See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266492817

Physicochemical and functional properties of native starches from cassava

varieties in Southwest Nigeria

Article  in  Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment · July 2007

CITATIONS READS

50 816

5 authors, including:

L. O. Sanni I. O. Daniel
University of Agriculture, Abeokuta University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
183 PUBLICATIONS   2,822 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   348 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Busie Maziya-Dixon A. G. O. Dixon

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
146 PUBLICATIONS   2,791 CITATIONS    220 PUBLICATIONS   4,169 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CassavaGmarkets View project

CMD Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Busie Maziya-Dixon on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WFL Publisher
Science and Technology

Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.5 (3&4) : 108-114. 2007 www.world-food.net
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: info@world-food.net

Physicochemical and functional properties of native starches from cassava varieties in

Southwest Nigeria
M. O. Onitilo 1, L. O. Sanni 1, 3
, I. Daniel 2, B. Maziya-Dixon 3 and A. Dixon 3
1 2
Food Science and Technology Department, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Plant Breeding and Seed
Technology, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. 3 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
e-mail:nikytilo@yahoo.com, lsanni@cgiar.org, bmaziya-dixon@cgiar.org, a.dixon@cgiar.org.

Received 8 April 2007, accepted 18 August 2007.

Abstract
Pre- and postharvest factors such as genetic factors, environmental conditions during the growth of the plant and the method of starch isolation
have been found to have a profound effect on the properties of root and tuber starches. The physicochemical, functional and pasting properties
as well as granule morphology of starches from 40 different new cassava varieties (36 cassava mosaic disease-resistant CMD clones) and currently
released cassava varieties in Nigeria (TMS 30572, 4(2) 1425, TME 1 and 82/00058) from experimental farm of the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria, were investigated. Moisture content of the starches (dried) ranged between 3.59 and 11.53%, ash
content was 0.03-0.49%, protein content 0.23–0.70%, sugar content 0.51–3.46% and starch content 60.34–86.79%. Amylose and dry matter
contents were 15.24–30.20% and 88.47– 96.41% respectively. The water absorption capacity ranged from 86.83 to 127.54%, while solubility and
swelling power (at 85oC) were 1.03–2.10% and 9.04–16.90% respectively. Starch damage ranged between 0.39 and 2.10%, dispersibility was
81.5–89.5% and least gelation concentration 2.00–4.67%. The pH of the starches ranged from 4.06 to 9.22. The starches had peak viscosity
between 261.17 and 593.17 RVU, peak time ranged from 3.36 to 4.25 minutes and pasting temperature ranged between 63.75 and 65.65oC. Set back
viscosity ranged from 19.04 to 79.92 RVU and breakdown viscosity from 141.21 to 328.96 RVU. The final viscosity of the starches ranged
between 141.21 and 244.84 RVU. The granule size as viewed under microscope ranged from 12.5 to 23.83 µm with round shapes. There were
significant varietal differences in all the physicochemical properties of the starches except the amylose content. Significant varietal differences
(p < 0.05) were also recorded in all the functional and pasting properties of the starches except the least gelation concentration. There were no
significant varietal differences (p > 0.05) in the granule size of the starches. The study revealed that the significant varietal differences in the
properties of the starches from the different CMD resistant varieties imply that the starches have potentials for a wide end use.

Key words: Cassava varieties, starch, properties, granule size, pasting.

Introduction
Cassava is a tropical root crop that serves as a food security and
income-generating crop for many millions of people in the
developing world 20. Cassava root has a high resistance to plant
diseases and high tolerance to extreme stress conditions such as
period of drought and poor soils. Cassava is processed into
products such as gari, lafun, fufu, pupuru and starch 13. Of recent,
Cassava Mosaic Virus Disease was reported to be a major threat
to the cassava industry in sub-Saharan region like Nigeria 6. To
forestall this problem, the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA) is developing 43 CMD resistant cassava
varieties 6. For wider acceptability of these varieties by farmers
and industrialists, there is the need to characterize the quality of
domestic and industrial products from these varieties.
Starch is a major component of cassava root, hence, the
composition as well as the physicochemical properties of starches
contained therein is a major determinant of its end uses. Starch is
mainly used as food, but is also readily converted chemically,
physically and biologically into many useful products 21. To date,
starch is used to produce such diverse products as food, paper,
textiles, adhesives, beverages, confectioneries and building
materials. Starch is a polysaccharide, a chain of many glucose
molecules. Increasingly, starch is also used as a renewable raw
material, as a source of energy after conversion to ethanol and for
many different industrial applications 17. The use of cassava starch
is primarily determined by its physicochemical properties. A
number of studies on the distinctive properties of cassava starch
had been undertaken in previous studies 15, 18. This paper reports
our findings on the physicochemical and functional properties of
native starch produced from various cassava mosaic disease
resistant varieties along with the released improved varieties in
Nigeria.
Materials and Methods
Materials: Fresh cassava roots of 36 CMD resistance clones and
4 non-CMD resistance clones (as checks) were obtained from
IITA trial field. The cassava roots were processed within 60 minutes
after harvesting. All chemicals were laboratory grades.

