International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46, 455–462 455

Invited review
Effect of food processing on the resistant starch content of cereals
and cereal products – a review

Ayten Aylin Alsaffar*

Yeditepe University, 26 August Campus, 34755, Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey
(Received 27 July 2010; Accepted in revised form 30 November 2010)

Summary Depending on the conditions, processing of cereal grains may cause an increase or a decrease in the resistant
starch (RS) content. This review discusses the impact of some of the processing techniques (cooking,
tempering and extrusion) on the RS contents of cereals and cereal products. In addition to processing, the
review briefly summarises the effects of lipids, dietary fibre and sugars, which may be present within the food
matrix, on starch digestibility. The review also provides definitions for the four types of RS (RS type 1, 2, 3
and 4) and brief information about the beneficial effects of RS on human health.
Keywords Cereal processing, cooking, extrusion, food constituents, resistant starch, tempering.

2007). However, unlike dietary fibre, RS does not

Starch fractions with different digestibility
Englyst & Cummings (1985) are the pioneers of the
idea that starch may not be completely hydrolysed in
the human digestive system. They have proposed that
starch may have different rates of digestion depending
on the structural properties of starch and the processes
applied to starchy foods. They classified starch as
rapidly digestible (RDS), slowly digestible (SDS) and
resistant starch (RS) according to the susceptibility of
starch to pancreatic amylase (in vitro) (Englyst &
Cummings, 1987; Englyst et al., 1992). They defined
rapidly available glucose (RAG) as the sum of RDS
and free glucose and investigated the possible link
between the amount of these fractions and the glycae-
mic index (GI) of some foods (Englyst et al., 1996,
1999). Similar studies were carried out by numerous
researches (Goni et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2003; Hu
et al., 2004; Leeman et al., 2006; Capriles et al., 2008;
King et al., 2008; Nilsson et al., 2008; Dona et al.,
2010). In a recent physiological classification, the
fractions RDS and SDS are grouped as ‘glycaemic’
or ‘available’ carbohydrates, whereas RS is regarded as
a ‘non-glycaemic’ carbohydrate (Cummings & Stephen,
2007; Englyst et al., 2007).
Meanwhile, the studies with RS concentrated on its
possible physiological effects and its suitability for use as
a food ingredient as RS has been shown to possess
properties akin to dietary fibre (Niba, 2002; Sozer et al.,
*Correspondent: Fax: +90 216 5780496;
e-mail: aylin.alsaffar@yeditepe.edu.tr
appear to have a detrimental effect on the quality of
the products. Detailed information with regard to the
use of RS as an ingredient in food industry can be found
in Fuentes-Zaragoza et al. (2010).
Resistant starch, types and physiological effects
Resistant starch (RS) is defined as the sum of starch and
products of starch degradation not absorbed in the
small intestine of healthy humans (Englyst et al., 1992).
A number of factors can affect the rate of starch
hydrolysis, such as amylose ⁄ amylopectin ratio, the type
and arrangement of the crystal structures, the average
molecular weights of the components, food particle size,
amylose-lipid complexes, existence of other materials in
the food matrix (sugar, protein, etc.) and enzyme
inhibitors (Annison & Topping, 1994; Tester et al.,
2006; Sharma et al., 2008). Depending on the various
reasons for enzyme resistance, resistant starch can be
categorised into four groups:
• RS type 1 (RS1) is physically inaccessible starch, which is
entrapped within whole or partly milled grains or seeds.
• RS type 2 (RS2) refers to native starch granules (such as
banana, potato and high amylose maize starch) that
resist digestion due to the conformation or structure of
the starch granule. These types of starches may be added
to a wide variety of foods and pharmaceuticals (Brown,
2004).
• RS type 3 (RS3) is mainly retrograded starch (usually
obtained as a result of food processing).

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02529.x
" 2011 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
456 Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar

Table 1 Types, characteristics and cereal sources of resistant starch, adapted from (Fuentes-Zaragoza et al., 2010; Grabitske & Slavin, 2009)

Type Characteristics Resistance reduced by Cereal sources

RS1 Granules that are physically Milling, chewing Whole or partly milled grains
inaccessible to enzymes due
to entrapment in a non-digestible matrix
RS2 Crystalline structure that is undigestible Food processing High amylose starches, e.g.
unless gelatinised and cooking high amylose maize starch
RS3 Retrograded starch Processing conditions Corn flakes, food products with
prolonged and ⁄ or repeated moist
heat treatment
RS4 Chemically modified, starch esters ⁄ ethers, Less susceptible to Synthetic
cross-bonded starches digestibility in vitro

