Sri Lankan traditional parboiled rice: A panacea for hyperglycaemia?

T P A U Thennakoon; S Ekanayake

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273386

. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0273386. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273386

Sri Lankan traditional parboiled rice: A panacea for hyperglycaemia?

T P A U Thennakoon ^1,^#, S Ekanayake ^1,^*,^#

Editor: Min Huang²

PMCID: PMC9477285 PMID: 36107869

Abstract

The research aimed to scientifically prove that parboiled Sri Lankan traditional rice elicits lower glycaemic responses comparative to raw unpolished or polished rice. Thus the proximate composition and glycaemic indices (GI) of raw, raw polished, and parboiled traditional Sri Lankan rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties Godaheenati, Batapola el, Dik wee, Dahanala, Unakola samba, and Hangimuththan were studied as comparative data are not available. Cooked parboiled rice contained significantly high moisture (P<0.05) than raw or raw polished. Mineral content was low (<1.5%) regardless of processing. Crude protein was comparatively high (5.8–11.0% DM) with 2.1–5% (DM) fat with raw unpolished and parboiled having higher contents. Digestible starch of raw polished was highest compared to parboiled or raw unpolished (68.8–90.5% DM). Resistant starch was significantly (P<0.05) high in parboiled rice (1.1–7.2%) with the least total dietary fibre in raw polished rice. All varieties of parboiled and raw polished were found to elicit low GI and high GI respectively. High moisture, high resistant starch, and low starch in cooked parboiled rice contributed to low GI compared to raw unpolished or raw polished rice.

Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the staple food of more than half of the World’s seven billion population [1]. Daily per capita rice consumption is highest in Asia with an intake of more than 300g (>110 kg per capita annually) while India and China account for 50% of the world’s rice consumption [2]. Staple rice is also the major source of carbohydrates and protein for Sri Lankans with a per capita consumption of 114 kg/ year [3]. Sri Lankan adults obtain 72% of their daily energy requirement from carbohydrates which is mainly from rice [4].

Like the world over, Sri Lanka has been witnessing a rapid increase in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) while risk factors such as dysglycaemia, dyslipidaemia, and hypertension have shown a steep incline in the past few decades [5]. A positive correlation between intake of refined raw white rice and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus is proven with a higher risk in Asians compared to Western populations [6]. Consumption of refined raw white rice contributes largely to the dietary glycaemic load and higher postprandial glucose levels leading to modifiable risk factors and ultimately non-communicable diseases [7]. Consequently, consumption of whole grains or brown rice is recommended in a healthy diet [8]. Therefore, both the quantity and quality of starch present in frequently consumed carbohydrate-rich foods require prudent consideration.

The glycaemic index (GI) is the blood glucose response to an ingested quantity of carbohydrate in food as compared to the response using a standard reference food [9]. Frequent incorporation of foods with high GI in meals increases the postprandial glucose response and ultimately results in insulin resistance [10]. Epidemiological studies have clearly indicated that low GI diets with higher nutritional value decrease the risk of non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, etc [11].

During the past decade, a trend in increased consumption of Sri Lankan traditional rice varieties due to their high nutritional and medicinal properties [12,13] is observed. Research has proven that Sri Lankan traditional rice varieties possess high nutritional value when compared to improved varieties [14]. In addition, post-harvest treatment of rice significantly changes the postprandial blood glucose response [15]. Post-harvest processes include milling, parboiling, and storing. Rice milling stage starts with de-husking and ends with polishing to remove bran. Whole grain brown rice retains 100% of its bran and germ [16] and is rich in dietary fibre, vitamins, minerals, and phenolic compounds [17]. Loss of nutrients during the milling process results in an endosperm-rich grain with easily digestible starch [18]. Thus, raw under milled rice compared to raw milled rice has higher nutritional quality [16].

Limited comparative research had been conducted on the effect of different processing methods such as parboiling and polishing on proximate composition and glycaemic indices of Sri Lankan traditional rice. Such information is valuable for consumers, rice cultivators, and nutritionists to formulate rice-based diets and improve the import potential of these varieties. Hence, the objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of parboiling and polishing on nutritional value and glycaemic indices utilizing six Sri Lankan traditional rice varieties.

Materials and methods

Materials

Paddy samples of Godaheenati, Batapola el, Dik wee, Dahanala, Unakola samba, and Hangimuththan purchased from the rice preserving centre (Paramparika Govi Urumayan Rekime Wyaparaya), Homagama, Sri Lanka were used in the following analyses. Paddy harvested during Yala season (2018) were collected into polythene bags, sealed, labelled, and transported on the same day to the laboratory and stored under temperature-controlled conditions until processed.