108 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007
Starch production: Fresh cassava roots were peeled, washed,
grated, sieved and allowed to settle down for about 6 hours. The
supernatant was decanted and the sediment (starch) was dewatered
by pressing with hydraulic jack and oven dried for 6 hours at
50°C 16.
Determination of chemical properties: Moisture. Samples, each
3.0 g were weighed by a sensitive balance (Mettler, AC100,
Switzerland) into a known weight of Petri dishes. The weighed
samples were put into the pre-set oven (Fisher Scientific Isotemp
Oven, model 655F, Chicago, USA) at 105°C for 3 hr. The samples
were removed and cooled in a desiccator to room temperature
and the weight was noted, they were then returned to the oven at
105°C for 30 min until constant weight was obtained for each
sample. The differences in weights between each Petri dish and
dried residue were recorded as the percentage of the initial sample2.
% Moisture content = [(Wt1 – Wt2)/ Wt1] × 100, where Wt1= wt of
sample before drying, Wt2= wt of sample after drying.
Ash content. The basis of ashing is to determine the amount of
residual inorganic substances in samples after ignition. Samples,
each 3.0 g, were weighed into previously ignited and cooled
crucibles. The crucibles containing the samples were placed in a
pre-heated furnace (Fisher Isotemp Muffle Furnace, model 186A,
USA) at 600°C for 6 hr after which they were cooled to room
temperature in a desiccator and weighed. The differences between
the final weights and the crucibles gave the ash contents of the
samples that were expressed as percentages of the initial weights2.
% Ash = (Wt of ash/Wt of sample) × 100.
pH. A sample weighing 5.0 g was weighed into a beaker
containing 25 ml of distilled water. It was allowed to stand for 30
min with constant stirring. The pH was determined with the aid of
pH meter (Orion, model 720A) 2.
Starch and sugar content were determined by the method of
Dubois et al. 7. This involves weighing of 0.02 g of the sample
into a centrifuge tube with 1 ml ethanol, 2 ml distilled water and 10
ml hot ethanol. The mixture was vortexed and centrifuged at 2000
rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was decanted and used for
determining sugar content while the sediment was hydrolyzed
with perchloric acid and used to estimate starch content. Phenol-
sulfuric acid reagent was used for colour development, and
glucose standards were used for estimation of sugar. The
absorbance was read with a spectrophotometer (Milton Roy
Spectronic 601, USA) at 490 nm. Sugar content = [Absorbance
% I (0.0044)]/(Sample wt × 0.55). Starch = [(Absorbance %
0.0044)4]/ (Sample wt × 0.55).
Amylose content was determined by the iodine binding method
described by Williams et al. 26. A sample of 0.1 g was weighed
into a 100 ml conical flask and dissolved with 1 ml of 95% ethanol.
Next, 9 ml of 1 N NaOH was added to hydrolyze the starch. The
flask was transferred to a water bath to boil for 10 min, then it was
removed and distilled water was added to make up to 100 ml.
Next, 5 ml was taken from the 100 ml into another conical flask
and 1 ml of acetic acid was pipetted into each plus 2 ml iodine
solution to change colour. Distilled water was added to make up
to 100 ml and the absorbance was read at 620 nm on the
spectrophotometer (Milton Roy Spectronic 601, USA).
Determination of starch damage. An amount of 0.5 g of sample
was weighed into a dry 100 ml conical flask. The flask with the
content was placed in a water bath at 30°C to equilibrate, 20 ml
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007
extractant (trichloro-acetic acid and KCNS) preheated at 30°C
was added into each flask and shaken every 3 min for 10 s. The
starch was extracted for 15 min by manually shaking each flask
and the starch suspension filtered through 11 cm diameter No.1
Whatman filter paper into the test tubes. The first 2 ml of the
filtrate, which is usually cloudy, was rejected and 6 ml of the clear
filtrate was collected. Of the filtrate 2 ml was pipetted into a 25 ml
volumetric flask containing 15 ml of distilled water at 21±0.5°C
and 1.0 ml iodine solution was added. It was made up to the
volume with distilled water and left for 20 min. The absorbance
was read at 600 nm (Milton Roy Spectronic 601, USA) according
to Mc Dermott 14.
Determination of starch functional characteristics: The
dispersibility of a flour or flour blend in water indicates its ability
to reconstitute. The higher the dispersibility of the flour, the better.
The method described by Kulkarni et al. 11 was adopted. About
10 g of each sample was weighed into 100 ml measuring cylinder
and distilled water was added to reach a volume of 100 ml. The
set up was stirred vigorously and allowed to settle for 3 hr. The
volume of settled particles was recorded and subtracted from
100. The difference was reported as percentage dispersibility.
Water absorption capacity (WAC) was determined using the
method described by Sosulski 24. To 1 g of the sample was added
15 ml of distilled water in a preweighed centrifuge tube. The tube
with its contents was agitated on a Flask Gallenkamp shaker for 2
min and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 20 min on a Sorvall GLC-1
centrifuge (Model 06470, USA). The clear supernatant was
discarded and the centrifuge tube was weighed with the sediment.
The amount of water bound by the sample was determined by
difference and expressed as the weight of water bound by 100 g
dry of flour.
Least gelation concentration (LGC) was determined by the
method described by Coffman and Garcia 4. Ten suspensions (2,
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20% w/v) in 5 ml distilled water were
prepared in test tubes. The test tubes containing the suspensions
were heated in a boiling water bath (Thelco, model 83, USA) for 1
hour. The tubes and contents were cooled rapidly under running
cold water and then cooled further for 2 hr at 4°C. Next, the tubes
were inverted to see if the contents would fall or slip off. The
least gelation concentration is that concentration when the sample
from the inverted test tube does not fall or slip off.
Swelling power and solubility were determined by the method
of Leach et al. 12. One gram of sample was weighed into a 100 ml
conical flask, 15 ml of distilled water was added and mixed gently
at low speed for 5 min. The slurry was heated in a thermostated
water bath (Thelco model 83, USA) at 80°C for 40 min. During
heating, the slurry was stirred gently to prevent lumps forming in
the starch. The contents were transferred into preweighed
centrifuge tubes and 7.5 ml distilled water was added. The tubes
containing the paste were centrifuged at 2200 rpm for 20 min
using Sorvall GLC-1 centrifuge (model 06470, USA). The
supernatant was decanted immediately after centrifuging into a
preweighed can and dried at 100°C to constant weight. The weight
of the sediment was taken and recorded.
Swelling power = (Wt of sediment)/(sample Wt-Wt of soluble)
Solubility index (%) = (Wt of soluble/Wt of sample) x 100.
109
Pasting properties: These were determined with a Rapid Visco
Analyser 3 C (RVA, Newport Scientific PTY Ltd, Sydney) 19, 25. 3.0
g of sample was weighed into a weighing vessel and 25 ml of
distilled water was dispensed into a new test canister. Sample
was then transferred onto the water surface in the canister, after
which the paddle was placed into the canister. The blade was
then vigorously jogged up and down through the sample ten
times or more until no flour lumps remained on the water surface
or on the paddle. The paddle was placed into the canister and
both were inserted firmly into the paddle coupling so that the
paddle is properly centered. The measurement cycle was initiated
by depressing the motor tower of the instrument. The test was
then allowed to proceed and terminate automatically (RVA
Operation Manual, 1995).
Determination of colour: This was determined using colour meter
(Color Tec PCMTM Color Tec Associates, Inc., Clinton, NJ). The
colorimeter operates on the CIE (Commission Internationale de
l’Eclairage) L*, a*, b* colour scheme. Multiple measurements of
several points on samples were made. The instrument was first
standardized (L = 93.24, a = 00.96, b = %02.75) with a sheet of
Business Xerox 80 g/m2 white paper with 136 CIE whiteness D65.
About 3 g of starch was put on a clean paper and the colour meter
was placed on the sample by allowing the sensor to touch the
sample. The reading was taken directly for L*.The instrument
displays three-dimensional colour differences in uniform colour
space (Lab) co-ordinates. Uniform colour space defines three
directions, a light to dark direction, called L*, a red to green
direction called a*, and a blue to yellow direction called b* 27.
Starch microscopy: The average granule size and starch
structured was determined with the aid of a light microscope
(Laborlux S, Leitz-Wetzlar, Germany 513558) and computerised
microscope (Olympus DP 50, BX51, Japan) respectively. Of starch