• RS type 4 (RS4) describes a group of starches that have

been chemically modified (such as esterification and Effect of cereal processing on resistant starch
cross-bonding) for their technological (but not nutri- The amounts of RS in processed foods is largely
tional) attributes (Topping et al., 2008). Further infor- dependent on the degree of food processing, which can
mation about chemically modified starches can be found result in an increase or decrease in the RS values from
in Tharanathan (2005). The characteristics of the four those found in the raw product (Englyst et al., 2007).
RS types, factors reducing the resistance to digestion and Food processing, which involves heat and moisture, can
the cereal sources are given in Table 1.
destroy RS1 and RS2 but it may form RS3 (Thompson,
2000).
Resistant starch is emerging as an important dietary
Resistant starch contents of cereal products are given
component that has the potential to reduce the incidence
in Table 2. The highest RS value, 3.6 g/100 g food (as
of bowel health disorders (Morrell et al., 2004). It is
eaten), is found in corn flakes. These RS values,
known that human colonic bacteria ferment RS and
however, does not appear to be nutritionally significant
non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) to short-chain fatty
(Englyst & Cummings, 1987). The challenge is to
acids (SCFA) such as acetate, butyrate, propionate and
generate breakfast cereals with much higher RS contents
gases like CO2, H2 and CH4 via formation of pyruvate
(such as 10–20%) to make a substantial difference to the
(Sharma et al., 2008; Topping et al., 2008). Butyrate is
physiological properties of these foods.
thought to play an important role in suppressing tumour
cells and decreasing the proliferation of colonic mucosal
cells (Johnson & Gee, 1996). Resistant starch type 1 (RS1) in cereals and processing
Resistant starch can function as a prebiotic. One of
Food structure may be a significant impediment to
the additional properties demonstrated by resistant
digestive enzyme penetration into food particles. In
starches is the ability of the insoluble starch granule or
starch-derived material to act as a matrix to support and
protect the viability of the attached probiotic bacteria
Table 2 Resistant starch content of some breakfast cereal products
(Brown, 2004). Addition of RS as an ingredient can
reduce the energy content of foods (Elia & Cummings, Method
2007), RS may assist in the prevention and management RS (g ⁄ 100 g of RS
of conditions associated with the metabolic syndrome Breakfast cereal food, as eaten) analysis Author
(Tapsell, 2004) and it can act as a satiety agent (Sharma
et al., 2008; Willis et al., 2009). All bran 1.1 Englyst Englyst
Porridge oats 0.1 method et al. (1996)
Detailed information on the aforementioned and
Weetabix 0.0
other physiological effects of RS can be found in a Oat bran 1.0
number of studies (Charampopoulos et al., 2002; Rice crispies 2.5
Brown, 2004; Nugent, 2005; Sajilata et al., 2006; Top- Muesli 1.3 Englyst Englyst
ping, 2007; Sharma et al., 2008; Topping et al., 2008; Shredded wheat 1.6 method et al. (2007)
Grabitske & Slavin, 2009; Fuentes-Zaragoza et al., Corn flakes 3.6
2010). Approximately 20 g of RS per day is recom- All bran 0.1 Englyst Englyst &
mended to benefit from the positive physiological method Cummings (1987)
effects. Worldwide, dietary intakes of RS are believed Breakfast cereal 2.3 AOAC method Brown (2004)
to vary considerably (5 to 40 g day)1) (Sajilata et al., (muesli style) (2002.02)
Fruit filled cereal bar 2.3
2006; Sharma et al., 2008).

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011 " 2011 The Authors
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology

whole grains, starch is encapsulated in plant structure
and therefore whole grain products are likely to contain
more RS type 1 (RS1) than flours.
Milling is a high shear process. When starch granules
are subjected to milling, their crystalline regions are
damaged (Devi et al., 2009). Therefore, the disruption of
the granule structure during milling increases the
susceptibility to enzymic degradation (Lehmann &
Robin, 2007; Devi et al., 2009; Mishra et al., 2009).
Cryomilling has also been shown to have a significant
influence on enzyme digestibility of native starches
(Dhital et al., 2010b).
RS concentrations are low for the flours of cereals
and wheat flour is a poor source of resistant starch
(Dhital et al., 2010a; Fuentes-Zaragoza et al., 2010).
Brumovsky et al. (2009) reported the RS contents of
native corn starch, native wheat starch and native
cassava starch as 1.3%, 1.0% and 1.1% (dwb),
respectively by the AOAC method (991.43). Native
cereal starches exhibit A-type crystalline structure when
examined with X-ray diffraction (XRD). This type of
crystalline structure has been shown to be more
susceptible to enzyme hydrolysis when compared to
B-type starches (Planchot et al., 1997). Indeed, cereal
flours appear to contain more RDS and SDS than RS
(Fuentes-Zaragoza et al., 2010).
The extent of milling (i.e. particle size) influences
starch digestion in cereals and legumes. Large particles
have a smaller surface area than smaller ones and
therefore large particles are digested more slowly (Svi-
hus et al., 2005; Noda et al., 2008; Parada & Aguilera,
2009).
Resistant starch type 2 (RS2) in cereals
Botanical origin, which determines morphology and
crystalline organisation, seems to be the most important
factor that determines the rate and extent of amylolytic
hydrolysis of granular starches (Tester et al., 2004;
Srichuwong et al., 2005). Two types of RS granules can
be defined within the RS2 class, and the terms RS2a and
RS2b are suggested as designations for these types:
RS2a – raw starch granules with nonelevated amylose
contents (i.e. within the range of 0–30% amylose). These
typically lose their RS on cooking. RS2b – high-amylose
starches that retain some granular integrity on process-
ing (Morrell et al., 2004). The most studied RS2b type
starch is high-amylose maize starch (Thompson, 2000)
as the studies indicate a link between the amylose
content of starches and the resistance to digestion (Hu
et al., 2004; Themeier et al., 2005; Rahman et al., 2007).
However, the amylose content of starches may not be
sufficient to explain the differences in the RS content
(Table 3) (Themeier et al., 2005).
Research continues to explore ways to develop crop
plants containing high levels of RS (e.g. by genetic
" 2011 The Authors
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar 457
Table 3 Amylose and RS content of various starches (Themeier et al.,
2005)
Amylose Resistant
Source (%, dwb) starch* (%,dwb)
Maize 66.5 54.4
Maize 65.8 49.1
Maize 30.0 0.7
Maize 7.6 0.5
Wheat 30.2 0.3
Wheat 33.7 0.2
Rye 31.1 0.2
*Determined by AOAC method (2002.02).
means) (Morrell et al., 2004; Shewry & Jones, 2005;
Rahman et al., 2007).
Resistant starch type 3 (RS3) in cereals and processing
Starchy foods are usually subjected to heat treatments in
the presence of water before consumption. This pro-
duces an edible product, increases the nutritive value
and generates desirable flavour and texture (Miller,
1988). Through their influence on gelatinisation and
retrogradation, differences in the conditions of food
processing such as changes in moisture, temperature and
duration of heating and subsequent cooling can influ-
ence the RS content of foods (Perera et al., 2010).
Breakfast cereals can be produced in numerous ways.
The key stages during breakfast cereal production are
cooking, tempering, extrusion, expansion (puffing),
flaking, shredding and baking (Whalen et al., 2000).
Due to the restraints in the text space, only the impact of
cooking, tempering and extrusion on starch digestibility
will be discussed in this review.
Cooking
Cooking of the wheat grains involves (i) the diffusion of
water from the surface to the core and (ii) the transfer of
heat from the surrounding medium to the surface of the
grain and then the conduction of heat into the centre of
the grain (Jankowski & Rha, 1986a; Bayram, 2005).
Water is not simultaneously available for all of the
granules during the cooking of whole grains (Stapley
et al., 1997). Gelatinisation and pasting occur in suc-
cession, accompanying the diffusion of water into the
grain. Atmospheric (batch and continuous) and pressure
(batch) cooking methods can be implemented during
breakfast cereal production. The actual time needed to
cook cereal products is generally a function of both
moisture (interacting with shear) and temperature
(Caldwell et al., 2000).
Cooking increases the rate of starch hydrolysis by
gelatinising the starch and making it more easily
available for enzymatic attack (Bornet et al., 1989;
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
458 Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar
Svihus et al., 2005; Roder et al., 2009; Alsaffar, 2010;
Singh et al., 2010). On the contrary, it is not possible to
make such a generalisation for the RS contents of
processed foods. This may be due to the slight differ-
ences in processing conditions, differences in the raw
