Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234 217

Wajira S. Ratnayakea, Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties

Ratnajothi Hoovera,
Tom Warkentinb
a search for new food protein resources, small commercial facilities in Canada have en-
Department of Bio-
chemistry, Memorial
University of Newfound-
land, St. John’s, N. F.,
Canada
b Crop Development
Centre, University of
Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
– A Review
Recently, pea has developed into a major protein crop in Western Canada. In the
gaged in manufacturing protein concentrates from pea by air classification or wet
milling techniques. However, the major products from these processes are either crude
or refined pea starches. Pea starch has been utilized almost exclusively for industrial
application. A major factor, which has an adverse effect on the widespread utilization of
pea starch in food industry, it its high extent of retrogradation. This review summarizes
the present knowledge on composition, structure and physiochemical properties of
smooth and wrinkled seeded pea starches with a view to providing suggestions for
needed research to improve the utilization of pea starches in the food industry.

Keywords: Pisum sativum; Pea starch; Composition; Structure; Physicochemical

properties

1 Introduction
Cultivated peas have been classified into two types: (1)
garden peas (Pisum sativum ssp. hortense), and (2) field
peas (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense) [1]. Field pea is a crop
plant whose utilization can be traced back to Neolithic
times [2].

Peas are cultivated in many regions of the world, as an

animal feed and human food. The relative advantages of
this crop are: (1) it can be easily harvested using machin-
ery, (2) it is a valuable break-crop in a rotation which is
Fig. 1. World field pea production [Total: 11 704 701 m.t.
dominated by cereals such as oats, barley, etc. Therefore,
(adapted from [5]).
pea is considered to be one of the most important grain
legumes [3, 4]. Under poor soil conditions, legume crops,

such as pea, play an important role in soil fertility im-
provement due to their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen
[4].
Pea starch is mainly available as a by-product of protein
extraction. Therefore, it is considered to be a relatively
cheap source of starch compared to corn, wheat and
potato starches. Pea starch is mainly used in industrial
applications, but not much in food applications due to its
poor functional properties.
2 World and Canadian Production of Peas
Field pea (also called dry pea) ranks fourth in terms of the
world production of food legumes below soybeans,
Correspondence: Ratnajothi Hoover, Department of Bio-
chemistry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
N. F., Canada, A1B 3X9. Fax: +1-709-737-4000, e-mail:
rhoover@mun.ca.
Review Article
peanuts and dry beans. The total world dry pea produc-
tion is 11,704,701 m.t. (Fig. 1) [5].
Peas are produced in almost all countries in the world.
Canada is the largest producer (~25% of total world pro-
duction) and the largest exporter (40% of total world ex-
ports) of field pea in the world [6]. More than half of the to-
tal Canadian pea production is exported as seed without
further processing. In Canada, field pea is not utilized on
a large scale in industry. About 10% is used as planting
seed, whole or split seeds are used in stews, soups and
canned food, hulls are used in high fiber breads and the
majority is used in animal feed [6, 7]. The largest use of
field pea in Europe and North America is in the compound
feed industry, whereby whole seeds are ground and
mixed with ground cereal seeds to produce feeds. The
largest use of field pea in Asia and South America is for
human consumption, whereby whole or split seeds are
boiled and then eaten. The proportion of world field pea
production, which is processed into protein, starch, and
fiber fractions, is very small at present.

© WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, 69451 Weinheim, 2002 0038-9056/2002/0606-0217 $17.50+.50/0

218 Ratnayake et al.
3 Taxonomy and Nomenclature
The species Pisum sativum L. is identified by many differ-
ent trivial names. It is known as: pea, dry pea, and field
pea in the United Kingdom and North America, “Batani”
in India, “Erbse” in Germany, “Ater” in Ethiopia, “Pois”
in France, “Takarmany borso” in Hungary, and “Pisello” in
Italy [8].
In the species P. sativum L., two different seed pheno-
types exist, namely, smooth (with a smooth seed surface;
also called field pea in North America) and wrinkled pea
(wrinkled seed surface). The two types are genetically dif-
ferent and produce characteristic starches with different
granular morphologies and characteristics. The seeds of
the smooth pea are entirely or almost entirely smooth and
sometimes more or less strongly dented. In contrast, the
seed surface of wrinkled pea seeds shows numerous,
fairly sharp wrinkles, which are continued on the cotyle-
dons under the seed coat [9]. Borowska et al. [10] report-
ed three different cotyledon colors: i.e. yellow, yellow-
green, and green. They further reported that the color of
the seeds within a variety may depend on the degree of
maturity and storage conditions, and the irregular pig-
mentation in a given lot of seeds from a single-stage har-
vest may also be due to the presence of seeds differing in
ripeness.
Pea is classified as shown below [11–13]:
Class Dicotyledon
Order Rosales
Family Leguminosae
Sub-family Papilionoideae
The botanical nomenclature of pea is confusing. The
species Pisum sativum L. is known as field pea, garden
pea, green pea, yellow pea, smooth pea and wrinkled
pea, etc. In earlier literature, field pea and garden pea
were classified as P. sativum ssp. arvense and P. sativum
ass. hortense. However, it was later shown that differ-
ences between the two sub-species were artificial, be-
cause of their cross-fertility [13]. This review concentrates
on Pisum sativum L. (both smooth and wrinkled seeded
cultivars) starch.
4 Pea Mutants
Genes at the two loci, r and rb in peas have also shown to
influence the composition and the starch content within
the pea seed [14, 15]. The R gene (at the r loci) and the
Rb gene (at the rb loci) encode for starch branching en-
zyme I and ADP glucose pyrophosphorylase, respective-
ly [14, 16]. Hedley et al. [17] have shown that a mutant
gene at the r locus reduces amylose and starch content
and changes granule shape and amylopectin structure,
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
whereas a mutant gene at the rb locus decreases amy-
lose content but has no influence on granular shape or
amylopectin structure. The presence of mutations at ei-
ther or both the r and rb loci gives rise to four different pea
genotypes (RRRbRb, rrRbRb, RRrbrb, and rrrbrb) which
differ in the content and composition of starch [18]. Fol-
lowing a back-crossing program [19, 20], lines which are
near isogenic except for genes at the r and rb loci have
been produced.
Wrinkled peas, which are homozygous recessive at the r
locus (i. e., rr) have a reduced starch level, about 65–75%
of that seen in the round seed [21, 22]; in addition, the
amylose content is in the range 30–40% in the round
form, but is higher (60–76%) [23] in wrinkled peas. The
amylose content of the developing wrinkled pea seeds is
already high at the initial stages [21] and increases further
towards the end of the seed development. At the later
stages of seed development, fissures appear in the starch
granules [24] and the soluble starch synthase becomes
entrapped at the cracks while maintaining amylose syn-
thesis [21]. The granules, therefore, become richer in
amylose at their central parts compared to the surface
layers.
Starch branching enzyme (SBE) is a transglycosylase in-
volved in amylopectin synthesis. In wrinkled pea and
round pea seeds, the activity of many of the starch
biosynthetic enzymes are similar. However, the activity of
SBE in wrinkled pea is only 14% of that seen in round pea
seeds [25]. Smith [25] reported that the r lesion in wrin-
kled pea (genotype rr) is associated with the absence of
one isoform of SBE. Edwards [22] proposed that the re-
duction in SBE activity in mutant wrinkled pea seeds, de-
creases starch content by lowering the ability of starch
synthase to generate linear α 1→4 glucosyl chains. Un-
der optimal in vitro conditions, in which a suitable primer
such as amylopectin or glycogen is added, starch syn-
thase activity in the wrinkled pea becomes equivalent to
that found in the wild type [26].
Wang et al. [27] have isolated 30 new mutants which have
wrinkled seeds and changes in the content and composi-
tion of the starch, compared with the wild type round
seeded parent line. The effect of mutations at six inde-
pendent loci on starch and amylose content are present-
ed in Tab. 1. Hedley et al. [17] have speculated that a
wide range of natural pea starches can be produced by
manipulating the genes at the r and rb loci.
5 Extraction of Pea Starch
The isolation of starches from peas is difficult, owing to
the presence of insoluble flocculent proteins and fine
fiber, which decreases sedimentation and co-settles with
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
the starch to give a brownish deposit [28, 29]. Pea starch-
es are isolated using techniques such as pin milling and
air classification [28–32]. Air classification is the most
commonly used commercial method for pea starch isola-
tion. The process requires a very high degree of particle
size reduction (achieved by pin milling) in order to sep-
arate the starch granules from the protein matrix. The ma-
jor fraction from the air classification process is the low-
protein starch fraction, which is separated from the fine
protein fraction during the process. The starch concen-
trate contains about 65% of starch [33]. Residual protein
associated with air classified field pea starch granules is
derived from protein bodies, agglomerates, chloroplast
membrane remnants (which enclose the starch granule)
and from a water-soluble fraction which is presumably de-
rived from the dehydrated starch [29]. Re-milling and re-
classifying the starch fraction remove most of the protein
bodies and agglomerates while water washing results in
removal of most of the remainder of the attached protein
[29]. The above purification procedure results in a protein
content of 0.25% in the washed starch. Tyler et al. [32] re-
ported that the suitability of pin-milling and air-classifica-
tion as a method of starch extraction could be assessed
by determining the protein separation efficiency (PSE).
PSE has been shown to be influenced by seed hardness
and by the amount of reduced protein that cannot be sep-
arated from the starch granule by milling. The above au-
thors [32] reported a PSE of ~60% for field pea starch.
The purity of starch obtained by wet milling is higher than
that obtained by air-classification. Repeated filtration
through polypropylene screens (20 and 70 µm) combined
with alkaline treatment (0.02% NaOH) causes substantial
reduction in the protein content of wet process extracted
pea starch [30]. Smooth pea starch could be extracted in
high yields (93.8–96.7%) from its flour, after protein ex-
traction at pH 9 using different sieving (200–60 µm) and
washing conditions [34]. The starches were found to be
contaminated mainly by cell wall polysaccharides (less
than 4%). The protein content in the starch ranged from
0.3–0.4%.
Meuser et al. [35] developed a process to extract starch
from wrinkled peas. This involved the steeping of wrinkled
pea seeds in warm water, followed by hulling using rubber
rollers (to separate hulls from cotyledons), gentle particle
size reduction of the cotyledons and high-pressure disin-
tegration of the screened out protein/starch fraction sus-
pended in the process water. This process enabled up to
89% of the starch present in the wrinkled peas to be ex-
tracted with a residual protein content of around 1%.
Gujska et al. [36] reported that the total starch content of
field pea was ~43% on whole seed basis and ~50% when
it was determined on dehulled flour. This suggests that
Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 219
the actual starch content is much higher than that was de-
termined after wet extraction and purification, which is
normally 30–35% [31]. Therefore, the laboratory starch
isolation efficiency, in wet extraction, does not normally
exceed ~75%. Although wet milling is used commonly in
laboratory starch isolation processes, the commercial ap-
plications of the procedure are very limited due to eco-
nomic and environmental limitations [35].
6 Proximate Composition
The yield of pure starch, protein content and ash content
of field pea starches range from 35–40%, 0.52–0.70%,
and 0.01–0.07%, respectively [31, 37–40]. The corre-
sponding values for wrinkled pea range from 18–22%,
0.34–0.46%, 0.01–0.02%, and 0.01–0.08%, respectively
[28, 37, 40–43]. Generally, legume starches are charac-
terized by a high amylose content (24–65%) [40]. Normal
pea (smooth pea) and wrinkled pea starches differ mainly
in their amylose/amylopectin ratios and by the presence
of an intermediate material of low molecular weight in the
latter. The amylose content of smooth pea, pea mutants
and wrinkled pea starches range from 33.1–49.6%,
8–72%, and 60.5–88%, respectively (Tab. 1). Colonna
and Mercier [23] reported the presence of a branched in-
termediate fraction of low molecular weight (Mn = 25,100)
in both smooth (0.4%) and wrinkled pea starches. The
widely varying amylose contents for smooth and wrinkled
pea starches might be due to different methods used for
amylose determination (see footnote in Tab. 1), cultivar
differences [44], and to the physiological state of the seed
[45]. Matters and Boyer [21] reported that smaller gran-
ules of smooth pea starch contained more amylose than
larger ones and the that the amylose of smaller granules
has a higher average molecular weight. The above
authors showed that the amylose content of pea starch
increased during the later stages of seed development.
Synthesis of smaller granules have been found to occur
only during the later stages of seed development [46].
This would then explain the reason for the higher amylose
content of smaller granules.
7 Granule Size and Microscopic
Appearance
The sizes and shapes of pea starch granules reported in
the literature are summarized in Tab. 2. The granule size
of normal pea (smooth pea) starch is variable and ranges
from 2–40 µm. Most of the granules are oval, although
spherical, round, elliptical and irregularly shaped granules
are also found. When observed under a scanning elec-
tron microscope, the surfaces of pea starch granules
appear smooth with no evidence of any fissures or com-
pound granules (Fig. 2). Bertoft et al. [46] reported the
220 Ratnayake et al. Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234