Methods

Sample preparation

Raw paddy was dehulled (Satake THU 35B), a portion polished (4% polishing level) (Satake TM 05) and the other portion utilized after dehulling. Parboiled rice was obtained by immersing the paddy in boiling water and heating until the paddy grains split open and sun drying as practiced traditionally. The dried parboiled paddy was dehulled but not polished.

Rice samples (dehulled only, polished (4%), parboiled) were washed and cooked (household rice cooker) for 30 to 60 minutes by adding a known amount of water (350–500 mL/250 g rice) as required to reach the cooked texture and taste for each differently processed rice variety. Thus cooked fresh rice was used in the GI study on different days. Proximate analyses were carried out with cooked, oven dried (Memmert, Germany, 55°C, 3–4 days), milled (IKA ® A11 basic, New Zealand), and sieved (100 mesh sieve) rice flour.

Moisture and ash

Moisture of freshly cooked rice grains and rice flour was determined as loss of weight on drying [19]. The weighed samples (0.5000g) were oven dried at 105°C until constant weight. The samples were ignited in the muffle furnace (Hobersal, Barcelona, Spain) at 550°C for 5–6 hours for determining the ash content [19].

Crude protein

Crude protein contents were analysed utilizing the [19] micro Kjeldahl apparatus (Paranas Wagner still). A conversion factor of 5.75 was used to determine the protein content.

Carbohydrates and total dietary fibre

Digestible starch and resistant starch contents were determined by amyloglucosidase/ α- amylase (Megazyme total starch assay kit, Ireland). Samples were incubated at 100°C with α-amylase followed by amyloglucosidase at 50°C and starch content assayed as glucose following reaction with glucose oxidase colourimetrically (Spectro UV-VIS Auto/UV-2602, USA). Soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fibre (TDF) contents were determined (Megazyme total dietary fibre assay kit, Ireland) by digesting the samples with α- amylase, protease, and amyloglucosidase.

Crude fat

Samples were digested with 7.7M HCl and fat extracted with petroleum ether and diethyl ether using mojonnier flasks [20].

In-vivo glycaemic response

Apparently healthy (n = 25, age 20–30 years) volunteers with BMI in the range of 18.5–23 kg/m² and not under medical treatment were selected for the study. Each volunteer was served the standard twice and each test food once in random order on separate days. Glucoline (gsk Glaxo-Wellcome Ceylon Ltd. Sri Lanka) dextrose monohydrate was used as the standard. The volunteers were served with rice portions (within 1–1.5 hrs following cooking) corresponding to 50 g digestible carbohydrate with gravy made with coconut milk (100 mL), water (125 mL), onions, curry leaves, garlic, fenugreek, turmeric powder, and salt to be ingested within 15 min. Water (250 mL) was also provided to be ingested with the meal/standard [21,22] method.

Finger prick (AccuCheck pricking device) capillary blood samples (100 μL) were collected at fasting and 30–120 min after ingestion of test/ standard food. Blood samples were collected into tubes containing NaF, serum separated, and analysed for glucose within 2 hrs following collection. Blood glucose was estimated with the glucose oxidase enzymatic kit (GOD-PAP, Biolabo, France). Incremental area under the blood glucose curve (IAUC) was determined (using the Trapezoid rule not considering the area below fasting glucose level) [21] for each individual for rice and glucose. GI was calculated as a ratio between the IAUC of the test food and the standard. GI was expressed as the average GI of ten individuals. Glycaemic Load (GL) was estimated by multiplying the GI by the amount of net carbohydrates in each portion [23].

Statistical analyses

Data were presented as mean ±SD proximate composition and glycaemic index data as mean ±SEM. Data were analysed by SPSS 25.0 statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics). Descriptive statistics and ANOVA Tukey’s posthoc test at 95% confidence interval were used to find the significances.

Ethical clearance

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura with the reference number 72/17. Informed written consent was obtained from each volunteer prior to the study.

Results and discussion

Proximate composition of differently processed rice flour

As comparative data on nutrient content in differently processed traditional Sri Lankan cooked rice is scarce we studied the fate of nutrients when processed differently. The nutrient compositions of the differently processed 6 traditional rice varieties are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The moisture of cooked rice and rice flour was 61–85% and 4.9–9.8%. The moisture content of cooked rice varied in the order of parboiled > raw > raw polished (Figs 1 and 2). When an edible portion of rice is considered significantly lower (P≤0.05) moisture was present in raw polished rice followed by raw and parboiled rice of each variety. Thus, comparatively the volume of parboiled rice one could consume will contain the highest amount of moisture compared to raw or raw polished rice of each variety. Thus, the available nutrient content of an edible portion of differently processed rice will vary depending on the moisture content of cooked rice. Higher moisture content in cooked parboiled rice could be due to the absorption of water by the starch polymorphs formed during parboiling such as annealed starch, lipid–amylose complexes I and II and, retrograded amylopectin and amylose [24]. This is the first report on moisture contents of differently processed cooked traditional rice of Sri Lanka.