materials used and the type of the RS assay employed.
Parchure & Kulkarni (1997) studied the RS content in
native and processed rice and amaranth starch. They
found that pressure cooking and cooking gave rise to an
increase in the RS contents of both starches (no
information was provided about the significance level
of these changes). However, in another study, boiling
and pressure cooking were reported to cause a signif-
icant decrease in the RS content of rice (from about
10% to approximately 1.6%, dwb) (Sagum & Arcot,
2000). Roopa & Premavalli (2008) reported a decrease in
the RS content of finger millet (ragi) after cooking and
puffing (from 0.9% to 1.0% RS among raw varieties to
0.7% and 0.6% for cooking and puffing, respectively). It
was found in the same study that roasting led to the
highest increase in RS (3.1%) and this was followed by
pressure cooking (1.7%). Walter et al. (2005), analysed
the RS content of white and parboiled rice (autoclaved
at 100 #C for 10 min) by two different methods and they
obtained distinctively different RS values for unpro-
cessed white rice (1.5% vs. 4.2%, dwb). After parboil-
ing, the RS values were 3.8% vs. 4.0%, dwb,
respectively. Due to the discrepancy in the results, only
one set of the values proposed that the difference after
processing was significant.
All studies mentioned above employed different anal-
ysis methods for the determination of RS and this
complicates the comparison of results from different
studies. There is already an accepted method for the
analysis of RS (AACC method 32–40 and AOAC
International official method 2002.02). The deployment
of this method in the future studies may render the
evaluation and the comparison of the results more
straightforward.
Tempering (holding)
During the tempering (holding) process, cooked grains
undergo time-dependent changes that involve the
restructuring of starch (i.e. retrogradation). Holding
(tempering) allows for the equilibration of either tem-
perature or moisture of the grains. It may further result
in the improvement in the textural properties of grains
(e.g. to obtain better shreddability properties during
shredded wheat production) (Whalen et al., 2000) and a
decrease in starch digestibility (Tas, 2004).
When the starch gels are cooled, molecules comprising
gelatinised starch begin to re-associate (retrograde) and
this leads to an increase in crystallinity. As a result,
starch becomes less susceptible to hydrolysis with
amylolytic enzymes (Gallant et al., 1992; Oates, 1997;
Buleon et al., 1998).
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Retrogradation of starch can involve either amylose
(Tharanathan & Tharanathan, 2001; Leeman et al.,
2006; Wasserman et al., 2007) or amylopectin (Eerlingen
et al., 1994a; Cui & Oates, 1997; Mangala et al., 1999;
Kohyama et al., 2004; Srichuwong et al., 2005; Cai
et al., 2010). Amylose was found to retrograde at a more
rapid rate than amylopectin (Miles et al., 1985; Fred-
riksson et al., 1998; Parker & Ring, 2001; Matalanis
et al., 2009).
Retrogradation of starch is greatly affected by storage
temperature (Farhat et al., 2000). The storage of starch
gels at lower temperatures generally increases retrogra-
dation (Eerlingen et al., 1993; Gudmundsson, 1994;
Blazek & Copeland, 2010a). Jankowski & Rha (1986b)
reported the occurrence of retrogradation and some
textural changes (e.g. firming of the cooked grains) with
fully cooked whole wheat grains during storage at 4 #C
and 20 #C for up to 48 h. When the cooked grains were
allowed to stand at low temperature during shredded
wheat production, there was an improvement in the
textural properties of grains (Tas, 2004). Similarly,
Matalanis et al. (2009) observed some textural changes
in the gels of sorghum, rice and maize starches as a
result of retrogradation.
It is possible to modify the resistant starch content of
foods during storage by applying temperature cycles
(Slade & Levine, 1991). It was found that storage of
gelatinised starch at the cycled temperatures of 4 #C and
30 #C resulted in the formation of amylopectin crystals
of different melting characteristics and of reduced
digestibility when compared to the conventional storage
at a constant low temperature (Park et al., 2009).
Extrusion
Extrusion is a thermal process that involves the appli-
cation of high heat, high pressure and shear forces to an
uncooked mass such as cereal foods. Extrusion of
cereals is performed in both single and twin screw
extruders. The distinguishing characteristic of these
cooker units is the high temperature, short-time cook
(i.e. 0.5–5 min). Mechanical energy input is the primary
mechanism for cooking, although intensive thermal
input via barrel heating and steam injection is also
employed (Whalen et al., 2000).
The results on the impact of extrusion on RS content
of starches are conflicting. Numerous studies reported
a decrease in the RS content (or increased digestibility)
after extrusion and ascribed this to the destruction of
granular structure (due to thermal treatment, high
pressure and shear forces) (Parchure & Kulkarni, 1997;
Unlu & Faller, 1998; Vasanthan & Bhatty, 1998;
Farhat et al., 2001; Wolf, 2010). Similarly, Mahasuk-
honthachat et al. (2010) reported that the rate of starch
digestion of sorghum was increased by about ten times
after extrusion when compared with non-extrudates.
Haralampu (2000) reported that at 30% water, 22% of
" 2011 The Authors