presence of cracked and compound granules in smooth granules with diameters ranging from 15–30 µm and
pea starch. They also observed two distinct populations in small granules with diameters ranging from 2–8 µm). Mu-
the size distribution of smooth pea starch granules (large tation at the r locus affects pea starch granule morpholo-
gy through the appearance of compound granules, while
Tab. 1. Amylose content of pea starches. a mutation at the rb locus has no effect [47]. Wrinkled pea
starch appears to be a mixture of simple and compound
Source* Amylose content [%]** granules, the latter being composed of 3–10 sub-units
Smooth pea1, 2, 3, 4, 5 33.1 – 48.8 fused together [42]. Large granules of wrinkled pea are
cracked and composed of 4–6 loosely associated pieces
Pisum sativum6 in a ring formation with a diameter ranging from 17–30 µm
Genotype: 32.7 [48]. The surfaces of the wrinkled pea starch granules are
RR RbRb 65.1 smooth with no evidence of any fissures or pinholes
Rr RbRb 23.0 (Fig. 2). The granules of smooth pea are generally larger
RR rbrb 49.0 in size compared to those of wrinkled peas [48, 49].
Rr rbrb

Genotype:7 8 Structure of Amylose and Amylopectin

RR RbRb 38
RR rbrb 31 The two major components of starch are amylose and
rr RbRb 72 amylopectin. Amylose, the minor component, consists
rr rbrb 55 mainly of α-(1→4) linked D-glucopyranosyl residues.
However, a slight degree of branching [9–20 α-(1→6)
Pea mutants8 branch points per molecule] has been reported in amy-
Wild type 30 lose from various starch sources. The side chains range
r 65 in length from 4 to over 100 [50, 51]. The extent of branch-
rb 23
ing has been shown to increase with the molecular size of
rug3 12
amylose [52]. Evidence of the occurrence of branching
rug4 33
rug5 43 points in amylose is its incomplete conversion into mal-
lam 8 tose by β-amylase. The extent of β-amylolysis varies from
73 to 95%, depending on the method of extraction and the
Wrinkled pea11, 12, 13, 14 60.5 – 88 source of amylose [50]. The molecular weight of amylose
* Names given by the corresponding author(s).
varies between 105–106 Da [50, 53]. The formation of he-
** In many instances, the amylose content of starches have been lical complex between amylose and iodine gives rise to
determined by colorimetric procedures without prior defatting the typical deep blue color of starch dispersions stained
and/or by not taking into account the iodine complexing ability with iodine and forms the basis for quantitative determi-
of the long external amylopectin chains. nation of amylose content [54, 55]. Amylose also forms a
1Barron et al. [148], 2Conde-Petit et al. [149], 3Biliaderis et al.

[80], 4Colonna and Mercier [24], 5Czuchajowska et al. [150],

V-helix complex with the hydrocarbon portion of mono-
6Bogracheva et al. [18], 7Lloyd et al. [47], 8Bogracheva et al. [67], glycerides and fatty acids [56].
9Vasanthan and Bhatty [146], 10Ratnayake et al. [31], 11Colonna

and Mercier [23], 12Biliaderis et al. [80], 13Praznik et al. [151], The physicochemical characteristics of pea amyloses are
14Vose [152].
summarized in Tab. 3. Smooth pea amylose generally
Tab. 2. Granular characteristics of pea starches.
Source* Granular shape and appearance Granule size
–
Smooth pea1–5 large granules are oval or spherical with internal fissures and Large: d = 22.9–30.4 µm
some large granules are compound 2–40 µm6
–
small granules are round or oval4 d = 5–20 µm
Wrinkled pea6–7 a mixture of simple and compound granules ~10–40 µm
(3–10 individual sub-units)6
granules are composed of 4–6 loosely associated pieces 17 – 30 µm
in a ring formation7.
1Ratnayake et al. [31], 2Barron et al. [148], 3Davydova et al. [39], 4Bertoft et al. [46], 5Gujska et al. [84], 6Colonna et al. [42], 7Bertoft et al.

[48].
* name given by the author(s).
–
d = mean diameter.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234 Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 221
A B shows a higher limiting viscosity number (h), average de-
gree of polymerization (DPn), number average molecular
weight (Mn) and degree of branching than amylose from
wrinkled pea. Amyloses from other legume starches have
not been well characterized and the reported values for
iodine affinity (IBC), β-amylolysis, DPn and η are in the
range 16–22, 79–86.9, 1000–1900 and 136–280, respec-
tively [40]. Therefore, it is difficult to make a meaningful
comparison of characteristics between pea amylose and
other legume amyloses.

Amylopectin is the major component of field pea starch

with a Mw (weight average molecular weight) of the order
107–109 Da [57]. Amylopectin is composed of linear
chains of (1→4)-α-D-glucose residues connected through
(1→6)-α-linkages (5–6%). The average size of the unit
chains of amylopectin is 20–25 [58]. Amylopectin mole-
cules have been shown to contain several distributions of
chains (A, B and C) which differ in their chain length [59,
60]. The A chains (unbranched) are linked to B chains and
do not carry any other chains. The B chains (B1–B4) car-
ry one or more A chains and/or B chains; and the C chain,
which contains the reducing end of the molecule. The
chain length of A and B1 chains and that of B2–B4 are
14–18 and 45–55, respectively. The molar ratio of short to
long chains is influenced by the starch source and varies
between 3:1 to 2:1 [58]. The branch points in the amy-
lopectin molecule are not randomly distributed [53]. They
are clustered and the adjacent linear segments form thin
crystalline lamellar domains have a width of 5–7 nm. The
three-dimensional structure of amylopectin is not yet
known. Most of the currently accepted models favor a
cluster type organization in which crystalline arrays of
double-stranded helices alternate with amorphous re-
gions of dense branching chains.

The β-amylolysis limit of amylopectin (55–60%) is less

Fig. 2. Scanning electron micrographs of native pea than that of amylose since the activity of β-amylase is
starch. (A) smooth pea [A1 = × 250, A2 = × 2000, A3 = × sterically hindered by the branch points in amylopectin
5000], (B) wrinkled pea [B1 = × 250, B2 = × 2000, B3 = × [59, 60]. Furthermore, iodine does not form a stable com-
5000]. (Ratnayake and Hoover – unpublished data). plex with amylopectin (due to short length of the unit

Tab. 3. Physicochemical characteristics of pea amylose.

Starch source IBC1 η [mL/g]2 DPn3 M 4n M 5w β-Amylolysis Branch points
[%] per molecule
Smooth pea 18.8–19.2 180–264 1300–1400 170000 N/A 81.6–86.9 3.2
Wrinkled pea 17.9–19.2 136–172 1000–1100 125000 1288000 79–85 2–3
1Iodinebinding capacity (mg of I2 bound per 100 mg of polysaccharide).
2Intrinsic
viscosity.
3Average degree of polymerization.
4Number average molecular weight.
5Weight average molecular weight.
6Ratnayake et al. [31]. 7Biliaderis et al. [37, 38, 86], Colonna et al. [34]; Colonna and Mercier [24].
8Banks and Greenwood [153], Biliaderis et al. [37, 38, 86], Colonna and Mercier [24], Praznik et al. [151].
222 Ratnayake et al. Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234

Tab. 4. Physicochemical characteristics of pea amylopectins.