100 mg was dispersed in 9.9 ml of distilled water and held for 15
min at room temperature with constant stirring. Two drops of the
suspension were placed on a slide and observed under a
microscope with a 40x objective and a micrometer eye piece. Five
granules were selected randomly and their diameter measured.
Each reading was multiplied by 2.5 (the constant for the 40x lens)
to convert to µm. Three measurements were made per sample.
Statistical analysis: All data were subjected to analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and means separated using Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test (DMRT). Pearson’s correlation was run between values of
physicochemical and pasting properties of the starches.
Results and Discussion
Chemical properties of starch from different CMD varieties:
Proximate composition of native starch obtained from different
CMD varieties is shown in Table 1. The moisture content of dried
starches ranged between 3.59 and 11.53%. Percent starch values
ranged between 60.34 to 86.79% (dried weight). This is in agreement
with the findings of Rickard et al. 18. A considerable variation was
found in the crude protein (0.23-0.70%) and sugar content (0.51-
3.56%). Ash content ranged from 0.03 to 0.49%. Large variations
have also been reported in the crude protein (0.03–0.60%) and
ash (0.02–0.33%) content of cassava starch 18. These differences,
however, may be partly due to the genetic composition of the
varieties and the cultural practices on the field as well as
110
environmental factors 18. Also processing variables such as grating
and screening might have effect on the starch and ash content.
The α-amylase value ranged between 15.24 and 13.20% with 93/
0098 and 96/1089A having the highest and the lowest value
respectively. The values were within acceptable values for cassava
starch (13.6–35.8%) 18. There exists a significant difference (p<0.05)
in the proximate composition of the starches from different CMD
varieties. Starch damage value ranged between 0.39 and 2.10%.
The degree of starch damage is a function of processing. The
finer the mash the higher the degree of starch damage.
Functional properties of starch from different CMD varieties:
The functional properties of dried native starch from different
CMD varieties are shown in Table 2. Percentage dispersibility
ranged between 81.5 and 89.5% with starch from 99/3073 and 96/
0523 having the highest and lowest dispersibility respectively.
Dispersibility is a measure of the reconstitutability of starch or
starch blends in water. The higher the dispersibility the better the
starch reconstitutes in water 11. There was a significant varietal
difference (p<0.05) in the dispersibility among the varieties
analysed. However, since the values of dispersibility are relatively
high for all the samples, they will reconstitute easily to give a fine
consistent paste 11. The values of least gelation concentration
(LGC) ranged between 2.00 and 4.67% with 96/0523 and 97/4779
having the lowest and highest value respectively. LGC is a measure
of the minimum amount of starch or blends of starch that is needed
to form a gel. The values obtained are in agreement with findings
of Adebowale et al. 1. As the temperature of an aqueous
suspension of starch is raised above the gelatinization range,
hydrogen bonds continue to be disrupted, water molecules
become attached to the liberated hydroxyl groups and the granules
continue to swell 15. As a direct result of granule swelling, there is
a parallel increase in starch solubility. High solubility implies high
leaching. There are significant differences in the swelling power
(9.04-16.90%), solubility (1.03-47.07%) and water absorption
capacity (1271.74-1351.17%) of the starches from different CMD
varieties. Swelling power and solubility of the starches provide
evidence of non-covalent bonding between molecules within the
starch granules 17. Swelling power is a factor of ratio of á-amylase
to amylopectin, the characteristics of each fraction in terms of
molecular weight/distribution, degree/length of branching and
confirmation 18. The major factors that control the swelling
behaviour of starch are the strength and character of the micellar
network within the granule 12. Solubilization also reflects the extent
of intermolecular cross bonding within the granule 28. High α-
amylase content as well as the presence of stronger or greater
numbers of intermolecular bonds reduces swelling 5. The colour
intensity of the starches ranged between 83.97and 93.17%,
indicating whiteness. The difference in the Lx value may be due to
soil, genetic factors and processing methods, among many factors.
There exists a strong significant correlation between swelling
power and colour, solubility and colour, and water absorption
capacity and colour.
Pasting properties of starch from different cassava varieties:
Table 3 shows the pasting properties of starch from different CMD
varieties. Peak viscosity during heating was found to be between
261.17 RVU and 593.17 RVU. Peak viscosity is the maximum
viscosity attained during or soon after the heating portion of the
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007
 Table 1. Physicochemical properties of native starches from different CMD resistance varieties.
Clone Amylose% Ash % MC % Dry pH Protein Sugar % Starch % Starch
matter % % damage %
30572 27.69a 0.12efghij 4.87def 95.13abc 4.79e 0.70a 1.75edf 74.21abcdefg 1.29bcdefghi
4(2)1425 28.37ab 0.19cdefghij 5.63cdef 94.37abcd 5.84ghi 0.47a 1.51defghi 67.02defg 1.32bcdefgh
82/00058 23.75abcd 0.04ij 6.22cdef 93.78abcd 9.22a 0.70a 3.20a 77.7abcde 1.17defghi
91/02324 21.45abcde 0.18cdefghi 5.67cdef 94.33abcd 6.09f 0.47c 0.64nop 78.54abcde 0.59jkl
92/0057 26.56ab 0.27bcdefgh 4.67ef 95.33ab 6.51d 0.47c 0.51p 69.96bcdefg 1.29bcdefghi
92/0325 27.91a 0.26bcdefghi 3.73f 96.27a 6.59d 0.47c 1.55defghi 82.06abcd 1.39bcdef
92/0326 26.32ab 0.43ab 3.61f 96.39a 6.55d 0.47c 1.20fghijklmn 84.38abc 1.77abcd
92B/0006 23.16abcd 0.14defghij 4.25ef 95.75ab 5.00mn 0.47c 1.36efghijkl 75.04abcdef 0.69hijkl
93/0098 30.20a 0.21bcdefghij 4.01ef 95.99ab 6.17ef 0.47c 1.55defghi 80.39abcde 1.14defghij
94/0026 21.66abcdef 0.13efghij 5.57cdef 94.43abcd 5.82ghi 0.23d 0.73mnop 84.58abc 0.64ijkl
94/0039 28.92a 0.49a 5.91cdef 94.09abcd 5.22l 0.70a 0.82lmnop 78.70abcde 0.71ghijkl
94/0561 27.36a 0.07fghij 6.20cdef 93.09abcd 5.43jk 0.47c 0.56op 84.72abc 1.95ab
95/0166 25.03abc 0.18cdefghij 9.82abc 90.18def 5.10lm 0.23d 0.85klmnop 80.46abcde 1.29bcdefghij
95/0289 23.93abcd 0.14efghij 8.59abcde 91.41bcdef 5.10lm 0.47c 1.20fghijklmn 85.24ab 0.46kl
95/0379 28.61a 0.16cdefghij 11.53a 88.47f 4.76of 0.23s 0.97hjiklmnop 69.90cdefg 0.78fghijkl
96/0523 25.92ab 0.05ghij 3.92ef 96.08ab 4.35rs 0.70a 0.94jklmnop 80.26abcde 1.42bcdef
96/0603 17.84bcd 0.17cdefghij 4.61ef 95.39ab 5.64i 0.70a 1.54defghi 81.47abcde 0.59jkl
96/1089A 15.24d 0.29abcdef 5.04def 94.96abc 4.94mno 0.70a 1.59defg 78.98abcde 0.39kl
96/1569 23.32abcd 0.03j 5.74cdef 94.26abcd 4.74op 0.59b 1.10ghijklmno 79.49abcde 1.24cdefghij
97/0162 27.85a 0.24bcdefghij 5.60cdef 94.40abcd 5.25kl 0.47c 1.53defghi 78.56abcde 1.14defghij
97/2205 24.69abc 0.04hij 7.42abcdef 92.58abcdef 4.26s 0.70a 2.50b 60.34g 0.99efghijkl
97/3200 25.15abc 0.04ij 10.96ab 89.04ef 5.45j 0.70a 1.32fghijklm 84.87abc 0.39l
97/4763 25.03abc 0.08fghij 3.82ef 96.19ab 8.56b 0.70a 3.26a 81.29abcde 1.32bcdefgh
97/4769 28.09a 0.14a 3.59f 96.41a 5.08lm 0.47c 1.92cde 78.01abcde 1.64abcde
97/4779 26.13ab 0.10fghij 6.52bcdef 93.48abcde 4.06t 0.70a 2.41bc 70.44bcdefg 1.44bcdef
98/0002 26.62ab 0.04ij 4.73ef 95.28ab 4.48qr 0.70a 2.29bc 78.11abcde 0.94fghijkl
98/0505 27.78a 0.33abcde 6.47bcdef 93.53abcde 5.08lm 0.47c 1.56defgh 61.90fg 1.37bcdefg
98/0510 25.21abc 0.13efghij 4.99def 95.01abc 5.65li 0.47c 1.30fghijklm 72.24abcdefg 0.81fghijkl
98/0581 25.92ab 0.11efghij 6.90bcdef 93.10abcde 5.13lm 0.70a 1.41efghijkl 77.24abcde 2.09a
98/2101 22.55abcd 0.07fghij 7.29abcdef 92.72abcdef 4.44qrs 0.70a 3.56a 75.58abcdef 1.14defghij
98/2226 22.98abcd 0.04ij 4.23bcdef 95.77ab 5.86g 0.47c 2.42bc 78.78abcde 1.37bcdefg
99/1590 27.05ab 0.25bcdefghij 6.48bcdef 93.52abcde 4.36rs 0.47c 1.56defgh 75.82abcdef 1.42bcdef
99/1632 16.14cd 0.10fghij 4.46ef 95.54ab 4.58pq 0.70a 1.48efghij 78.55abcde 1.64abcde
99/1903 25.00abc 0.06ghij 5.36cdef 94.64abcd 4.38rs 0.70a 3.29a 86.79a 1.12defghijk
99/2123 23.87abcd 0.13efghij 10.08abc 89.92def 4.86no 0.59b 0.96ijklmnop 77.79abcde 0.59jkl
99/3073 26.92ab 0.07fghij 5.60cdef 94.40abcd 4.36rs 0.23d 1.43efghij 78.17abcde 1.85abc
99/6012 25.37ab 0.36abcd 6.77bcdef 93.24abcde 7.18c 0.47c 1.59defg 79.92abcde 1.19defghijk
M98/0028 22.46abcd 0.38abc 4.29ef 95.71abc 5.85gh 0.47c 2.08bcd 66.65cfg 1.42bcdef
TME1 26.44ab 0.25bcdefghij 9.56abcd 90.44bcdef 6.31e 0.47c 0.83lmnop 78.74abcde 1.42bcdef
Z97/0207 22.49abcd 0.28bcdefg 7.25abcdef 92.75abcdef 7.34c 0.70a 2.33bc 81.64abcde 1.44bcdef
Each value represent mean of three replicates. Mean values having the same superscript within column are not significantly different at 5% confidence level.

