Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Hydrocolloids
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodhyd

Structural and functional properties of starches from root tubers of white, T

yellow, and purple sweet potatoes
Ke Guoa,b, Tianxiang Liua,b, Ahui Xua,b, Long Zhanga,b, Xiaofeng Bianc,∗∗, Cunxu Weia,b,∗
a
Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology of Jiangsu Province / Key Laboratory of Plant Functional Genomics of the Ministry of Education, Yangzhou University,
Yangzhou, 225009, China
b
Co-Innovation Center for Modern Production Technology of Grain Crops of Jiangsu Province / Joint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture & Agri-Product
Safety of the Ministry of Education, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009, China
c
Institute of Food Crops, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, 210014, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sweet potato is an important starch resource and has different colored root tubers due to different genotype
Sweet potato backgrounds. However, it is unclear whether starch properties are related to the color of root tuber. In this study,
Different colored root tubers 3 white, 3 yellow, and 3 purple sweet potato varieties were planted in the same environment. The dry root tubers
Starch of white varieties had the highest starch ranging from 61.5 to 67.5% and the lowest soluble sugar ranging from
Structural properties
13.1 to 18.0%, and those of yellow varieties had the lowest starch ranging from 45.8 to 53.1% and the highest
Functional properties
soluble sugar ranging from 28.9 to 31.5%. Starches from different varieties had different granule sizes (D[4,3]
Cluster analysis
12.3–18.1 μm) and amylose contents (24.1–27.2%), but all exhibited CA-type crystalline structure. The relative
crystallinity ranged from 22.3 to 25.5%, and the IR absorbance ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/995 cm−1 ranged
from 0.665 to 0.775 and from 0.846 to 0.944, respectively, among 9 varieties. The starches from the same or
different colored varieties had differences in swelling power, water solubility, gelatinization temperature,
pasting viscosity, and digestion properties. The cluster analysis based on starch property parameters indicated
that starch properties of sweet potato had no relationship with the color of root tuber but were determined by the
genotype background of variety.

1. Introduction
Sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] is an important economic
crop in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Its root tuber is rich in starch,
dietary fiber, vitamin C, provitamin A, iron, and minerals, and is
usually used as an energy source in human diet and as an important
starch resource in food and nonfood industries (Bovell-Benjamin, 2007;
Zhu, Yang, Cai, Bertoft, & Corke, 2011). Sweet potato has white,
yellow, orange, purple, and red varieties due to the difference in
composition and content of phenolic compounds and pigments in root
tuber (Wang et al., 2018). The yellow and purple of root tuber are due
to the accumulation of lipid-soluble β-carotene and water-soluble an-
thocyanin, respectively (Odake, Terahara, Saito, Toki, & Honda, 1992).
The yellow of root tuber can gradually become orange with the increase
of β-carotene content (Tanaka, Sasaki, & Ohmiya, 2008). The antho-
cyanin is higher in red root tuber than in purple root tuber (Wang et al.,
2018). Compared with yellow and purple root tubers, the white root
tuber contains very low phenolic compounds and β-carotene but has no
anthocyanins (Kim et al., 2011; Teow et al., 2007).
Starch is the main component of sweet potato root tuber. Its struc-
tural and functional properties determine its quality and applications in
food and nonfood industries. Starch from sweet potato has widely been
investigated in different colored root tubers (Lee & Lee, 2017;
Osundahunsi, Fagbemi, Kesselman, & Shimoni, 2003; Sajeev,
Sreekumar, Vimala, Moorthy, & Jyothi, 2012; Soison, Jangchud,
Jangchud, Harnsilawat, & Piyachomkwan, 2015; Zhang et al., 2018).
Osundahunsi et al. (2003) chose 2 different colored sweet potato cul-
tivars representing the white and red root tubers to characterize their
starches, and found that starches have similar physicochemical prop-
erties except that pasting properties are different between white and
red cultivars. They concluded that the white cultivar is preferred when
low retrogradation tendency is required. Soison et al. (2015) chose 4
different colored sweet potato varieties to represent the white, yellow,
orange, and purple root tubers, and concluded that the physicochemical