Source Iodine affinitya Average branch Branch points Molecular DPwe β-Amylolysisa
CLb per moleculec weightd [%]
Smooth pea 1.28 22–24.2 – 80.6 x 106 – 96–97
Wrinkled pea 5.26 34 8.2 19.4 x 106 6195 98
CL = chain length. DPw= weight average degree of polymerization (of debranched amylopectin).
a Biliaderis et al. [38]. d Colonna and Mercier [24].
b Ratnayake et al. [31], Biliaderis et al. [38]. e Praznik et al. [152].
c Praznik et al. [152].

chains). This results in the formation of a purple color with
a λmax at 530 nm. Calorimetry studies have provided indi-
rect evidence for interaction between amylopectin and
lipids [61]. Several atypical types of amylopectin have
been reported [62, 63]: (1) high molecular weight amy-
lopectin with A and B chains 5–15 glucose residues
longer than normal, (2) amorphous amylopectin with sim-
ilarly extended A and B chains that elute from GPC
columns with amylose, and (3) normal amylopectin, which
contain very long chains (CL 85–180) with infrequent
branching. Amylopectins of types 1 and 2 (above) occur in
several legume starches [62], and a third type has been
reported in sweet potato starch [63].
The physicochemical properties and the distribution of the
chain lengths of amylopectin from smooth pea starch are
summarized in Tab. 4. Amylopectin from smooth pea
starch generally exhibits a higher intrinsic viscosity (η)
and a higher weight average molecular weight (Mw) than
amylopectin from wrinkled pea. α-Amylase hydrolysis of
smooth pea starch and its β-limit dextrin have shown that
amylopectin consists of clusters of defined sizes that are
regularly interconnected [64]. Amylopectin structure of
starches from pea mutants (r and rug5) has been shown
[65, 66] to differ from the wild type pea. The presence of
mutation at the r locus reduces the proportion of chains
with DP of about 22 and 45, whereas a mutation at the
rug5 locus increases the proportion of chains with DP 15.
In addition, starch from rug5 mutant contains a high pro-
portion of long chains (DP > 1000). These chains were
found to be absent in starch from the wild type [65–67].
Bogracheva et al. [67] reported that the amylopectin chain
distribution for the crystalline parts of starch from the r
and rug5 mutants differed from the wild type and from all
the other known starches.
Colonna and Mercier [23] reported the presence of a
branched intermediate fraction (Tab. 5) (18.9%) of low
molecular weight (Mn = 25 100) in wrinkled pea starch.
This branched intermediate contains the same short (S,
DP = 15) and long (L, DP = 45) linear chains as amy-
lopectin, but the S/L ratio was 3.6 in contrast with 9.6 for
wrinkled pea and 8.1 for smooth pea amylopectins. The
unit chain profile of the intermediate material has been
Tab. 5. Physicochemical characteristics of the intermedi-
ate fraction of wrinkled pea and smooth pea amy-
lopectins.
Source IBC1 η 2 [mL/g] β-Amylolysis
Wrinkled pea3 8.7–9.5 19 69–79
Smooth pea4 1.2 –5 –5
1 Iodine binding capacity (mg of I2 bound per 100 mg of poly-
saccharide).
2 Intrinsic viscosity.
3 The intermediate fraction constitutes 18.9% of the original
starch (Colonna and Mercier [24]).
4 The intermediate fraction constitute 0.4% of the original starch
(Colonna and Mercier [24]).
5 Not detected.
shown to be similar to that of wrinkled pea amylopectin
[68]. However, the fine structure of the clusters of the in-
termediate material is different and depends on the mo-
lecular size.
9 Crystallinity and Polymorphic
Composition of Pea Starches
X-ray diifractometry has been used to reveal the pres-
ence and characteristics of crystalline structures of starch
granules [69–72]. Most legume starches exhibit a ‘C’ type
[30, 34, 39, 67, 73] diffraction pattern, which is intermedi-
ate between the A type (cereal) and the B type (tuber).
Bogracheva et al. [74] and Buléon et al. [75] reported that
all granules from wild type pea starches contain both A
and B polymorphs and that the B polymorphs are
arranged centrally with the A polymorph located peripher-
ally within the granules. However, wrinkled pea starch has
been shown to exhibit a ‘B’ type X-ray pattern with peaks
that are both broad and weak [42].
The type of crystalline polymorph is determined mainly by
the chain length (CL) of amylopectin (A type CL < 19.7, B
type CL ≥ 21.6, and starches exhibiting CL between 20.3
and 21.3 exhibit A, B, or C type patterns) [76]. Other fac-
tors influencing polymorphism are growth temperature
[77] and presence of alcohols and fatty acids [78]. Pea
starches exhibit a weak peak at 5.6° 2θ (characteristic of
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234 Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 223

Tab. 6. Crystallinity and polymorphic composition of pea

starches.*
Source Crystallinity [%] B polymorph [%]
Smooth pea 18.9–36.5 12.0–49.0
Pea (mutants)1:
rrRbRb 16 73
RRrbrb 30 43
rrrbrb – 92
Pea (mutants)2:
Wild type 20 45
r3 19 73
rb 27 43
rug3 17 37
rug4 23 39
rug5 20 52
lam 22 69
1 Starches from four lines that are near isogenic except for
genes at r and rb loci.
2 Mutants those are near isogenic to the wild type except for

genes at the r, rb, rug3, rug4, rug5 and lam loci. rb, rug3 and
rug4 encodes enzymes which affect the supply of substrate
during starch biosynthesis, whereas lam, rug5 and r encode
enzymes which directly affect the starch biosynthesis pathway.
* Adapted from Ratnayake et al. [31], Bogracheva et al. [19], and
Bogracheva et al. [67].
3 No ’A’ polymorphs were detected in starch from this mutant.

polymorphs [67] (Fig. 3). The proportion for B polymorph

Fig. 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of starches from different
pea mutants. (a) wild-type, (b) rug4, (c) rb, (d) rug3, (e)
lam, (f) r, and (g) rug5 [67 – with permission from Elsevier
Science].
B type polymorphs) [74], strong peaks at 17.9° 2θ (char-
acteristic of A type polymorphs) and 17.0° 2θ (character-
istic of both A and B type polymorphs) [74]. The position
(2θ angle) of the small peak, which is characteristic of
the ‘B’ polymorph could lie anywhere between 5 and 6°
gonimeter angle and different authors have reported
different 2θ angle locations for this specific peak (5.4°
[73], 5.45° [31], 5.5° [42, 75], 5.6° [74], 5.75° [39], or 5.8°
[79]). It seems that the exact position of the “B-peak” in
the diffractogram depends on the instrumental settings
and the experimental conditions. Large differences have
been observed in the X-ray intensity of the “B-peak” (2θ
5–6o) for different cultivars of smooth pea starches [39],
suggesting the presence of different proportions of B type
polymorphs in these starches. Studies on wild type and
mutant pea starches has shown that the peaks number 7
and 10 are characteristic only of the A polymorph, where-
as peaks number 1, 4 and 9 are characteristic only for B
ranges from 12 to 49% among normal pea starches,
whereas the corresponding range for mutant peas is
37–92% (Tab. 6).
The degree of crystallinity in smooth pea starches is in the
range 18.9–36.5% (Tab. 6), whereas in mutant peas, the
corresponding range is 16–30%. The degree of crys-
tallinity of wrinkled pea starch has not been reported.
However, the intensities of the peaks (B type pattern) are
very low, suggesting a low degree of crystallinity [43].
Colonna et al. [42] attributed the weak X-ray pattern either
to an inherently low degree of order or to excessively
small crystallites. In contrast to smooth pea starches,
wrinkled pea starch granules do not exhibit a Maltese
cross under polarized light, demonstrating that the crys-
tallites in the granules are not organized in spherulites
[34]. Colonna et al. [34] reported that wrinkled pea starch
shows a lower extent of amylose leaching, a weaker B
type X-ray pattern, a higher crystalline/amorphous phase
ratio and a lower extent of lintnerization (between the 10th
and 42nd day) than potato starch. This led the authors to
postulate that the amylose contribution to crystallinity is
higher in wrinkled pea than in potato starch. Furthermore,
similarities in the elution patterns (on Sephacryl 2000) of
37 and 43% lintnerized wrinkled pea starch indicated that
the crystalline phase is homogenous in wrinkled pea
starch. Biliaderis et al. [38] have suggested that the amy-
224 Ratnayake et al. Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234

lose in wrinkled pea starch could contribute to granule

crystallinity in the retrograded form. The specific granule
structure caused by this crystallinity is believed to be the
reason for the high gelatinization transition temperatures,
high resistance to acid hydrolysis and low swelling power
of wrinkled pea starch [80]. Bertoft et al. [48] reported that
crystallites of wrinkled pea starch are made up of small
chain segments of 50–300 D-glucosyl residues of amy-
lose. They also postulated that the low degree of crys-
tallinity of wrinkled pea starch might be due either to a low
degree of crystalline order or to excessively small crystal-
lites.

