Vanhal 2000

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]
On: 22 December 2014, At: 04:30

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Food Reviews International

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lfri20
QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR DURING

PROCESSING AND STORAGE
a
M. VAN HAL
a
International Potato Center , Lima, Peru
Published online: 05 Mar 2007.
To cite this article: M. VAN HAL (2000) QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR DURING PROCESSING AND STORAGE, Food
Reviews International, 16:1, 1-37, DOI: 10.1081/FRI-100100280
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/FRI-100100280
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Food Rev. Int., 16(1), 1–37 (2000)
QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR

DURING PROCESSING AND STORAGE
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 04:30 22 December 2014
M. VAN HAL
International Potato Center
Lima, Peru
ABSTRACT
Sweetpotato flour can easily be promoted as a substitute for wheat flour
in sweet baked products and can also be used for its high carotenoid
content. However, the price of the sweetpotato flour must be competitive
with wheat flour and be of good quality. This article defines and de-
scribes the different quality characteristics of sweetpotato flour. After
an overview of the different steps and equipment used in the small-scale
processing of sweetpotato flour, the influence of the different processing
steps and storage on the quality characteristics are reviewed.
INTRODUCTION
Sweetpotato is the world’s seventh most important food crop. More than 95% of
the sweetpotato crop is grown in developing countries–over 80% in China alone–
mainly by small farmers with limited land, labor, and capital (1). The crop has limited
production costs and does well even under marginal conditions (poor soils with lim-
ited water supplies). Among the world’s major food crops, sweetpotato produces the
highest amount of edible energy per hectare per day (2). Sweetpotato yields both
roots and green tops from the same plant which serves as nutritious food for humans
and animals (1). Sweetpotato roots are classified into two general types: dry-fleshed
cultivars with mealy, light yellow or white flesh and the moist-type cultivars with
soft, gelatinous, bright orange flesh (3).
Copyright  2000 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

ORDER REPRINTS
2 VAN HAL
Some 60% of sweetpotato production in China is used for feed or processed into
starch (4). Outside China, most sweetpotato roots currently produced in developing
countries are consumed fresh for various reasons. Firstly, as a living plant part that
contains over 70% of water, the roots are very perishable and difficult to store (1,5).
Secondly, sweetpotato’s stigma as a ‘‘poor man’s crop’’ limits its consumption (6).
Thirdly, the high levels of sweetness and strong flavor found in some roots are not
preferred by some consumers (7).
As recent experience in China suggests, raw sweetpotato roots can be processed
into forms with a longer shelf life and characteristics more in keeping with latent
demand and emerging utilization patterns (5,8–10). Options for sweetpotato products
are numerous, but based on recent diagnostic assessments carried out in developing
countries, dried chips, starch, and flour were identified as among the most promising
(11,12).
Sweetpotato flour can serve as a source of energy and nutrients (carbohydrates,
beta-carotene (provitamin A), minerals (Ca, P, Fe, and K)), and can add natural
sweetness, color, and flavor to processed food products (1,3). Various rationales have
been offered for using sweetpotato flour. These include: i) as a substitute for wheat
flour to lower (bakery) costs and as such decrease imports of wheat flour, and ii) as
an alternative market outlet for farmers selling the roots as raw material.
One major constraint to the use of sweet potato in composite flours is the high
price of the roots relative to local food staples. A key determinant of the success of
composite flours is the relative price of the local substitute versus imports (13). Re-
cent estimates suggest the sweetpotato flour has to be 50%–90% lower than the price
of wheat flour (11,14,15). For example, during the scarcity of wheat flour in Peru
in 1990, several bakeries increased the production of sweetpotato bread (13); this
also happened in the Philippines for bakery goods in 1983–84 (16). Other important
factors are the availability and stable price of sweetpotato roots. The latter can vary
greatly as demonstrated in Peru during 1993, when roughly sweetpotatoes more than
doubled in price, whereas during 1995 when the price was roughly constant (13).
Other determinants of the success of sweetpotato flour as part of composite flours
are its properties, consumer preferences, and government support (13). Sweetpotato
flour has to be as white as pure wheat flour in order to maintain the original appear-
ance of the products made. There is a wide range of products derived from sweetpo-
tato flour, some in an experimental state of development but others already sold in
developing countries (1). Because of its distinct properties, the use of sweetpotato
flour in the preparation of bread is restricted. Most researchers in this respect found
a substitution level of 10–15% for wheat flour on a dry weight basis as the most
acceptable. Baked goods can be made with higher proportions (10–100%) of sweet-
potato flour than bread. For example, in Papua, New Guinea, cakes made with 100%
sweetpotato flour has an acceptable taste (17), and in India, pancakes, puddings, and
chaphatis are made with 50% sweetpotato flour (18). But a much wider range of
products exist including donuts, biscuits, muffins, cookies, brownies, noodles, pies,
ORDER REPRINTS
QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 3
breakfast foods, and weaning foods (1,11,19). Sweetpotato flour has generally been
more acceptable as a substitute for these types of bakery products rather than as an
all-purpose flour (15,20,21).
Sweetpotato flour has also been used for its specific properties to form new prod-
ucts. A significant contribution to pro-vitamin A intake and a yellow or orange color-
ation can be obtained by the utilization of sweetpotato flours rich in β-carotene (ab-
sent in wheat) (1). Hagenimana et al. (22) noted that the addition of orange-fleshed
sweetpotato in buns, chaphatis, and mandazis greatly increased the content of total
carotenoids in these products. Sweetpotato flour, in fact, proved to be the most effec-
tive way of increasing carotenoid content; about 2000% increase compared to 900–
1400% for boiled and mashed sweetpotato and 700–1360% for raw and grated sweet-
potato in different products (22). Collado et al. (23) indicated that sweetpotato flours
vary widely in color depending on genotype and that cultivars can be selected for
their use as a flour containing natural colorants (greens, bright orange, and purple
pigments). Regardless of its final use, sweetpotato flour needs to be of high quality
for commercially viable products to be made. Flour quality depends both on good
processing practices and prevention of deteriorative changes during storage. Most
of the technical research on sweetpotato flour has focused on the development of
new products using sweetpotato flour rather than on efficient methods to produce
and store the flour (11,24). The following presents an overview of the information
(including the grey literature) on processing and storage of sweetpotato flour to act
as a basis for developing its use.
QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR
Previous researchers have noted a lack of information on sweetpotato flour quality.

For example, Hagenimana et al. (25) mentioned that sweetpotato flour is very conve-
nient for utilization by processors, but its quality, shelf life, and relationship to variety
are not yet documented.
But what are the characteristics of good quality sweetpotato flour? Generally,
controlling the quality of a product is based on the acceptability of the users and
food legislation. For example, chemical and microbiological analyses are included
in determining whether the flour conforms to food legislation (26). Peruvian law
requires that flours from root and tuber crops do not show an alkaline reaction with
phenolphthaline and do not exceed maximum levels for humidity (15%), ash (2.5%),
and acidity (0.15%) (27). Antarlina (28) studied flour quality made from different
varieties and concluded that the most suitable flour should have a high starch content,
low acidity, low crude-fiber content, low ash content, and white color. Acceptability
was shown to depend on the organoleptic evaluation of the flour with color, odor,
and a high degree of whiteness being the most important marketing quality factors
for its users (bakers, noodle manufacturers, etc.) (10,11,29).
ORDER REPRINTS
4 VAN HAL
Moisture Content
Table 1 shows that the moisture content of sweetpotato flour ranges between 4.4
and 13.2%. Moisture content is directly related to drying method, drying time, and
period and conditions of storage. Lizado and Guzman (24) observed that the point
at which the sweetpotato slices become brittle corresponds to reaching constant mois-
ture content and as such could be used as an empirical criterion to finish the drying
process. Using solar drying, moisture content as low as 8% can be obtained (38),
while the moisture content of flours dried in artificial dryers can be reduced to 2–
3% (39). However, since moisture content is directly related to the fresh-root-to-
flour conversion rate, it may be economically optimal to dry less than technically
possible. Peters and Wheatley (38), for example, concluded that the moisture content
of their flours (8.0–9.1%) was ‘‘lower then necessary’’ and considered that decreas-
ing the length of drying time is a way to increase the conversion rate (see also the
section on Processing). The moisture content of sweetpotato flour is considered a
quality characteristic where storage is concerned, since water can accelerate chemical
or microbiological deterioration (see the section on Storage).
Nutritional Composition
Sweetpotato flour is a good source of energy. When made from orange fleshed culti-
vars, the flour has a high content of β-carotene and reasonable levels of vitamin C,
calcium, phosphorus, iron, and potassium. The composition of sweetpotato flours
from different sources is shown in Table 1. The contribution flour can make to the
daily nutrient needs is estimated in Table 2 (40).
Chemical composition and the resulting nutritional value of sweetpotato flour is
largely dependent on the chemical composition of the roots which is related to harvest
time. de Carvalho et al. (33) observed that total protein and fiber content were highest
in the fourth month of the growing season, decreasing in the fifth month. They also
noted variation in the content of starch with the age of the tubers, although for the
five Brazilian varieties studied no general pattern was found. Total sugar increased
in the fifth month, except for the variety Rosa. In summary, for the varieties analyzed,
the fourth month was shown to be the optimum time for harvest, since the roots at
that point can produce flour with a better nutritional value than cassava flour.
Carbohydrates
In sweetpotato flour, carbohydrates account for the bulk of the flour, and range be-
tween 84.6% and 94.8% (on a dry weight basis). The total starch content varies
between 57–90% (see Table 1). Gurkin Ulm (3) mentioned that the total carbohy-
drates of the sweetpotato in roots is comprised of approximately 80% starch and
20% simple sugars. Woolfe (1) divided digestible carbohydrates into starch and total
Table 1. Nutrient Composition of Sweetpotato Flour from Different Sources (% dry weight base, except humidity (%) and energy (kcal/100 g))
Total Total Reducing Dietary