test in RVU. The highest peak viscosity was recorded for 97/0162
while the lowest was recorded for 82/00058. Peak viscosity
indicates the water binding capacity of the starch or mixture. It is
often correlated with final product quality. The peak viscosity
occurs at the equilibrium point between swelling causing an
increase in viscosity and rupture and alignment causing its
decrease.
Peak time ranged between 3.36 and 4.25 minutes with 98/2101
and 99/6012 having the highest and lowest respectively. There is
a significant difference (p<0.005) among the samples. The pasting
temperature values ranged between 63.75 and 65.65°C with 30572
and 98/0510 having the highest and least value respectively. The
pasting temperature provides an indication of the minimum
temperature required to cook a given sample which can have
implications on the stability of other components in a formula and
also indicate energy costs. It has been reported that granule size,
α-amylase content, molecular weight, crystallinity and the internal
granular organization, all affect gelatinization 3. An increase in α-
amylase content has also been reported to increase the
gelatinization temperature 22.
Granular characteristics of starch from different cassava
varieties: Granule size of starches from CMD cassava is presented
in Table 4. The starch granules of cassava are compound granules3.
The granule size ranges between 12.5 and 20.83 nm, which are
within the range reported for cassava starch 18, 23. The shape of
the starch is similar to one another (Figs 1 and 2). They are round
in shape with an indentation on one side, which is characteristic
of cassava starch 29.
Conclusions
The study has shown that significant genotypic variations existed
in the physicochemical, functional and pasting properties of native
starches from different CMD varieties. Further research is needed
to determine interactive effect of variety and environment on the
qualities of the starches. Characterization of the starches for