10 Physicochemical Properties
10.1 Swelling power and solubility
When starch is heated in excess water, the crystalline
structure is disrupted (due to breakage of hydrogen
bonds) and water molecules form hydrogen bonds to the
exposed hydroxyl groups of amylose and amylopectin.
This causes an increase in granule swelling and solubility.
Swelling power and solubility provide evidence of the
magnitude of interaction between starch chains within the
amorphous and crystalline domains. The extent of this in-
teraction is influenced by the amylose/amylopectin ratio,
and by the characteristics of amylose and amylopectin in
terms of molecular weight distribution, degree of branch-
Fig. 4. Swelling patterns of pea starches (▲ – smooth
ing, length of branches and conformation of the mo- pea, ■ – wrinkled pea, ● – normal maize, ▼ – amylo-
lecules. Amylose-lipid complexes have been shown to re- maize) [25 – with permission from Pergamon Press].
strict swelling and solubilization [56].
teraction between closely packed amylose chains and/or
Legume starches exhibit a wide variation in swelling pow-
to higher content of amylose-lipid complexes [43].
er (SP) and solubility. At 90 °C, the SP and solubility are in
the range 11–26 and 8–25%, respectively, and in addition,
they exhibit rapid increases in SP and solubility within 10.2 Gelatinization
certain temperature ranges (60–90 °C) [40]. Hoover and
Sosulski [30] postulated that this might be due to melting Starch, when heated in the presence of excess water, un-
of the crystallites, which may involve a solvation-assisted dergoes an order to disorder phase transition called gela-
helix to coil transition of their chains. This in turn would re- tinization over a temperature range characteristic of the
sult in a gain in enthalpy that would off-set the hydrogen starch source. This phase transition is associated with the
bonding occurring in the crystalline regions leading to in- diffusion of water into the granule, water uptake by the
creased swelling and solubility. The swelling and solubili- amorphous background region, hydration and radial
ty patterns of smooth and wrinkled pea starches are pre- swelling of the starch granules, loss of optical birefrin-
sented in Figs. 4 and 5. The swelling and solubility pro- gence, uptake of heat, loss of crystalline order, uncoiling
files of pea starch are similar to those reported for other and dissociation of double helices (in the crystalline re-
legume starches. The swelling factor of smooth pea gions) and amylose leaching [56, 85–88]. Jenkins [88]
starches ranges from 4 to 27 in the temperature range showed, by means of small angle neutron scattering stud-
50–95 °C [31, 81]. These values are significantly lower ies, that the mechanisms proposed by Evans and Hais-
than those reported for beach pea, mung bean, and lentil mann [87], Blanshard [89] and by Biliaderis et al. [90]
starches [31, 82, 83]; but higher than that of pinto bean were not compatible with his results, but were in agree-
[43]. Gujska et al. [84] reported that the swelling power ment with the gelatinization mechanisms proposed by
and solubility of smooth pea starch were higher than Donovan [85]. According to Jenkins [88], gelatinization in
those of pinto and navy beans. The lower swelling power excess water is primarily a swelling driven process. This
of wrinkled pea starch could be attributed to extensive in- swelling acts to destabilize the amylopectin crystallites
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
Fig. 5. Swelling-solubility curves of smooth pea starch
(1.4% w/w) at heating rate 1.5 °C/ min. Samples were
held at constant temperatures for 30 min. [39 – with per-
mission from Elsevier Science].
within the crystalline lamellae, which are ripped apart
(smaller crystallites are destroyed first) during the
process. This process occurs rapidly for an individual
crystallite, but over a wide range for the whole granule.
The same mechanism occurs in conditions of limiting wa-
ter, however, under these conditions, there is insufficient
water for gelatinization to proceed to completion. At high-
er temperatures, the remaining crystallites simply melt.
Kofler hot stage microscope [91] and differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC) have been widely used to study the
gelatinization parameters of legume starches. Kofler hot
stage microscopy is limited by the subjective nature of the
observations (loss of birefringence) and only temperature
measurements are obtained. Differential scanning
calorimetry measures the gelatinization transition temper-
atures: onset (To), mid-point (Tp), conclusion (Tc) and the
enthalpy (∆H) of gelatinization (Fig. 6). Noda et al. [92]
have postulated that the DSC parameters are influenced
by the molecular architecture of the crystalline region,
which corresponds to the distribution of amylopectin short
chains (DP 6–11) and not by the proportion of crystalline
region, which corresponds to the amylose/amylopectin
ratio. The above authors showed that a low To, Tp, Tc and
∆H reflect the presence of abundant short amylopectin
chains. The enthalpic transition has been shown to be
due primarily to the loss of double helical order rather
than the loss of crystallinity [93]. However, Tester and
Morrison [94] postulated that ∆H reflects the overall crys-
tallinity (quality and amount of crystallites) of amylopectin.
Gernat et al. [95] stated that the amount of double helical
order in native starches should be strongly correlated to
the amylopectin content and granule crystallinity increas-
Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 225
Fig. 6. Bimodal DSC thermogram (RRRbRb) of pea
starch (1.3% volume fraction in 6 M KCl). To = onset tem-
perature, TIP and TIIP = peak temperatures of peak I and
II, respectively, and TC = conclusion temperature. Shaded
area under the curve corresponds to the transition en-
thalpy [19 – with permission from Oxford University
Press].
es with amylopectin content. This suggests that ∆H val-
ues should preferably be calculated on an amylopectin
basis.
Tester [96] postulated that the extent of crystalline perfec-
tion is reflected in the gelatinization temperature. The
gelatinization and swelling properties are controlled in
part by the molecular structure of amylopectin (unit chain
length, extent of branching, molecular weight, and poly-
dispersity), starch composition (amylose/amylopectin ra-
tio, lipid complexed amylose chains, and phosphorus
content), and granule architecture (crystalline/amorphous
ratio) [96]. Some of the reported gelatinization parame-
ters of starches of smooth pea, wrinkled pea and pea mu-
tants are summarized in Tab. 7. During pea starch gela-
tinization, disruption of crystallites begins from the hilum
area. It then spreads quickly through the central part of
the granule where the B polymorphs are arranged. This
causes the central part of the granule to swell. However,
the crystallites of the A polymorphs, which are situated in
the outer part of the granule are not disrupted at this
stage, but are disrupted only at a higher temperature [74].
Smooth pea starches with a higher content of the B-poly-
morph have been shown [39] to exhibit a higher ∆H. This
was attributed to difference in packing energy between A
and B polymorphs (B > A). However, smooth pea starch,
with a higher content of A polymorphs, exhibits higher
gelatinization temperatures. Starches from wild type pea
and mutants (rb, rug3, rug4 and lam) exhibit a narrow
226 Ratnayake et al. Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234

Tab. 7. Gelatinization parameters of pea starches.

Source** Transition temperatures [°C] Enthalpy (∆H) [J/g]
To Tp Tc
Smooth pea1,3 55–61.4 60–67.5 75–80 14.1–22.6
Commercial native pea starch4 58.2 65.6 80.8 8.9
Pea mutants5
Wild type * 61.8 * 10.8
r * 52.5–60.0 * 2.4
rb * 66.1 * 12.6
rug3 * 70.0 * 7.5
rug4 * 65.4 * 9.8
rug5 * 49.0–57.0 * 5.1
lam * 58.6 * 6.8
Wrinkled pea genotypes6
RRRbRb * 60.95a * 16.7
61.85b
RRrbrb * 65.05a * 57.3
66.25b
rrrbrb * 76.15a * 3.8
–b
Wrinkled pea7 117 133 138 2.9
1Ratnayake et al. [31], 2Biliaderis et al. [86], 3Davydova et al. [39], 4Yook et al. [154], 5Bogracheva et al. [67], 6Bogracheva et al. [19],
7Colonna et al. [42].
* not available.
** name give by the author(s).
a peak I.
b peak II.

cooperative peak on gelatinization [97]. The peak temper-
ature (Tp) and the enthalpy of gelatinization of these
starches range from 58.6–70 °C and 6.8–12.6 J/g, re-
spectively. However, pea starch mutants from the r and
rug5 lines show a very small wide peak or no peak during
gelatinization. The Tp and ∆H of these starches range
from 49–60 °C, and 2.4–5.1 J/g, respectively (Tab. 7). The
differences between the mutant groups probably reflect
differences in amylopectin structure.
10.3 Retrogradation
Starch granules when heated in excess water above their
gelatinization temperature, undergo irreversible swelling,
resulting in amylose leaching into the solution. In the
presence of sufficient starch concentration, this suspen-
sion will form an elastic gel on cooling. The molecular in-
teractions (mainly hydrogen bonding between starch
chains) that occur after cooling are called retrogradation.
These interactions are found to be time and temperature
dependent.
Starch gels are metastable and non-equilibrium systems.
Therefore, they undergo structural changes during stor-
age [98]. Miles et al. [99] and Ring et al. [100] attributed
the initial gel firmness during retrogradation to the forma-
tion of an amylose matrix gel and the subsequent slow in-
crease in gel firmness to reversible crystallization of amy-
lopectin. During retrogradation, amylose forms double-
helical associations of 40–70 glucose units [101, 102],
whereas amylopectin crystallization occurs by associa-
tion of the outermost short branches (DP = 15) [100]. The
retrograded starch, which shows a B-type X-ray diffrac-
tion pattern [103], contains both crystalline and amor-
phous regions. The extent of retrogradation of smooth
pea starch (monitored by changes in amylopectin crystal-
lization during storage at 6 °C for 4 days) in comparison to
cereal and tuber starches is presented in Tab. 8. It has
been revealed that the extent of retrogradation (moni-
tored by changes in enthalpy of retrogradation) of smooth
pea starch is in between that of potato and cereal starch-
es (potato > cereal) [104]. This difference in retrograda-
tion among the starches was attributed to differences in
average amylopectin chain length [104]. DSC studies on
four smooth pea cultivars have also shown that recrystal-
lization of amylopectin is influenced by its structure [31].
X-ray diffraction and shear modulus studies [105] on dif-
ferent starch sources showed that the initial rates of de-
velopment and stiffness of gels followed the order:
smooth pea > maize > wheat > potato, while the long term
increase followed the order: smooth pea > potato > maize
> wheat. The latter process was found to be more impor-
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234 Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 227