∗
Corresponding author. Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology of Jiangsu Province / Key Laboratory of Plant Functional Genomics of the Ministry of
Education, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009, China.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bianxiaofeng2@163.com (X. Bian), cxwei@yzu.edu.cn (C. Wei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.11.058
Received 17 August 2018; Received in revised form 31 October 2018; Accepted 28 November 2018
Available online 28 November 2018
0268-005X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Guo et al.
properties of sweet potato starches are significantly affected by the
color of root tuber. Lee and Lee (2017) chose 3 different colored sweet
potato varieties to represent the white, orange, and purple root tubers,
and found that their starches have similar physicochemical and struc-
tural properties and concluded that the colored sweet potato samples
have potential as colored starchy food ingredients without structural or
physical differences. However, starches from 7 purple sweet potatoes
have different structural and functional properties due to their different
genotype backgrounds (Zhang et al., 2018). Sajeev et al. (2012) used 3
white, 2 cream, and 2 orange sweet potato varieties as plant materials
to investigate the textural and gelatinization characteristics of different
colored sweet potatoes, and found that the textural, rheological, and
gelatinization properties show significant differences among different
varieties but have no relationship with the color of root tuber.
Hundreds of sweet potato varieties with different colored root tu-
bers have been cultivated. Variety selection and improvement have
become of interest for the breeders of sweet potato (Zhang, Wang, Liu,
& Wang, 2009). It is important to compare the difference of starch
properties from different colored sweet potatoes. However, as the above
reviews have illustrated, there are different opinions about whether the
starch properties are related to the color of root tuber (Lee & Lee, 2017;
Osundahunsi et al., 2003; Sajeev et al., 2012; Soison et al., 2015; Zhang
et al., 2018). The disagreement is mainly caused by the reason that only
one variety is chosen to represent the different colored root tubers. To
our knowledge, it is unclear whether starch properties are related to the
color of root tuber.
In this study, 3 white, 3 yellow, and 3 purple sweet potato varieties
were chosen to represent the different colored root tubers. They were
planted in the same environment, and their starches were isolated from
fresh root tubers. The structural and functional properties of starches
were investigated and compared. The main purpose of this study was to
reveal the relationship between starch properties and the color of root
tuber, and provide some information for quality breeding and utiliza-
tion of different colored sweet potato varieties.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant materials
Three white sweet potato varieties, Su 24 (W1), Su 28 (W2), and Su
29 (W3), 3 yellow sweet potato varieties, Su 14 (Y1), Su 16 (Y2), and Su
25 (Y3), and 3 purple sweet potato varieties, Ningzi 1 (P1), Ningzi 2
(P2), and Ningzi 4 (P3) were planted under normal agronomic practices
in the experimental field of Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Nanjing, China in 2017. Their fresh root tubers were used as plant
materials in this study.
2.2. Measurement of soluble sugar and starch contents in dry root tuber
The fresh root tubers were washed cleanly and cut into small thin
pieces. The samples were freezed-dried at −70 °C in a Freeze Dryer
(FD-1A-50, Boyikang Corp., China) and ground extensively through a
100-mesh sieve to obtain the flour. The soluble sugar and starch con-
tents in flour were measured following the method of Gao et al. (2014).
Briefly, the soluble sugar was first extracted from flour with 80% (v/v)
ethanol, and then the starch in flour was hydrolysed into soluble sugar
with HClO4. The soluble sugar was finally determined using anthrone-
H2SO4 method, and then converted to soluble sugar and starch contents
in flour by reference to a standard curve prepared with glucose
(McCready, Guggolz, Silviera, & Owens, 1949).
2.3. Starch isolation from root tubers
The starch was isolated from fresh root tubers exactly following our
previous method (Zhang et al., 2018). Briefly, the fresh root tubers were
cut into small pieces and homogenized in deionized water. After that,
830
Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836
the homogenate was successively filtered through 100-, 200-, and 300-
mesh sieves, and settled overnight at 4 °C to obtain the starch pre-
cipitation. The starch precipitate was washed 5 times with 0.2% NaOH,
5 times with deionized water, and two times with anhydrous ethanol.
Finally, the starch was dried at 40 °C, ground into powders and passed
through a 100-mesh sieve, and used for measuring the structural and
functional properties of starch.
2.4. Analysis of starch granule size
The granule size of starch was measured using a laser diffraction
particle size analyzer (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, UK) as previously
described by Cai et al. (2014). Briefly, starch-water slurry was analysed
under the condition of 2000 rpm and the opacity between 10% and
11%. The surface- and volume-weighted diameters were chosen as
granule size.
2.5. Measurement of apparent amylose content
The starch-iodine absorption spectrum and apparent amylose con-
tent were measured following our previous method (Zhang et al.,
2018). Briefly, 10 mg of starch was dissolved in 5 mL of dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) containing 10% of 6 M urea at 95 °C for 1 h. The 1 mL
of starch-DMSO solution and 1 mL of iodine (0.2% I2, 2% KI, w/v) were
mixed with water and made up to 50 mL in a volumetric flask, and
stored in a dark environment for 20 min. The starch-iodine absorption
spectrum was measured using a spectrophotometer (Ultrospec 6300
pro, Amersham Biosciences, Sweden). Apparent amylose content was
evaluated from the absorbance at 620 nm.
2.6. Determination of protein content in starch
The nitrogen content in isolated starch was determined using an
element CHN-analyzer (Vario EL cube, Elementar Analysensysteme
Gmbh, Germany), and then converted to protein content using a 6.25
conversion factor.
2.7. Analysis of crystalline structure
The crystalline structure of starch was analysed on an X-ray powder
diffractometer (XRD) (D8, Bruker, Germany) following the method
previously described by Wei et al. (2010). The starch was wetted in a
closed container containing a saturated aqueous solution of NaCl for 2
weeks. The starch was scanned from 3° to 40° 2θ with a step size of
0.02° using the X-ray beam at 40 mA and 40 kV.
2.8. Analysis of short-range ordered structure
Attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transforms infrared (ATR-FTIR)
analysis of starch was carried out on a FTIR spectrometer (7000,
Varian, USA) with a DTGS detector equipped with an ATR single-re-
flectance cell containing a germanium crystal (45° incidence angle) as
previously described by Wei et al. (2010).
2.9. Measurement of swelling power and water solubility
The swelling power and water solubility of starch were measured
following the method of Lin et al. (2016) with some modifications.
Briefly, 30 mg of starch (W1) and 1.5 mL of water were suspended and
heated at 95 °C for 30 min with continuous shaking (1000 rpm) in a
ThermoMixer. The sample was cooled to room temperature and cen-
trifuged at 5000 g for 10 min. The supernatant were transferred for
quantifying the soluble carbohydrates (W2) using anthrone-H2SO4
method. The precipitated starch was weighed (W3). The swelling power
and water solubility were calculated as W3/(W1-W2) and W2/
W1 × 100%, respectively.
K. Guo et al.
2.10. Analysis of thermal properties
The thermal properties of starch were analysed following the
method of Cai et al. (2015). Briefly, 5 mg of starch and 15 μL of water
were mixed and sealed in an aluminium pan. The sample was kept at
4 °C overnight. After equilibration at room temperature for 2 h, the
sample was heated from 25 to 130 °C at 10 °C/min using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC) (200-F3, Netzsch, Germany).
2.11. Analysis of pasting properties
The pasting properties of starch were analysed following the
method of Gao et al. (2014). Briefly, 2.5 g of starch and 25 mL of water
were measured using a rapid visco analyzer (RVA-3D, Newport Scien-
tific, Australia). The starch-water slurry was mixed by rotating the
paddle at 960 rpm for the first 10 s and then at a constant speed of
160 rpm. The programmed temperature-time profile was: 50 °C for
1 min, heating to 95 °C at 12 °C/min, 95 °C for 2.5 min, cooling to 50 °C
at 12 °C/min, and 50 °C for 1.4 min.
2.12. Analysis of digestion properties
The native, gelatinized and retrograded starches were digested with
both porcine pancreatic α-amylase (PPA, A3176, Sigma, USA) and
Aspergillus niger amyloglucosidase (AAG, E-AMGDF, Megazyme,
Ireland) following the method of Fan et al. (2016). Briefly, the 1% (w/
v) starch suspension was heated at 98 °C for 12 min to prepare the ge-
latinized starch. The gelatinized starch was stored at 4 °C for 36 h to
obtain the retrograded starch. The starch was digested in enzyme so-
lution (20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6.0, 6.7 mM NaCl, 0.01%
NaN3, 2.5 mM CaCl2, 0.4 U/mg starch PPA, 0.4 U/mg starch AAG) at
37 °C with continuous shaking (1000 rpm) in a ThermoMixer. The re-
leased glucose was determined using a glucose assay kit (K-GLIC,
Megazyme, Ireland), and then converted to the degraded starch. The
rapidly digestible starch (RDS, degraded starch within 20 min), slowly
digestible starch (SDS, degraded starch between 20 min and 2 h), and
resistant starch (RS, undegraded starch after 2 h) were calculated ac-
cording to the degraded rate of starch.
2.13. Statistical analysis
The data reported in all the tables were means ± standard devia-
tions. The one-way analysis of variance with post hoc contrasts by
Tukey's test was evaluated using the SPSS 19.0 Statistical Software
Program. Hierarchical cluster analysis was employed using between-
groups linkage as the cluster method and Pearson correlation as the
interval measure.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Soluble sugar and starch contents of root tuber
The contents of soluble sugar and starch in dry root tubers are
presented in Table 1. Though soluble sugar and starch contents had
differences among different varieties with the same colored root tubers,
the white sweet potato varieties had the highest starch content ranging
from 61.5 to 67.5% and the lowest soluble sugar content ranging from
13.1 to 18.0%, and the yellow sweet potato varieties had the lowest
starch content ranging from 45.8 to 53.1% and the highest soluble
sugar ranging from 28.9 to 31.5%. The 14 Virginia-grown sweet potato
varieties including 6 orange, 4 white, 2 yellow, and 2 purple varieties
have starch contents ranging from 42.3 to 64.1% with the white vari-
eties having the highest starch content (Cartier et al., 2017), which is in
agreement with the present results. For soluble sugar, Grabowski,
Truong, and Daubert (2008) reported that an orange sweet potato
variety puree contains 31.9% soluble sugar. Kim et al. (2011) reported
831
Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836
that soluble sugar content ranges from 7.0 to 8.1% in white sweet po-
tato, from 9.7 to 10.5% in purple sweet potato, and from 14.9 to 21.0%
in orange sweet potato. Sajeev et al. (2012) reported that the soluble
sugar content ranges from 11.5 to 14.9% in white sweet potato, from
15.8 to 16.9% in cream sweet potato, and from 18.4 to 23.1% in orange
sweet potato. Though the soluble sugar content has some differences in
different reports, the present study and previous reports all show that
the soluble sugar contents in sweet potatoes are as follows: white/
cream-fleshed < purple-fleshed < yellow/orange-fleshed root tubers
(Table 1, Grabowski et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2011; Sajeev et al., 2012).
In addition, the soluble sugar content in root tuber of sweet potato is
also influenced by cultivar, tuber maturity, and storage time (Adu-
Kwarteng et al., 2014; Zhang, Wheatley, & Corke, 2002).
3.2. Granule size distribution of starch
The 9 sweet potato starches all showed bimodal size distributions
with small granules from 0.5 to 3 μm and large granules from 4 to
50 μm. The granule size of d(0.5), D[3,2], and D[4,3] ranged from
11.70 to 17.24 μm, from 5.90 to 8.51 μm, and from 12.33 to 18.09 μm,
respectively, among 9 starches. The volume percentage of large-sized
granules ranged from 91.11% to 93.30% (Table 1). The granule size in
this study was comparable to the previous literature (Walter, Truong,
Wiesenborn, & Carvajal, 2000; Zhang et al., 2018). It was noteworthy
that the size distribution of starch granules was significantly different
among different varieties but had no relationship with the color of root
tuber. However, Lee and Lee (2017) investigated the different colored
sweet potatoes with every colored root tuber having only one variety,
and found that the purple root tuber has the smallest starch granules (D
[4,3] 18.8 μm) and the white and orange root tubers have the similar
starch granule size (D[4,3] approximate 22.8 μm). The starch granule
size is affected by the variety, grown condition, and plant physiology
(Abegunde, Mu, Chen, & Deng, 2013). In the present study, the 9 sweet
potato varieties were planted in the same environment, indicating that
the different size distributions of starch granules resulted from their
different genotype backgrounds.
3.3. Iodine absorption spectrum and apparent amylose content
The absorbance spectrum of starch-iodine complex is shown in
Fig. 1A, and its derived parameters of maximum absorption wavelength
(λmax), iodine blue value (BV) and the absorbance ratio of OD620 to
OD550 (OD620/550) are presented in Table 2. The 9 sweet potato
starches had some differences in their iodine absorption spectra. The
apparent amylose content ranged from 24.1 to 27.2% among 9 sweet
potato starches. The present result agreed with amylose contents ran-
ging from 23.3 to 26.5% in 9 purple and 2 white sweet potato starches
(Zhu, Cai, Yang, Ke, & Corke, 2010; Zhu et al., 2011) and from 24.6 to
31.0% in 7 purple sweet potato starches (Zhang et al., 2018). However,
the apparent amylose contents ranging from 16.5 to 18.5% in white,
yellow, orange, and purple sweet potatoes and from 33.8 to 35.5% in
white, orange, and purple sweet potatoes are also reported (Lee & Lee,
2017; Soison et al., 2015). The amylose content is influenced by the
genotype background, growing environment, and measuring method
(Zhang et al., 2018). In the present study, the apparent amylose con-
tents among 9 sweet potato starches had no relationship with the color
of root tuber, and were influenced by their genotype backgrounds.
3.4. Protein content of starch
The protein content in isolated starch is presented in Table 2, and
ranged from 0.22 to 0.50 mg/g among 9 sweet potato varieties. Lee and
Lee (2017) measured the protein contents of different colored sweet
potato starches with one variety for every colored sweet potato, and
found that the white-, orange-, and purple-fleshed sweet potato starch
has 0.11, 0.09, and 0.10% protein content, respectively. However, Kim,
K. Guo et al. Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836