Moisture Protein Fat carb/starch sugar sugars fiber Ash Energy Source of
Color (%) (% dwb) 1 (% dwb) (% dwb) a (% dwb) (% dwb) (% dwb) (% dwb) (kcal/100 g) information
13.2 3.8 0.7 90.2 C 3.1 337 (1)
13.2 2.5 1.0 92.6 C 3.3 339 (1)
11.7 14.2 0.6 82.8 C 2.5 334 (1)
11.0 1.8 0.9 94.8 C 2.5 335 (1)
2.6–7.4 69–85 S 7.3–23.7 1.9–16.1 (30)
White 2.6–3.2 57–68.4 S 4.0–11.8 2.2–6.1 (31)
Orange 7.49–7.78 1.85–1.98 3.79–3.91 (32)
ORDER
Cream 6.5–7.8 4.1–8.5 64–74 S 6.9–9.7 10.7–13.8 1.3–2.53 (33)

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR
(6.4) b (69) b (8.2) b (12) b (1.8) b

Cream/ 1.0–5.3 0.06–1.90 57.5–80 S 6.7–22.7 1.18–12.03 2.3–19.3 1.28–2.53 (23)
orange (3.9) c (0.60) c (71.7) c (11.3) c (4.94) c (10.3) c (1.89) c
REPRINTS
White 2.09–3.87 0.26–0.75 91.6–93.1 C 1.85–2.86 1.38–2.44 (20)

Orange 3.71–5.84 1.18–1.19 87.3–87.4 C 2.42–3.87 3.26–3.87 (20)
7.86–8.85 4.61–6.48 0.48–0.52 89–91 C 2.17–2.26 2.11–2.89 (34)
Orange 4.36 6.61 1.34 84.58 C 5.02 3.15 (3)
3.2 0.8 93.7 C 0.4 2.2 397 (35)
White 6.87–7.70 1.66–1.86 72.6–82.0 S 13.8–23.0 2.53–4.23 1.66–1.86 (10)
White 2.3–3.0 0.71–0.81 86.1–94.1 C 10.3–15.2 3.80–10.35 2.83–3.90 2.79–2.94 (36)
66.7–70.7 S
White 7.2 3.2 0.41 6.30 2.80 1.42 1.55 (37)
White, gray 5.60–6.01 72–90 S 6.26–24.39 3.63–7.08 2.52–3.91 (28)
a
C ⫽ total carbohydrate content and S ⫽ total starch content.
b
Made from 5 varieties: Roxa talo fino, Roxa talo grosso, Rosa, Roxa precoce, and Rosa estriada, values between brackets are a mean of the 5.
c
Flour made from 44 varieties. Values between brackets are a mean.
1
Dry weight base.
5
ORDER REPRINTS
6 VAN HAL
Table 2. Estimated Contribution of Sweetpotato Flour to the Daily Nutrient Needs

Protein Vit. A Thiamin Riboflavin Niacin Vit. C Iron
RDA (*) 37 g 600 mg 1.2 mg 1.8 mg 19.8 mg 30 mg 5–15 mg

Sweetpotato 10% 0–⬎100% 20% 10% 8% 17% 20–40%
flour
(*)
Recommended daily intake.
sugars with levels of 87.5% and 12.5% respectively. Estimates of this characteriza-
tion for flours were made based on data from earlier studies (23,30). The results
indicate estimates between those of Gurkin Ulm and Woolfe (see Table 3). A big
(varietal) variation can be seen. For the 44 varieties analyzed by Collado et al. (23),
starch content was found to be significantly negatively correlated with fiber, total
free sugar, and ash content.
Collado et al. (23) found that α-amylase activity varied widely among 44 geno-
types of sweetpotato studied. Their mean value in Ceralpha unit/g was 2.0 (range:
0.26–11.5) with no correlation between total free sugar content of sweetpotato flour
and α-amylase activity. Reducing sugar content ranged from 1.2% to 24.4% (dry
matter basis), based on varietal differences. Reducing sugars in raw roots must be
as low as possible (⬍2%) to prevent discoloration during processing (see also Pro-
cessing) (24). In their study, Collado et al. (23) found that once processed into flour
no significant correlation could be found between the reducing sugar content with
any color attribute of the flour (23).
pH
Sweetpotato flour typically has a pH of 5.79–5.85 (36), which is slightly lower than
the pH for wheat flour (6.0–6.8 or a bit lower when bleached). However, when
treated with a soaking/bleaching agent as citric acid or sulfite prior to dehydration,
the pH decreased to 3.8 (24) and 5.24–5.26 (36) respectively.
Table 3. The Carbohydrate, Starch, and Sugar Fractions in Sweetpotato Flour
Total % starch % sugars

% starch % sugars digestible of digestible of digestible
n in flour in flour carbohydrates carbohydrates carbohydrates Source
21 R: 69 – 85 R: 7.3–23.7 R: 86.8–95.9 R: 74.7–92.1 R: 7.9–25.3 (30)

M: 76.4 M: 15.2 M: 91.5 M: 83.5 M: 16.5
44 R: 62.9–79.6 R: 6.8–22.7 R: 72.7–91.9 R: 71.7–92.1 R: 7.9–28.3 (23)
M: 71.7 M: 11.3 M: 83.0 M: 86.3 M: 13.7
R ⫽ range; M ⫽ mean.
ORDER REPRINTS
Proteins
The protein content of sweetpotato flour is generally low, ranging from 1.0 to 14.2%
dry weight basis (dwb) (Table 1), with most levels ranging between 1.0 and 8.5%.
The 14.2% found by Leung et al. as cited by Woolfe (1) is exceptionally high. Al-
though regarded in the United States as a high-energy, low protein food, sweetpotato
serves as a fairly important protein source in various developing countries, especially
among low-income consumers whose diets contain protein derived mostly from
foods of vegetable origin (1). For these consumers, sweetpotato has considerable
potential since the biological value of sweetpotato protein is good in both fresh and
flour form (41). Yang et al. (42) found that humans substituting 30% of their rice and
wheat diets with sweetpotato increased the biological value of their dietary protein.
Protein quality depends on the amino acid composition plus bio-availability. In

this respect Walter et al. (41) studied the protein efficiency ratio (PER) of oven-dried
flour of two cultivars, Centennial and Jewel. They found PER (corrected) values of
2.22 for the first and 2.00 for the second variety, which compares well with the PER
of casein (2.50). In Table 4 amino acid composition of different flours is shown.
Compared to the FAO reference pattern of amino acids, the most limiting amino
acids are methionine and half cystine in all sweetpotato cultivars. Lysine, tyrosine,
and isoleucine are limiting in one or more of the different cultivars studied. All other
amino acids are available in abundance. Hamed et al. (36) found that sweetpotato
flour from two hybrids (65 and 266) produced in Egypt did not contain methionine,
threonine, tyrosine, nor phenylalanine.
Since an increase in the protein content of sweetpotato flour can improve its nutri-
tional value, it has been suggested to use sweetpotato flour in combination with other
Table 4. Amino Acid Analysis of Flours Compared with the Preferred Pattern by the FAO
FAO
Essential amino acids reference Roxa talo fino, Jewel, Centennial,
(g/100 g protein) pattern oven-dried oven-dried oven dried
Lysine 4.20 3.55 3.82 4.47

