# Influence of Rice Variety and Freezing on Flour Properties
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Functional Properties of Flour Samples Obtained from Raw and Frozen Rice
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Basmati**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Arborio**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Raw** & **Frozen** & **Raw** & **Frozen** \\ \hline Amylose, \% & 17.96 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 13.2 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 4.32 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) & 6.65 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ Damaged starch, \% & 5.16 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 5.09 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 4.92 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 4.48 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)). * Within a row, mean values corresponding to the same rice variety, which do not share a superscript lowercase letter are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)). Within a row, mean values corresponding to the same type of treatment (raw or frozen), which do not share a superscript uppercase letter are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Starch properties of flours obtained from raw and frozen Basmati and Arborio commercial rice varieties. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Basmati**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Arborio**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Raw** & **Frozen** & **Raw** & **Frozen** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Hydration properties} \\ \hline Water absorption index, g/g & 5.37 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{BA}^{*}}\) & 5.72 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 5.41 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ Water solubility index, \% & 2.01 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.18 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.59 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) \\ Swelling power, \% & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.22 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.64 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Solvent retention capacity} \\ \hline Water, \% & 135.37 \(\pm\) 0.55 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 132.72 \(\pm\) 0.63 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 130.89 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 121.90 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) \\ Sucrose, \% & 170.20 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) & 174.15 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 176.47 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 177.92 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) \\ Sodium carbonate, \% & 166.98 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 161.75 \(\pm\) 0.66 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 157.91 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 155.92 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) \\ Lactic acid, \% & 178.09 \(\pm\) 0.73 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 176.24 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 177.18 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 174.93 \(\pm\) 0.55 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)). * Within a row, mean values corresponding to the same rice variety which do not share a superscript lowercase letter are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)). Within a row, mean values corresponding to the same type of treatment (raw or frozen) which do not share a superscript uppercase letter are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Functional properties of flours obtained from raw and frozen Basmati and Arborio rice. fractions larger than 315 um. This phenomenon could also explain the decrease of W-SRC in the flours obtained from frozen rice.