the RS was lost in a commercial RS3 product, possibly
due to high shear damage in the extruder. Even under
extreme conditions of high moisture content (20–40%)
and very low screw speed (60 r.p.m.) very low amounts
of RS3 was formed (Faraj et al., 2004). Extrusion
cooking of high amylose starches (Gelose and Hylon
VII) significantly reduced their RS content (from
45.7% to 15.6% for Gelose and from 60.0% to
13.8% for Hylon VII) (Htoon et al., 2009).
On the contrary, somehow increased values of RS
after extrusion were also obtained. Chanvrier et al.
(2007) observed a slight increase in enzyme resistant
starch (ERS) content for wheat starch (from 0.8% to
2.8%) and normal maize starch (from 1.5% to 2.1%)
after extrusion. Huth et al. (2000) obtained 2–3% of RS
after the extrusion of barley. The values rose up to 6%
when the samples were freeze-stored after extrusion (the
initial RS content of barley was not given in the study).
In the same study, the highest contents of RS were
obtained by a mass temperature of approximately
150 #C and a feed moisture of about 20%. In another
study, the RS content of raw pastry wheat flour was
reported to increase from 0.38% (dwb) to values ranging
from 0.52% to 2.65% (dwb) after extrusion (by using
various combinations of feed moisture: 20%, 40%, 60%
and screw speed 150, 200, 250 r.p.m.) (Kim et al., 2006).
Presence of lipids, dietary fibre and sugar
For native granules, any factors which restrict the
accessibility of the enzyme to the substrate (lipids, non-
starch polysaccharides, sugars, etc.) or the activity of the
enzyme itself (e.g. amylase inhibitors) will have a
potentially restrictive effect on the hydrolysis process
(Tester et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2010).
Amylose can form inclusion complexes with fatty
acids and monoacylglycerides and these complexes have
been shown to have lower digestibility (Jane & Robyt,
1984; Cui & Oates, 1999). The amylose–lipid complexes
can be naturally present in starch or can be formed upon
gelatinisation of starch in the presence of lipids.
Hydrolysis of the complexes is influenced by both the
amylose and lipid chain length (Copeland et al., 2009;
Putseys et al., 2010). A recent study reported an
optimum concentration range of fatty acids, which had
to be attained to form complexes with starch (Tang &
Copeland, 2007).
Insoluble dietary fibre constituents such as cellulose
and lignin were found to have minimal effects on RS
yields (Escarpa et al., 1997). Tester & Sommerville
(2003) reported that the extent of a- amylase hydrolysis
was reduced when non-starch polysaccharides (NSP)
were used in the starch–water system. This decrease was
explained by a possible restrictive effect of NSPs on
gelatinisation (by reducing the hydration of the amor-
phous regions).
" 2011 The Authors
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar 459
Englyst et al. (2003) reported that starch–sugar ratio
used in the formulation affected the digestibility of
cereal products together with the cereal type and the
degree of food processing. The addition of sugars
influences the degree of starch gelatinisation. It leads
to an increase in glass transition temperature (Tg) and
consequently an increase in gelatinisation temperature.
As a result, the rate of propogation declines and this
may decrease the extent of retrogradation (Gudmunds-
son, 1994; Jang et al., 2001). Eerlingen et al. (1994b)
reported that glucose, maltose, sucrose and ribose had a
significant effect on the RS content of the stored gels
when present in a high concentration (starch–water–
sugar ratio of 1:10:5, w ⁄ w). However, the effect was
positive or negative depending upon the starch types
used. These inconclusive trends could be due to possible
differences in the nature of the gelatinised systems.
Conclusion
In general, processing techniques applied during the
manufacture of cereal products tend to destroy the food
matrix and lead to gelatinisation of starch. These events
give rise to an increased susceptibility of starch to
enzyme hydrolysis. Retrogradation during tempering
may lead to RS formation. Unfortunately, with a few
exceptions, the current levels of RS in breakfast cereals
are not high enough to be able to observe its beneficial
physiological effects. The challenge for food engineers
and nutritionists is to design processes and products that
may lead to cereal products containing substantial
amounts of RS. This is important as cereal grains and
products are the major contributors to carbohydrate
intake.
There is a vast amount of information about the RS
contents of starches, flours and gel systems but there are
a few studies that concentrated on the whole cereal
grains. More studies that investigate the effects of other
processes (such as roasting, puffing and flaking) are
needed. It is also important to reiterate the need for the
deployment of the standard method for RS analysis
(AACC method 32–40 and AOAC International official
method 2002.02) for the future studies.
References
Alsaffar, A.A. (2010). Effect of thermal processing and storage on
digestibility of starch in whole wheat grains. Journal of Cereal
Science, 52, 480–485.
Annison, G. & Topping, D.L. (1994). Nutritional role of resistant
starch: chemical structure vs physiological function. Annual Review
of Nutrition, 14, 297–320.
Bayram, M. (2005). Modelling of cooking of wheat to produce bulgur.
Journal of Food Engineering, 71, 179–186.
Blazek, J. & Copeland, L. (2010a). Amylolysis of wheat starches.I
Digestion kinetics of starches with varying functional properties.
Journal of Cereal Science, 51, 265–270.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
460 Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar
Bornet, F.R.J., Fontvieille, A.-M., Rizkalla, S. et al. (1989). Insulin
and glycemic responses in healthy humans to native starches
processed in different ways: correlation with in vitro alpha-amylase
hydrolysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 315–323.
Brown, I. (2004). Applications and uses of resistant starch. Journal of
AOAC International, 87, 727–732.
Brumovsky, L.A., Brumovsky, J.O., Fretes, M.R. & Peralta, J.M. (2009).
Quantification of resistant starch in several starch sources treated
thermally. International Journal of Food Properties, 12, 451–460.
Buleon, A., Colonna, P., Planchot, P. & Ball, S. (1998). Starch
granules:Structure and biosynthesis. International Journal of Biolog-
ical Molecules, 23, 85–112.
Cai, L., Shi, Y.-C., Rong, L. & Hsiao, B.S. (2010). Debranching and
crystallization of waxy maize starch in relation to enzyme digest-
ibility. Carbohydrate Polymers, 81, 385–393.
Caldwell, E.F., Fast, R.B., Ievolella, J. et al. (2000). Cooking of ready-
to-eat breakfast cereals. Cereal Foods World, 45, 244–252.
Capriles, V.D., Coelho, K.D., Guerra-Matias, A.C. & Areas, J.A.G.
(2008). Effects of processing methods on amaranth starch digest-
ibility and predicted glycemic index. Journal of Food Science, 73,
H160–H163.