Methionine 2.20 0.81 0.97 1.19
Tyrosine 2.80 2.55 3.97 3.52
Valine 4.20 4.28 6.67 7.55
Isoleucine 4.20 2.89 3.94 4.38
Leucine 4.80 4.68 5.85 6.51
Threonine 2.80 4.12 5.32 5.57
Phenylalanine 2.80 4.67 5.94 6.33
Half-cystine 2.00 traces 1.22 1.37
Source: (33) (33) (41) (41)
ORDER REPRINTS
8 VAN HAL
protein-rich ingredients and/or to breed and select varieties with high protein content
to overcome this relatively low level of protein (16).
Sweetpotato contains trypsin inhibitors, with the degree of trypsin inhibitor activa-
tion (TIA) depending on both the cultivar and environment. TIA can be reduced
during processing by heat treatment depending on its intensity. Normal cooking of
roots for human consumption is completely effective. Solar-drying of roots has little
effect on TIA. Levels of TIA in sweetpotato flour are not known but since flour is
baked before consumption, few problems are expected (1).
Carotenoids
Sweetpotato roots are one of the major food sources of carotenoids along with apri-
cots, carrots, and peaches (22). The significance of carotenoids is that some are con-
verted into vitamin A. Beta-carotene has the highest (100%) provitamin A activity,
followed by α and γ-carotenes (50% activity). Even as long ago as the 1940s, the
importance of sweetpotato as a source of carotene was stressed (43).
Orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes obtain their color through the presence of carot-
enoid pigments (see also section on Pigments), with the flesh color of the sweetpotato
root largely a function of the concentration of beta-carotene. The carotene/total carot-
enoid pigment ratio varies among different varieties and within varieties. The greater
the concentration of total pigments, the higher the carotene/total pigment ratio (43).
Other carotenoids found in sweetpotatoes are hydroxy-ζ-carotene, β-carotene
furanoxide, cis-cryptoxanthin, γ-carotene, ζ-carotene, luteochrome, β-carotene
5,6,5′,6′-diepoxide, β-carotene 5,6-epoxide, neurosporene, phytofluene, α-zeacaro-
tene, and β-zeacarotene. The final eight carotenoids mentioned were identified in
extracts of white-fleshed sweetpotatoes (3,7,44).
However, white sweetpotato cultivars lack the presence of the three most impor-
tant pro-vitamin A carotenes. The role of white sweetpotatoes as a source of vitamin
A is restricted with only partial or no provitamin A activity.
All the studies cited are limited to sweetpotato roots. For sweetpotato flour, only
quantitative determinations of the total amount of yellow pigments and/or β-carotene
have been carried out (see Table 5).
Although amounts of carotenoids present in sweetpotato roots may be abundant,
carotenoid content decreases over time with processing in both raw form and during
heat treatment. Carotenoid content in sweetpotato flour varies greatly (Table 5), pos-
sibly due to the variety and/or the type of processing. Changes during processing
and storage are described in the following sections.
Color and Discoloration
An important quality attribute of sweetpotato flour is appearance, primarily color,

which affects marketing of the flour and the acceptability of the food products made
ORDER REPRINTS
Table 5. Carotenoid Content of Different

Sweetpotato Flours
µg β-carotene Total
equivalent a carotenoids b Yellow pigments a
39848 15704 Mean: 1380

Range: 364–15000
420 – 540
60 – 102
(1,3,20) (22) (23)
a
Expressed as µg β-carotene/100 g dry matter.
b
Expressed in µg/100 g dry matter.
from it (29). Flour color ranges from whitish or cream colored, different shades of
yellow and brown, orange (pale or light) to pale purple (22,30). The color of sweetpo-
tato flour is due to a variety of complex biochemical factors which can generally be
divided into two groups. The first group affects whiteness, most important for white
sweetpotato flour, which is determined by both enzymatic and non-enzymatic brow-
ning reactions. These in turn are dependent on substrate, natural inhibitors, and en-
zyme levels (23). The second group is the presence of natural pigments, which affects
the redness and yellowness of the flour. Whiteness, redness, and yellowness are re-
spectively described by the L*, a*, and b* values of the CIE (Commission Internatio-
nale de l’Eclairage) color specification (45).
Whiteness and Discoloration

The sweetpotato possesses a number of polyphenolic compounds which can be oxi-
dized in the presence of enzymes called polyphenol oxidases (PPO) (catechol oxidase
and cresolase). Substrate and enzyme are separated in intact tissues, but if the tissues
are disrupted, the components mingle and oxidation can occur. The initial products
of oxidation are quinones, which rapidly condense or which react with free amino
acids and proteins to produce relatively insoluble dark brown polymers (melanins)
(1,46,47). This reaction and the succeeding discoloration can occur during sweetpo-
tato processing and storage. In processing, apart from selecting a suitable variety
(with low concentration of phenolic compounds and high level of natural inhibitors
of PPO), various precautions can be taken to prevent browning. These will be de-
scribed in the sections on Processing.
Collado et al. (23) found that the whiteness of the flour is influenced by PPO
content of the flour. They showed that total PPO was significantly correlated to the
L* value of the flour. They prepared flour from 44 different sweetpotato genotypes
and found that the mean L* value (with higher values indicating better whiteness)
of the dry flour was 95.5, with the lowest value of 86.7 in a purple variety and the
ORDER REPRINTS
10 VAN HAL
highest value of 99.1 in a white variety. This varietal effect was also found for 4
cultivars from the Philippines with white to yellowish colored flesh which had a dry
flour brightness similar to the wheat flour control (90.3–93.7 versus 95.4) (31). When
preparing sweetpotato flour in Indonesia, Peters and Wheatley (38) did not succeed
in obtaining flour of a good color. All trial flours were significantly darker than the
wheat flour (69.76–74.58 versus 83.97 for wheat flour) regardless of the sweetpotato
variety. They concluded that further technical research was needed to improve white-
ness.
The whiteness of the flour is not always directly related to the flesh color of the
roots. An Indonesian variety with very yellow flesh yielded a whiter flour (L* ⫽
74.58) than roots from another variety defined as ‘‘very white’’ (whiteness of only
69.91) (38). Hagenimana et al. (22) in their research on 32 cultivars from CIP Nairobi
also found, apart from a significant difference in the L* values for different cultivars,
that the white-fleshed cultivars did not have high L* value as expected, indicating
the high level of browning that occurs during drying sweetpotato chips and pro-
cessing flour. Their values for whiteness ranged between 77.9 to 89.4.
Another probable factor of the raw material that influences whiteness of the flour
is storage of the roots before processing. Peters and Wheatley (38) found that some
varieties showed a clear downward trend of whiteness with each day of storage before
processing, while others seem to be more stable. They suggested that an inverse
relationship between length of time of root storage and whiteness may exist in some
varieties, and recommended further research on this topic.
When sweetpotato flour is moistened with water or with alkali it undergoes a
major change in color and also the brightness decreases markedly (23). Martin (30)
observed the color of sweetpotato flour after mixing 10 g with 50 ml of water and
boiling this mixture for 10 min. For 31 varieties, he found that boiling caused a
strong reaction that resulted in an ugly brown color. He concluded that such flours
made from dried sweetpotatoes always show this reaction upon cooking with water.
He noted that this reaction is influenced by the pre-drying technique. Collado et al.
(23) have used the (modified) Pekar Slick (PS) test as a rapid and practical method
to give an overall view of discoloration. In this test, distilled water or lye water was
added to sweetpotato flour to give a final moisture content of 40%. After homogeni-
zation, the flour was put aside in a closed transparent plastic container for two hours
and the depth of the color was assessed with a colorimeter (PS color value). They
concluded that the flour color values were better correlated with the PS color values
than with the biochemical properties (PPO, α-amylase, pigment, soluble nitrogen,
reducing sugar, etc.) of the flour. Among all the biochemical properties determined,
total PPO had the highest correlation to the L* values of the PS with water and with
alkali. The yellow pigment content contributed significantly to the b* value of the
dry flour and of the PS in water, but less to the PS with alkali. The PS method can
not only be used to predict the color of sweetpotato flour or its composite flours,
but also the influence of flour on the color of the final product (for example, noodles).
ORDER REPRINTS
In this respect, the authors recommend further validation of the Pekar Slick test,
especially for highly colored varieties, with permanent color standards or by sensory
evaluation using a trained panel (23,31).
Pigments
Sweetpotato possess two types of pigment; carotenoids (cream/yellow/orange) and
anthocyanins (red/purple or blue). When sweetpotato flour is used in a composite
flour, these pigments can serve as a natural coloring in food products (1). More
importantly, β-carotene, being a precursor of vitamin A, bestows a high nutritive
value. The use of depth of the orange color due to carotenoids within a variety as
a criterion to select improved strains was mentioned as early as 1946 (43). More
recently, researchers have tried to find a correlation between the carotenoid content
in fresh roots and the color of sweetpotato flour. Hagenimana et al. (22), using total
carotenoids as a basis, found that the a* values of the flours from orange and cream-
fleshed cultivars had a good correlation (r ⫽ 0.737) with total carotenoid content,
and the b* values even better (r ⫽ 0.77). Yellow pigment was found to be signifi-
cantly related to the b* value of the dry flour (r ⫽ 0.79), although not related to the
a* value (r ⫽ 0.35). They argued that in sweetpotato flour the yellow pigments may
be present with other pigments, possible anthocyanins, which form colors that affect
red–green chromaticity. This is in contrast with wheat flour in which carotenoids
(principally xanthophylls) together with flavone compounds are responsible for the
yellow color of the flour (23).
The same varietal difference that influences whiteness occurs for the redness and
the yellowness of the flour. For 44 Philippine varieties, the mean a* value was 0.11
with the highest value of 2.62 (the most red) and the lowest value ⫺0.58. The mean
b* value was 3.9, the highest 13.9 (the most yellow), and the lowest ⫺0.05 (23).
For 32 African varieties, a* values ranged between 3.0 and 7.9 (22). b* Values were
found to be high and consistent for flours from orange- and cream-fleshed root culti-
vars and low but erratic for yellow-, white-, and purple-fleshed root cultivars.
Microbiological Quality
The microbiological quality of sweetpotato flour is quantitatively described by Es-

