant increase (p<0.5) in the b∗ value
with irradiation treatment of Finger millet. Color variations may be at-
tributed to caramelizationor Millard reaction wherein monosaccharides
derived from the degradation of starch polysaccharides with proteins
(amino acids) react with amino acids of millet proteins which also may
be exposed due to unfolding of protein compact structure as a result
of high-energy rays capable of hydrolyzing chemical bonds, cleaving
large starch molecules into fragments of sugar, and dextrin which are
small that can be charged or uncharged as free radicals (Greenwood and
Mackenzie 1963).Unfavorable water activity, sugar reduction, carbohy-
drate polymers, and non-reducing sugars, can all be involved in non-
enzymatic Maillard browning reactions that result in browning. (Smith
and Friedman,1984).
3.4. Structural and techno-functional properties
3.4.1. Water and oil absorption capacity
The ability of native and irradiated millet flours to absorb wa-
ter and oil is shown in Table3. Water absorption capacity (WAC) for
native flours was in the range of0.93 to 1.43 (g/g), Proso and Fin-
ger millet represented the highest and lowest values respectively. The
WAC for native millets was in resemblance to the results found by
(Shrestha and Srivastava., 2015) for Finger and Barynyard millet. In
general, the present study indicated that the WAC of millet flours de-
creased significantly (p ≤0.05) with irradiation treatments. Cleavage of
7
Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181
Fig 1. FTIR spectrum of native and irradiated Finger
millet flours (representative)
branched-chain polymers (Amylopectin) that occurs during irradiation
may lead to chain splitting and an increase in WAC of irradiated flours
(Nagasawa et al., 2004). Higher WAC values indicate starch polymers
with a loose structure and lower values indicate a compact structure
(Adebowale et al. 2012a).
The present study indicated significant (p≥0.05) differences in oil ab-
sorption capacity (OAC) of native and irradiated millet flours. The OAC
was in the range of 1.10 to 1.86 (g/g) with the highest and lowest values
of OAC for Pearl and Finger millet respectively. The OAC ofFinger and
Pearl millet were in agreement with the results of Amir et al., (2016)
and C.R. Abah et al., (2020).The OAC of millet flours decreased signifi-
cantly (p≥0.05) with increasing irradiation dose and moisture content.
The OAC for the irradiated millet flours varied between 0.80-and 1.71
(g/g). The highest and lowest levels of OAC after irradiation were found
in Little and Finger millet respectively at 2.5kGy and 5kGy. These find-
ings were similar to wheat flour reported by Bombara et al., (1997) and
Bhat et al., (2016). The Ƴ-irradiation may have induced protein de-
naturation, leading to hydrophilic exposure of amino acids leading to
a decrease in OAC (Cheftel et al.1985). The exposure of hydrophobic
aminoacids during partial or complete denaturation of proteins reduces
protein lipid interaction and therefore can influence the OAC values.
3.4.2. Emulsion capacity and Emulsion stability
The results of emulsion capacity (EC) and emulsion stability (ES)are
presented in Table3.EC and ES are surface-active properties commonly
used to understand the application of biopolymers to stabilize the water-
oil interfaces in emulsions (Sila et al., 2014).The emulsion capacity of
untreated millets varied from 14.84 to 45.56%, the lowest and highest
EC were found in Proso and Little millet respectively.On irradiation, the
EC decreased significantly (p≤0.05) and was in the range of 9.8-43.43%.
The lowest and highest value of EC in irradiated flours was seen in Proso
and Foxtail millet respectively.
The ES in native millet flours increased significantly (p≤0.05) and
were found in the range of 50.46-63.26Table3.The highest and lowest ES
for Foxtail and Proso millet respectively. The values of ES were reported
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al.
Fig 2. Scanning electron microscopy of native millet flours
greater than those by Sanjeew et al., (2010) for chickpeas ranging from
15.95-28.55 %.
3.4.3. Foaming capacity and stability
The proteins, carbohydrates, and other compounds present in the
flour account for its foaming capacity. The foaming capacity of millet
flours is presented in Table3. In general, the irradiation treatments in-
creased the FC of the millet flours. The increase in foaming capacity was
attributed to increase in protein solubility by irradiation treatment of
millet flours by Gowthraj, Jubeena & Sangeetha (2021) and Bhat et al.,
2008. Similar increase in FC was also reported for irradiated wheat flour
by Bhat et al., 2016. The FC of native and irradiated millet flours varied
between 15.8-46.6% and 16.2-69.6% respectively. However, This pri-
marily may be due to changes in protein structures due to irradiation
treatment which can increase the protein solubility resulting in a signif-
icant increase in foaming capacity. However, due to irradiation treat-
ments (depending on the exposure) the native protein chain structure
breaks significantly resulting in decreased foaming stability.