Tab. 8. Gelatinization (∆Hgel.) and retrogradation enthal- amylase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens [46]. This is at-
pies of the starch after storage for 2 (∆H2) and 4 days tributed to the higher apparent amylose content in small-
(∆H4) at 6 °C (J per g amylopectin). er granules. Scanning electron micrographs show no evi-
Starch source ∆Hgel. ∆H2 ∆H4 dence of enzyme hydrolysis on many of the smaller pea
starch granules (solubilized up to 3%), whereas some
Pea 20.8 12.5 12.5 small granules and large granules are extensively de-
Wheat 17.5 8.1 9.8 graded and surface erosion is restricted to a few granules
Rye 15.8 7.3 8.7 [46].
Barley
Normal-amylose 15.6 10.3 10.6 Wrinkled pea starch granules are more susceptible to
Waxy 15.7 10.6 11.1 attack by α-amylase than granules of smooth pea starch
High-amylose 16.1 12.5 13.1 [48]. Scanning electron micrographs have revealed that
Waxy maize 17.6 12.3 13.0 several of the larger granules (17% solubilized) were
fragmented, but some were intact. Small granules and
Potato
Normal-amylose granule fragments that had been solubilized (20%) show
(Desiree) 22.1 13.3 12.9 no evidence of enzyme attack. Analysis of dextrins
Normal-amylose (Sephadex G-50) solubilized at different stages of hydrol-
(Prevalent) 23.9 13.6 14.4 ysis has shown that the rate of solubilization of wrinkled
High-amylopectin 19.7 13.6 13.5 pea starch proceeds through specific parts of the granule
Fredriksson et al. [104] (with permission from Elsevier Science). where the starch is found in layers representing specific
physical states [48]. The above authors postulated that
the initial attack was on non-crystalline amylose (which
tant at high starch concentration. Data from X-ray and results in the formation of large dextrins). At later stages,
shear modulus investigations [105] measure recrystalliza- shorter amylose chain stubs protruding from more crys-
tion of both amylose (influenced by content, chain length talline parts, or retrograded amylose are attacked by
and amount of lipid complexed amylose chains) and amy- α-amylase. The final stage represents the complete dis-
lopectin (influenced by average chain length, proportion appearance of the chain stubs.
of short chains and degree of branching), whereas DSC
[104] measures only amylopectin recrystallization. This
would then explain the observed difference in the order of 10.5 Acid hydrolysis
retrogradation among cereal, tuber and legume starches Starches from all sources exhibit a two-stage solubiliza-
[104, 105]. tion [31, 80, 112] pattern when subjected to acid hydroly-
sis (2.2 M HCl at 35 °C). A relatively fast hydrolysis (cor-
10.4 Enzymatic hydrolysis responding mainly to the degradation of the amorphous
region) during the first 5–8 days is followed by a slow rate,
Digestibility of native starches among and within species corresponding mainly to the degradation of the crystalline
have been attributed to the interplay of many factors such region (Fig. 7). Smooth pea [31, 43] and wrinkled pea [42,
as starch source [106], granule size [107], amylose/amy- 43] starches are hydrolyzed to an extent of 37–44% and
lopectin ratio, extent of molecular association between 30%, respectively, by 2.2 M HCl in 15 days. The above
starch components [30], degree of crystallinity [106, 108], differences in hydrolysis suggest that starch chains within
amylose chain length [109], presence of amylose-lipid the amorphous and crystalline domains of wrinkled pea
complexes [110] and the amount of B polymorphs in C starch are more closely associated than in field pea starch.
type starches [31]. Native legume starches are more di-
gestible than potato or high amylose maize starch, but
10.6 Rheology
less digestible than cereal starches [30, 106, 108]. Al-
though there are many reports on the enzymatic hydroly- The Brabender Viscoamylograph and rotational viscome-
sis of legume starches [40, 46, 48, 105, 111] there is a ters are used to examine the rheological properties of
dearth of information on the in-vitro digestibility of pea starches. Compared with cereal starches, information on
starches. It is difficult to compare the reported data on the rheological behavior of pea starches under well-de-
smooth pea starches, mainly due to differences in en- fined flow regimes is limited. Our understanding of the
zyme concentration and time of hydrolysis. Smooth pea rheology of pea starches originates mainly from studies
starch was hydrolyzed by porcine pancreatic α-amylase using the Brabender Viscoamylograph (BVA), in which
to the extent of 67 and 71.4% in 24 h [106] and 5 h [111], measurements are made under non-laminar flow condi-
respectively. In smooth pea starch, smaller granules are tions, and in addition, the starch paste is subjected to both
more resistant than larger granules to hydrolysis by α- thermal and mechanical treatment, thus making it difficult
228 Ratnayake et al.
Fig. 7. Acid hydrolysis pattern of native smooth pea
starch by 2.2 M HCl (adapted from [31]).
to relate viscous behavior to only one of these parame-
ters. There is thus a need to extend the use of rheometers
(in which thermal treatments are separated from shear ef-
fects) to investigate the rheology of gelatinized pea starch
suspensions under well defined flow regimes and to com-
pare these results with those obtained from BVA.
The pasting properties of pea starches are significantly in-
fluenced by genetic effects (depending on the variety or
cultivar) [31, 39]. In the BVA, field pea starch shows the
absence of peak viscosity, increasing viscosity during the
holding period (at 95 °C) and a high setback (Fig. 8). The
pasting curve of native pea starch is typical of those of
other legume starches [40]. The pasting behavior of field
pea starch could be explained based on the molecular
characteristics of the starch components. Ratnayake et
al. [31] reported that the gel-forming tendency of pea
starches (during cooling cycle) is greatly influenced by the
chain length of amylose and the proportion of DP 6–12
chains of amylopectin. A smaller amylose chain length
and a lower proportion of DP 6–12 branch chains of amy-
lopectin would lead to a low setback and a low viscosity at
the end of the cooling cycle [31].
10.7 Modified pea starches
10.7.1 Chemical modification
10.7.1.1 Cross-linking
Cross-linked starches are widely used in the food industry
mainly as thickeners where a high and stable viscosity is
needed. Food grade starches have been cross-linked us-
ing phosphorus oxychloride, sodium trimetaphosphate,
sodium tripolyphosphate, epichlorohydrin, a mixture of
adipic and acetic anhydrides and a mixture of succinic an-
hydride and vinyl acetate. Cross-linking reinforces the hy-
drogen bonds in the granule with covalent bonds (ether
linkages, phosphodiester linkages, and organic ester link-
ages). The degree of susceptibility of starch towards pH
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
Fig. 8. Pasting characteristics of different starches (mea-
sured by Brabender Viscoamylograph). (1) normal corn
(7.5%), (2) high-amylose corn (10%), (3) smooth pea
(7.5%), and (4) wrinkled pea (10%) [25 – with permission
from Pergamon Press].
variations and shear is influenced by the type of cross-
link. The cross-linked starches that are used in the food
industry contain about 1 cross-link per 100 to 3000 anhy-
droglucose units. Most of the studies on starch cross-link-
ing have been carried out on corn [113–117], wheat
[117–119], rice [120], and tapioca starches [121]. The in-
formation available on cross-linked pea starches is insuf-
ficient to conclude their potential commercial usefulness
in the industry. Hoover and Sosulski [124] reported that
cross-linking of smooth pea starch with phosphorus oxy-
chloride decreased peak viscosity but increased the de-
gree of positive setback in pasting studies. At low levels of
cross-linking, the viscosity of cross-linked field pea starch
was more uniformly high during the heating and cooling
cycles.
10.7.1.2 Cationization
Cationized starches are used as wet end additives in the
paper manufacture to improve paper strength and to de-
crease the biological oxygen demand of paper mill efflu-
ents; increase size retention and speed paper production,
as well as increase filler pigment or dye retention [123,
124]. Cationic starches are produced mainly from maize,
waxy maize, potato and wheat with varying degrees of
substitution and by a variety of cationizing reagents con-
taining the imino, amino, phosphonium, ammonium and
sulfonium groups. Cationic starches made from potato
starch are superior in certain paper applications because
the combination of natural phosphate groups with the de-
rivatized cationic groups contributes amphoteric proper-
ties to the starch [125, 126].
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
Cationization (DS 0.02) of pea starch with 3-chloro-2-hy-
dropropyltrimethylammonium chloride reduces pasting
and gelatinization temperatures, increases peak viscosity
and setback on cooling [125]. Cationization was found to
promote rapid granule dispersion at low pasting tempera-
tures [125], yielding a molecular dispersion of amylose
and amylopectin on heating to 95 °C. On cooling, the gel
structure was formed and no syneresis occurred upon
storage for 7days at 4 °C and –15 °C [125]. Cationic pea
starch improves paper strength more than cationic or am-
photeric corn starch [125].
10.7.1.3 Hydroxypropylation
A major factor, which has an adverse effect on wide-
spread utilization of pea starches in the food industry, is
their high amylose content. The association between long
amylose chains and between the outer branches of amy-
lopectin in cooked starch pastes leads to extensive ret-
rogradation that results in cloudiness and syneresis, es-
pecially when pea starch gels are subjected to repeated
freeze-thaw cycles. The degree of syneresis seen in na-
tive pea starch gels would be unacceptable in most food
products. Retrogradation in field pea starch has been pre-
vented by introduction of hydroxypropyl ester groups
[127]. Pea starch derivatized in this manner had a higher
paste viscosity, paste clarity and a marked reduction in
the extent of syneresis when compared to its unmodified
counterpart [127].
10.7.2 Physical modifications
10.7.2.1 Annealing
Annealing is a process whereby a material is held at a
temperature somewhat lower than its melting tempera-
ture, which permits molecular reorganization to occur and
a more organized structure of lower free energy to form.
The physical aim of annealing is to approach the glass
transition temperature, which enhances molecular mobili-
ty without triggering gelatinization [89]. Hoover and
Manuel [43] reported that annealing (75% moisture, 55 °C,
24 h) of wrinkled pea (85% amylose) [43] and smooth