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007 111
Table 2. Functional properties of starch from different CMD resistant varieties.
Clone Colour % Dispersibility LGC% Swelling Solubility WAC %
% power % %
30572 84.69k 82.67ghi 4.00ab 9.04cdef 4.09efg 122.45bc
4(2)1425 91.45bcde 84.00def 2.67ab 10.60bcde 15.19abcd 102.50bc
82/00058 87.60j 84.50cde 3.33ab 9.86cdef 15.75abcd 110.80c
91/02324 88.64ij 84.50cde 3.33ab 11.43bcd 7.79cdef 96.22bc
92/0057 89.47hi 84.50cde 2.67ab 9.84cdef 6.88def 97.85bc
92/0325 89.73ghi 84.50cde 2.67ab 12.57abc 4.49efg 91.52bc
92/0326 89.64ghi 85.50bc 2.00b 11.44bcd 4.06efg 99.28bc
92B/00061 91.34bcdef 84050cde 3.33ab 12.61abc 12.27bcde 98.83bc
93/0098 93.18a 84.00def 4.00ab 10.14bcde 14.28bcd 108.25a
94/0026 91.41bcde 85.00bcd 3.33ab 11.52bcd 9.01cdef 86.83bc
94/0039 91.97abcd 83.00fgh 3.33ab 12.73ab 9.98cde 87.33b
94/0561 89.62ghi 83.00fgh 2.67ab 12.32abc 1.03efgh 115.085b
95/0166 90.54cdefgh 86.00b 2.67ab 12.57abc 13.30bcd 90.91bc
95/0289 91.24bcdefg 84.00def 4.00ab 11.58bcd 1.06efgh 86.98bc
95/0379 91.55bcde 84.00def 2.67ab 11.53bcd 13.46bcd 92.34bc
96/0523 91.09bcdefg 84.50l 2.00b 16.90a 47.07a 117.39bc
96/0603 92.12abc 84.00def 4.00ab 10.19bcde 13.94bcd 93.21bc
96/1089A 91.41bcde 83.00fgh 4.00ab 11.39bcd 23.16abc 97.95bc
96/1569 90.90bcdefgh 82.00hi 2.67ab 13.80ab 14.80bcd 103.10bc
97/0162 90.53cdefg 83.00fgh 2.00b 11.42bcd 1.48efgh 104.47bc
97/2205 91.43bcde 83.00fgh 2.00b 11.26bcd 2.05efgh 101.09bc
97/3200 90.53cdefgh 84.00def 2.67ab 11.00bcd 9.47cde 99.71bc
97/4763 87.90j 84.50cde 2.67ab 9.99cdef 10.31cde 127.54c
97/4769 91.04bcdefgh 82.00hi 2.67ab 11.66bcd 9.30cdef 116.37bc
97/4779 91.15bcdefg 84.00def 4.67a 11.92bcd 8.84cdef 110.03bc
98/0002 90.39defgh 85.00bcd 4.00ab 9.15cdef 15.79abcd 94.58bc
98/0505 91.40bcde 84.00def 2.00b 11.90bcd 6.16def 122.78bc
98/0510 92.15abc 83.00fgh 4.00ab 11.68bcd 39.25ab 107.35bc
98/0581 90.53cdefgh 84.00def 3.33ab 10.34bcde 7.61cdef 101.28bc
98/2101 90.53cdefgh 82.50ghi 3.33ab 11.85bcd 11.60cde 104.55bc
98/2226 90.53cdefgh 84.50cde 3.33ab 10.80bcde 9.83cde 107.35bc
99/1590 90.53cdefgh 83.50efg 2.67ab 11.14bcd 10.25cde 111.21bc
99/1632 90.53cdefgh 83.50efg 2.67ab 12.31abc 19.45abc 106.67bc
99/1903 90.53cdefgh 83.50efg 4.67a 13.99ab 10.48cde 102.30bc
99/2123 90.53cdefgh 84.00def 2.67ab 9.57cdef 10.88cde 96.78bc
99/3073 90.53cdefgh 89.50a 3.33ab 12.31abc 12.68bcde 104.55bc
99/6012 90.53cdefgh 85.00bcd 2.00b 10.32bcde 9.86cde 107.29bc
M98/0028 90.53cdefgh 83.00fgh 2.00b 10.97bcde 3.41efg 114.24bc
TME1 90.53cdefgh 85.00bcd 2.67ab 11.90bcd 12.78bcde 89.87bc
Z97/0207 90.53cdefgh 84.00def 4.67a 9.96cdef 6.87def 117.73bc
Each value represent mean of three replicates. Mean values having the same superscript within column are not significantly different
at 5% confidence level.