Table 1. Moisture, ash contents, protein and crude fat contents (mean± SD) of differently processed cooked rice flour g/100g in dry weight (fresh weight basis within parenthesis).

Variety	Moisture content± SD			Ash content± SD			Protein content± SD			Fat content± SD
Variety	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	*Raw	*Raw polished	*Parboiled	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled
Goda heenati	9.8±0.3^p	8.8±0.3^q	6.5±0.0^r	1.33±0.04^p	0.76±0.05^q	1.21±0.09^r	9.0±0.4^p (3.3±0.1)	7.8±0.6^q (2.8±0.2)	9.5±0.2^p (2.1±0.0)	5.0±0.2^p (1.7±0.1)	2.6±0.7^q (0.9±0.2)	3.8±0.3^r (0.8±0.1)
Batapola el	5.7±0.4^p	6.4±0.5^p	5.8±0.1^p	1.23±0.06^p	0.83±0.02^q	1.28±0.10^p	9.2±0.4^p (2.9±0.1)	7.4±0.7^q (2.8±0.3)	8.5±0.3^r (1.5±0.1)	4.3±0.5^p (1.3±0.1)	3.1±0.1^q (1.2±0.1)	5.0±0.1^p (0.9±0.0)
Dik wee	6.9±0.2^p	7.0±0.4^p	4.9±0.4^q	1.26±0.04^p	0.84±0.02^q	0.98±0.06^r	8.9±0.2^p (2.8±0.1)	6.6±0.6^q (2.3±0.2)	10.5±0.2^r (1.6±0.0)	4.0±0.3^p (1.3±0.1)	2.7±0.2^q (0.9±0.1)	4.3±0.3^p (0.7±0.0)
Dahanala	6.0±0.4^p	7.0±0.7^p	5.3±0.1^q	1.18±0.08^p	0.83±0.04^q	1.24±0.03^r	10.5±0.2^p (3.7±0.1)	10.1±0.4^p (3.5±0.1)	11.9±0.4^q (1.9±0.1)	4.1±0.1^p (1.5±0.0)	2.9±0.1^q (1.0±0.0)	4.0±0.1^p (0.7±0.0)
Unakola samba	9.8±0.2^p	9.2±0.3^p	6.7±0.1^q	0.81±0.06^p	0.69±0.09^q	1.03±0.04^r	8.6±0.2^p (2.7±0.1)	8.9±0.2^p (3.5±0.1)	9.7±0.7^p (2.0±0.1)	3.7±0.6^p (1.4±0.2)	2.8±0.2^q (1.1±0.1)	4.8±0.1^r (1.0±0.0)
Hangimuththan	8.0±0.3^p	5.2±0.3^q	5.6±0.1^q	0.84±0.05^p	0.68±0.03^q	1.15±0.07^r	8.3±0.4^p (3.1±0.1)	7.6±0.4^q (2.7±0.1)	8.3±0.2^p (1.7±0.0)	4.2±0.3^p (1.3±0.0)	2.1±0.0^q (0.7±0.0)	4.9±0.4^p (1.0±0.1)

Open in a new tab

n = 5; *n = 3; SD: Standard Deviation; p, q and r superscripts along a row in each parameter (Moisture, Ash, Protein and Fat) indicate significances among differently processed rice varieties at 95% confidence interval.

Table 2. Digestible starch, resistant starch and total dietary fibre (mean± SD) contents of differently processed cooked rice flour g/100g in dry weight (fresh weight basis within parenthesis).