Chanvrier, H., Uthayakumaran, S., Appelqvist, I.A.M., Gidley, M.J.,
Gilbert, E.P. & Lopez-Rubio, A. (2007). Influence of storage
conditions on the structure, thermal behaviour and formation of
enyzme resistant starch in extruded starches. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 55, 9883–9890.
Charampopoulos, D., Wang, R., Pandiella, S.S. & Webb, C. (2002).
Application of cereals and cereal components in functional foods: a
review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 79, 131–141.
Copeland, L., Blazek, J., Salman, H. & Tang, M.C. (2009). Form and
functionality of starch. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 1527–1534.
Cui, R. & Oates, C. (1997). The effect of retrogradation on enzyme
susceptibility of sago starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 32, 65–72.
Cui, R. & Oates, C.G. (1999). The effect of amylose–lipid complex
formation on enzyme susceptibility of sago starch. Food Chemistry,
65, 417–425.
Cummings, J.H. & Stephen, A.M. (2007). Carbohydrate terminology
and classification. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, S5–
S18.
Devi, A.F., Fibrianto, K., Torley, P.J. & Bhandari, B. (2009). Physical
properties of cryomilled starch. Journal of Cereal Science, 49, 278–
284.
Dhital, S., Katawal, S.B. & Shresta, A.K. (2010a). Formation of
resistant starch during processing and storage of instant noodles.
International Journal of Food Properties, 13, 454–463.
Dhital, S., Shresta, A.K. & Gidley, M.J. (2010b). Effect of cryo-milling
on starches: Functionality and digestibility. Food Hydrocolloids, 24,
152–163.
Dona, A.C., Pages, G., Gilbert, R.G. & Kuchel, P.W. (2010).
Digestion of starch: in vivo and in vitro kinetic models used to
characterise oligosaccharide and glucose release. Carbohydrate
Polymers, 80, 599–617.
Eerlingen, R.C., Crombez, M. & Delcour, J.A. (1993). Enzyme-
resistant starch I. Quantitative and qualitative influence on incuba-
tion time and temperature of autoclaved starch on resistant starch
formation. Cereal Chemistry, 70, 339–344.
Eerlingen, R.C., Jacobs, H. & Delcour, J.A. (1994a). Enzyme-resistant
starch. V. Effect of retrogradation of waxy maize starch on enzyme
susceptibility. Cereal Chemistry, 71, 351–355.
Eerlingen, R.C., Van Den Broeck, I., Delcour, J.A., Slade, L. &
Levine, H. (1994b). Enzyme resistant starch VI. Influence of sugars
on resistant starch formation. Cereal Chemistry, 71, 472–476.
Elia, M. & Cummings, J.H. (2007). Physiological aspects of energy
metabolism and gastrointestinal effects of carbohydrates. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, S40–S74.
Englyst, H.N. & Cummings, J.H. (1985). Digestion of the polysac-
charides of some cereal foods in the human small intestine. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 42, 778–787.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Englyst, H.N. & Cummings, J.H. (1987). Resistant starch, a new food
component: a classification of starch for nutritional purposes. In:
Cereals in a European Context (edited by I.D. Morton). Chichester:
Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Englyst, H.N., Kingman, S.M. & Cummings, J.H. (1992). Classifica-
tion and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46, S33–S50.
Englyst, H.N., Veenstra, J. & Hudson, G.J. (1996). Measurement of
rapidly available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: a potential in vitro
predictor of the glycemic response. British Journal of Nutrition, 75,
327–337.
Englyst, K.N., Englyst, H.N., Hudson, G.J., Cole, T.J. & Cummings,
J.H. (1999). Rapidly available glucose in foods: an in vitro
measurement that reflects the glycaemic response. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 69, 448–454.
Englyst, K., Vinoy, S., Englyst, H. & Lang, V. (2003). Glycaemic index
of cereal products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly
available glucose. British Journal of Nutrition, 89, 329–339.
Englyst, K.N., Liu, S. & Englyst, H.N. (2007). Nutritional characteri-
sation and measurement of dietary carbohydrates. European Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 61, S19–S39.
Escarpa, A., Gonzalez, M.C., Morales, M.D. & Saura-Calixto, F. (1997).
An approach to the influence of nutrients and other food constituents
on resistant starch formation. Food Chemistry, 60, 527–532.
Faraj, A., Vasanthan, T. & Hoover, R. (2004). The effect of extrusion
cooking on resistant starch formation in waxy and regular barley
flours. Food Research International, 37, 517–525.
Farhat, I.A., Blanshard, J.M.V. & Mitchell, J.R. (2000). The
retrogradation of waxy maize starch extrudates: effects of storage
temperature and water content. Biopolymers, 53, 411–422.
Farhat, I.A., Protzman, J., Becker, A., Valles-Pamies, B., Neale, R. &
Hill, S.E. (2001). Effect of the extent of conversion and retrogradation
on the digestibility of potato starch. Starch ⁄ Staerke, 53, 431–436.
Fredriksson, H., Silverio, J., Andersson, R., Eliasson, A.-C. & Aman,
P. (1998). The influence of amylose and amylopectin characteristics
on gelatinization and retrogradation properties of different starches.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 35, 119–134.
Fuentes-Zaragoza, E., Riquelme-Navarrate, M.J., Sanchez-Zapata, E.
& Perez-Alvarez, J.A. (2010). Resistant starch as functional ingre-
dient: a review. Food Research International, 43, 931–942.
Gallant, D., Bouchet, B., Buleon, A. & Perez, S. (1992). Physical
characteristics of starch granules and susceptibility to enzymatic
degradation. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46, S3–S16.
Goni, I., Garcia-Alonso, A. & Saura-Calixto, F. (1997). A starch
hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutrition Research,
17, 427–437.
Grabitske, H.A. & Slavin, J.L. (2009). Gastrointestinal effects of low-
digestible carbohydrates. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 49, 327–360.
Gudmundsson, M. (1994). Retrogradation of starch and the role of its
components. Thermochimica Acta, 246, 329–341.
Haralampu, S.G. (2000). Resistant starch – a review of the physical
properties and biological impact of RS3. Carbohydrate Polymers, 41,
285–292.
Htoon, A., Shresta, A.K., Flanagan, B.M. et al. (2009). Effects of
processing high amylose maize starches under controlled conditions
on structural organisation and amylase digestibility. Carbohydrate
Polymers, 75, 236–245.
Hu, P., Zhao, H., Duan, Z., Linlin, Z. & Wu, D. (2004). Starch
digestibility and estimated glycemic score of different types of rice
differing in amylose contents. Journal of Cereal Science, 40, 231–237.
Huth, M., Dongowski, G., Gebhardt, E. & Flamme, W. (2000).
Functional properties of dietary fibre enriched extrudates from
barley. Journal of Cereal Science, 32, 115–128.
Jane, J.L. & Robyt, J.F. (1984). Structure studies of amylose-V
complexes and retrograded amylose by action of alpha amylases,
and a new method for preparing amylodextrins. Carbohydrate
Research, 132, 105–118.
" 2011 The Authors