Figure 1. Photomicrograph of cassava clone 96/01632 starch. Figure 2. Photomicrograph of cassava clone TMS 30572 s starch.

different end use is also required. The wide variations in the

properties of the starches from the different CMD resistant varieties
implies that the starches have potentials for a wide range of
products.

112 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007
 Table 3. Pasting properties of starch from different CMD resistance varieties. Table 4. Granular size (µm ) and shape of
Variety Peak (RVU) Trough BRK down Final viscosity Set back Pasting Pasting
starch from different CMD resistance
(RVU) (RVU) (RVU) (RVU) time (min) temperature (oC) varieties.
30572 446.63defghij 160.34abcdefgi 243.17cdefghijk 195.80bcdefghijk 35.46hijklm 3.75cdef 65.65a Clone Granule size Shape
4(2) 1425 585.17ab 191.13abc 326.54a 238.79abcd 47.67defghijk 3.73cdef 64.75abcde
30572 15.83abc Round
82/00058 261.17m 122.1hij 155.42no 141.21L 19.04m 4.01abc 64.13de
91/02324 516054abcde 178.21abcdef 205.92ghijklmno 244.84a 66.63abcde 3.57efgh 65.05abcd 4(2)1425 15.83abc Round
92/0057 357.83jkl 139.88defghij 193.58hijklmno 194.00cdefghijk 54.125bcdefghi 3.82bcdef 64.05de 82/00058 14.17bc Round
92\0325 538.50abcd 179.80abcdef 230.50cdefghijkl 242.46ab 62.67abcdefg 3.52efgh 64.55cde 91/02324 16.67abc Round
92\0326 311.79lm 120.09hij 156.84mno 141.63l 21.54lm 3.77cdef 64.03de 92/0057 16.67abc Round
92B/006 397.59hijkl 149.96abcdefghij 199.88hijklmno 186.00fghijkl 36.05hijklm 3.75cdef 64.25de 92/0325 15.83abc Round
94/026 514.17abcdef 162.34abcdefghi 201.38hijklmno 233.25abcde 70.92abcd 3.62defgh 64.78abcde 92/0326 18.33abc Round
94/0039 414.50fghijk 142.71cdefghij 193.21hijklmno 193.80defghijk 51.08defghij 3.62defgh 64.65abcde 92B/0006 15.83abc Round
94/0561 484.63cdefghi 149.59abcdefghij 183.83ijklmno 199.50abcdefghijk 79.92a 3.36gh 64.03de 93/0098 18.33abc Round
95/0166 569.71abc 134.00efghij 240.63cdefghijk 178.79hijkl 44.79efghijklm 3.54efgh 64.48cde 94/0026 15.83abc Round
95/0289 534.80abcd 192.96ab 205.38hijklmno 234.42abcde 41.46efghijklm 3.60defgh 64.28de 94/0039 24.17bc Round
95/0379 521.30abcde 181.67abcde 244.63defghij 228.50abcdef 46.83defghijkl 3.67cdefgh 64.18de 94/0561 16.67abc Round
96/0523 430.55efghijk 143.59cdefghij 233.75cdefghij 179.42ghijkl 35.84hijklm 3.71cdef 64.13de
95/0166 20.00ab Round
96/0603 416.25fghijk 129.00ghij 204.25hijklmno 169.08ijkl 40.09fghijklm 3.73cdef 64.53cde
96/1089A 453.50defghij 122.13hij 259.21bcdefgh 154.84l 32.71ijklm 3.60defgh 64.43cde 95/0289 15.83abc Round
96/1569 488.08bcdefghi 171.25abcdefg 272.08abcdefg 208.25abcdefghij 37.00ghijklm 3.77cdef 64.68abcde 95/0379 20.00ab Round
96/1632 411.38ghijk 154.54abcdefghij 216.46efghijklmno 178.88hijkl 24.33klm 3.72cdef 64.18de 96/0523 17.50abc Round
96/2123 445.79defghij 151.92abcdefg 231.58cdefghijk 192.00efghijk 40.08fghijklm 3.60defgh 64.60bcde 96/0603 20.83a Round
97/0162 593.17a 175.80abcdefg 228.08cdefghijkl 240.59abc 64.79abcdef 3.56efgh 64.45cde 96/1089A 18.33abc Round
97/2205 580.75ab 172.17abcdefg 328.96a 198.71abcdefghijk 26.55jklm 3.57efgh 64.50cde 96/1569 16.67abc Round
97/3200 451.17defghij 168.09abcdefgh 176.92klmno 234.96abcde 66.88abcde 3.58efgh 64.48cde 97/0162 15.83abc Round
97/4763 344.09klm 115.96ij 202.25hijklmno 163.54jkl 47.58defghijk 3.75cdef 63.85e 97/2205 12.50c Round
97/4769 500.17abcdefg 160.17abcdefghi 272.75abcdef 212.13abcdefghi 51.96cdefghij 3.72cdef 65.38abc