Variety	Digestible starch content ± SD			Resistant starch content± SD			Total dietary fibre content ± SD
Variety	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	*Raw	*Raw polished	*Parboiled
Godaheenati	78.4±2.1^a (25.7±0.7)	82.1±2.9^a (29.6±1.1)	76.4±0.4^a (16.6±0.1)	3.9±0.4^p	2.5±0.5^q	6.3±0.2^r	10.8±0.8^x	6.4±0.2^y	11.4±1.0^x
Batapola el	75.8±3.5^a (23.6±1.1)	79.0±2.4^a (29.6±0.9)	73.5±1.6^a (13.1±0.3)	4.4±0.3^p	3.3±0.2^q	6.5±0.7^r	11.1±0.1^x	6.1±0.7^y	11.7±0.3^x
Dik wee	76.7±0.9^a (24.0±0.3)	90.5±5.1^b (31.0±1.7)	74.7±1.4^a (11.6±0.2)	2.2±0.3^p	1.1±0.2^q	6.7±0.2^r	11.6±0.2^x	5.8±0.4^y	11.4±1.0^x
Dahanala	68.8±3.4^a (23.4±1.1)	80.7±2.1^b (28.3±0.7)	73.0±2.5^a (11.9±0.4)	5.3±0.5^p	2.1±0.4^q	7.2±0.5^r	11.6±0.3^x	7.2±0.5^y	10.6±0.4^x
Unakola samba	78.7±0.9^a (24.7±0.3)	82.5±1.3^b (32.4±0.5)	73.6±2.6^c (15.0±0.5)	5.8±0.6^p	3.2±0.7^q	6.7±0.7^r	9.5±0.1^x	6.0±0.1^y	10.5±1.8^x
Hangimuththan	79.2±1.4^a (24.6±0.4)	82.2±5.8^a (29.6±2.1)	76.4±2.1^a (15.2±0.4)	4.6±0.3^p	2.7±0.4^q	6.1±0.4^r	9.1±0.5^x	5.7±0.8^y	10.6±0.4^x

Open in a new tab

n = 5; *n = 3; SD: Standard Deviation; a, b and c superscripts along a row indicate significances in digestible starch contents, p, q and r superscripts along a row indicate significances in RS contents and x and y superscripts along a row indicate significances in total dietary fibre contents among differently processed cooked varieties at 95% confidence interval.

Ash contents of differently processed cooked rice flour ranged from 0.68–1.33% respectively with raw polished varieties having significantly lower (P≤0.05) amounts due to removal of bran compared to raw unpolished and parboiled varieties. The ash contents of milled rice were comparatively lower compared to under-milled rice [25,26]. Similar results have been observed for other under-milled raw traditional Sri Lankan rice varieties [12,27]. Irrespective of processing two white coloured varieties, Unakola samba and Hangimuththan had lower (P≥0.05) ash contents compared to red varieties. Red pericarp rice varieties contain high content of minerals [28].

Crude protein contents of all differently processed cooked rice flour varied in the range of 7–12% (DW) (Table 1) and similar results (7–13% DW) were observed for under-milled traditional raw rice varieties [12,27,28]. Except for Batapola el, parboiled rice varieties contained higher protein content (DM) compared to raw and raw polished varieties. Traditional rice varieties contained more protein compared to newly improved varieties [29–31]. However, parboiled rice of all varieties had the least protein content on fresh weight (FW) basis due to the comparatively higher moisture (Fig 1). When considering freshly cooked rice the percentage reduction of protein due to parboiling compared to raw rice ranged between 26–49% (FW) with Dahanala showing the highest reduction due mainly to high moisture in cooked rice. However, it was noteworthy that parboiled rice flour contained higher protein than raw or raw polished rice flour where the parboiling process has contributed to retaining more protein. Thus incorporation of flour of parboiled rice for food preparation will be more nutritional and healthier.

Crude fat contents of differently processed cooked rice ranged from 2.1–5.0% (DM) (Table 2). Flour of raw polished varieties had significantly lower (P≤0.05) fat contents compared to raw and parboiled varieties due to the removal of the bran layer and germ which are rich in fats whereas under-milled rice and parboiled retains bran and germ which accommodates fat present in the grain [32]. However, the fat content of reported traditional raw rice was less (not exceeding 3.5% DW) when compared to the present study [12,14,27,28]. This could be due to the method of analysis as the lipid content of a given sample varies with the method of analysis [33]. Furthermore, the fat content of all differently processed rice on a fresh weight basis was less than 1.7% with parboiled rice having the least fat content which is due to the high moisture content.

Digestible carbohydrates comprised more than two-thirds of the weight of rice contributing to metabolizable energy. The digestible starch of raw, raw polished, and parboiled rice flour ranged between 68–79%, 79–90.5%, and 73–76% (DW) respectively (Table 2). The majority of raw polished varieties had significantly higher (P≤0.05) digestible starch content due to the removal of outer layers which increased the starch contents of rice grain as only the kernel remains. The digestible starch content of parboiled rice per equivalent amount of raw and raw polished rice on fresh weight was significantly (P≤0.05) less due to higher moisture content. Therefore, comparatively the amount of parboiled rice that one could consume would be less compared to raw or raw polished and thus will contribute to a lower carbohydrate load making these more suitable in the diets of obese and individuals with NCDs.