pinola et al. (20) and Peters and Wheatley (38). The first studied the processing of
two cultivars of sweetpotato into flour in a small-scale plant and in a medium-scale
plant. The flour processed in the small plant had less microbiological contamination
than the flour processed in the medium-sized plant. Maximum allowable levels for
sweetpotato flour are scarce, but compared to the ones found (Table 6), the flour
made in the rural plant is acceptable for human consumption. The high levels of
contamination in the medium-sized plant were explained by the fact that the raw
material/slices were left in the open air for 2 to 3 hours as a result of insufficient
ORDER REPRINTS
12 VAN HAL
Table 6. Microbiological Counts for Different Sweetpotato Flours and Maximum Allowable
Levels (UFC/gr)
Coliforms or
Total count E. coli (E) Yeasts Molds Reference
Small-scale plant: small-scale plant: small scale plant: medium-scale plant: (20)
1–3 ⫻ 10 3 1.1–9.3 ⫻ 10 1 1.2–1.5 ⫻ 10 2
medium-scale plant: medium-scale plant: medium-scale plant: negative–1.4 ⫻ 10 4
7.7 ⫻ 10 4 –2.6 ⫻ 10 6 1.4 ⫻ 10 3 –4.8 ⫻ 10 4 3 ⫻ 10 1 –4.7 ⫻ 10 3
8.6 ⫻ 10 3 –1.2 ⫻ 10 5 3.3 ⫻ 10 2 –1.0 ⫻ 10 4 2.1 ⫻ 10 3 –6.8 ⫻ 10 4 (38)

5.1 ⫻ 10 4 –8.0 ⫻ 10 4 1.2 ⫻ 10 4 –1.2 ⫻ 10 4 6.4 ⫻ 10 3 –7.9 ⫻ 10 3
3.7 ⫻ 10 4 –3.8 ⫻ 10 4 5.7 ⫻ 10 2 –5.9 ⫻ 10 2 6.1 ⫻ 10 3 –6.2 ⫻ 10 3
⫻ ⫻ ⫻ ⫻ ⫻ ⫻
8.4 10 4 –9.1 10 4 6.9 10 3 –8.9 10 3 6.2 10 3 –8.1 10 3

(E)
Maximum allowable levels (safety level):

2 ⫻ 10 5 1 ⫻ 10 2 (E) 1 ⫻ 10 3 (38)
1 ⫻ 10 6
(48)
capacity of the plant. Peters and Wheatley (38) analyzed the microbiological quality
of sweetpotato flour from four different varieties, which showed that all total counts
were below the maximum allowable level of 200,000. Total fungus and E. coli were
above the safety level, but since the microbiological quality was not being addressed
as one of the issues during processing, they were not judged unacceptable.
Functional Properties
Most information on sweetpotatotes functional properties refers to starch (reviewed

by Tian et al. (49)) instead of flour. The limited data for flour functional properties
are different from those of starch since extra constituents available in flour (protein,
fat, etc.), restrict access of water into the starch granules (32,50). Most of the RVA
visco-amylograph pasting parameters of the flour, for example, were not significantly
correlated to the RVA pasting parameters of the purified starch. Hence, the RVA
pasting profile of the flour can not be used to indicate the pasting properties of the
starch (51).
The degree of starch gelatinization from fresh mixtures of sweetpotato flour with
water was found to be 50%. This indicates that processing the flour partially gelati-
nizes the starch (35). The temperature range over which gelatinization occurred, from
onset to completion measured with DSC (differential scanning calorimetry) was from
69.9 to 92.9°C with a peak temperature ranging from 80.4 to 83.6°C (31). Using a
Viscograph, Leonard and Schultz (32) mentioned a gelatinization temperature be-
tween 74–78°C, and Iwe and Onuh (35) found a pasting temperature of 79°C. RVA
ORDER REPRINTS
visco-amylographs for 44 different genotypes in distilled water showed a mean of

peak viscosity (PVwater ) of 156 RVU ranging from 40 to 309 RVU. These values,
considered low (compare with 289 RVU for Red Bicycle wheat), were explained
by the endogenous amylase activity in the sweetpotato flour. Indeed sweetpotato
flours with inhibited amylase activity (using 0.05mMAgNO3) showed much higher
peak viscosity’s (PVamylase ) (mean of 521 RVU) (51).
Absorption properties of sweetpotato flour are considered to be fairly good and
quite stable, with a water binding capacity between 62.4% to 70.4% and an absorp-
tion capacity of 5.02 g/g (24,35). The swelling volume (SV) of the sweetpotato flour
from different genotypes in distilled water had a mean of 15.7 ml/g, ranging from
11.8 ml/g to 18.8 ml/g (51).
Organoleptic Quality
Physical–chemical and functional analysis of sweetpotato flour can give some infor-
mation on the quality desired. However, only sensory tests carried out with ‘‘real
people’’ (by means of a trained panel) can tell if the more subjective aspects of
quality are satisfactory. The perception of taste, aroma, and texture are all crucially
important in determining consumer acceptance of food products (52).
Subjective evaluation showed that the most acceptable sensory characteristic of
sweetpotato flour was odor (‘‘a pleasant odor’’ as described by Lizado and Guzman
(24); or ‘‘acceptable’’ for three quarters of the respondents in a study carried out
by Amano (15)), followed by general appearance with no lumps. Texture results
varied ranging from ‘‘a fine and acceptable texture’’ to ‘‘a rough texture, which
needed improvement’’ (15,24). Color has already been described above. In boiling
the sweetpotato flour, Martin (30) detected a disagreeable odor and a taste that was
nauseating to most people. However, both could be inhibited by the use of small
quantities of sodium metabisulfite or ascorbic acid added after preparation of the
flour, but before cooking. Organoleptic quality of sweetpotato flour however is
mostly evaluated through the organoleptic quality of products made from it. If sweet-
potato flour is used as a substitute for wheat flour, the requirement of an appearance
similar to the original products (made with 100% wheat flour) could only be reached
with low substitution levels. Peters and Wheatley (11) found that partial substitution
with sweetpotato flour changed the taste, smell, and texture of the product enough
to have them marketed as a different product.
For the salted western type of bread, sweetpotato flour has been found to have a
negative effect on loaf volume, flavor, color, and texture. Hence, its use for that
purpose is restricted. In the case of other types of bread with less volume (chappathis,
poories, buns), higher substitution levels have been used succesfully (1,22). In a
large variety of baked goods and other products, mostly with a sweet taste, sweetpo-
tato flour can be used in higher proportions and consumers do express willingness
ORDER REPRINTS
14 VAN HAL
to buy these products. In some cases, however, rejection occurs due to a pronounced
sweetpotato taste and/or aroma (1,15,24,53).
PROCESSING
Processing provides an alternative to the difficulties associated with storage of fresh