Jang, J.K., Lee, S.H., Cho, S.C. & Phun, Y.R. (2001). Effect of sucrose
on glass transition, gelatinisation and retrogradation of wheat
starch. Cereal Chemistry, 78, 186–192.
Jankowski, T. & Rha, C.K. (1986a). Differential scanning calorimetry
study of the wheat grain cooking process. Starch, 38, 45–48.
Jankowski, T. & Rha, C.K. (1986b). Retrogradation of starch in
cooked wheat. Starch, 38, 6–9.
Johnson, I.T. & Gee, J.M. (1996). Resistant starch. Nutrition and Food
Science, 1, 20–23.
Kim, W.K., Chung, M.K., Kang, N.E., Kim, M.H. & Park, O.J.
(2003). Effect of resistant starch from corn or rice on glucose
control, colonic events and blood-lipid concentrations in streptozo-
cin-induced diabetic rats. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 14,
166–173.
Kim, J.H., Tanhehco, E.J. & Ng, P.K.W. (2006). Effect of extrusion
conditions on resistant starch formation from pastry wheat flour.
Food Chemistry, 99, 718–723.
King, R.A., Noakes, M., Bird, A.R., Morell, M.K. & Topping, D.L.
(2008). An extruded breakfast cereal made from high amylose barley
cultivar has a low glycemic index and lower plasma insulin response
than one made from a standard barley. Journal of Cereal Science, 48,
526–530.
Kohyama, K., Matsuki, J., Yasui, Y. & Sasaki, T. (2004). A
differential thermal analysis of the gelatinization and retrogradation
of wheat starches with different amylopectin chain lengths. Carbo-
hydrate Polymers, 58, 71–77.
Leeman, A.M., Karlsson, M.E., Eliasson, A.-C. & Bjorck, I.M.E.
(2006). Resistant starch formation in temperature treated potato
starches with varying in amylose and amylopectin ratio. Carbohy-
drate Polymers, 65, 306–313.
Lehmann, U. & Robin, F. (2007). Slowly digestible starch- its structure
and health implications: a review. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 18, 346–355.
Mahasukhonthachat, K., Sopade, P.A. & Gidley, M.J. (2010). Kinetics
of starch digestion and functional properties of twin-screw extruded
sorghum. Journal of Cereal Science, 51, 392–401.
Mangala, S.L., Udayasankar, K. & Tharanathan, R.N. (1999).
Resistant starch from processed cereals: the influence of amylopectin
and non-carbohydrate constituents in its formation. Food Chemis-
try, 64, 391–396.
Matalanis, A.M., Campanella, O.H. & Hamaker, B.R. (2009). Storage
retrogradation behaviour of sorghum, maize and rice starch pastes
related to amylopectin fine structure. Journal of Cereal Science, 50,
74–81.
Miles, M., Morris, V., Orford, P. & Ring, S. (1985). The roles of
amylose and amylopectin in the gelation and retrogradation of
starch. Carbohydrate Research, 135, 271–281.
Miller, R. (1988). Continuous cooking of breakfast cereals. Cereal
Foods World, 33, 284–291.
Mishra, S., Monro, J.A., Armstrong, K., Motoi, L. & McLachlan, A.
(2009). Starch fractions in a population of wholegrain oats (Avena
sativa). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 37,
219–226.
Morrell, M.K., Konik-Rose, C., Ahmed, R., Li, Z. & Rahman, S.
(2004). Synthesis of resistant starches in plants. Journal of AOAC
International, 87, 740–748.
Niba, L.L. (2002). Resistant starch: a potential functional food
ingredient. Nutrition and Food Science, 32, 62–67.
Nilsson, A., Ostman, E., Preston, T. & Bjorck, I. (2008). Effects of GI
vs content of cereal fibre of the evening meal on glucose tolerance at
a subsequent standardized breakfast. European Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 62, 712–720.
Noda, T., Takigawa, S., Matsuura-Endo, C. et al. (2008). Factors
affecting the digestibility of raw and gelatinized potato starches.
Food Chemistry, 110, 465–470.
Nugent, A. (2005). Health properties of resistant starch. British
Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 30, 27–54.
" 2011 The Authors
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar 461
Oates, C.G. (1997). Towards an understanding of starch granule
structure and hydrolysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 8,
375–382.
Parada, J. & Aguilera, J.M. (2009). In vitro digestibility and glycemic
response of potato starch is related to granule size and degree of
gelatinisation. Journal of Food Science, 74, E34–E38.
Parchure, A.A. & Kulkarni, P.R. (1997). Effect of food processing
treatments on generation of resistant starch. International Journal of
Food Sciences and Nutrition, 48, 257–260.
Park, E.Y., Baik, B. & Lim, S. (2009). Influences of temperature-cycled
storage on retrogradation and in vitro digestibility of waxy maize
starch gel. Journal of Cereal Science, 50, 43–48.
Parker, R. & Ring, S.G. (2001). Aspects of the physical chemistry of
starch. Journal of Cereal Science, 34, 1–17.
Perera, A., Meda, V. & Tyler, R.T. (2010). Resistant starch: a review of
analytical protocols for determining resistant starch and of factors
affecting the resistant starch content of foods. Food Research
International, 43, 1959–1974.
Planchot, V., Colonna, P., Buleon, A. & Gallant, D. (1997). Amylol-
ysis of Starch Granules and Alpha-glucan Crystallites. In: Starch,
Structure and Functionality (edited by P.J. Frazier, P. Richmond &
A.M. Donald). Pp. 141–152. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of
Chemistry.
Putseys, J.A., Lamberts, L. & Delcour, J.A. (2010). Amylose-lipid
inclusion complexes: Formation, identity and physicochemical
properties. Journal of Cereal Science, 51, 238–247.
Rahman, S., Bird, A., Regina, A. et al. (2007). Resistant starch in
cereals: Exploiting genetic engineering and genetic variation. Journal
of Cereal Science, 46, 251–260.
Roder, N., Gerard, C., Verel, A. et al. (2009). Factors affecting the