Foaming stability (as half-life in min) of millet flours is presented in
Table3. Foam stability showed no significant difference (p≤0.05) as both
increase and a decrease were noted for a few millet flours upon irradia-
tion. A decrease in fomaing stability is reported in the literature due to
breakdown of the long protein chains and therefore decreases in stability
8
Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181
at the air liquid interphase. Gowthraj, Jubeena & Sangeetha (2021) and
Bhat et al., (2008) reported a decrease in FS for millet flours upon ir-
radiation. The finding on irradiation treatments leading to decrease in
foaming stability are already reported for creal, legume and oilseed pro-
teins.
3.4.4. Light transmittance
Light transmittance of millet flours both non-irradiated and 𝛾 irra-
diated are represented in Table 4. Light Transmittance varied signifi-
cantly (p≤0.05) during storage for0, 24, 48, 72, 96 and120 hours (h).
In general, the light transmittance decreased over time irrespective of
the given treatments. However, the light transmittance was significantly
higher (p≤0.05) in the case of irradiated samples. The starch degra-
dation and low molecule fragment development may result in an in-
crease in light transmittance upon irradiation (Sofi et al., 2013). Sim-
ilar findings have been reported for arrowhead flour and wheat flour
(Wani et al., 2015a; Bhat et al., 2020).Therefore, the higher values of
light transmittance in the irradiated samples may be beneficial for infant
formulas for rapid dispersibility in food products.
3.4.4. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy
Infrared spectroscopy has been a useful tool in determining the
molecular changes in food biopolymers. In our infrared spectroscopic in-
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al.
vestigations, we observed significant shifts in functional groups of millet
biopolymers due to radiation treatments as depicted in the representa-
tive infrared spectrum of Finger millet (Figure 1). The bending mode
of water, C-H, and O-H stretch and were assigned to the spectral bands
between 1600-1800 cm1 , 2800-3000 cm-1, and,3000 and 3600 cm-1 to
native and irradiated millet flour according to the methods of (Kizil &
Irudayaraj, 2006 The band between 990 and 1152 cm-1 displayed the
anhydrous C-O stretch (Fang, Fowler, Tomkin, & Hill, 2002).The mil-
let flours showed peaks that suggested the presence of amines 1 band
(1628–16554 cm-1) within the region of (1600–600 cm-1).The strength
of functional groups decreased significantly with increasing irradiation
dose for all millets except Finger millet which showed increased inten-
sity of functional group. Bhat et al, 2016reported decrease in strength of
functional groups of whole wheat flours after irradiation treatment. The
findings for all millets are consistent with those obtained by Kizil and
Irudayaraj (2006) using FT Raman spectroscopy on Ƴ-irradiated corn
starch gels. Wani et al. (2014) found that at different irradiation
doses, the intensities increased for Indian horse chestnut starches at
1081 cm-1 .
3.4.5. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
SEM is one of the most widely used method tostudy the microstruc-
ture of grains, food materials as well as their derivatives were used to
understand the structure of millet flour. SEM images of millet flour re-
vealed the presence of spherical to irregular starch granules (Fig 2).
The millets had starch granules that looked like rice starch granules and
ranged in the size from 0.6 to 10 μm. Barnyard millet showed larger
granules than other millets while Proso millet had smaller granules.
Protein bodies in Pearl caused deep indentation in some granules. Our
findings on the microstructure of Pearl and Finger millets were similar
to the results of Gull et al., (2019). The difference in the structures be-
tween the millet genotypes or cultivars may arise due to differences in
agronomic practices and the composition.
3.5. Microbial analysis
The survival and viability of microorganisms in native and irradi-
ated millet flours were determined to understand the influence of radi-
ation (2.5 and 5.0 kGy) on the microbial survival and shelflife of mil-
let flours. The results showed that the TPC count reduced significantly
(p<0.5) from 5.1 to less than 101 x 105 between the native and the
irradiated millet flours ( Table representative 6). The present results
conform with previous studies on millet flours (Mustapha et al., 2014;
Sruthi and Rao, 2021).