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007

97/3200 15.00abc Round
97/4779 544.63abcd 193.21ab 313.08ab 224.79abcdefgh 31.58ijklm 3.70cdefg 64.45cde
97/4763 15.83abc Round
98/0002 507.59abcdefg 185.42abcd 290.46abc 213.33abcdefghi 27.92jklm 3.85bcde 64.60bcde
98/0098 415.17fghijk 149.17abcdefghij 156.96mno 225.92abcdefg 76.75abc 3.54efgh 64.30de 97/4769 15.83abc Round
98/0505 484.73cdefghi 152.88abcdefghij 202.46hijklmno 204.75abcdefghij 51.88cdefghij 3.59defgh 64.65abcde 97/4779 15.83abc Round
98/0510 421.84efghijk 107.80j 208.59ghijklmno 142.58l 34.80hijklm 3.52efgh 63.75e 98/0002 16.67abc Round
98/0581 427.30efghijk 165.42abcdefgh 256.50bcdefgh 206.75abcdefghij 41.33efghijklm 3.93bcd 64.63abcde 98/0505 16.67abc Round
98/2101 335.09klm 131.88fghij 196.75hijklmno 168.92jkl 37.05ghijklm 4.25a 64.63abcde 98/0510 16.67abc Round
98/2226 495.58abcdefgh 161.84abcdefghi 179.25ijklmno 239.57abcd 77.71ab 3.49fgh 64.55cde 98/0581 18.33abc Round
99/1590 398.00hijkl 135.46efghij 222.92defghijklm 169.38ijkl 33.92ljklm 4.11ab 64.95abcd 98/2101 17.50abc Round
99/1903 498.88abcdefgh 154.96abcdefghij 275.55abcde 196.71bcdefghijk 41.75efghijklm 3.64defgh 64.58bcde 98/2226 15.83abc Round
99/3073 454.34defghij 197.63a 247.96cdefghi 203.75abcdefghij 24.13klm 3.84bcde 65.50ab 99/1590 16.67abc Round
99/6012 451.04defghij 179.25abcdefgh 141.21o 226.08abcdef 46.84defghijkl 3.36gh 64.68abcde
99/1632 17.50abc Round
M98/0028 509.50abcdefg 165.96abcdefghi 286.92abcd 206.88abcdefghij 40.92fghijklm 3.73cdef 64.45cde
TME1 391.58ijkl 144.92bcdefghi 162.71lmno 185.80fghijkl 40.88fghijklm 3.57efgh 64.35cde 99/1903 16.67abc Round
Z97/0207 490.96bcdefghi 159.04abcdefghi 251.63bcdefgh 219.17abcdefgh 60.13abcdefgh 3.60defgh 64.40cde 99/2123 16.67abc Round
Each value represents mean of three replicates. Mean values having the same superscript within column are not significantly different at 5% confidence level. 99/3073 20.00ab Round
99/6012 18.75ab Round
m98/0028 17.50abc Round
TME1 16.67abc Round
297/0207 20.83a Round
Each value represent mean of three replicates. Mean values
having the same superscript within column are not
significantly different at 5% confidence level.