Table 1
Starch and soluble sugar contents in dry root tuber and granule size of isolated starch.a
b
Varieties Starch content (%) Soluble sugar content (%) Granule size distribution

c c c
d(0.5) (μm) D[3,2] (μm) D[4,3] (μm) Small granules (%) Large granules (%)

W1 67.5 ± 1.0f 14.6 ± 0.4b 14.75 ± 0.01e 7.48 ± 0.00e 15.22 ± 0.01e 7.58 ± 0.00e 92.42 ± 0.00e
W2 61.5 ± 1.3e 18.0 ± 0.1c 17.24 ± 0.01h 8.51 ± 0.00h 18.09 ± 0.01h 6.70 ± 0.00a 93.30 ± 0.00i
W3 63.0 ± 1.7e 13.1 ± 0.9a 16.81 ± 0.00g 8.12 ± 0.00g 17.72 ± 0.00g 6.88 ± 0.00b 93.12 ± 0.00h
Y1 45.8 ± 1.1a 31.5 ± 0.2g 13.71 ± 0.20d 7.03 ± 0.07d 14.32 ± 0.27d 7.82 ± 0.00f 92.18 ± 0.00d
Y2 53.1 ± 0.4c 31.0 ± 0.3g 15.53 ± 0.01f 7.63 ± 0.08f 16.43 ± 0.01f 7.36 ± 0.01d 92.64 ± 0.01f
Y3 48.8 ± 0.7b 28.9 ± 0.6f 11.70 ± 0.01a 5.90 ± 0.01a 12.33 ± 0.02a 8.50 ± 0.01h 91.50 ± 0.01b
P1 55.9 ± 1.3d 22.4 ± 1.0e 17.10 ± 0.01h 8.47 ± 0.00h 17.75 ± 0.01h 6.93 ± 0.00g 93.07 ± 0.00g
P2 55.1 ± 1.1cd 17.6 ± 0.2c 12.97 ± 0.01c 6.56 ± 0.00c 13.51 ± 0.01c 7.91 ± 0.01c 92.09 ± 0.01c
P3 53.0 ± 0.3c 20.7 ± 0.5d 11.95 ± 0.00b 6.17 ± 0.00b 12.57 ± 0.01b 8.89 ± 0.00a 91.11 ± 0.00a

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The W1, W2, and W3 represent the white sweet potato varieties, Su 24, Su 28, and Su 29, respectively. The Y1, Y2, and Y3 represent the yellow sweet potato
varieties, Su 14, Su 16, and Su 25, respectively. The P1, P2, and P3 represent the purple sweet potato varieties, Ningzi 1, Ningzi 2, and Ningzi 4, respectively.
c
The d(0.5) is the granule size at which 50% of all the granules by volume are smaller. The D[3,2] and D[4,3] are the surface-weighted and volume-weighted
mean diameter, respectively.

