During the storage period, the average relative humidity (RH) was higher in Indiana than in Arkansas (Table 2). Arkansas had 27 days, including 20 days in September, when the average RH was less than 65%. In contrast, Indiana experienced only 2 days when the average RH was less than 65%. Indiana also experienced 13 days with the average RH over 85% compared to Arkansas with only 1 day. Fluctuations in the daily RH of the outside environment had little immediate effect on the data loggers within the storage bags. However, the RH steadily increased within the woven bags stored in Indiana (Fig. 3A). In Arkansas, the RH in the woven bags increased during July, leveled off in August, and decreased during September (Fig. 3B). In contrast, the RH in the PICS bags at both locations remained unaffected by the environmental RH, remaining below 65% (Fig. 3A and B). The increase in humidity within the woven bags correlated with rewetting of the stored grain. After three months, grain stored in the woven bags increased from the initial 14.03% (SE = ± 0.4) to 15.91% (SE = ± 0.3) in Indiana and to 14.94% (SE = ± 0.9) in Arkansas. In the PICS bags, the moisture content of the grain after storage was 14.24% (SE = ± 0.2) in Indiana and 14.30% (SE = ± 0.2) in Arkansas. Grain moisture content values from PICS bags between the storage locations were not significantly different. For the woven bags, the grain moisture was significantly higher (P < 0.01) in Arkansas than in Indiana. Also, the grain moisture in PICS bags was uniform between the top, middle, and bottom layers at both locations. The moisture content was also uniform in the woven bags in Indiana, but moisture was significantly higher (P < 0.01) at 15.4% in the bottom layer of the woven bags in Arkansas. Further analysis showed no significant difference (P < 0.01) between the replicates of each treatment.Fig. 3Relative humidity inside the bags stored in A.) Indiana and B.) Arkansas. Data represent the average values from data loggers inside the replicate bag treatments.Fig. 3Table 2Summary of relative humidity recorded at experimental sites in Arkansas and Indiana for the summer of 2015.aTable 2Number of daysHighest/Lowest>85%84%–75%74%–65%<65%ARINARINARINARINARINJuly91%/48%100%/52%010141616510August93%/43%95%/51%13911151760September87%/27%92%/47%0039713202aAverage daily relative humidity was calculated from 96 data points collected over 24 h period.