4. Conclusion
The irradiation of millet flours showed changes in functional and
structural properties irrespective of the genotypes in this investiga-
tion. Oil absorption, water absorption, emulsion capacity, and swelling
strength decreased with irradiation treatments while emulsion capac-
ity and foaming capacity increased while as predicted the foaming and
emulsion stability decreased. The surface-active properties (FC and EC)
increased with an increase in irradiation treatment due to the break-
down of protein and starch structure resulting in improved interaction
with the oil-water interfaces. The infrared studies indicated the signif-
icant changes in the millet biopolymers due to irradiation treatments.
Decrease in the microbial counts due to irradiation treatment indicated
that there is a scope of irradiation in preventing the post harvest loses
in the developing countries with inadequate storage infrastructure. The
next focus would be to understand the functionality in the food systems
and millet-based product development for better utilization of the mil-
lets.(Eqn. 1-7, Table 5, 6)
9
Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181
Author contributions
Haroon Maqbool Wani carried out the experimentation and data
analysis, Khalid Gul carried out the FTIR studies, Paras Sharma and Ali
Abas Wani acted in the capacity of supervisors and manuscript proof-
reading, Idrees Ahmed Wani contributed to experimentation and data
analysis, S.L. Kothariand Jyoti Prabha Bishnoi contributed in manuscript
preparation and pre-submission review.
Ethical statement – aminal or human studies
The authors declare that no animal or human studies were4 carried
out in this study.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted ethically and
does not contain any text or statements from non-referenced sources,
does not contain plagiarized text nor has any potential conflict of inter-
est.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the kind support of Dr. Anan-
thi, Central of Excellence of Millet, Athiyandal, Tamil Nadu for provid-
ing us the millet seeds. We also acknowledge the support of Department
of Food Science & Technology, University of Kashmir, India for carrying
out experimentation on milling and physical properties of the grains.
References
Abu, J. O., Muller, K., Duodu, K. G., & Minnaar, A. (2005). Functional properties of cow-
pea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) flours and pastes as affected by 𝛾-irradiation. Food
Chemistry, 93(1), 103–111.
Adebowale, A. A., Adegoke, M. T., Sanni, S. A., Adegunwa, M. O., & Fetuga, G. O. (2012).
Functional properties and biscuit making potentials of sorghum-wheat flour compos-
ite. American Journal of Food Technology, 7(6), 372–379.
Bhat, N. A., Wani, I. A., & Hamdani, A. M. (2020). Tomato powder and crude lycopene as
a source of natural antioxidants in whole wheat flour cookies. Heliyon, 6(1), e03042
p..
Bhat, N. A., Wani, I. A., Hamdani, A. M., Gani, A., & Masoodi, F. A. (2016). Physico-
chemical properties of whole wheat flour as affected by gamma irradiation. LWT-Food
Science and Technology, 71, 175–183.
Bombara, N., Anon, M. C., & Pilosof, A. M. R. (1997). Functional properties of protease
modified wheat flours. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 30(5), 441–447.
Boz, H., Gercekaslan, K. E., Karaoglu, M. M., & Kotancilar, H. G. (2012). Differences in
some physical and chemical properties of wheat grains from different parts within the
spike. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 36(3), 309–316.
Cheftel, J. C, Cuq, J-L., & Lorient, D. (1985). Amino acids, peptides, and proteins. In
O. R. Fennema (Ed.), Food Chemistry (pp. 245–369). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Davies, R. M. (2009). Some physical properties of groundnut grains. Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 1(2), 10–13.
Falade, K. O., & Kolawole, T. A. (2012). Physical, functional and pasting properties of
different maize (Zea mays) cultivars as modified by an increase in 𝛾-irradiation doses.
International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 47(4), 801–807.
Fang, J. M., Fowler, P. A., Tomkinson, J., & Hill, C. A. S. (2002). The preparation and char-
acterisation of a series of chemically modified potato starches. Carbohydrate Polymers,
47(3), 245–252.
Greenwood, C. T., & Mackenzie, S. (1963). The irradiation of starch. Part I. The proper-
ties of potato starch and its components after irradiation with high-energy electrons.
Starch-Stärke, 15(12), 444–448.
Gowthamraj, G., Jubeena, C., & Sangeetha, N. (2021). The effect of 𝛾-irradiation on
the physicochemical, functional, proximate, and anti-nutrient characteristics of fin-
ger millet (CO14 & CO15) flours. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 183(June), Article
109403.
Jain, R. K., & Bal, S. (1997). Properties of pearl millet. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 66(2), 85–91.
Kang, I. J., Byun, M. W., Yook, H. S., Bae, C. H., Lee, H. S., Kwon, J. H., &
Chung, C. K. (1999). Production of modified starches by gamma irradiation. Radi-
ation Physics and Chemistry, 54(4), 425–430.