Ren, and Shin (2013) found that the protein content in isolated starch
ranges from 0.01 to 0.28% in white sweet potato, from 0.02 to 0.23% in
orange sweet potato, and from 0.05 to 0.07% in purple sweet potato.
The protein content in starch depends on the species and variety of
starch. Typical well washed cereal starches usually have approximate
0.3% protein, and root or tuber starches contain approximate 0.05%
protein (Swinkels, 1985). The protein in starch granule contains
granule surface and interior protein. The former is removed easily from
starch granule without destroying the granule structure, but the latter
for removal needs to disrupt granule structure (Baldwin, 2001). The
isolation method of starch influences the protein content. The NaOH
washing during starch isolation can remove the surface protein from
starch granules (Xu et al., 2018). In the present study, the low protein
content might be due to the species and isolation method of starch, and
the variations among 9 starches might result from their different gen-
otype backgrounds.
3.5. Crystalline structure of starch
The XRD patterns of starches are shown in Fig. 1B. According to
XRD patterns, starches are divided into A-, B-, and C-type. C-type starch
consists of A- and B-type crystallinities and can be further classified to
CA-, CC-, and CB-type according to the proportion of A- and B-type
crystallinity from high to low (He & Wei, 2017). The CC-type starch has
typical diffraction peaks at 5.6°, 15°, 17°, and 23° 2θ. Compared with
CC-type starch, the CA-type starch has a shoulder peak at about 18° 2θ,
and the CB-type starch has two shoulder peaks at about 22° and 24° 2θ
(He & Wei, 2017). On the based of XRD patterns, the 9 sweet potato
starches all showed CA-type XRD pattern (Fig. 1B) and had relative
crystallinities ranging from 22.8 to 25.6% (Table 3). Lee and Lee (2017)
reported that the orange, white, and purple sweet potatoes have CA-
type starch, and Zhang et al. (2018) also reported that the purple sweet
potatoes have CA-type starch. However, Kim et al. (2013) reported that
some orange, white, and purple sweet potatoes have A-type starch and
some white and purple sweet potatoes have CB-type starches. Genkina
et al. (2003) reported that orange sweet potato has A-type starch when
grown in 33 °C soil and CC-type starch when grown in 15 °C soil, in-
dicating that the growing temperature has significant effects on crys-
talline structure. In the present study, the 9 sweet potato starches from
3 different colored root tubers grown at the same environment had the
same crystalline structure, indicating that the crystalline structure had
no relationship with the color of root tuber.
3.6. Short-range ordered structure of starch
The short-range ordered structure in the external region of starch
granule can be determined by ATR-FTIR. The ordered degree and the
proportion of amorphous to ordered carbohydrate structure can be
measured through the absorbance ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/
995 cm−1, respectively (Sevenou, Hill, Farhat, & Mitchell, 2002). The
ATR-FTIR spectra of 9 sweet potato starches are shown in Fig. 1C, and
the absorbance ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/995 cm−1 had some
differences among 9 starches and ranged from 0.678 to 0.765 and from
0.852 to 0.943, respectively (Table 3). Similar ATR-FTIR spectrum and
the absorbance ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/995 cm−1 were also
reported in 7 purple sweet potato starches (Zhang et al., 2018). Though
the absorbance ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/995 cm−1 were different
among 9 sweet potato starches, they had no relationship with the color
of root tuber.
3.7. Swelling power and water solubility of starch
The swelling powers and water solubilities of the sweet potato
starches at 95 °C are presented in Table 4. Swelling powers ranged from
25.2 to 31.1 g/g, and water solubilities ranged from 11.7 to 16.6%
among 9 sweet potato starches. Swelling powers and water solubilities
at 92.5 °C range from 24.5 to 32.7 g/g and from 12.1 to 24.1%, re-
spectively, among 44 sweet potato starches (Collado, Mabesa, & Corke,
1999). Swelling power and water solubility are affected by granule size,
amylose content, amylopectin fine structure, crystalline structure, and
protein and lipid contents (Kaur, Singh, McCarthy, & Singh, 2007; Qi,
Tester, Snape, & Ansell, 2003; Srichuwong, Sunarti, Mishima, Isono, &
Hisamatsu, 2005).
3.8. Thermal properties of starch
The 9 sweet potato starches were analysed using DSC (Fig. 2), and
their thermograms were significantly different. Some starches showed
obvious two peak DSC curve, some starches had DSC curve with one
major peak and one weak peak, and some starches had single and wide
peak. Similar DSC thermograms have been reported in white, orange,
yellow, and purple sweet potato starches (Genkina et al., 2003;
Genkina, Wasserman, Noda, Tester, & Yuryev, 2004; Waramboi,
Dennien, Gidley, & Sopade, 2011; Zhang et al., 2018). The two peaks of
DSC thermogram in C-type starch result from the different gelatiniza-
tion temperatures of A- and B-type crystallinities, and the first and the
second peak responds to the B- and A-type crystallinity, respectively
(Zhang et al., 2018). The thermal parameters are presented in Table 4.
The gelatinization temperatures were different among different sweet
potato starches. The gelatinization temperature ranges (ΔT) varied from
23.1 to 30.7 °C among 9 starches and were significantly wider than that
of A- and B-type starch (Huang et al., 2015; Lin, Zhang, Zhang, & Wei,