roots (1). By reducing their water content, bulky and perishable sweetpotato roots
can be transformed into compact, easily stored and transportable material. Drying
is potentially the simplest and least costly process to reduce storage loss of sweetpo-
tato (30). Dehydration of sweetpotato roots has been traditionally practiced in many
developing countries (1). In India, sweetpotato tubers are cleaned, sliced, and dehy-
drated in the sun in open yards. They are ground and used as a supplement to cereal
flours in bakery products, chappathis, and puddings (18). Drying of root slices is
also practiced to a small extent in Bangladesh. However, farmers there often do not
have access to even the minimum facilities required to produce dried chips of good
quality. In the Philippines, dried chips are prepared for storage and then pounded
into a flour to be used in the preparation of a gruel. In parts of East and West Africa,
where there is a pronounced dry season, roots are peeled, sliced, and sun dried for
storage. When needed, the dried roots are ground into a flour and used in making
local dishes (1). In Peru, sweetpotato flour has been produced for decades, albeit in
small quantities, to prepare wheat/sweetpotato bread (54).
Large-scale, energy-intensive drying is not economically viable in tropical areas.
Woolfe (1) mentioned a factory in Papua, New Guinea, which had to stop operating
because of insufficient raw material, high costs, and poor marketing and promotion.
Studies on the processing of sweetpotato into starch and other by-products have
been carried out, mainly for chemical analysis of the flour (24). Improvement of
sweetpotato processing technologies is rarely carried out, and further promotion is
needed to create awareness and interest (55).
The alternative steps involved in producing sweetpotato flour are shown in
Figure 1.
Raw Material
Control of raw material consists of checking if it has the required quality to elaborate
products conformed established norms (26,52). For sweetpotato roots to produce
good quality flour, research has shown that they should be low in total free sugar
content, reducing sugar content, amylase activity, polyphenoloxidase content, and
have high dry matter (23). The first and the fourth are related to discoloration during
processing. Roots are still acceptable for processing if the reducing sugars do not
exceed 2% (dry weight basis) (24). Sweetpotato varieties with high dry matter are
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 1. Sweetpotato flour production. (*Optional 5,11,30,33,34,39,48,56–60).
preferred since this favors the percentage of flour recovered by drying and as such
reduce the costs. Woolfe (1) mentions two Philippine cultivars reported to yield 12
and 37 kg, respectively, of flour from 100 kg of fresh roots.
Trimming
Sweetpotatoes are selected based on the size of the roots and on other standards set
by the processor (for example: freedom from excessive soil or other foreign material,
rotting, insect damage, or excessive mechanical damage) (59).
Washing
The roots are then washed to remove as much soil and other dirt as possible (57).
Peeling to remove dirt from the roots can substitute for washing if (clean) water is
not available (61). Den et al. (60) described the washer they made of an empty drum
with a rotating frame holding brushes and having a capacity of 300 kg roots/hr. The
ORDER REPRINTS
16 VAN HAL
type of washing equipment and procedure used are not critical as long as all soil is
removed (62).
Peeling
Peeling removes the skin from the root and can be carried out manually or mechani-
cally. Manually, a kitchen knife, hand-held peeler or household peeler can be used
(11,57,59). For mechanical washing/peeling of root crops, a machine has been devel-
oped at the Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Centre (PRCRTC) of the
Visayas State College of Agriculture (ViSCA). The machine was found to clean the
roots (average length 94.8 mm and largest diameter 80 mm) fully. However, peeling
was incomplete because of the irregular shape of the roots. Only those surfaces that
had been scratched by the screen of the drum were peeled. Average washing/peeling
time was 2.9 min per batch of 30 Kg (63).
A similar machine (rotary screen friction peeler turning at 30 rpm with a capacity
of 650 kg/hr) was suggested for a sweetpotato flour production plant in the Philip-
pines (64).
More sophisticated peeling methods are lye peeling and steam peeling. For the
first method, a time of 3–7 min, a temperature of 103–104°C, and a concentration
of 10–22% of lye were used (62,65). Thorough washing is necessary after the use
of this method. Even though lye peeling is widely used in industry, it results in the
highest peeling losses (yield of 86% peeled sweetpotato). Steam peeling is superior
in this respect since yields as high as 98% can be achieved (66).
Peeled sweetpotato roots must be submerged in water to avoid browning (59).
Since the peel of the root is thin, it does not pose problems if it is not removed
before processing. This makes the decision to peel dependent only on consumer
acceptance of a slightly browner flour color caused by the color of the skin (61).
Slicing/Shredding
The sweetpotatoes are next cut into slices, shreds, or cubes to speed up drying. The
thinner the pieces, the shorter the drying time (61). The thickness of the slices can
be 1.5–5.5 mm, with 2–3 mm the mostly commonly used (8,24,33,34,50,61,67), and
length up to 5 cm (41). Equipment used may be:
Hand-held slicer, which produces remarkably good slices of even thickness with a
minimum of fuss (61);
Hand-held grater (11);
Pedal-driven slicer (8,58), one with a capacity of 60–70 kg/h;
Lever-type slicer with a capacity of 130 kg/h (60);
Hand-cranked slicer based on a rotating disc (capacity 70–80 kg/hr) (1);
ORDER REPRINTS
Manually operated electric cuber (60);

Motor-operated slicer. One example is a flywheel-type chipping machine (ViSCA-
PRCRTC). The rate of feeding is manual and capacity can reach 1125 kg/h. Thick-
ness of the slices ranges from 4.5 and 6.1 mm with an average of 5.5 mm. Another
type of slicer mentioned has a rotating head operated by a motor, with a capacity
of 400–500 kg/h (1).
Gakonyo (61) found the slicing step somewhat difficult since the roots contained
sticky liquid (probably latex, Ed.) which made smooth slicing a problem. During
slicing the roots were resistant and stuck to the slicing tool. Martin (30) also encoun-
tered problems due to the release of latex, which gummed up his slicer. Varieties
containing low latex were suggested to solve this problem. Martin (30) studied the
difference between slicing and shredding on the ease of drying and milling. He re-
ported that slices were easier to handle, but more difficult to dry and once dry were
more difficult to mill than shreds.
Soaking (Bleaching/Blanching)
The sweetpotato slices can be dipped in water (cold/boiling) or in solutions which