Kheiralipour, K., et al., (2008). Moisture-depend physical properties of wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.). Journal of Agricultural Technology, 4(1), 53–64.
Kizil, R., & Irudayaraj, J. (2006). Discrimination of irradiated starch gels using FT-Ra-
man spectroscopy and chemometrics. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(1),
13–18.
Mustapha, M. B., Bousselmi, M., Jerbi, T., Bettaïeb, N. B., & Fattouch, S. (2014). Gamma
radiation effects on microbiological, physico-chemical and antioxidant properties of
Tunisian millet (PennisetumGlaucum L.R.Br.). Food Chemistry, 154, 230–237.
H.M. Wani, P. Sharma, K. Gul et al.
Nagasawa, N., Yagi, T., Kume, T., & Yoshii, F. (2004). Radiation crosslinking of car-
boxymethyl starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 58(2), 109–113.
Singh, K. K., & Goswami, T. K. (1996). Physical properties of cumin seed. Journal of Agri-
cultural Engineering Research, 64(2), 93–98.
Sruthi, N. U., & Rao, P. S. (2021). Effect of processing on storage stability of millet flour:
A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology.
Sofi, B. A., Wani, I. A., Masoodi, F. A., Saba, I., & Muzaffar, S. (2013). Effect of gamma irra-
diation on physicochemical properties of broad bean (Viciafaba L.) starch. LWT-Food
Science and Technology, 54(1), 63–72.
Wani, I. A., Jabeen, M., Geelani, H., Masoodi, F. A., Saba, I., & Muzaffar, S. (2014). Effect of
gamma irradiation on physicochemical properties of Indian Horse Chestnut (Aesculus
indicaColebr.) starch. Food hydrocolloids, 35, 253–263.
Wani, I. A., Wani, A. A., Gani, A., Muzzaffar, S., Gul, M. K., Masoodi, F. A., &
Wani, T. A. (2015). Effect of gamma-irradiation on physico-chemical and functional
properties of arrowhead (Sagittariasagittifolia L.) tuber flour. Food Bioscience, 11,
23–32.
Further reading
Abu, J. O., & Minnaar, A. (2009). Gamma irradiation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.
Walp) seeds: effect on colour, cooking quality and pasting characteristics. International
Journal of Food Science & Technology, 44(12), 2335–2341.
Caminiti, I. M., Noci, F., Muñoz, A., Whyte, P., Morgan, D. J., Cronin, D. A., &
Lyng, J. G. (2011). Impact of selected combinations of non-thermal processing tech-
nologies on the quality of an apple and cranberry juice blend. Food Chemistry, 124(4),
1387–1392.
10
Applied Food Research 2 (2022) 100181
Fennema, O. (1985). Chemical changes in food during processing—an overview. Chemical
changes in food during processing, 1–16.
Falade, K. O., & Kolawole, T. A. (2013). Effect of 𝛾-irradiation on colour, functional and
physicochemical properties of pearl millet [Pennisetumglaucum (L) R. Br.] cultivars.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(9), 2429–2438.
Gull, A., Prasad, K., & Kumar, P. (2016). Evaluation of functional, antinutritional, past-
ing and microstructural properties of Millet flours. Journal of Food Measurement and
Characterization, 10(1), 96–102.
Hamdani, A., Rather, S. A., Shah, A., Gani, A., Wani, S. M., Masoodi, F. A., &
Gani, A. (2014). Physical properties of barley and oats cultivars grown in high al-
titude Himalayan regions of India. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization,
8(4), 296–304.
Mohsenin, N. N. (1968). Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon and
Breach Sci. Pub..
Pawase, P. A., Shingote, A., & Chavan, U. D. (2019). Studies on Evaluation and Determi-
nation of Physical and Functional Properties of millets.(Ragi and pearl millet). Asian
Journal of Dairy and Food Research, 38(3), 203–212.
Ramashia, S. E., Gwata, E. T., Meddows-Taylor, S., Anyasi, T. A., & Jideani, A. I. O. (2018).
Some physical and functional properties of finger millet (Eleusinecoracana) obtained
in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Research International, 104, 110–118.
Sanjeewa, W. T., Wanasundara, J. P., Pietrasik, Z., & Shand, P. J. (2010). Characterization
of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a
model system. Food Research International, 43(2), 617–626.
Shrestha, R., & Srivastava, S. (2017). Functional properties of finger millet and ban-
yard millet flours and flour blends. International Journal of Science and Research, 6(6),
775–780.