113
 Acknowledgement feasibility of dried fufu production in Nigeria. ASSET-An Intnal J.
The authors warmly thanks the management of IITA, Ibadan, 3(1):107-115.
21
Nigeria, especially the Cassava Breeding Unit for supplying the Sanni, L.O., Onitilo, M., Oyewole, O.B., Dipeolu, A.O., Adebayo, K.,
cassava varieties and allowing the use of their laboratories and Ayinde, I.A., Tomlins, K. and Westby, A. 2003. Effect of cassava
varieties and processing methods on the qualities of starch in south-
equipment.
west Nigeria. Paper presented at the FOOD Africa, Yaounde,
Cameroon.
References 22
Seog, H.M., Park, Y.K., Nam, Y.J., Shin, D.H. and Kim, J.P. 1987.
1
Adebowale, A.A., Sanni, L.O. and Awonorin, S.O. 2005. Effect of texture Physicochemical properties of several sweet potato starches. Hanguk
modifiers on the physicochemical and sensory properties of dried Nanghwa Hakhoechi 30(2):179-185.
fufu. Food Sci. Techn. Int. 11(5):373-382. 23
Shanon, J.C. and Garwood, D.L. 1984. Genetics and physiology of
2
AOAC 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official starch development. In Whistler, R.L., Bemiller, J.L. and Paschal, F.R.
Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C., pp.152-154, 252. (eds). Starch, Chemistry and Technology. Academic Press, New York,
3
Banks, W. and Greenwood, C.T. 1975. Starch and Its Components. USA, pp. 25.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 34-45. 24
Sosulski, F.N. 1962. The centrifuge method for determining starch
4
Coffman, C.W. and Garcia, G. 1977. Functional properties and amino absorptivity in hard red spring wheat. Cereal Chem. 39:344-346.
acid content of a protein isolate from mung bean starch. J. Food Technol. 25
Walker, C.E., Ross, A.S., Wrigley, C.W. and McMaster, G.J. 1988.
12:473–484. Accelerated starch paste characterization with the rapid Visco analyzer.
5
Delpeuch, F. and Favier, J.C. 1980. Characteristics of starches from Cereals Food World 33:491–194.
tropical food plant, alpha amylase hydrolysis, swelling and solubility 26
Williams, P.C., Kuzina, F.D. and Hlynka, I. 1970. A rapid colourimetric
pattern. Am. Technol. Agric. 29(1):53–67. procedure for estimating the amylose content of starches and starch.
6
Dixon, A.G.O., Akoroda, M.O., Sanni, L.O., Maziya-Dixon, B., Cereal Chem. 47(4):411-413.
Ezedinma, C., Patino, M. and Okechuckwu, R. 2004. The cassava 27
Abass, A.B. 1992. Effect of Some Processing Parameters on Gari Quality.
challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa: Increasing productivity, market MSc thesis, Food Technology Department, University of Ibadan,
opportunities and profitability. Book of Abstracts of the 9th Triennial Ibadan, Nigeria.
Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops- 28
Hari, P.K., Garg, S. and Garg, S.K. 1989. Gelatinisation of starch and
Africa Branch (ISTRC-AB), Mombasa, Kenya, 31 October-5th Nov modified starch. Starch 41(3):88-91.
2004, pp. 24. 29
Kerr, R. W. and Cleveland, F. C. 1959. Orthophosphate Esters of
7
Dubois, M., Gillies, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A. and Smith, F. Starch. US Patent 2884413.
1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related
substances. Anal. Chem. 28:350–356.
8
Francis, F.J. 1998. Colour analysis. In Nielsen, S.S. (ed.). Food Analysis.
Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, USA, pp. 559-612.
9
Hizukuri, S. 1969. Effect of environmental temperature of plants on the
physicochemical properties of their starches. J. Jap. Soc. Starch Sci.
17(1):73–88.
10
Kawabata, A., Sawayama, S., Nagashima, N., del Rosaria, R.R. and
Nakamura, M. 1984.Some physicochemical properties of starches
from cassava, arrow root and sago. J. Jap. Soc. Starch Sci. 31(4):224–
232.
11
Kulkarni, K.D., Kulkarni, D.N. and Ingle, U.M. 1991. Sorghum malt–
based weaning formulations preparations, functional properties and
nutritive value. Food Nut. Bull. 13(4):322–327.
12
Leach, H.W., McCovwen, D.L. and Schoch, T.J. 1959. Swelling and
solubility patterns of various starches, structure of granules. Cereal
Chem. 36:534-544.
13
Longe, O.O. 1980. Effects of processing on the chemical composition
and energy value of cassava. Nut. Report Int. 21(6):820-828.
14
McDermortt, E.E. 1980. Non-enzymatic determination of damaged
starch in starch. J. Sci. Food Agric. 31:405-413.
15
Numfor, F.A., Watler, W.M. and Schwartz, S.J. 1996. Effect of
emulsifiers on the physical properties of native and fermented cassava
starches. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:2595-2599.
16
Osunsami, A.T., Akingbala, J.O. and Oguntimehin, G.B. 1989. Effect
of storage on starch content and modification of cassava starch. Starch/
Stärke 41:54–57.
17
Rasper, V. 1969. Investigation on starches from major starch crop grown
in Ghana. II Swelling and solubility patterns and amyloelastic
susceptibility. J. Sci. Food Agric. 20:642–646.
18
Rickard, J.R., Asaoka, M.A. and Blanshard, J.M.V. 1991. The
physicochemical properties of cassava starch. Trop. Sci. 31:189–
207.
19
Ross, A.S., Walker, C.E., Booth, R.I., Orth, R.A. and Wrigley, C.W.
1987. The Rapid Visco Analyzer: A new technique for the estimation
of sprout damage. Cereals Food World 32:827–829.
20
Sanni, L.O. and Ayinde, I.A. 2002. Consumer acceptance and economic

114 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.5 (3&4), July-October 2007

View publication stats