Resistant starch (RS) contents of differently processed cooked rice flour varied from 1.1–7.2% (Table 2). Cooking increased the RS content in parboiled rice by 6–7 fold, in raw under-milled by 2–5.5 fold, and in raw polished by 2–3 fold compared to uncooked rice. A significant difference in differently processed varieties was observed where raw polished varieties had the least (P≤0.05) and parboiled (P≤0.05) had the highest resistant starch contents. Resistant starch contents of parboiled varieties of the present study were significantly higher confirming the contribution made by retrograded starch (Type 3) to resistant starch due to the parboiling process [34]. This further makes traditional parboiled rice more suitable for the diets of people with NCDs. In addition, the high resistant starch would make parboiled rice an excellent prebiotic food [35].

Total dietary fibre contents of cooked raw, raw polished, and parboiled rice flour varied in the range of 9.1–11.6%, 5.7–7.2%, and 10.5–11.7% respectively (Table 2) where raw polished varieties had significantly lower (P≤0.05) total dietary fibre. Similar data for raw under-milled traditional rice varieties are reported (4.2–6.9% DW) [12,27]. The contribution from insoluble dietary fibre in raw, raw polished, and parboiled varieties was 8.1–9.3%, 5.3–6.2%, and 7.3–9.5% respectively with lower soluble dietary fibre in all differently processed cooked varieties (0.2–3.2%). Similar to total dietary fibre, significantly low (P≤0.05) insoluble and soluble fibre contents were found in raw polished varieties compared to raw or parboiled varieties. As nearly 90% of dietary fibre consists of insoluble dietary fibre (IDF) [36] removal of outer layers could be the reason for the least IDF content in raw polished varieties.

Thus, when considering the nutrients in rice flour, the macronutrient contents were highest in raw unpolished rice followed by parboiled and raw polished rice. Thus consumption of traditional rice is more nutritious as raw unpolished or parboiled rice. The nutrients and dietary fibre reduced significantly (P< 0.05) irrespective of the lower level of polishing (4%) rice was subjected to in the present study. Thus subjecting rice to higher levels of polishing as available in the market will contribute to increased digestible carbohydrate which is easily available for absorption and rapidly increase glucose and insulin responses.

Glycaemic responses of differently processed rice

The data related to glycaemic response, glycaemic indices and glycaemic loads of differently processed rice varieties are presented in Tables 3 and 4. We describe the effect of processing on traditional Sri Lankan rice in relation to the glycaemic response and the effect the inherent nutrients have on the said response. This is the first report on such an attempt with Sri Lankan traditional rice to the best of our knowledge.

Table 3. Portion size for GI, peak blood glucose and % peak reduction compared to glucose.

Variety	Portion size for GI (g)			Peak glucose concentration (mg/dL)			% Peak reduction
Variety	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled	Raw	Raw polished	Parboiled
Godaheenati	185	154	282	115	117	95	6.1	4.3	28.4
Batapola el	212	158	360	116	120	92	7.8	4.2	35.9
Dik wee	208	150	412	117	120	94	6.8	4.2	33.0
Dahanala	224	164	391	117	120	96	6.0	3.3	29.2
Unakola samba	202	140	333	115	116	93	8.7	7.8	34.4
Hangimuththan	203	160	311	121	124	112	5.8	3.2	14.3

Open in a new tab

n = 10.

Table 4. Glycaemic indices (mean±SEM) and glycaemic loads of differently processed rice.

Processing	Raw		Raw polished		Parboiled
Variety	GI ± SEM	GL	GI ± SEM	GL	GI ± SEM	GL
Godaheenati	58±4	29	76±5	38	45±3	23
Batapola el	54±6	27	76±5	38	47±5	23
Dik wee	69±7	34	70±4	35	43±3	22
Dahanala	60±5	30	69±3	35	48±4	24
Unakola samba	65±8	33	73±5	36	44±3	22
Hangimuththan	55±7	27	74±4	37	43±3	22

Open in a new tab

n = 10.

Portion sizes given for the GI determination varied widely (140g to 412g) (Table 3) where raw polished varieties had the lowest and parboiled varieties had the highest weight (g). The higher moisture content in cooked parboiled rice (Fig 1) made the portion sizes larger (volume) (Fig 2) and according to volunteers this portion was much larger than a normal edible portion.

When the glycaemic curves (Fig 3) were studied the average peak glucose responses were observed at 30–40 minutes following ingestion for all differently processed traditional rice varieties. The incremental area under the curve (IAUC) of all rice varieties were significantly (P≤0.05) lower than glucose. Parboiled rice (1720–2281) had the least area followed by raw varieties (2553–3213) with highest in raw polished varieties (3105–3410). Some parboiled improved and non-parboiled traditional rice produced significantly (P≤0.05) lower IAUC for all rice varieties when compared to standard glucose [37].