832
K. Guo et al.
Fig. 1. Iodine absorbance spectrum (A), XRD pattern (B), and ATR-FTIR spec-
trum (C) of starch. The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in
Table 1.
2017). The wide gelatinization temperature range is also reported in
sweet potato starches from white (Lee & Lee, 2017), yellow (Kim et al.,
2013), and purple root tubers (Zhang et al., 2018), which is due to that
the B- and A-type crystallinity in C-type starch has low and high gela-
tinization temperature, respectively (Bogracheva, Morris, Ring, &
Hedley, 1998). The thermal properties of starch are affected by many
factors, such as granule size, amylose content, and crystalline structure
(Kim et al., 2013; Lindeboom, Chang, & Tyler, 2004; Osundahunsi
et al., 2003). Though the 9 sweet potato varieties had CA-type starch,
the different DSC thermograms among different varieties might result
from their different granule size, amylose content, relative crystallinity,
and ordered degree.
833
Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836
3.9. Pasting properties of starch
Pasting properties determine the quality and utilization of starch
(Abegunde et al., 2013). The pasting properties of 9 sweet potato
starches are presented in Table 5. Peak, hot, and final viscosities among
9 sweet potato starches ranged from 4773 to 5959 mPa s, from 2202 to
2929 mPa s, and from 3101 to 3699 mPa s, respectively. The breakdown
and setback viscosity ranged from 2216 to 3222 mPa s and from 630 to
899 mPa s, respectively. Breakdown viscosity reflects the starch paste
resistance to heat and shear, and starch with high breakdown means the
lower resistance to heat (Abegunde et al., 2013). Setback viscosity re-
flects the gelling ability or retrogradation tendency of starch (Simi &
Abraham, 2008). Final viscosity is formed at the end of cooling at 50 °C,
and indicates the ability of starch to form a paste or gel after cooling
(Shimelis, Meaza, & Rakshit, 2006). The granule morphology and size,
amylose content, crystalline structure, and starch purity affect the
pasting properties (Abegunde et al., 2013; Singh, Kaur, Ezekiel, &
Guraya, 2005). In the present study, pasting properties of starches were
significantly different among different sweet potato varieties but had no
relationship with the color of root tuber.
3.10. Digestion properties of starch
Digestion properties of native, gelatinized, and retrograded starches
are presented in Table 6. For native starches, the RDS, SDS, and RS
among 9 sweet potato varieties ranged from 3.4 to 5.5%, from 8.9 to
19.5%, and from 75.0 to 87.2%, respectively. The digestion of native
starch is affected mainly by granule morphology and size, starch com-
ponent, and crystalline structure (Lin et al., 2018; Wang & Copeland,
2013). In the present study, starches from different sweet potato vari-
eties had different granule sizes, amylose contents, relative crystal-
linities, and ordered degrees, which might lead to the different diges-
tion properties of native starches. For gelatinized starches, the RDS,
SDS, and RS among 9 sweet potato varieties ranged from 80.4 to 85.0%,
from 4.0 to 9.2%, and from 7.4 to 14.5%, respectively. For retrograded
starches, the RDS, SDS, and RS among 9 sweet potato varieties ranged
from 78.8 to 84.1%, from 1.8 to 3.6%, and from 12.7 to 17.6%, re-
spectively. The inter- and intra-molecular hydrogen bonds between
starch chains are disrupted during starch gelatinization, leading to that
the gelatinized starch is more rapidly degraded than the native starch.
The amylose chains of gelatinized starch again associate to form the
double helices and the amylopectins recrystallize to form the crystal-
lites during gelatinized starch retrogradation, leading to that the ret-
rograded starch has higher resistance to digestive enzymes than the
gelatinized starch (Chung, Lim, & Lim, 2006). Due to the destruction of
granule and crystalline structures by heating, the gelatinized and ret-
rograded starches are mainly influenced by amylose content, amylose-
lipid complex, and amylopectin structure (Cai et al., 2015; Lin et al.,
2017; Wang & Copeland, 2013). In the present study, starches from
different sweet potato varieties had different digestion properties, but
the digestion properties had no relationship with the color of root tuber.
Trung, Ngoc, Hoa, Tien, and Hung (2017) also reported that the RDS,
SDS, RS of native starch are similar among white, yellow, and purple
sweet potatoes.
3.11. Cluster analysis of starch
In order to compare the relationships of different colored sweet
potatoes, the hierarchical cluster was performed based on granule size
D[4,3], apparent amylose content, relative crystallinity, IR absorbance
ratios of 1045/1022 and 1022/995 cm−1, swelling power, water solu-
bility, thermal parameters (Table 4), pasting properties (Table 5), and
digestion properties (Table 6). The dendrogram consisted of two major
clusters (Fig. 3). On the basis of similarities and differences in starch
property parameters, the white sweet potato varieties, Su 28 and Su 29,
and yellow sweet potato variety, Su16, were separated from the other
K. Guo et al. Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836

Table 2
Iodine absorption spectrum parameters, apparent amylose content, and protein content of starch.a
Varieties b
λmax (nm) Iodine blue value OD620/OD550 Apparent amylose content (%) Protein content (mg/g)

W1 598.2 ± 0.6a 0.330 ± 0.002c 1.114 ± 0.009a 27.1 ± 0.2de 0.22 ± 0.04a
W2 598.0 ± 1.3a 0.315 ± 0.002b 1.119 ± 0.009a 25.5 ± 0.2c 0.31 ± 0.01ab
W3 598.3 ± 1.3a 0.311 ± 0.003ab 1.124 ± 0.009a 25.2 ± 0.2bc 0.22 ± 0.04a
Y1 600.3 ± 0.3ab 0.311 ± 0.002ab 1.147 ± 0.003bc 24.7 ± 0.2b 0.50 ± 0.01c
Y2 603.5 ± 2.2bc 0.343 ± 0.005e 1.156 ± 0.005c 27.2 ± 0.4e 0.31 ± 0.01ab
Y3 602.5 ± 0.5bc 0.340 ± 0.003de 1.158 ± 0.005c 27.0 ± 0.4de 0.31 ± 0.09ab
P1 602.3 ± 1.0bc 0.314 ± 0.002b 1.132 ± 0.004ab 25.1 ± 0.3bc 0.47 ± 0.04c
P2 605.2 ± 1.8c 0.305 ± 0.003a 1.157 ± 0.016c 24.1 ± 0.3a 0.44 ± 0.01bc
P3 603.5 ± 0.0c 0.336 ± 0.004cd 1.166 ± 0.013c 26.5 ± 0.2d 0.31 ± 0.01ab

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in Table 1.

Table 3
Relative crystallinity and IR absorbance ratio of starch.a
b
Varieties Relative crystallinity (%) IR absorbance ratio

1045/1022 (cm−1) 1022/995 (cm−1)

W1 22.8 ± 0.7a 0.726 ± 0.011ab 0.875 ± 0.009ab

W2 24.5 ± 1.2a 0.745 ± 0.013b 0.853 ± 0.006a
W3 23.5 ± 1.2a 0.691 ± 0.013a 0.906 ± 0.007c
Y1 23.7 ± 0.8a 0.716 ± 0.014ab 0.876 ± 0.004ab
Y2 23.1 ± 0.3a 0.746 ± 0.013b 0.852 ± 0.008a
Y3 23.3 ± 0.5a 0.720 ± 0.013ab 0.880 ± 0.007b
P1 24.6 ± 0.2a 0.765 ± 0.014b 0.858 ± 0.008ab
P2 25.6 ± 0.2a 0.721 ± 0.015ab 0.866 ± 0.007ab
P3 24.0 ± 0.7a 0.678 ± 0.019a 0.943 ± 0.002d

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 2. Values in the same column
with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in Table 1.