pea starches (43% amylose) [43], decreased granular
swelling, amylose leaching (wrinkled pea > field pea), and
the gelatinization temperature range. However, gela-
tinization transition temperatures, enthalpy (data avail-
able only for smooth pea), and susceptibility towards
α-amylase (smooth pea > wrinkled pea) increased on an-
nealing, whereas changes to crystallinity were only mar-
ginal. These changes were attributed to increased inter-
action among starch chains and to starch chain realign-
ment during annealing [43].
Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 229
10.7.2.2 Heat-moisture treatment (HMT)
Heat-moisture treatment of starches at restricted mois-
ture levels (18–30%) and high temperature (100 °C) for
16 h has been shown to alter the structure and physico-
chemical properties of cereal, legume and tuber starches
[81, 128–136]. Tuber starches are more susceptible to
HMT than cereal and legume starches [81, 131, 134].
Hoover and Manuel [81] reported that HMT (100 °C, 16 h,
30% moisture) of wrinkled pea and smooth pea starches
decreased amylose leaching (wrinkled pea > smooth
pea) and granular swelling (smooth pea > wrinkled pea).
X-ray diffraction intensities increased in wrinkled pea, but
decreased in smooth pea starch. Both degree of acid
hydrolysis and susceptibility towards α-amylase in-
creased (smooth pea > wrinkled pea) on HMT [81]. The
above authors postulated that an interplay of factors such
as: (1) amylose content, (2) lipid-amylose complexes, (3)
arrangement of amylose chains within the amorphous do-
mains and (4) interactions between amylose-amylose
and amylose-amylopectin chains influence the observed
changes in physicochemical properties of wrinkled pea
and field pea starches. It is also likely that HMT could in-
fluence the rheological characteristics and retrogradation
properties of pea starches.
10.7.3 Resistant pea starch
Starch plays an important role in the human diet. Not all
starch in the diet is digested and absorbed in the small
intestine [137, 138]. Englyst et al. [139–141] introduced
the term “resistant starch (RS)” for the starch residue left
after hydrolyzing starch first with 2 M sulfuric acid and
then by incubating the residue with α-amylase and pullu-
lanase. Resistant starch can be classified as: (a) RS1 –
physically inaccessible starch which is entrapped within
whole or partly milled grains or seeds, (b) RS2 – crys-
talline regions (mainly B type) of native starch granules
and retrograded amylopectin, and (c) RS3 – retrograded
amylose [138, 140]. The physiological effects of starch
depend on the rate and extent of starch digestion in the
small intestine [138]. It has been reported that the amy-
lose content in starch has an effect on the extent of starch
digestion in the small intestine. Increased amylose levels
appear to lower the rate of glucose delivery to blood, pro-
moting a lower glycemic index. Long-term consumption of
high amylose starch positively affect and reduce glucose
and insulin responses to lower triglyceride concentra-
tions, compared to high-amylopectin starches in healthy
and hyperinsulinemic humans [142]. Wursh [143] report-
ed that native starch from pea was more slowly digested
than starches from other sources such as beans and
lentils. This was attributed to differences in starch granu-
lar swelling (pea > beanslentils). Compared to rice starch
(100 – in arbitrary units), the rates of digestion of yellow
230 Ratnayake et al.
pea (32) and green pea (52) starch are very slow [143].
This might be an important nutritional characteristic,
which may enable the use of pea starches in dietetic
foods. Thermal processing (normal cooking) significantly
increases the rapidly digestible starch (RDS) and de-
creases the resistant starch (RS) fractions in native pea
starch [144]. It has been reported that heat-moisture
treatment positively influences resistant starch formation
in retrograded pea starch. The portion of RS (in dried ret-
rograded pea starch gels), which does not contribute to
increase in blood glucose (RS3) [145], is increased with
HMT temperature and number of cycles [146]. Skrabanja
et al. [147] reported that, during processing and storage,
pea starch is very susceptible to retrogradation and thus
becomes rich in RS3, which is naturally indigestible.
11 Directions for Future Research
Structure-property relationships for native smooth pea
and wrinkled pea starches have been well established.
However, the influence of structural modification (by an-
nealing heat-moisture treatment and gene manipulation)
on the physicochemical properties of pea starches needs
further study, in order to increase their utilization in the
food industry.
References
[1] R. N. Adsule, K. M. Lawande, S. S. Kadam: Pea, in Hand-
book of World Food Legumes: Nutritional Chemistry, Pro-
cessing Technology and Utilization, Vol. III. (Eds. D. K.
Salunkhe, S. S. Kadam) CRC Press, Florida, 1989, pp.
215–251.
[2] D. Zoharay, M. Hopf: Domestication of the Plants in the Old
World. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988.
[3] D. R. Davies: The pea crop, in: Peas, genetics, molecular
biology and biotechnology. (Eds. R. Casey, D. R. Davies).
CAB International, Oxon, 1993, pp. 1–12.
[4] A. Zadorin, A. Isaev: Pea cultivation in Russia. Grain
Legumes. 1999, 25, 26–27.
[5] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-
tions) FAOSTAT statistics database – Agriculture, Rome,
Italy, 2000. URL: http://apps.fao.org/cgi-bin/nph-db.pl?sub-
set=agriculture
[6] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Dry peas: situation and
outlook. Bi-wekly Bulletin, 13 (2000) URL: http://www.agr.ca/
policy/winn/biweekly/English/biweekly/volume13/v13n07e
.htm.
[7] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Canada: special crops
situation and outlook, Manitoba, Canada (1998) URL:
http://www.agr.ca/policy/winn/biweekly/English/scsd/1998
[8] F. J. Muehlbauer, A. Tullu: Newcrop fact sheet. Pisum
sativum L. 1997. URL: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/new-
crop/cropfactsheets/pea.html
[9] E. Kooistra: On the differences between smooth and three
types of wrinkled peas. Euphytica 1962, 11, 357–373.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
[10] J. Borowska, R. Zadernowski, J. Borowski, W. K. Swiecicki:
Intervarietal differentiation of pea (Pisum sativum L. Subsp.
sativum) seeds – their chemical composition and physical
properties. Plant Breed. Seed Sci. 1998, 42, 75–85.
[11] B. Bhattacharyya, B. M. Johri: Flowering Plants: Taxonomy
and Phylogeny, Springer-Verlag/Narosa Publishing House,
Berlin, 1998.
[12] B. F. Bland: Crop Production: Cereals and Legumes, Acad-
emic Press, London, 1971.
[13] O. N. Allen, E. K. Allen: The Leguminosae: A Source Book
of Characteristics, Uses, and Nodulation, The University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1981.
[14] T. L. Wang, C. L. Hedley: Seed development in peas: Know-
ing your three “r“s or four, or five. Seed Sci. Res. 1991, 1,
3–14.
[15] T. L. Wang, C. L. Hedley: Genetic and developmental analy-
sis of the seed, in Peas: Genetics, Molecular Biology and
Biotechnology. (Eds. R. Casey, D. R. Davies) CAB Interna-
tional, Wallingford, 1993, pp. 83–120.
[16] M. K. Bhattacharyya, A. M. Smith, Y. H. N. Ellis, C. Hedley,
C. Martin: The wrinkled seed character of peas described
by Mendel is caused by a transposon-like insertion in a
gene encoding starch branching enzyme. Cell 1990, 60,
115–122.
[17] C. L. Hedley, T. Y. Bogracheva, J. R. Lloyd, T. L. Wang: Ma-
nipulation of starch composition and quality in pea seeds, in
Agri-Food Quality: An Iinterdisciplinary Approach (Eds. G.
R. Fenwick, C. Hedley, R. L. Richards, S. Khokar). Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 138–148.
[18] T. Y. Bogracheva, N. I. Davydova, Y. V. Genin, C. L. Hedley:
Mutant genes at the r and rb loci affect the structure and
physicochemical properties of pea seed starches. J Exp.
Bot. 1995, 46, 1905–1913.
[19] C. L. Hedley, C. M. Smith, M. J. Ambrose, S. K. Cook, T. L.
Wang: An analysis of seed development in Pisum sativum
II. The effect of the r locus on growth and development of
the seed. Ann. Bot. 1986, 58, 371–379.
[20] C. L. Hedley, J. R. Lioyd, M. J. Ambrose, T. L. Wang: An
analysis of seed development in Pisum sativum. XVII. The
effect of the rb locus alone and in combination with r on the
growth and development of the seed. Ann. Bot. 1994, 74,
365–368.
[21] G. L. Matters, C. D. Boyer: Soluble starch synthases and
starch branching enzymes from cotyledons of smooth- and
wrinkled-seeded lines of Pisum sativum L. Biochem. Genet.
1982, 20, 833–843.
[22] J. J. Edwards, H. Green, T. A. Rees: Activity of branching
enzymes as a cardinal feature of the Ra locus in Pisum
sativum. Phytochemistry. 1988, 27, 1615–1620.
[23] P. Colonna, C. Mercier: Macromolecular structure of wrin-
kled- and smooth- pea starch components. Carbohydr.
Res. 1984, 126, 233–247.
[24] P. Colonna, C. Mercier: Gelatinization and melting of maize
and pea starches with normal and high-amylose genotypes.
Phytochemistry 1985, 24, 1667–1674.
[25] A. M. Smith: Major differences in isoforms of starch branch-
ing enzymes between developing embryos to round and
wrinkled seeded peas (pisum sativum L). Planta 1988, 175,
270–279.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
[26] N. M. Sivak, J. Preiss: Branching enzymes, in Advances in
Food and Nutrition, Academic Press, New York, 1998, V41,
pp. 89–106
[27] T. L. Wang, A. Hadavizideh, A. Harvood, T. J. Welham,
W. A. Harwood, R. Faulks, C. L. Hedley: An analysis of seed
development in Pisum sativum. XIII. Chemical induction of
storage product mutants. Plant Breed. 1990, 105, 311–320.
[28] T. J. Schoch, E. C. Maywald: Preparation and properties of
various legume starches. Cereal Chem. 1968, 45, 564–
566.
[29] R. D. Reichert, C. G. Youngs: Nature of the residual protein
associated with starch fractions from air-classified field pea
starches. Cereal Chem. 1978, 55, 469–480.
[30] R. Hoover, F. Sosulski: Studies on the functional character-
istics and digestibility of starches from Phaseolus vulgaris
biotypes. Starch/Stärke 1985, 37, 181–191.
[31] W. S. Ratnayake, R. Hoover, F. Shahidi, C. Perera, J. Jane:
Composition, structure and physicochemical properties of
starches from four field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars.
Food Chem. 2001, 71, 189–202
[32] R. T. Tyler, C. G. Youngs, F. W. Sosulski: Air classification of
legumes. I. Separation efficiency, yield and composition of
the starch and protein fractions. Cereal Chem. 1981, 58,
144–148.
[33] F. W. Comer, M. K. Fry: Purification, modification and prop-
erties of air-classified pea starch. Cereal Chem. 1978, 55,
818–829.
[34] P. Colonna, A. Buléon, C. Mercier: Pisum sativum and Vicia