contain sodium sulfite, sodium metabisulfite, citric acid, acetic acid or potassium,
to prevent browning, to whiten the final product, to preserve the natural flavor of
the sweetpotatoes, and/or to prevent microbiological contamination (24,39,41,
50,57,58,61). Time of dipping ranges between 3 and 10 minutes (concentration and
time of this treatment are discussed in more detail in the section on Quality Improve-
ment).
If the blanching time is substantial, blanching could act as a form of incomplete
cooking. In this respect, Martin (30) mentioned that shreds could be cooked more
uniformly than slices, but once cooked were more easily eroded and very difficult
to handle. Uncooked slices and shreds were much easier to extend on drying trays,
and dried much more rapidly than similar cooked materials. Moy and Chi (68) re-
ported similar results. They speculated that the explanation was that as the starch in
the cooked slices gelatinized, the water had to be removed from a more tightly bound
structure. However, reducing the time or intensity of a pre-drying process resulted
in flours with disagreeable reactions (30). Gakonyo (61) stated the contrary, she does
not consider this step crucial to the quality of the final product.
Pressing
Before drying, the slices/shreds can be pressed to remove some of the moisture.
However, pressing can reduce the content of total protein, some of the sugar and
the soluble minerals, with the latter being lost in the extracted juice (1).
ORDER REPRINTS
18 VAN HAL
Peters and Wheatley (38) studied the use of a stainless steel press to de-water
sweetpotato slices to facilitate drying and extract phenolic compounds (reduction of
browning process). They found that the local climatic conditions (Kenongo, Indone-
sia) were so favorable (dry) that the press did not influence the final moisture content
of the flour or help shorten the drying time. However, they also noted that the white-
ness of the pressed flour decreased while in storage. Since their sample size (amount
of varieties) was very small, the adverse affect of pressing on the flour whiteness
was put as a working hypothesis for further trials. In more humid conditions, a press
may prove useful and worth the expense.
Spreading
The slices/shreds are evenly spread on trays or mats made from bamboo mats, perfo-
rated metal trays, plastic sheeting, aluminum screening, aluminum sheeting painted
black, mosquito netting, and nylon mesh to dry (11,24,59,68,69).
Ideally the equipment must be clean and must allow a maximum surface area for
drying (a raised platform) (58) and should capture as much heat energy as possible
to speed up the process (61). Plastic has the advantage of being cheap and portable.
It can lend itself to other purposes in the household or farm and if rain begins during
the drying period it is easy to fold up the sheet and protect the chips from moisture
until better conditions return. However, slices spread on plastic only expose one
surface to the drying element (61). Peters and Wheatley (11) did not find a difference
between using metal sheets or bamboo mats, as far as drying time and color of the
shreds was concerned. Optimum densities are only mentioned in three cases: 1 m 2
of a plastic sheet for every 4 kg of slices (61); a loading density of 6.4 kg/m 2 for
aluminium sheeting and plastic (66); and a density of 5 kg/m 2 for nylon mesh (69).
Zhao and Jia (70) suggested fumigation with sulphur as a solution in case of
enforced storage of the wet or partially dried spread slices when no sunshine is
available (in case of solar drying). Fumigated slices could be piled for 10 days with-
out molding or rotting, while the untreated slices could spoil in 2–3 days.
Drying
Drying is the most critical step in processing sweetpotato flour in terms of the final
flour quality. Maximum plant capacity depends on drying capacity (39).
Different drying methods exist. Solar drying is cheapest since it uses free and
non-polluting energy with a minimum investment in equipment. However, solar dry-
ing has a number of disadvantages. They include: i) poor control of energy input
and product quality; ii) the interruption of drying caused by cloud, rain, and nightfall;
as well as iii) frequent contamination of food by microorganisms, dust, and insects.
ORDER REPRINTS
The quality of solar dried foods is often considered inferior to that of foods dried
by other methods (1,68).
A second method of drying is by means of a cabinet or tunnel dryer in which air
is heated by a fuel, which can be wood, agro-wastes (fruit and vegetable wastes),
biogas, or electricity. An original idea was put forward by Winarno (65) who sug-
gested using geothermal energy for the operation of dehydration plants in Indonesia,
where sweetpotato is cultivated in the vicinity of these energy resources.
Finally, drum or spray drying is used in large-scale enterprises. These are highly
technical processes which use large amounts of energy and for that reason is not
suitable for many tropical countries (30). The final flour obtained is different from
the one produced using solar, cabinet, or tunnel drying, since the flour leaves the
drum dryer or sprayer pre-cooked. Hence, large-scale drying will only be discussed
briefly here.
Solar Drying
Drying of sweetpotato root slices in direct sunlight (5,11,38,50,58) or in a solar dryer
(59,68,69) is frequently carried out. Drying times of 4, 6–7, 8, or 12–15 hours and
1, 2, and 5 days have been recorded, depending on climatic conditions. Slices were
dried until they reached a moisture content of about 6–10% (50,65,69). Both white
and colored varieties have been found suitable for solar drying (65).
Two solar dryers have been designed and tested for the dehydration of sweetpotato
slices. The indirect type of solar dryer developed by the PRCRTC consists of a drying
chamber and a solar collector with an air inlet. Drying is accomplished by means
of heated air which picks up moisture as it passes through the sweetpotato slices
and releases its moisture through a chimney. The rate of moisture loss from the slices
was affected by the fluctuating chamber temperature, but was gradual throughout
the drying time. The weight of 3 mm thick slices was reduced to 42% of the original
and moisture content to about 13% after one solar drying day. For 6 mm thick slices,
the moisture content dropped from 60% to 24% in one day (69).
At the University of Hawaii (68), a combined mode solar dehydrator was devel-
oped with roughly the same construction as the one previously described, but with
a drying chamber which could transmit light. The solar heated air from the solar
collector (indirect mode) was supplemented with solar radiant energy absorbed in
the drying chamber (direct mode). The dehydrator could function in three modes:
direct, indirect, or combined direct and indirect. The capacity of the dehydrator was
6.5–12 kg per load. Temperature measurements in the drying chamber showed that
the air was heated to 40°C at 10 am, to a maximum of 54°C around 1 pm and then
decreased to 44°C by 4 pm. Moisture content of (6 mm cooked) sweetpotato slices
was reduced to less than 10% in 12–15 h, with the combined mode function being
the most efficient. The use of dehumidified air increased the drying rates by about
6–8%, but was not considered efficient enough to justify its use. Variables found
ORDER REPRINTS
20 VAN HAL
were the amount of heat transfer from solar radiation to the dryer system, size and
shape of the samples, loading densities, and the relative humidity of the air as a
result of being heated (68).
Artificial Drying
Artificial drying in a cabinet or tunnel dryer is based on the same principal as solar
drying, with the difference being that the air is heated by fuel. In this type of dryer,
the drying temperature, drying time and air velocity, and hence total dehydration
conditions can be controlled. Unfortunately, it has a high expenditure of energy re-
sulting in high production costs (39).
On a laboratory scale (research), mostly cabinet dryers (convection dryer, air flow
oven, forced draft type of cabinet dryer) have been used, exposing the slices to tem-
peratures between 50°C–80°C for a period of 21/2 –24 h (combinations like 50°C/4
h, 60°C/9 h, 60°C/24 h, 60–70°C/21/2 h, and 60–70°C/10–12 h have been used)
(24,31,33,41,67,71). Zhao and Jia (70) suggested an increase in the drying tempera-
ture (starting from 70°C) at the late drying stage.
On a (small) industrial scale in Brazil, sweetpotato shreds were dried (toasted)
on a large and hardened clay surface heated underneath by fire (1). Den et al. (60)
developed a low-cost natural convection dryer composed of a furnace, an air heating
chamber, a drying chamber, and upper heat exchanger. The dryer had a capacity of
100 kg/batch and was fueled by agro-wastes. Drying took 16–20 h at 60–65°C.
A third artificial dryer for sweetpotato slices on an industrial scale was developed
by ViSCA-PRCRTC in the Philippines. The dryer was a batch-type dryer to dry root
crop chips consisting of a cabinet-type drying chamber and heating system. The
heating system consisted of a direct-fired heater using liquefied petroleum gas (fuel
consumption rate 1.57 kg/h of LPG) and an axial-flow blower. The humidified air
was removed through a chimney-like outlet. The temperature inside the chamber
was set at 60–65°C for 15 h during which time the moisture content of the dried
samples was reduced from 74% to 12%. The drying capacity was 16.7 kg/h (63).
To select data for the design of efficient dryers for sweetpotatoes, Diamante and
Munro (9) studied the dehydration of sweetpotato slices. They found that the drying
curve consisted of two approximately linear falling rate periods and that a constant
drying rate period was absent. The transition between the two falling rate periods
did not correspond to any visible change in the sweetpotato. The sample surface did
develop a hard, brittle outer layer during drying but its formation began before the
transition point. The modified Page equation was found to be the best description
for the drying curves of sweetpotato slices down to a moisture content of 10% (dry
weight basis).
The major variables that affected the drying rates of sweetpotato slices were air
velocity, slice thickness, and air-dry bulb temperature. A summary of the equations
for modeling the drying of sweetpotato slices is shown in Table 7.
ORDER REPRINTS
Table 7. Summary of Equations for Modeling the Drying of Sweetpotato Slices

Moisture content (% dry basis)
M ⫽ (M 0 ⫺ Me ) exp(-k[t/L2 ] n ) ⫹ M e
Equilibrium moisture content (% dry basis)
M e ⫽ 20.506 T ⫺0.204 (a w /[1 ⫺ a w ]) 0.390
Intercept
ln k ⫽ ⫺7.871 ⫹ 0.0105 T ⫹ 1.458 ln V ⫹ 4.694 W ⫺ 0.448 VW
Slope
n ⫽ 0.921 ⫹ 0.00628 T ⫺ 0.0490 V ⫺ 0.269 W 2 ⫹ 0.0145 HW 2 ⫹ 0.0375 VW 2
H ⫽ air % RH; L ⫽ slice half thickness (cm); M 0 ⫽ initial moisture content (% dry basis); T ⫽ air
dry bulb temperature (°C); V ⫽ air velocity m s⫺1 ; W ⫽ slice thickness (cm); a w ⫽ water activity;
t ⫽ time (h).
‘‘High Tech’’ Drying Method

‘‘High tech’’ drying methods of sweetpotato are drum drying and spray drying of
purée, where pre-cooked sweetpotato flour is obtained. (See References 1, 39, and
62 for more information on this subject).
Grinding
Grinding is normally carried out with a hammer mill (59,61,64) where the particle
size is reduced to 60–80 mesh (29,31,41). Two authors mentioned the grinding step
they used consisted of two stages. Taylor (64) used a primary grinder with a speed
of 2000 rpm for rough grinding, followed by a final grinding in an ‘‘attrition’’
grinder. The attrition grinding mill (processing capacity up to 150 kg of ground
product per hour) was designed to meet food grade standards and used stainless steel
to pulverize the finer dried chips into a 300-mesh fine flour. Lizado and Guzman
(24) pulverized the dried slices on a laboratory scale. They used a blender with a
secondary pulverization in a pulverizing machine (Mikropulverizer).
If dehydration is carried out on a household level, the dried chips can simply be
taken to the nearest hammer mill where commercial grinding is carried out. It is not
necessary that all the chips be ground immediately since they are in a highly storable
form. Thus the processor can transport the chips to the hammer mill as needed (61).
Sifting
In some cases, the ground flour is passed through a sieve, with mesh size ranging
from 40 mesh (300 µm) (67) to 80 mesh (212 µm) (24,33). The PRCRTC developed
a ‘‘flour finisher’’ to separate fine flour from crude flour produced after grinding the
dried sweetpotato slices. The machine has an average input capacity of 331.9 kg/h
ORDER REPRINTS
22 VAN HAL
crude flour. The purity of the fine flour was 93%. Separation efficiency was found
to be 71.7% and a separation loss of 28.3% (which is quite high, Ed.) (63). This
step should only be taken if particle size is given as a quality criterion of the produced
flour.
Packaging
The sweetpotato flour is then packaged and sealed in different forms of packaging
material, which includes porcelain and glass jars, tin cans, paper ‘‘craft’’ bags, poly-
propylene bags, polyethylene bags, cotton bags, or a combination of two different
materials, for example polyethylene and cotton bags together (1,24,31,33,39,48,71,
73,74) (Table 8).
Processing Efficiency
A key factor influencing the commercial use of sweetpotato flour as a substitute for
wheat flour is its price relative to wheat flour. Local sweetpotato flour must often
compete with wheat imports, frequently subsidized in one form or another. Only by
very efficient processing, both in terms of utilization of the raw material and of
output of good quality flour, can sweetpotato flour be competitive (56). Some re-
searchers utilized cost-benefit analysis in their assessment of sweetpotato processing
(11,55).
Yield
Yield (or conversion rate) can be defined as a ratio of the weight of the flour to the
weight of the raw roots expressed as a percentage (24). The flour yield depends on
the variety (data yielded a high correlation between dry matter content and the con-
version rate (38)), the dry matter of the final flour (38,61) and the technologies used.
Table 8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Packaging Material
Material
Trait Paper Cotton Polyethylene Polypropylene
Advantages cheap relatively cheap impermeable for relatively impermeable