six varieties at the linkage distance of 25. As for the remained six
varieties, there were two groups at the distance of approximate 8. One
group contained white sweet potato variety, Su 24, and purple sweet
potato varieties, Ningzi 1 and Ningzi 4. The another group had purple
sweet potato variety, Ningzi 2, and yellow sweet potato varieties, Su 14
and Su 25. The Su 29 could be further separated from Su 28 and Su
16 at the distance of 6, the Ningzi 2 did from Su 14 and Su 25 at the
distance of 4, and the Su 24 did from Ningzi 1 and Ningzi 4 at the
distance of 2. The cluster result indicated that starches from different
varieties with the same colored root tuber had different physicochem-
ical properties, and the structural and functional properties of starches
had no relationship with the color of root tuber and were determined by
genotype background of variety. Sajeev et al. (2012) investigated the
relationship of 3 white, 2 cream, and 2 orange sweet potato varieties
Fig. 2. DSC thermogram of starch. The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties
are explained in Table 1.
using clustering and principal component analysis based on textural
properties of root tuber and pasting and gelatinization properties of
flour. Their results also showed that there is no similarity in starch
properties among the varieties with the same colored root tuber.
4. Conclusion
Nine sweet potato varieties with 3 white, 3 yellow, and 3 purple
root tubers were investigated in this study. The white root tuber con-
tained the highest starch and the lowest soluble sugar, and the yellow

Table 4
Swelling power, water solubility, and thermal parameters of starch.a
b
Varieties Swelling power (g/g) Water solubility (%) Thermal parameters

To (°C) c
Tp (°C) c
Tc (°C) c
ΔT (°C) c
ΔH (J/g) c

W1 31.1 ± 1.0d 13.0 ± 0.8ab 58.0 ± 0.1d 70.2 ± 0.1b 84.6 ± 0.7b 26.6 ± 0.7bc 10.3 ± 0.6ab
W2 29.2 ± 0.4bcd 13.7 ± 0.0b 52.1 ± 0.6a 74.5 ± 0.3d 83.7 ± 0.7ab 31.6 ± 0.6d 10.0 ± 0.8ab
W3 28.2 ± 0.7bc 16.0 ± 0.6c 55.1 ± 0.9b 70.1 ± 0.5b 83.2 ± 0.4a 28.1 ± 1.3c 10.1 ± 1.1ab
Y1 25.2 ± 1.0a 14.0 ± 0.9b 60.5 ± 0.2e 73.1 ± 0.5c 86.3 ± 0.3c 25.8 ± 0.5b 10.9 ± 0.1ab
Y2 27.5 ± 1.5b 13.2 ± 0.8ab 55.6 ± 0.1bc 64.7 ± 0.1a 86.1 ± 0.3c 30.5 ± 0.3d 10.9 ± 0.7ab
Y3 30.8 ± 0.8d 12.7 ± 0.2ab 56.4 ± 0.6c 70.5 ± 0.9b 87.1 ± 0.1c 30.7 ± 0.5d 10.5 ± 0.1ab
P1 30.0 ± 0.2cd 11.7 ± 0.1a 58.9 ± 0.3d 79.9 ± 0.1e 86.6 ± 0.9c 27.7 ± 0.6c 11.6 ± 0.2b
P2 30.6 ± 0.6d 12.3 ± 0.9ab 64.1 ± 0.7f 78.9 ± 0.2e 87.2 ± 0.4c 23.1 ± 0.8a 10.9 ± 0.6ab
P3 25.5 ± 0.8a 16.6 ± 0.9c 56.1 ± 0.2bc 70.0 ± 0.8b 84.3 ± 0.5ab 28.2 ± 0.4c 9.5 ± 0.5a

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in Table 1.
c
To, gelatinization onset temperature; Tp, gelatinization peak temperature; Tc, gelatinization conclusion temperature; ΔT, gelatinization temperature range (Tc –
To); ΔH, gelatinization enthalpy.

834
K. Guo et al. Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836

Table 5
Pasting properties of starch.a
b c c c c c c c
Varieties PV (mPa s) HV (mPa s) BV (mPa s) FV (mPa s) SV (mPa s) PTime (min) PTemp (°C)

W1 5959 ± 29g 2927 ± 8f 3032 ± 25d 3557 ± 3c 630 ± 7a 4.8 ± 0.1cd 74.2 ± 0.1c
W2 5586 ± 16e 2456 ± 37b 3130 ± 32e 3253 ± 13b 797 ± 50cd 4.7 ± 0.0bc 73.3 ± 0.1b
W3 5424 ± 20c 2202 ± 38a 3222 ± 19f 3101 ± 6a 899 ± 33e 4.6 ± 0.0a 72.5 ± 0.0a
Y1 5347 ± 10b 2730 ± 13e 2617 ± 6b 3568 ± 36c 838 ± 22de 4.8 ± 0.0d 75.3 ± 0.5d
Y2 5525 ± 9d 2474 ± 44bc 3050 ± 42de 3316 ± 28b 842 ± 26de 4.7 ± 0.0bc 73.3 ± 0.1b
Y3 5661 ± 29f 2865 ± 7f 2796 ± 35c 3699 ± 42d 834 ± 49de 4.8 ± 0.0cd 74.5 ± 0.5c
P1 5326 ± 41b 2639 ± 27d 2686 ± 60b 3327 ± 14b 687 ± 24ab 5.1 ± 0.0e 76.1 ± 0.5e
P2 4773 ± 13a 2557 ± 11cd 2216 ± 7a 3293 ± 24b 736 ± 14bc 5.1 ± 0.0e 78.4 ± 0.4f
P3 5922 ± 29g 2905 ± 77f 3017 ± 56d 3690 ± 59d 784 ± 56cd 4.6 ± 0.0ab 74.1 ± 0.1bc

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in Table 1.
c
PV, peak viscosity; HV, hot viscosity; BV, breakdown viscosity (PV – HV); FV, final viscosity; SV, setback viscosity (FV – HV); PTime, peak time; PTemp, pasting
temperature.

Table 6
Digestion properties of native, gelatinized, and retrograded starches.a
b
Varieties Native starch Gelatinized starch Retrograded starch

c c c
RDS (%) SDS (%) RS (%) RDS (%) SDS (%) RS (%) RDS (%) SDS (%) RS (%)