faba carbohydrates: Structural studies of starches. J. Food
Sci. 1981, 46, 88–93.
[35] F. Meuser, N. Pahne, M. Möller: Extraction of high amylose
starch from wrinkled peas. Starch/Stärke 1995, 47, 56–61.
[36] E. Gujska, Z. Czarnecki, K. Khan: High temperature extru-
sion of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and field pea
(Pisum sativum) flours. Pol. J. Food Nutri. Sci.1996, 5/46,
51–60.
[37] C. G. Biliaderis, D. R. Grant, J. R. Vose: Molecular weight
distribution of legume starches by gel chromatography. Ce-
real Chem. 1979, 56, 475–480.
[38] C. G. Biliaderis, D. R. Grant, J. R. Vose: Structural charac-
terization of legume starches. I. Studies on amylose, amy-
lopectin, and Beta-limit dextrin. Cereal Chem. 1981a, 58,
496–502.
[39] N. I. Davydova, S. P. Leont’ev, Y. V. Genin, A. Y. Sasov, T. Y.
Bogracheva: Some physico-chemical properties of smooth
pea starches. Carbohydr. Polym. 1995, 27, 109–115.
[40] R. Hoover, F. W. Sosulski: Composition, structure, function-
ality and chemical modification of legume starches. Can. J.
Physiol. Pharm. 1991, 69, 79–92.
[41] P. Colonna, C. Gallant, C. Mercier: Pisum sativum and Vicia
faba carbohydrates: studies of fractions obtained after dry
and wet protein extraction processes. J. Food Sci. 1980,
45, 1629–1636.
[42] P. Colonna, A. Buléon, M. LeMaguer, C. Mercier: Pisum
sativum and Vicia faba carbohydrates: Part IV – Granular
structure of wrinkled pea starch. Carbohydr. Polym. 1982,
2, 43–59.
[43] R. Hoover, H. Manuel: The effect of annealing on the
physicochemical properties of legume starches, in Agri-
Food quality: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Eds. G. R. Fen-
Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 231
wick, C. Hedley, R. L. Richards, S. Khokar) The Royal Soci-
ety of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 158–161.
[44] F. T. R. Rosenthal, I. Espinola, M. I. S. Serapia, S. M. O. Sil-
va: Lablab bean starch. I. Properties of its granules and
paste. Stärke 1971, 23, 18–23.
[45] W. Banks, C. T. Greenwood, O. D. Muir: Studies on the
biosynthesis of starch granules. 9. The starch granules from
wrinkled peas. Stärke 1974, 26, 46–49.
[46] E. Bertoft, R. Manelius, Z. Qin: Studies on the structure of
pea starches. Part I. Initial stages in α-amylolysis of granu-
lar smooth pea starch. Starch/Stärke 1993a, 45, 215–220.
[47] J. R. Lloyd, C. L. Hedley, V. J. Bull, S. G. Ring: Determina-
tion of the effect of r and rb mutations on the structure of
amylose and amylopectin in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Car-
bohydr. Polym. 1996, 29, 45–49.
[48] E. Bertoft, R. Manelius, Z. Qin: Studies on the structure of
pea starches. Part 2. α-Amylolysis of granular wrinkled pea
starch. Starch/Stärke 1993b, 45, 258–263.
[49] R. Stute: Properties and applications of pea starches. Part
I. Properties. Starch/Stärke 1990, 42, 178–184.
[50] S. Hizukuri, Y. Takeda, M. Yasuda, A. Suzuki: Multi-
branched nature of amylose and action of debranching en-
zymes. Carbohydr. Res. 1981, 94, 205–213.
[51] Y. Takeda, S. Hizukuri, C. Takeda, A. Suzuki: Structures of
branched molecules of amyloses of various origins and mo-
lar fractions of branched and unbranched molecules. Car-
bohydr. Res. 1987, 165, 139–145.
[52] C. T. Greenwood, J. Thomson: A comparison of the starch-
es from barley and malted barley. J. Inst. Brew. 1959, 65,
346–353.
[53] S. Hizukuri, Y. Takeda, N. Maruta, B. O. Juliano: Molecular
structures of rice starch. Carbohydr. Res. 1989, 189,
227–235.
[54] R. C. Teitelbaum, S. L. Ruby, T. J. Marks: On the structure
of starch-iodine. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100, 3215–3218.
[55] S. J. McGrance, H. J. Cornell, C. J. Rix: A simple and rapid
colorimetric method for the determination of amylose in
starch products. Starch/Stärke 1998, 50, 158–163.
[56] R. Hoover, D. Hadziyev: The effect of monoglycerides on
amylose complexing during a potato granule process.
Starch/Stärke 1981, 33, 346–355.
[57] T. Aberle, W. Burchard, W. Vorwerg, S. Radosta: Conforma-
tion contributions of amylose and amylopectin to the struc-
tural properties of starches from various sources.
Starch/Stärke 1994, 46, 329–335.
[58] S. Hizukuri: Relationship between the distribution of the
chain length of amylopectin and the crystalline structure of
starch granules. Carbohydr. Res. 1985, 141, 295–306.
[59] S. Hizukuri: Polymodal distribution of the chain lengths of
amylopectin and its significance. Carbohydr. Res. 1986,
147, 342–347.
[60] S. Kobayashi, S. J. Schwartz, D. R. Lineback: Comparison
of the structure of amylopectin from different wheat vari-
eties. Cereal Chem. 1986, 63, 71–74.
[61] A. C. Eliasson, G. Ljunger: Interactions between amy-
lopectin and lipid additives during retrogradation in a model
system. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1988, 44, 353–361.
[62] W. Banks, C. T. Greenwood: Starch and its Components,.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1975.
232 Ratnayake et al.
[63] Y. Takeda, C. Tokunaga, C. Takeda, S. Hizukuri: Physico-
chemical properties of sweet potato starches. Starch/
Stärke 1993c, 45, 377–382.
[64] E. Bertoft, Z. Qin, R. Manelius: Studies on the structure of
pea starches. Part 3. Amylopectin of smooth pea starch.
Starch/Stärke 1993c, 45, 377–382.
[65] J. R. Lloyd: Effect and interactions of rugosus genes on pea
(Pisum sativum) seeds. Ph.D. dissertation. University of
East Anglia, 1995.
[66] J. Craig, J. R. Lloyd, K. Tomlinson, L. Barber, A. Edwards,
T. W. Wang, C. Martin, C. L. Hedley, A. M. Smith: Mutations
in the gene encoding starch synthase II profoundly alter
amylopectin structure in pea embryos. Plant Cell 1998, 10,
413–426.
[67] T. Y. Bogracheva, P. Cairns, T. R. Noel, S. Hulleman, T. L.
Wang, V. J. Morris, S. G. Ring, C. L. Hedley: The effect of
mutant genes at the r, rb, rug3, rug4, rug5, and lam loci on
the granular structure and physico-chemical properties of
pea seed starch. Carbohydr. Polym. 1999, 39, 303–314.
[68] E. Bertoft, Z. Qin, R. Manelius: Studies on the structure of
pea starches: Part 4. Intermediate material of wrinkled pea.
Starch/Stärke 1993d, 45, 420–425.
[69] J. R. Katz, T. B. VanItallie: Abhandlungen zur physikalis-
chen Chemie der Stärke und der Brotbereitung. V. Alle
Stärkearten haben das gleiche Retrogradationspektrum. Z.
Physik. Chem. 1930, A150, 90–99.
[70] H. C. H. Wu, A. Sarko: The double helical molecular struc-
ture of crystalline B amylose. Carbohydr. Res. 1978a, 61,
7–26.
[71] H. C. H. Wu, A. Sarko: The double helical molecular struc-
ture of crystalline A amylose. Carbohydr. Res. 1978b, 61,
27–40.
[72] A. Sarko, H. C. H. Wu: The crystal structures of A, B, and C
polymorphs of amylose and starch. Starch/Stärke 1978, 30,
73–78.
[73] C. Gernat, S. Radosta, G. Damaschun, F. Schierbaum:
Supramolecular structure of legume starches revealed by
X-ray scattering. Starch/Stärke 1990, 42, 175–178.
[74] T. Y. Bogracheva, V. J. Morris, S. G. Ring, C. L. Hedley: The
granular structure of C-type pea starch and its role in gela-
tinization. Biopolymers 1998, 45, 323–332.
[75] A. Buléon, C. Gerard, R. Riekel, R. Vuong, H. Chanzy: De-
tails of the crystalline ultrastructure of C-starch granules re-
vealed by synchrotron microfocus mapping. Macromole-
cules 1998, 31, 6605–6610.
[76] S. Hizukuri, T. Kaneko, Y. Takeda: Measurement of the
chain length of amylopectin and its relevance to the origin of
the crystalline polymorphism of starch granules. Biochim.
Biophys. Acta 1983, 760, 188–192.
[77] S. Hizukuri: X ray diffractometric studies on starches. Part
VI. Crystalline types of amylopectin and effect of tempera-
ture and concentration of mother liquor on crystalline type.
Biol. Chem. 1961, 25, 45–50.
[78] S. Hizukuri, Y. Takeda, S. Usami, Y. Takase: Effect of
aliphatic hydrocarbon groups on the crystallization of amy-
lodextrin: Model experiments for starch crystallization. Car-
bohydr. Res. 1980, 83, 193–198.
[79] P. Cairns, T. Y. Bogracheva, S. G. Ring, C. L. Hedley, V. J.
Morris: Determination of the polymorphic composition of
smooth pea starch. Carbohydr. Polym. 1997, 32, 275–282.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
[80] C. G. Biliaderis, D. R. Grant, J. R. Vose: Structural charac-
terization of legume starches. II. Studies on acid treated
starches. Cereal Chem. 1981b, 58, 502–507.
[81] R. Hoover, H. Manuel: Effect of heat-moisture treatment on
the structure and physicochemical properties of legume
starches. Food Res. Int. 1996c, 29, 731–750.
[82] U. D. Chavan, F. Shahidi, R. Hoover, C. Perera: Character-
ization of beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus L.) starch. Food
Chem. 1999, 65, 61–70.
[83] R. Hoover, H. Manuel: A comparative study of the physico-
chemical properties of starches from two lentil cultivars.
Food Chem. 1995, 53, 275–284.
[84] E. Gujska, W. D. Reinhard, K. Khan: Physicochemical prop-
erties of field pea, pinto and navy bean starches. J. Food
Sci. 1994, 59, 634–636.
[85] J. W. Donovan: Phase transitions of starch-water systems.
Biopolymers 1979, 18, 263–275.
[86] C. G. Biliaderis, T. J. Maurice, J. R. Vose: Starch gelatiniza-
tion phenomena studied by differential scanning calorime-
try. J. Food Sci. 1980, 45, 1669–1680.
[87] J. D. Evans, D. R. Haismann: The effect of solutes on the
gelatinization temperature of potato starch. Starch/Stärke
1982, 34, 224–231.
[88] P. Jenkins: X-ray and neutron scattering studies on starch
granule structure. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge,
1994.
[89] J. M. V. Blanchard: Starch granule structure and function:
A physicochemical approach, in Starch: Properties and
Potential (Ed. T. Galliard) John Wiley and Sons. New York,
1987, pp. 16–54.
[90] C. G. Biliaderis, C. M. Page, T. J. Maurice, B. O. Juliano:
Thermal characterization of rice starches: A polymeric
approach to phase transitions of granular starch. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 1986, 34, 6–14.
[91] S. A. Watson: Determination of starch gelatinization tem-
perature, in Methods in Carbohydrate Chemistry, Vol. IV
(Ed. R.L. Whistler) Academic Press, New York, 1964, pp.
240–242.
[92] T. Noda, Y. Takahata, T. Sato, I. Suda, T. Morishita, K. Ishig-
uro, O. Yamakawa: Relationships between chain length dis-
tribution of amylopectin and gelatinization properties within
the same botanical origin for sweet potato and buckwheat.
Carbohydr. Polym. 1998, 37, 153–158.
[93] D. Cooke, M. Gidley: Loss of crystalline and molecular or-
der during starch gelatinization. Origin of the enthalpic tran-
sition. Carbohydr. Res. 1992, 227, 103–112.
[94] R. F. Tester, W. R. Morrison: Swelling and gelatinization of
cereal starches I. Effects of amylopectin, amylose and
lipids. Cereal Chem. 1990, 67, 551–559.
[95] C. Gernat, S. Radosta, H. Anger, G. Damaschun: Crys-