biodegradable does not tear water vapor for water vapor
washable washable washable
biodegradable does not tear does not tear
Disadvantages tears easily permeable for expensive relatively expensive
permeable for water vapor not biodegradable not biodegradable
water vapor
ORDER REPRINTS
Losses due to peeling and trimming are particularly important (30,75) while the
fineness of the sifting was also found to influence the conversion rate (38). Yields
reported in the literature range from 17 to 38% (11,24,30,38,75), with a distribution
shown in Figure 2 (n ⫽ 34, no account was taken of the moisture content of the
final flour).
Gakonyo (61) calculated a conversion factor (2.65: 1 for unpeeled roots: flour) by
using the known moisture content of sweetpotato (70%) and the desired moisture
content of the flour (12%) and assuming a 10% wastage rate. Using these calcula-
tions, she determined a yield of 37.7%.
Processing Costs
Processing costs depend on the type of technology used. Provided that the quality
of the flour remains acceptable, processing costs can be lowered by using inexpensive
technology. For such technology to benefit small farmers and rural processors, Gako-
nyo (61) argues that it must be easy to use, provided by local artisans at a low price,
and have multiple uses for those periods when sweetpotato processing is not possible.
Hired labor costs should be as low as possible (use of own household labor and
farm wages instead of urban rates) and work must be flexible in its time requirements
(61,75).
Steps in the process that influence costs are choice of raw material, peeling, slicing,
bleaching, drying, and milling.
Raw Material
Processing costs are influenced by the condition of the fresh sweetpotato roots. If a
large portion of the roots have discolored or rotted areas resulting from diseases or
Figure 2. Distribution of yield of flour of different sweetpotato varieties.

ORDER REPRINTS
24 VAN HAL
pests, parts of the roots are unusable and as such can greatly reduce the quantities
of flour produced. Moreover culling the unusable parts increases labor costs (61).
Peeling
Peeling the roots is sometimes included in the process to increase the quality of the
flour but it causes losses (30). Gakonyo (61) calculated that allowing for a wastage
rate of 10% of root weight, 100 kg of peeled roots would yield 34 kg of flour while
unpeeled roots would produce 38 kg. Loss due to peeling vary from 11.4% to more
than 23% depending on the form and irregularity of the roots. Elimination of the
peeling step cuts down the processing time, since peeling is time-consuming work,
although using unpeeled roots requires the washing step to be especially thorough.
Slicing
The costs for slicing are dependent on the type of slicer used. Manual slicing is
economically inefficient especially if labor has to be paid, although Tardif-Douglin
(75) stated that with larger quantities, unit costs for processing could decline. Using
simple machines to slice the roots (i.e., mechanical shredder) was found to be cheaper
than a hand-held grater (11).
Soaking/Bleaching
Eliminating the step of soaking the sweetpotato slices with sodium metabisulphite
solution, which whitens the finished product, considerably reduces processing costs
(61). The decision to leave this step out will depend on the requirements of whiteness
for the specific use of the sweetpotato flour.
Drying
Since (apart from solar drying) fuel is necessary to this step, drying is responsible
for most of the production costs (58). Espinola et al. (20) have made some rough
and ready calculations of the cost of processing sweetpotato flour in Peru. The cost
of processing in a plant with an electrical dryer was estimated to be about $0.76/
kg. Using a small-scale plant in Pucallpa, where drying is based on wood/gas, the
price of the flour could be considerably reduced ($0.26/kg).
In many countries, solar-drying can be used as a simple and cheap method. It
requires very few purchased inputs and is suitable for home and small-scale use as
well as industrialization (75).
Milling
Grinding may be carried out with a home grinder or can be taken to a nearby mill,
although in the latter case, transport and milling fees have to be paid (61).
ORDER REPRINTS
Influence of Processing on Sweetpotato Flour Quality

To obtain an homogeneous quality of sweetpotato flour during processing, it is neces-
sary to choose those processing conditions that prevent loss of nutrients, discolor-
ation, microbiological contamination, and organoleptic changes. The conditions that
affect these quality characteristics are described below.
Nutritional Value
Changes in the nutritional value of the sweetpotato roots during processing were
found to occur mostly in the peeling, soaking, pre-cooking, and drying steps.
Flours from peeled and unpeeled roots were found to be different in composition
since flour from the latter was higher in ash and crude fiber (36). Sammy (37) com-
pared the proximal composition of spray-dried flours obtained from peeled and un-
peeled roots. He concluded that peeling had little effect on this composition and as
such decided to use unpeeled sweetpotatoes.
Changes due to soaking were a decrease of yield due to losses of some solubles,
higher final moisture content of the flour due to reduction of evaporation by the
solute sodium bisulfite, a decrease of total sugar content, starch and amylose content
and ash content, as well as shrinkage of the slices due to plasmolysis (10,36).
Martin (30) studied the influence of microwave pre-cooking before drying on the
chemical composition of sweetpotato flour. He found that in flours made from
microwave baked sweetpotatoes, the amount of starch varied from 40–60%, which
was much less than in comparable flours from uncooked sweetpotatoes (69–85%).
The levels of non-reducing sugars and of protein were unaffected, while the levels
of reducing sugars were much higher in flours from microwave-baked sweetpota-
toes.
Many studies have examined the changes in sweetpotato nutrients as a result of
heat treatment (1,62). Unfortunately, information on dehydration through simple
methods is scarce since most researchers have focused on spray-drying, drum-drying,
microwave-baking, etc.
Sammy (37) compared the chemical composition of spray-dried and cabinet-dried
sweetpotato flours and found that the products were similar except for the higher
moisture content of the cabinet-dried flour and the higher sugar (both reducing and
total sugars) content of the spray-dried flour. Changes in content due to cabinet dry-
ing were minimal (see Table 9).
Heat processing treatments have a negative influence on protein quantity and qual-
ity depending on the period and the intensity (temperature) of heat exposure. From
the different types of heat treatments studied by Purcell and Walter (76) (baking,
canning, and drum drying), baking was considered to be the least severe heat treat-
ment with internal temperatures probably not exceeding 100°C. It resulted in the
lowest reduction of total protein, lysine, and methionine. Based on these results, it
ORDER REPRINTS
26 VAN HAL
Table 9. Proximate Composition of Fresh Roots and Its Spray-Dried

and Cabinet-Dried Flour for One Sweetpotato Cultivar
Flour, Flour,
Fresh roots spray-dried cabinet-dried
Property (% dwb) (% dwb) (% dwb)
Humidity 69–71 2.48 7.20