W1 3.4 ± 0.1a 11.9 ± 1.2b 84.7 ± 1.2d 83.6 ± 0.4bc 8.1 ± 1.2ab 8.3 ± 1.3ab 83.5 ± 0.2c 2.7 ± 1.1a 13.8 ± 1.0ab
W2 5.1 ± 1.0bc 14.5 ± 1.5bcd 80.4 ± 0.8bc 83.0 ± 0.5bc 9.2 ± 1.4b 7.8 ± 0.9a 83.6 ± 2.4c 2.7 ± 0.6a 13.7 ± 1.8ab
W3 5.0 ± 0.3bc 16.9 ± 1.0cde 78.1 ± 1.1b 82.4 ± 1.0ab 7.0 ± 1.1ab 10.6 ± 0.6abc 81.9 ± 0.7abc 3.0 ± 1.1a 15.1 ± 1.4abc
Y1 4.4 ± 1.0abc 15.0 ± 0.6cd 80.6 ± 0.9bc 80.6 ± 0.2a 6.7 ± 1.9ab 12.8 ± 1.8cd 80.2 ± 1.4abc 3.6 ± 0.8a 16.1 ± 1.3abc
Y2 4.8 ± 0.0abc 17.2 ± 1.3de 78.0 ± 1.3b 80.8 ± 1.0a 6.9 ± 1.3ab 12.3 ± 1.0cd 78.8 ± 0.6a 3.6 ± 1.5a 17.6 ± 1.2c
Y3 5.0 ± 0.2abc 16.1 ± 0.8cd 79.0 ± 0.8b 80.4 ± 0.6a 5.1 ± 1.6ab 14.5 ± 1.5d 79.5 ± 2.0ab 3.5 ± 0.3a 17.0 ± 1.8bc
P1 3.9 ± 0.8ab 8.9 ± 1.3a 87.2 ± 0.6e 84.5 ± 0.7c 4.0 ± 1.5a 11.5 ± 1.1bcd 82.1 ± 0.9abc 1.8 ± 0.8a 16.1 ± 0.2abc
P2 3.8 ± 0.1ab 14.0 ± 0.9bc 82.1 ± 0.8c 85.0 ± 0.3c 7.5 ± 1.5ab 7.4 ± 1.6a 84.1 ± 1.0c 3.2 ± 1.6a 12.7 ± 1.0a
P3 5.5 ± 0.2c 19.5 ± 1.4e 75.0 ± 1.5a 84.2 ± 1.4bc 6.1 ± 1.6ab 9.7 ± 0.9abc 82.8 ± 1.8bc 2.6 ± 0.3a 14.5 ± 1.5abc

a
Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
b
The abbreviations of sweet potato varieties are explained in Table 1.
c
RDS, rapidly digestible starch; SDS, slowly digestible starch; RS, resistant starch.

Natural Science Foundation of China (31570324), the Qing Lan Project

of Jiangsu Province, the Talent Project of Yangzhou University, and the
Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education
Institutions.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.11.058.

References

Fig. 3. Dendrogram generated by hierarchical cluster analysis based on starch
property parameters of different colored sweet potato varieties.
root tuber had the lowest starch and the highest soluble sugar. Starches
from different varieties had different granule sizes and amylose con-
tents, but all exhibited CA-type crystalline structure. The swelling
power, water solubility, thermal parameters, pasting properties, and
digestion properties were different among starches from different
varieties. The differences of structural and functional properties of
starches had no relationship with the color of root tuber and were de-
termined by their genotype backgrounds. This study could provide
important information for quality breeding and utilization of different
colored sweet potato varieties.
Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by grants from the National
Abegunde, O. K., Mu, T. H., Chen, J. W., & Deng, F. M. (2013). Physicochemical char-
acterization of sweet potato starches popularly used in Chinese starch industry. Food
Hydrocolloids, 33, 169–177.
Adu-Kwarteng, E., Sakyi-Dawson, E. O., Ayernor, G. S., Truong, V. D., Shih, F. F., &
Daigle, K. (2014). Variability of sugars in staple-type sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)
cultivars: The effects of harvest time and storage. International Journal of Food
Properties, 17, 410–420.
Baldwin, P. M. (2001). Starch granule-associated proteins and polypeptides: A review.
Starch, 53, 475–503.
Bogracheva, T. Y., Morris, V. J., Ring, S. G., & Hedley, C. L. (1998). The granular structure
of C-type pea starch and its role in gelatinization. Biopolymers, 45, 323–332.
Bovell-Benjamin, A. C. (2007). Sweet potato: A review of its past, present, and future role
in human nutrition. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 52, 1–59.
Cai, C., Lin, L., Man, J., Zhao, L., Wang, Z., & Wei, C. (2014). Different structural prop-
erties of high-amylose maize starch fractions varying in granule size. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 62, 11711–11721.
Cai, J., Man, J., Huang, J., Liu, Q., Wei, W., & Wei, C. (2015). Relationship between
structure and functional properties of normal rice starches with different amylose
contents. Carbohydrate Polymers, 125, 35–44.
Cartier, A., Woods, J., Sismour, E., Allen, J., Ford, E., Githinji, L., et al. (2017).
Physiochemical, nutritional and antioxidant properties of fourteen Virginia-grown
sweet potato varieties. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, 11,
1333–1341.
Chung, H. J., Lim, H. S., & Lim, S. T. (2006). Effect of partial gelatinization and retro-
gradation on the enzymatic digestion of waxy rice starch. Journal of Cereal Science,