talline parts of three different conformations detected in na-
tive and enzymatically degraded starches. Starch/Stärke
1993, 45, 309–314.
[96] R. F. Tester: Influence of growth conditions on barley starch
properties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 1997, 21, 37–45.
[97] T. Y. Bogracheva, S. Ring, V. Morris, J. R. Lloyd, T. L. Wang,
C. L. Hedley: The use of mutants to study the structural and
functional properties of pea starch, in Starch Structure and
Functionality (Eds. P. J. Frazier, A. M. Donald, P. Richmond)
The Royal Chemical Society, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 230–
237.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
[98] C. Ferrero, M. N. Martin, N. E. Zaritzky: Corn starch-Xan-
than gum interaction and its effect on the stability during
storage of frozen gelatinized suspensions. Starch/Stärke.
1994, 46, 300–305.
[99] M. J. Miles, V. J. Morris, P. D. Orford, S. G. Ring: The roles
of amylose and amylopectin in the gelation and retrogra-
dation of starch. Carbohydr. Res. 1985, 135, 271–281.
[100] S. G. Ring. P. Colonna, K. J. I’anson, M. T. Kalichevsky, M.
Miles, V. J. Morris, P. D. Orford: The gelation and crystal-
lization of amylopectin. Carbohydr. Res. 1987, 162, 277–
293.
[101] J. L. Jane, J. F. Robyt: Structure studies of amylose V-com-
plexes and retrograded amylose by action of alpha amy-
lases, and a new method for preparing amylodextrins. Car-
bohydr. Res. 1984, 132, 105–118.
[102] V. M. Leloup, P. Colonna, S. G. Ring, K. Roberts, B. Wells:
Microstructure of amylose gels. Carbohydr. Polym. 1992,
18, 189–197.
[103] H. F. Zobel, Starch crystal transformations and their indus-
trial importance. Starch/Stärke 1988, 40, 1–7.
[104] H. Fredriksson, J. Silverio, R. Andersson, A.-C. Eliasson,
P. Åman: The influence of amylose and amylopectin char-
acteristics on gelatinization and retrogradation properties
of different starches. Carbohydr. Polym. 1998, 33, 119–
134.
[105] P. D. Orford, S. G. Ring, V. Carroll, M. J. Miles, V. J. Morris:
The effect of concentration and botanical source on the
gelation and retrogradation of starch. J. Sci. Food Agric.
1987, 39, 169–177.
[106] S. G. Ring, M. J. Gee, M. Whittam, P. Orford, I. T. Johnson:
Resistant starch: Its chemical form in foodstuffs and effect
on digestibility in vitro. Food Chem. 1988, 28, 9–15.
[107] P. Snow, K. O’Dea: Factors affecting the rate of hydrolysis
of starch in food. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1981, 34, 2721–2727.
[108] M. L. Dreher, J. W. Berry, C. J. Dreher: Starch digestibility
of foods – a nutritional perspective. Crit. Rev. Food Sci.
Nutr. 1984, 20, 47–71.
[109] S. Jood, B. M. Chauhan, A. C. Kapoor: Contents and di-
gestibility of carbohydrates of mung beans (Vigna radiata
L.) as affected by domestic processing and cooking. Food
Chem. 1988, 30, 113–127.
[110] J. Holm, I. Björck, S. Ostrowska, A. C. Eliasson, N. G. Asp,
K. Larsson, I. Lundquist: Digestibility of amylose-lipid com-
plexes in vitro and in vivo. Starch/Stärke 1983, 35,
294–297.
[111] C. G. Biliaderis: Physical characteristics, enzymatic di-
gestibility and structure of modified smooth pea and waxy
maize starches. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1982, 30, 925–930.
[112] R. Hoover: Acid-treated starches. Food Rev. Int. 2000, 16,
369–392.
[113] T. Kasemsuwan, J. Jane: Location of amylose in normal
starch granules. II. Location of phosphodiester cross-link-
ing revealed by phosphorous 31 nuclear magnetic reso-
nance. Cereal Chem. 1994, 71, 282–287.
[114] T. Ojima, A. Nakamura, M. Yamamoto: Some properties of
cross-bonded phosphate diester of waxy maize starch.
Starch/Stärke 1986, 38, 297–301.
[115] R. W. Rubens: Process for preparing cross-linked starches
using STMP. US Pat. 4183969 (1980).
Pea Starch: Composition, Structure and Properties 233
[116] F L. Cooreman, H. Van Rensburg, J. A. Delcour: Pasting
profiles and solubility of native and cross-linked corn starch
in dimethylsulfoxide-water mixtures. J. Cereal Sci. 1995,
22, 251–257.
[117] S. Lim, P. A. Seib: Preparation and pasting properties of
wheat and corn starch phosphates. Cereal Chem. 1993,
70, 137–144.
[118] K. Woo, P. A. Seib: Cross-linking of wheat starch and hy-
droxypropylated wheat starch in alkaline slurry with sodium
trimetaphosphate. Carbohydr. Polym. 1997, 33, 263–271.
[119] I. Reddy, P. A. Seib: Modified waxy wheat starch compared
to modified waxy corn starch. J. Cereal Sci. 2000, 31,
25–39.
[120] J. E. Rutledge, M. N. Islam, W. H. James: Improved can-
ning stability of parboiled rice through cross-linking. Cereal
Chem. 1974, 51, 46–51.
[121] H. C. Srivastava, M. M. Patel: Viscosity stabilization of tapi-
oca starch. Stärke 1973, 25, 17–21.
[122] R. Hoover, F. W. Sosulski: Effects of cross-linking on func-
tional properties of legume starches. Starch/Stärke 1986,
38, 149–155.
[123] O. B. Wurzburg: 40 years of industrial starch research. Ce-
real Foods World 1986, 37, 897–903.
[124] B. M. Jensen, J. C. Winters: Cationic potato starches
proves effective as wet-end additives. Pulp. Pap. 1986, 60,
83–86.
[125] H. L. Han, F. W. Sosulski: Cationization of potato and
tapioca starches using an aqueous alcoholic-alkaline
process. Starch/Stärke 1998, 50, 487–492.
[126] M. R. Kweon, P. R. Bhirud, F. W. Sosulski: An aqueous al-
coholic-alkaline process for cationization of corn and pea
starches. Starch/Stärke 1996, 48, 214–220.
[127] R. Hoover, D. Hannouz, F. Sosulski: Effects of hydrox-
ypropylation on thermal properties, starch digestibility and
freeze-thaw stability of field pea (Pisum sativum cv. Trap-
per) starch. Starch/Stärke 1988, 40, 383–387.
[128] K. Lorenz, K. Kulp: Heat-moisture treatment of starches. II.
Functional properties and baking potential. Cereal Chem.
1981, 58, 49–52.
[129] J. W. Donovan, K. Lorenz, K. Kulp: Differential scanning
calorimetry of heat-moisture treated wheat and potato
starches. Cereal Chem. 1983, 60, 381–387.
[130] R. Stute: Hydrothermal modification of starches: The differ-
ence between annealing and heat-moisture treatment.
Starch/Stärke 1992, 44, 205–214.
[131] R. Hoover, T. Vasanthan: Effect of heat-moisture treatment
on structure and physicochemical properties of cereal,
legume and tuber starches. Carbohydr. Res. 1994, 252,
33–53.
[132] L. Sair: Heat-moisture treatment of starch. Cereal Chem.
1967, 40, 8–26.
[133] R. Hoover, G. Swamidas, T. Vasanthan: Studies on the
physicochemical properties of native, defatted and heat-
moisture treated pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) starch.
Carbohydr. Res. 1993, 246, 185–203.
[134] R. Hoover, T. Vasanthan, N. Senanayake, A. M. Martin:
The effects of defatting and heat-moisture treatment on the
retrogradation of starch gels from wheat, oat, potato, and
lentil. Carbohydr. Res. 1994, 261, 13–24.
234 Ratnayake et al.
[135] R. Hoover, H. Manuel: The effect of heat-moisture treat-
ment on the structure and physicochemical properties of
normal maize, waxy maize, dull waxy maize, and amylo-
maize V starches. J. Cereal Sci. 1996b, 23, 153–162.
[136] H. Jacobs, J. A. Delcour: Hydrothermal modifications of
granular starch, with retention of the granular structure: A
review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 2895–2905.
[137] I. H. Anderson, A. S. Levine, M. D. Levitt: Incomplete ab-
sorption of carbohydrate in all-purpose wheat flour. New.
Engl. J. Med. 1981, 304, 891–892.
[138] A. M. Stephan, A. C. Haddad, S. F. Phillips: Passage of
carbohydrate into the colon. Direct measurements in hu-
mans. Gastroenterology 1983, 85, 589–595.
[139] H. Englyst, H. S. Wiggins, J. H. Cummings: Determination
of the non-starch polysaccharides in plant foods by gas-
liquid chromatography of constituent sugars as alditol
acetates. Analyst 1982, 107, 307–318.
[140] H. N. Englyst, J. H. Cummings: Resistant starch, a new
food component: a classification of starch for nutritional
purposes, in Cereals in European context. First European
conference on food science and technology (Ed. I.D. Mor-
ton) Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, 1987, pp. 221–233.
[141] H. N. Englyst, S. M. Kingman: Dietary fiber and resistant
starch. A nutritional classification of plant polysaccharides,
in Dietary Fiber: Chemistry, Physiology and Health Effects
(Eds. D. Kritchevsky, C. Bonfield, J.W. Anderson) Plenum
Press, New York, 1990.
[142] S. A. Truswell: Glycaemic index of foods. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.
1992, 46, S91-S101.
[143] P. Wursh: Cell structure and starch nature as key determi-
nants of the digestion rate of starch in legume. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 1986, 43, 25–29.
[144] M. J. Periago, G. Ros, M. C. Martinez, F. Rincon, G. Lopez,
J. Ortuno, F. Ros: In vitro estimation of protein and mineral
availability in green peas as affected by antinutritive factors
and maturity. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 1996, 29, 481–488.
Starch/Stärke 54 (2002) 217–234
[145] G. S., Ranhotra, J. A. Gelroth, B. K. Glaser: Energy value
of resistant starch. J. Food Sci. 1996, 61, 453–455.
[146] T. Vasanthan, R. S. Bhatty: Enhancement of resistant
starch (RS3) in amylomaize, field pea and lentil starches.
Starch/Stärke 1998, 50, 286–291.
[147] V. Skrabanja, H. G. M. Liljeberg, C. L. Hedley, I. Keft, I. M.
E. Björck: Influence of genotype and processing on the in
vitro rate of starch hydrolysis and resistant starch forma-
tion in peas (Pisum sativum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem.
1999, 47, 2033–2039.
[148] C. Barron, A. Buléon, P. Colonna, G. Della Valle: Structural
modifications of low hydrated pea starch subjected to high
thermomechanical processing. Carbohydr. Polym. 2000,
43, 171–181.
[149] B. Conde-Petit, J. Nuessli, S. Handschin, F. Escher: Com-
parative characterization of aqueous starch dispersions by
light microscopy, rheometry, and iodine binding behavior.
Starch/Stärke 1998, 50, 184–192.
[150] Z. Czuchajowska, T. Otto, B. Paszczynska, B.-K. Baik:
Composition, thermal behavior, and gel texture of prime
and tailing starches from garbanzo beans and peas. Cere-
al Chem. 1998, 75, 466–472.
[151] W. Praznik, A. Huber, S. Watzinger, H. F. Beck: Molecular
characteristics of high amylose starches. Starch/Stärke
1994, 46, 88–94.
[152] J. R. Vose: Functional characteristics of an intermediate
amylose starch from smooth-seeded field peas compared
with corn and wheat starches. Cereal Chem. 1977, 54,
1141–1151.
[153] W. Banks, C. T. Greenwood: Physicochemical studies on
starches. The incomplete β-amylolysis of amylose. Stärke
1967, 19, 197–206.
[154] C. Yook, F. Sosulski, P. R. Bhirud: Effects of cationization
on functional properties of pea and corn starches. Starch/
Stärke 1994, 46, 393–399.
(Received: May 25, 2001)
(Revision received: October 5, 2001)