Abstract
To investigate the effect of gamma irradiation on the nutritional quality of maize and sorghum grains, packs were exposed to doses of 0 and 2 kGy in a 60 Co package irradiator. Irradiated and non-irradiated samples were stored at refrigeration temperatures. Proximate composition, minerals content, minerals bio-availability, tannins content, phytic acid content, protein fractions and in vitro protein digestibility were evaluated. The results indicated that gamma irradiation caused no effect on proximate composition, minerals content and minerals bioavailability. For protein fractions, in both maize cultivars no significant differences were observed in all fractions, except in prolamins and glutelins of Maize 75. While for sorghum significant increase in globulins, prolamins and glutelins was observed. While, gamma irradiation reduced the phytic acid and tannins contents significantly. The in vitro protein digestibility of maize cultivars was increased significantly, while the digestibility of sorghum was reduced.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Gamma irradiation did not change proximate composition, mineral content or mineral bioavailability in maize grains.
- Treatment
- gamma irradiatione0
- Outcome
- proximate composition, minerals content and minerals bioavailabilitye0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results indicated that gamma irradiation caused no effect on proximate composition, minerals content and minerals bioavailability.”
t0“Maize Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Gamma irradiation did not change proximate composition, mineral content or mineral bioavailability in sorghum grains.
- Treatment
- gamma irradiatione0
- Outcome
- proximate composition, minerals content and minerals bioavailabilitye0
- Direction
- no effecte0
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results indicated that gamma irradiation caused no effect on proximate composition, minerals content and minerals bioavailability.”
t0“Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Most protein fractions showed no significant difference between irradiated and nonirradiated maize samples.
- Treatment
- irradiationt0
- Outcome
- all fractionse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- except in prolamins and glutelins of Maize 75e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in both maize cultivars no significant differences were observed in all fractions, except in prolamins and glutelins of Maize 75.”
t0“Irradiation”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation changed prolamins and glutelins in Maize 75, with direction unstated.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“in both maize cultivars no significant differences were observed in all fractions, except in prolamins and glutelins of Maize 75.”
t0“Irradiation”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation significantly increased globulins, prolamins and glutelins in sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for sorghum significant increase in globulins, prolamins and glutelins was observed.”
t0“Irradiation”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation significantly reduced phytic acid and tannin content in maize grain.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gamma irradiation reduced the phytic acid and tannins contents significantly.”
t0“Maize Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation significantly reduced phytic acid and tannin content in sorghum grain.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gamma irradiation reduced the phytic acid and tannins contents significantly.”
t0“Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Grains”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation significantly increased in vitro protein digestibility of maize cultivars.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The in vitro protein digestibility of maize cultivars was increased significantly, while the digestibility of sorghum was reduced.”
t0“Irradiation”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation reduced in vitro protein digestibility of sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The in vitro protein digestibility of maize cultivars was increased significantly, while the digestibility of sorghum was reduced.”
t0“Irradiation”
The same questions in other papers
radiation · quality: grain · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
radiation · molecular: metabolites · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
radiation · quality: phytochemicals · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →radiation · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.