action of a-amylase on wheat starch: Effects of water availability.
An enzymic and structural study. Food Chemistry, 113, 471–478.
Roopa, S. & Premavalli, K.S. (2008). Effect of processing on starch
fractions in different varieties of finger millet. Food Chemistry, 106,
875–882.
Sagum, R. & Arcot, J. (2000). Effect of domestic processing methods
on the starch, non-starch polysaccharides and in vitro starch and
protein digestibility of three varieties of rice with varying levels of
amylose. Food Chemistry, 70, 107–111.
Sajilata, M.G., Singhai, R.S. & Kulkarni, P.R. (2006). Resistant starch
– a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
5, 1–17.
Sharma, A., Yadav, B.S. & Ritika, B.S. (2008). Resistant starch:
physiological roles and food applications. Food Reviews Interna-
tional, 24, 193–234.
Shewry, P.R. & Jones, H.D. (2005). Transgenic wheat: where do we
stand after the first 12 years? Annals of Applied Biology, 147, 1–14.
Singh, J., Dartois, A. & Kaur, L. (2010). Starch digestibility in food
matrix: a review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 21, 168–
180.
Slade, L. & Levine, H. (1991). Beyond water activity: recent advances
based on alternative approach to the assessment of food quality and
safety. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 30, 115–360.
Sozer, N., Dalgic, A.C. & Kaya, A. (2007). Thermal, textural and
cooking properties of spaghetti enriched with resistant starch.
Journal of Food Engineering, 81, 476–484.
Srichuwong, S., Sunarti, T.C., Mishima, T., Isono, N. & Hisamatsu,
M. (2005). Starches from different botanical sources. I. Contribution
of amylopectin fine structure to thermal properties and enzyme
digestibility. Carbohydrate Polymers, 60, 529–538.
Stapley, A.G.F., Hyde, T.M., Gladden, L.F. & Fryer, P.J. (1997).
NMR imaging of the wheat grain cooking process. International
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 32, 355–375.
Svihus, B., Uhlen, A.K. & Harstad, O.M. (2005). Effect of starch
granule structure, associated components and processing on nutri-
tive value of cereal starch: a review. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 122, 303–320.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
462 Processing and resistant starch in cereals A. A. Alsaffar
Tang, M.C. & Copeland, L. (2007). Analysis of complexes between
lipids and wheat starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 67, 80–85.
Tapsell, L. (2004). Diet and metabolic syndrome: where does resistant
starch fit in? Journal of AOAC International, 87, 756–760.
Tas, A.A. (2004). Processing of Whole Grains and Subsequent Starch
Digestibility. Loughborough: Nottingham University.
Tester, R.F. & Sommerville, M.D. (2003). The effects of non-starch
polysaccharides on the extent of gelatinisation, swelling and alpha-
amylase hydrolysis of maize and wheat starches. Food Hydrocolloids,
17, 41–54.
Tester, R.F., Karkalas, J. & Yi, X. (2004). Starch – composition, fine
structure and architecture. Journal of Cereal Science, 39, 151–165.
Tester, R.F., Qi, X. & Karkalas, J. (2006). Hydrolysis of native
starches with amylases. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 130,
39–54.
Tharanathan, R.N. (2005). Starch – value addition by modification.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 45, 371–384.
Tharanathan, M. & Tharanathan, R.N. (2001). Resistant starch in
wheat-based products: Isolation and characterisation. Journal of
Cereal Science, 34, 73–84.
Themeier, H., Hollman, J., Neese, U. & Lindhauer, M.G. (2005).
Structural and morphological factors influencing the quantification
of resistant starch II in starches of different botanical origin.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 61, 72–79.
Thompson, D.B. (2000). Strategies for the manufacture of resistant
starch. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11, 245–253.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011
International Journal of Food Science and Technology " 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
View publication stats
Topping, D. (2007). Cereal complex carbohydrates and their
contribution to human health. Journal of Cereal Science, 46,
220–229.
Topping, D.L., Bajka, B.H., Bird, A.R. et al. (2008). Resistant starches
as a vehicle for delivering health benefits to the human large bowel.
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 20, 103–108.
Unlu, E. & Faller, J.F. (1998). Formation of resistant starch by a twin
screw extruder. Cereal Chemistry, 37, 346–350.
Vasanthan, T. & Bhatty, R. (1998). Enhancement of resistant starch
(RS3) in amylomaize, barley, field pea and lentil starches.
Starch ⁄ Staerke, 50, 286–291.
Walter, M., da Silva, L.P. & Denardin, C.C. (2005). Rice and resistant
starch: different content depending on chosen methodology. Journal
of Food Composition and Analysis, 18, 279–285.
Wasserman, L.A., Signorelli, M., Schiraldi, A. et al. (2007). Prepara-
tion of wheat resistant starch. Journal of Thermal Analysis and
Calorimetry, 87, 153–157.
Whalen, P.J., DesRochers, J.L. & Walker, C.E. (2000). Ready-to-eat
Breakfast Cereals. In: Handbook of Cereal Science and Technology
(edited by K. Kulp & J.G. Ponte). Pp. 615–646. New York, USA:
Marcel Dekker Inc.
Willis, H.J., Eldridge, A.L., Beiseigel, J., Thomas, W. & Slavin, J.L.
(2009). Greater satiety response with resistant starch and corn bran
in human subjects. Nutrition Research, 29, 100–105.
Wolf, B. (2010). Polysaccharide functionality through extrusion
cooking. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 15, 50–54.
" 2011 The Authors