The average peak glucose concentrations were also highest in raw polished (116–124 mg/dL) followed by raw rice (115–121 mg/dL) and parboiled rice (92–112 mg/dL). In contrast, percentage peak reduction was highest in parboiled rice (14.3–34.4%) and least in raw polished rice varieties (5.8–8.7%) in comparison to glucose. According to Nisanka & Ekanayake [31] parboiled Nadu variety elicited lower mean peak glucose concentration followed by raw samba and basmati variety with the highest mean peak glucose concentration. Both raw and parboiled rice varieties contained high resistant starch and total dietary fibre contents (Table 2) compared to raw polished varieties which have contributed to decreasing the glycaemic indices of raw and parboiled rice.

In accordance with above observations the GI values of raw unpolished, raw polished, and parboiled were between 54–69, 69–76, and 43–76 (Table 4). A clear decline in GI (low) of parboiled varieties was observed. Two of the raw unpolished varieties (Batapolael and Hangimuththan) also elicited low glycaemic indices (≤55). The remaining raw varieties (Godaheenati, Dik wee, Dahanala, and Unakola samba) and one raw polished variety (Dahanala) were categorized as medium glycaemic index (56–69). Except for Dahanala other raw polished varieties were categorized as high glycaemic index (≥70). The present study data also proved that there is no correlation between the glycaemic index and the colour of the pericarp [30,37]. When considering the effects of inherent nutrients in rice, negative non-significant (P≥0.01) correlations between protein, fat, digestible starch, and total dietary fibre contents present in 50 g carbohydrate containing portions of raw, raw polished, and parboiled rice varieties and their corresponding glycaemic indices were observed. This clearly demonstrated the quantity of inherent nutrients in rice is not adequate to significantly impact the glycaemic index. However, the impact of RS on GI was apparent as a significant negative correlation (P = 0.000; r = -0.858) was observed with glycaemic index and RS content of rice portion given to determine the GI of differently processed rice of each variety (Fig 4A). Glycaemic load (GL) values of raw, raw polished, and parboiled varieties were in the ranges of 27–34, 35–38, and 22–24 respectively. Thus, the GL for the portions given for glycaemic index determination were categorized as high (>20) for all varieties irrespective of processing. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.932; p = 0.000) was observed between rice portion sizes used to determine the GI and the moisture content in 50g carbohydrate portions (Fig 4B). Therefore, when considering a normal edible portion, GLs of all parboiled varieties which contained high moisture reduced to medium glycaemic load whereas raw polished rice still contained a high glycaemic load.

Fig 4 — Correlation between a) Glycaemic index and resistant starch content in the portion given to study the glycaemic index b) Moisture content in the portion given to study the glycaemic index and the portion size.

Conclusions

It was apparent from the above results, that processing causes significant changes in nutrient content and the glycaemic response of a particular rice variety. Irrespective of variety the moisture content of cooked parboiled was highest which caused to reduce the nutrients but not significantly when compared to raw rice. In contrast, polished rice contained mainly digestible starch with the least amount of protein, fat, dietary fibre, and resistant starch. Parboiled rice elicited lower GI compared to raw and polished rice. The GL of parboiled reduced significantly when an edible portion was considered as the volume of the portion that could be ingested became low due to high moisture retention in parboiled rice. Thus parboiled under milled traditional rice irrespective of variety was nutritionally and health-wise more superior for consumption compared to raw or raw polished rice. In addition, flour of parboiled rice with high protein, fat, resistant starch, and low carbohydrate would be most suitable for use in the food industry as a functional ingredient.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(33.1KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