835
K. Guo et al.
43, 353–359.
Collado, L. S., Mabesa, R. C., & Corke, H. (1999). Genetic variation in the physical
properties of sweet potato starch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 47,
4195–4201.
Fan, X., Zhang, S., Lin, L., Zhao, L., Liu, A., & Wei, C. (2016). Properties of new starches
from tubers of Arisaema elephas, yunnanense and erubescens. Food Hydrocolloids, 61,
183–190.
Gao, H., Cai, J., Han, W., Huai, H., Chen, Y., & Wei, C. (2014). Comparison of starches
isolated from three different Trapa species. Food Hydrocolloids, 37, 174–181.
Genkina, N. K., Noda, T., Koltisheva, G. I., Wasserman, L. A., Tester, R. F., & Yuryev, V. P.
(2003). Effects of growth temperature on some structural properties of crystalline
lamellae in starches extracted from sweet potatoes (Sunnyred and Ayamurasaki).
Starch, 55, 350–357.
Genkina, N. K., Wasserman, L. A., Noda, T., Tester, R. F., & Yuryev, V. P. (2004). Effects of
annealing on the polymorphic structure of starches from sweet potatoes (Ayamurasaki
and Sunnyred cultivars) grown at various soil temperatures. Carbohydrate Research,
339, 1093–1098.
Grabowski, J. A., Truong, V. D., & Daubert, C. R. (2008). Nutritional and rheological
characterization of spray dried sweetpotato powder. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 41, 206–216.
He, W., & Wei, C. (2017). Progress in C-type starches from different plant sources. Food
Hydrocolloids, 73, 162–175.
Huang, J., Zhao, L., Man, J., Wang, J., Zhou, W., Huai, H., et al. (2015). Comparison of
physicochemical properties of B-type nontraditional starches from different sources.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 78, 165–172.
Kaur, L., Singh, J., McCarthy, O. J., & Singh, H. (2007). Physico-chemical, rheological and
structural properties of fractionated potato starches. Journal of Food Engineering, 82,
383–394.
Kim, J. M., Park, S. J., Lee, C. S., Ren, C., Kim, S. S., & Shin, M. (2011). Functional
properties of different Korean sweet potato varieties. Food Science and Biotechnology,
20, 1501–1507.
Kim, J., Ren, C., & Shin, M. (2013). Physicochemical properties of starch isolated from
eight different varieties of Korean sweet potatoes. Starch, 65, 923–930.
Lee, B. H., & Lee, Y. T. (2017). Physicochemical and structural properties of different
colored sweet potato starches. Starch, 69, 1600001.
Lindeboom, N., Chang, P. R., & Tyler, R. T. (2004). Analytical, biochemical and physi-
cochemical aspects of starch granule size, with emphasis on small granule starch: A
review. Starch, 56, 89–99.
Lin, L., Guo, D., Zhao, L., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Zhang, F., et al. (2016). Comparative
structure of starches from high-amylose maize inbred lines and their hybrids. Food
Hydrocolloids, 52, 19–28.
Lin, L., Zhang, L., Cai, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, C., & Wei, C. (2018). The relationship between
enzyme hydrolysis and the components of rice starches with the same genetic
background and amylopectin structure but different amylose contents. Food
Hydrocolloids, 406–413.
Lin, L., Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., & Wei, C. (2017). Evaluation of the molecular structural
parameters of normal rice starch and their relationships with its thermal and diges-
tion properties. Molecules, 22, 1526.
McCready, R. M., Guggolz, J., Silviera, V., & Owens, H. S. (1949). Determination of starch
and amylose in vegetables. Analytical Chemistry, 22, 1156–1158.
Odake, K., Terahara, N., Saito, N., Toki, K., & Honda, T. (1992). Chemical structures of
two anthocyanins from purple sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas. Phytochemistry, 31,
2127–2130.
Osundahunsi, O. F., Fagbemi, T. N., Kesselman, E., & Shimoni, E. (2003). Comparison of
the physicochemical properties and pasting characteristics of flour and starch from
red and white sweet potato cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51,
2232–2236.
Qi, X., Tester, R. F., Snape, C. E., & Ansell, R. (2003). Molecular basis of the gelatinisation
and swelling characteristics of waxy rice starches grown in the same location during
the same season. Journal of Cereal Science, 37, 363–376.
Sajeev, M. S., Sreekumar, J., Vimala, B., Moorthy, S. N., & Jyothi, A. N. (2012). Textural
and gelatinization characteristics of white, cream, and orange fleshed sweet potato
tubers (Ipomoea Batatas L.). International Journal of Food Properties, 15, 912–931.
836
Food Hydrocolloids 89 (2019) 829–836
Sevenou, O., Hill, S. E., Farhat, I. A., & Mitchell, J. R. (2002). Organisation of the external
region of the starch granule as determined by infrared spectroscopy. International
Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 31, 79–85.
Shimelis, E. A., Meaza, M., & Rakshit, S. K. (2006). Physico-chemical properties, pasting
behavior and functional characteristics of flours and starches from improved bean
(Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) varieties grown in East Africa. Agricultural Engineering
International: The CIGR Ejournal, 8 FP 05015.
Simi, C. K., & Abraham, T. E. (2008). Physicochemical rheological and thermal properties
of njavara rice (Oryza sativa) starch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56,
12105–12113.
Singh, N., Kaur, L., Ezekiel, R., & Guraya, H. S. (2005). Microstructural, cooking and
textural characteristics of potato (Solanum tuberosum L) tubers in relation to physi-
cochemical and functional properties of their flours. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 85, 1275–1284.
Soison, B., Jangchud, K., Jangchud, A., Harnsilawat, T., & Piyachomkwan, K. (2015).
Characterization of starch in relation to flesh colors of sweet potato varieties.
International Food Research Journal, 22, 2302–2308.
Srichuwong, S., Sunarti, T. C., Mishima, T., Isono, N., & Hisamatsu, M. (2005). Starches
from different botanical sources II: Contribution of starch structure to swelling and
pasting properties. Carbohydrate Polymers, 62, 25–34.
Swinkels, J. J. M. (1985). Composition and properties of commercial native starches.
Starch, 37, 1–5.
Tanaka, Y., Sasaki, N., & Ohmiya, A. (2008). Biosynthesis of plant pigments:
Anthocyanins, betalains and carotenoids. The Plant Journal, 54, 733–749.
Teow, C. C., Truong, V. D., McFeeters, R. F., Thompson, R. L., Pecota, K. V., & Yencho, G.
C. (2007). Antioxidant activities, phenolic and β-carotene contents of sweet potato
genotypes with varying flesh colours. Food Chemistry, 103, 829–838.
Trung, P. T. B., Ngoc, L. B. B., Hoa, P. N., Tien, N. N. T., & Hung, P. V. (2017). Impact of
heat-moisture and annealing treatments on physicochemical properties and digest-
ibility of starches from different colored sweet potato varieties. International Journal
of Biological Macromolecules, 105, 1071–1078.
Walter, W. M., Truong, V. D., Wiesenborn, D. P., & Carvajal, P. (2000). Rheological and
physicochemical properties of starches from moist-and dry-type sweetpotatoes.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 2937–2942.
Wang, S., & Copeland, L. (2013). Molecular disassembly of starch granules during gela-
tinization and its effect on starch digestibility: A review. Food & Function, 4,
1564–1580.
Wang, A., Li, R., Ren, L., Gao, X., Zhang, Y., Ma, Z., et al. (2018). A comparative meta-
bolomics study of flavonoids in sweet potato with different flesh colors (Ipomoea
batatas (L.) Lam). Food Chemistry, 260, 124–134.
Waramboi, J. G., Dennien, S., Gidley, M. J., & Sopade, P. A. (2011). Characterisation of
sweetpotato from Papua New Guinea and Australia: Physicochemical, pasting and
gelatinisation properties. Food Chemistry, 126, 1759–1770.
Wei, C., Qin, F., Zhou, W., Yu, H., Xu, B., Chen, C., et al. (2010). Granule structure and
distribution of allomorphs in C-type high-amylose rice starch granule modified by
antisense RNA inhibition of starch branching enzyme. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 58, 11946–11954.
Xu, A., Guo, K., Liu, T., Bian, X., Zhang, L., & Wei, C. (2018). Effects of different isolation
media on structural and functional properties of starches from root tubers of purple,
yellow and white sweet potatoes. Molecules, 23, 2135.
Zhang, L., Wang, Q., Liu, Q., & Wang, Q. (2009). Sweet potato in China. In G. Loebenstein,
& G. Thottappilly (Eds.). The sweetpotato (pp. 325–358). Netherlands: Springer.
Zhang, Z., Wheatley, C. C., & Corke, H. (2002). Biochemical changes during storage of
sweet potato roots differing in dry matter content. Postharvest Biology and Technology,
24, 317–325.
Zhang, L., Zhao, L., Bian, X., Guo, K., Zhou, L., & Wei, C. (2018). Characterization and
comparative study of starches from seven purple sweet potatoes. Food Hydrocolloids,
80, 168–176.
Zhu, F., Cai, Y. Z., Yang, X., Ke, J., & Corke, H. (2010). Anthocyanins, hydroxycinnamic
acid derivatives, and antioxidant activity in roots of different Chinese purple-fleshed
sweetpotato genotypes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 7588–7596.
Zhu, F., Yang, X., Cai, Y. Z., Bertoft, E., & Corke, H. (2011). Physicochemical properties of
sweetpotato starch. Starch, 63, 249–259.