Volunteers who participated in the glycaemic index study and technical support extended by Ms Ganeshika Amarathunga and Mr GL Chathuranga are acknowledged.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka under grant ASP/01/RE/MED/2016/51 received by SE. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Muthayya S, Hall J, Bagriansky J, Sugimoto J, Gundry D, Matthias D, et al. Rice Fortification: An Emerging Opportunity to Contribute to the Elimination of Vitamin and Mineral Deficiency Worldwide. Food Nutr Bull. 2012;33(4): 296–307. doi: 10.1177/156482651203300410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Muthayya S, Sugimoto JD, Montgomery S, Maberly GF. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014;1324(1): 7–14. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Rambukwella R, Priyankara EAC. Production and marketing of traditional rice varieties in selected districts in Sri Lanka: Present status and future prospects (resarech report 195). Colombo: Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute; 2016. [Google Scholar]
4.Jayawardena R, Thennakoon S, Byrne N, Soares M, Katulanda P, Hills A. Energy and nutrient intakes among Sri Lankan adults. International Archives of Medicine, 2014; 7:34. doi: 10.1186/1755-7682-7-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Katulanda P, Ranasinghe P, Jayawardana R, Sheriff R, Matthews DR. Metabolic syndrome among Sri Lankan adults: Prevalence, patterns and correlates. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2012;4:24. doi: 10.1186/1758-5996-4-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Hu EA, Pan A, Malik V, Sun Q. White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis and systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344: e1454–e1454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, Björck I, Bozzetto L, Brouns F, et al. Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease. Obesity Reviews. 2012;13(10): 923–984. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01011.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.WHO. Noncommunicable diseases Sri Lanka 2018 country profile. Non-communicable diseases country profiles. 2018. [cited 2021 July 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases.
9.Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Taylor RH, Barker H, Fielden H, Baldwin JM, et al. Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981;34(3): 362–366. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/34.3.362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Augustin LS, Franceschi S, Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, La Vecchia C. Glycemic index in chronic disease: a review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56(11): 1049–1071. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Clar C, Al-Khudairy L, Loveman E, Kelly SA, Hartley L, Flowers N, et al. Low glycaemic index diets for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7): CD004467. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004467.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Abeysekera WKSM, Arachchige SPG, Ratnasooriya WD, Chandrasekharan NV, Bentota AP. Physicochemical and nutritional properties of twenty three traditional rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties of Sri Lanka. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine. 2017;343–349. doi: 10.12980/jclm.5.2017j7-59 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Withanawasam DM. Heritage of Heirloom Rice varieties of Sri Lanka. RRDI publications [leaflets] Cited 2021 July 01]. Available from RRDI_Downloads_Leaflets–Department of Agriculture Sri lanka (doa.gov.lk). [Google Scholar]
14.Kariyawasam TI, Godakumbura PI, Prashantha MAB, Premakumara GAS. Proximate Composition, Calorie Content and Heavy Metals (As, Cd, Pb) of Selected Sri Lankan Traditional Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) Varieties. Procedia Food Sci. 2016;6: 253–256. 10.1016/j.profoo.2016.02.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Foster-Powell K, Holt SH, Brand-Miller J C. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(1): 5–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76.1.5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Juliano BO. RICE in human nutrition. Food and Nutrition Series No. 26. FAO; 1993. http://books.irri.org/9251031495_content.pdf. [Google Scholar]
17.Mosaed F, Al-Subhi M, Hejazi MA. Brown Rice as a Healthy Food and Lowering Blood Sugar in Rats. J Am Sci. 2013;9(4): 21–28. [Google Scholar]
18.Mohan V, Ruchi V, Gayathri R, Ramya Bai M, Shobana S, Anjana RM, et al. Hurdles in Brown Rice Consumption. In: Manickavasagan A, Santhakumar C, Venkatachalapathy N, editors. Brown Rice. Springer Cham.; 2017. pp. 255–269. [Google Scholar]
19.AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edition. The Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. [Google Scholar]
20.Croon LB, Fuchs G. Crude fat analysis of different flours and flour products. Var Foda. 1980; 32: 425–427. [Google Scholar]
21.FAO/WHO. Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, 14–18 April 1997, Rome. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper. 1998;66:1–140. [PubMed]
22.Brouns F, Bjorck I, Frayn KN, Gibbs AL, Lang V, Slama G, et al. Glycaemic index methodology. Nutr Res Rev. 2005; 18(01): 145–171. doi: 10.1079/NRR2005100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Salmeron J., Manson J. E., Stampfer M. J., Colditz G. A., Wing A. L., Willett W. C. (1997). Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA. 277;6: 472–477. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540300040031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Bhattacharya KR. Effect of parboiling on rice quality. In: Kshirod R Bhattacharya, editor. Rice Quality. Woodhead Publishing; 2013. pp 247–297. doi: 10.1533/9780857092793.247 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Sompong R, Siebenhandl-Ehn S, Linsberger-Martin G, Berghofer E. Physicochemical and antioxidative properties of red and black rice varieties from Thailand, China and Sri Lanka. Food Chem. 2011;124(1): 132–140. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.05.115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Trinidad TP, Mallillin AC, Encabo RR, Sagum RS, Felix AD, Juliano BO. The effect of apparent amylose content and dietary fiber on the glycemic response of different varieties of cooked milled and brown rice. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2013;64(1): 89–93. doi: 10.3109/09637486.2012.700922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Samaranayake MDW, Yathursan S, Abeysekera WKSM, Herath HMT. Nutritional and antioxidant properties of selected traditional rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Journal of Biology. 2017; 2(2): 25–35. doi: 10.4038/sljb.v2i2.10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Kulasinghe A, Samarasinghe G, Wimalasiri S, Silva R, Madhujith T. Macronutrient and mineral composition of selected traditional rice varieties in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the International Conference on Food Quality, Safety and Security 2019; 1: 1–8.
29.Gunaratne A, Bentota A, Cai YZ, Collado L, Corke H. Functional, digestibility, and antioxidant properties of brown and polished rice flour from traditional and new-improved varieties grown in Sri Lanka. Starch/Staerke,2011: 63(8), 485–492. doi: 10.1002/star.201000105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Hettiarachchi P, Jiffry M, Jansz E, Wickramasinghe A, Fernando D. Glycaemic indices of different varieties of rice grown in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Med J. 2014;46(1): 11–14. doi: 10.4038/cmj.v46i1.6516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Nisanka TUS, Ekanayake S. Rice variety and processing: contribution to glycaemic response. Ceylon Med J. 2016;61(4): 159–162. doi: 10.4038/cmj.v61i4.8381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Chapagai MK, Wan Rosli WI, Wan Manan WM, Jalil RA, Karrila T, Pinkaew S. Effect of domestic cooking methods on physicochemical, nutritional and sensory properties of different varieties of brown rice from Southern Thailand and Malaysia. Int Food Res J. 2017;24(3): 1140–1147. [Google Scholar]
33.Zhou Z, Robards K, Helliwell S, Blanchard C. Composition and functional properties of rice. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2002;37(8): 849–868. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00625.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Gunaratne A, Kao W, Ratnayaka J, Collado L, Corke H. Effect of parboiling on the formation of resistant starch, digestibility and functional properties of rice flour from different varieties grown in Sri Lanka. J Sci Food Agric. 2013;93(11): 2723–2729. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Topping D, Fukushima M, Bird A. Resistant starch as a prebiotic and synbiotic: state of the art. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2003;62: 171–176. doi: 10.1079/pns2002224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Zhao G, Zhang R, Dong L, Huang F, Tang X, Wei Z, et al. Particle size of insoluble dietary fibre from rice bran affects its phenolic profile, bioaccessibility and functional properties. Lebensm Wiss Technol. 2018; 87: 450–456. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.09.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Pathiraje P, Madhujith W, Chandrasekara A, Nissanka S. The Effect of Rice Variety and Parboiling on in vivo Glycemic Response. Trop Agric Res. 2010;22(1): 26–33. doi: 10.4038/tar.v22i1.2667 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273386.r001

Decision Letter 0

Min Huang

18 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-14882Full title: Sri Lankan traditional parboiled rice: a panacea for hyperglycaemia?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ekanayake,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Min Huang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[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: Partly

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: The study entitled 'Glycaemic response of Sri Lankan traditional parboiled rice' is a good study, which has been written well; however there are some concerns to address.

The comments are provided on the manuscript.

Good luck

Reviewer #2: 1. The subject matter of the MS is timely and relevant in view of the rice consumption and diabetes and obesity. The experimental part is voluminous as the data generated is on 6 cultivars and 3 processing variants. The GI is determined on mixed meal instead of single cereal namely the rice.

2. 100% brown rice and just 4% DM rice really doesnot make a significant difference, because, 4% DM rice also contains some amount of bran. It would have been better if they had polished the rice 8-10% which is the normal DM of the market samples.

3. Parboiling method is not a standard method, as usually, paddy is soaked in cold or hot water till it attains 25 - 35%, then subjected to live steam till the starch completely gelatinises and then dried. In the present study, the paddy is soaked in boiling water and heated till the grains were split and dried. The method may have also influenced the GI value.

The parboiled paddy was just dehusked (brown rice). It will have poor cooking quality as the bran hinders swelling of the grains during cooking. The authors should clarify these aspects.

4. The language of the MS is far from satisfactory wrt the use of appropriate scientific terminologies (eg L No. 23, Sri Lankan traditional rice

produce lower glycaemic responses, instead it should be Sri Lankan traditional rice elicit lower glycaemic responses, L. No. 147, varieties are stated in tables, it should be varieties are presnetdin tables ).

5. Digestible starch normally reduces on parboiling but in the case of

Dharnala sample it has increased ?

6. The total DF values are considerably on higher side?

7. The portion size of rice used for GI for parboiled rice is 1.5 to 2 times higher compared to raw as well as milled rice. How it is possible. This need satisfactory explaination

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. N. G. Malleshi

**********

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-14882_ SRi Lankan rice.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(1MB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0273386. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273386.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Jul 2022

Editor comments - have been addressed in the Cover letter (in a table format)

Reviewer comments - have been addressed in the response to reviewers document (in a table format)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273386.r003

Decision Letter 1

Min Huang

8 Aug 2022

Full title: Sri Lankan traditional parboiled rice: a panacea for hyperglycaemia?

PONE-D-22-14882R1

Dear Dr. Ekanayake,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Min Huang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Rice is a major staple around the World, and it does contribute to the glycemic load. In the face of high global prevalence of type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance, healthy options of rice types need recognition.

This article is a step forward in the right direction.

Congratulations to the authors.

**********

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 #1: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273386.r004