Fiber 1.18 1.20 1.42
Ash 1.65 1.71 1.55
Reducing sugars 3.24 4.43 2.80
Total sugars 6.31 8.24 6.30
Crude protein 3.50 3.50 3.20
Fat 0.48 0.40 0.41
can be inferred that conditions of dehydration during solar drying or cabinet drying,
with temperatures not exceeding 80°C are even more moderate, so that the destruc-
tion of proteins is also less. This was confirmed by Walter et al. (41). Although the
content of most of the amino acids were more or less the same for oven and drum-
dried flours, the lysine content of the drum-dried flour was substantially lower. This
resulted in a lower (corrected) protein efficiency ratio (PER) (1.27 for drum-dried
flour versus 2.22 for oven-dried flour) for the drum-dried flour. The high temperature
applied during drum drying (⫾ 120–140°C) caused a reaction of the ε-amino group
of lysine with reducing groups of carbohydrates which caused the lysine to be de-
stroyed irreversibly and as such to become nutritionally unavailable.
␤-Carotene
β-Carotene is another nutrient which is subject to degradative changes. β-Carotene

destruction is through isomerization or oxidation. Both can occur during thermal
processing. Isomerization is the process of all trans-β-carotene (which exhibits the
greatest vitamin A activity) changing to stereo-isomers having lower pro-vitamin A
activity like 13-cis and 9-cis isomers. Isomerization of β-carotene during solar- or
cabinet drying has not been studied, but was found to occur during canning, dehydra-
tion in a drum-dryer, microwaving, and baking, with the quantity of isomer formed
related to the severity and length of the heat treatment. Thus, dehydrated flakes con-
tained the greatest amount of 13-cis isomer (28.9%) (77). The same researchers found
that sweetpotatoes showed a greater susceptibility to isomerization reactions than to
decomposition. Oxidative degradation of β-carotene occurs through a free-radical
process, with losses highest in baked samples (31.4%) and substantially in drum-
dried (20.5%) and microwaved (22.7%) samples. Using air-drying (which simulates
solar or cabinet drying), the degradation of beta-carotene at three different tempera-
tures was studied. β-Carotene was reduced less at 60°C than at 70°C or 80°C at
ORDER REPRINTS
any particular drying time and showed a first order reaction. When small strips of
sweetpotato were dried in a cabinet dryer beginning at 70°C and reduced to 50°C
over a period of 6 hours, loss of carotenoids (of which 80% was β-carotene) was
about 20% for each of the two Indian cultivars (1). Both water content and starch
were found to have a protective effect on carotene stability (3,77).
Color
Discoloration of sweetpotato slices/shreds is the quality change occurring during

processing that is most frequently mentioned. It produces a low quality, i.e., brown
flour, due to the action of oxidase enzymes and is enhanced by mechanical or heat
treatment (10,78). To control this problem, different treatments have been suggested:
improved mechanical treatment, soaking, and shorter drying times.
Mechanical Treatment: A difference was found in the flour color due to peeling.
Flour from unpeeled roots was found to be darker in color than flour made from
peeled roots (61) because of the insertion of the dark color of the peel. Peeling, if
executed in such a way that the outer 5 mm of tissue of the root is removed, would
result in a product less prone to darkening since the phenolic compounds are no
longer available (1). No difference was found using a press (38). Flour obtained
from shredded sweetpotato had the highest degree of whiteness, followed by slices
and whole storage roots (10).
Soaking: Soaking shreds in three changes of water reduced browning during drying
and did not seem to increase drying time (11). Soaking decreases oxidase activity
and thus prevents browning. A bleaching agent can also be added to the water, such
as sulfite, sulfuric acid, NaCl, citric acid, or ascorbic acid. Hamed et al. (36) com-
pared different bleaching agents. They found that sliced roots soaked in 7% solution
of NaCl for 1–4 min failed to produce a white flour, nor could the addition of 7%
dried NaCl, 6% dried NaCl plus 0.25% citric acid, and 0.01% dry sodium metabisul-
fite to the ground tubers. When using 2% citric acid solution for soaking, the final
dehydrated product had a red-yellowish tint. This was due to the caramelization of
sugars accelerated by the citric acid. Hamed et al. (36) obtained the lightest colored
product by soaking sliced tubers in sodium metabisulfite solutions. Treatments for
1,2,3,4, and 5 min with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% metabisulfite all gave satisfac-
tory color except the treatment in a solution of 0.5% for 1 min. Widowati and Damar-
djati (10) used less metabisulfite (0.3%) but soaked the slices for a much longer time
(up to 80 min) as did Sammy (37) (1 h, 1%). Widowati and Damardjati (10) found
a positive correlation between soaking time and degree of whiteness, with 60 min
as an optimum (there was no significant difference in the degree of whiteness be-
tween 60 and 80 min soaking time). Hamed et al. (36) also described the method
of Watanabe et al. (79). They soaked slices of sweetpotato for 20 h in 1.5 parts of
0.2% sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) residues in the sweetpotato flour (to be
avoided if the flour is used to prepare bread) were found to vary between low and
ORDER REPRINTS
28 VAN HAL
safe for consumption (3.50–7.83 ppm) (10), intermediate (level of 134–156 ppm)
(80), up to high levels of 460 ppm (36).
The influence of pH on the soaking solution to prevent browning was studied
keeping sweetpotato slices for 2 min in 0.5% sodium metabisulfite solutions (T0 ⫽
0%) at different pH values (7.4, 4.1, and using citric acid at 3.0 and 2.5) after which
they were dried and ground to a flour. With the lowest pH (2.5), a superior quality
flour was obtained due to the improved inhibitory efficiency of the SO 2 or a decrease
in activity of the polyphenol oxidase. Saint-Hilaire and François (80) suggested fur-
ther investigation on the effects of a combination of low pH and treatment time since
this method could serve as a substitute for expensive and sophisticated blanching.
The influence of the low pH on the functional properties of the sweetpotato flour
should be checked.
Drying: Although shorter drying times have been suggested (38) to reduce brow-
ning, there are no data to support this idea.
Microbiological Quality
To solve problems of microbiological contamination during processing the following

measures have been proposed (38):
improve hygiene practice;
avoid contamination through water by disinfecting it with chlorine;
ensure better disinfection of the equipment, for example, by using water containing
a low concentration of sodium hypochlorite at the end of each day.
Widowati and Damardjati (10) found that soaking time (applied during processing)
affected the color and appearance of the sweetpotato flour. Longer soaking time gave
whiter flour, which is assumed to be consumer preference. Aroma, on the other hand,
was not affected by sodium bisulfite.
STORABILITY
Although flour is less vulnerable to spoilage during storage than the fresh roots, it
has a capacity for absorbing moisture. Dried sweetpotato products have a higher
sugar content, which favors the growth of microorganisms and attack by insects. For
prolonged storage, sweetpotato flour must be put in sealed containers or packaging
while it still has a low moisture content (70). The packaging material must be imper-
meable to vapor and gas (1), resist tearing, protect against contamination from the
environment, be easy to handle, and preferably be inexpensive. Sweetpotato flour
samples stored in paper craft bags grew mold, which indicated that this packaging
material is not appropriate (33). Plastic bags are appropriate when properly sealed
ORDER REPRINTS
(74). Flour stored in polyethylene and polypropylene bags did not deteriorate for 5
to 7 months (1,33,48,74). The advantage of double packaging (polyethylene plus
muslin cloth) to prevent lumpiness and loss of color was shown by Orbase and Autos
(48), but there was no information about the superiority of double over single packag-
ing for other quality characteristics if storage exceeded 6 months.
Influence of Storage on Sweetpotato Flour Quality

Moisture Content
Zhao and Jia (70) concluded from their experiments in China that for storage of
dried sweetpotato products critical moisture content varies depending on local tem-
perature and humidity (at 6–10°C ambient temperatures more than 17% moisture
content can be tolerated, at 15–20°C only 12.5%, and at 27–29°C a maximum level
of 12.5%). They recommended drying to a moisture content of less than 11.5% and
a maximum of 10% for long term storage, and the use of woven straw containers
under conditions of good ventilation provided the season is dry and cold. The dried
products must be transferred into sealed conditions before the exterior temperature
and the interior humidity increase substantially. Some increase in moisture content
during storage is almost inevitable, but the level of moisture uptake is dependent on
the packaging material. Hamed et al. (36) found an increase in moisture content from
2–3% (from 6.5% to 8.8% in 73 days and during a second trial from 5.1% to 8.3%
in 36 days) during storage in cloth sacks at a storage temperature between 21–29°C
(even under SO 2 atmosphere). This resulted in clumping and darkening of the flour.
It is interesting to note that the change in moisture content is largely in the first nine
days. Storage of sweetpotato flour in paper bags in ambient conditions increased the
humidity by about 8% in four and a half months, while increases of only 2.1–5.4%
and 6.2–7.9% took place over 7 months when storage was in glass jars and plastic
bags, respectively. In these last two packaging materials, the humidity did not exceed
the tolerable level of 14% for flours. Moisture uptake appears to vary for different
cultivars (33).
Nutritional Value
Proximate Composition: Gurkin Ulm (3) found that neither storage atmosphere,
time, or temperature affected the content of fat, protein, carbohydrate, and total di-
etary fiber when flour was stored for 6 weeks under 2% oxygen at 21°C. Nor did
de Carvalho et al. (33) find significant changes in proteins and free nitrogen in sweet-
potato flour stored for up to 7 months in paper craft bags, plastic bags, and glass
pots. Acidity, although low, doubled in all cases after 7 months of storage. Sweetpo-
tato flour treated with SO 2 lost part of its SO 2 as the storage period progressed. The
percentage loss of SO 2 during storage was 60% after 73 days in the first trial and
24% after 36 days in the second trial. This could have been due to the low atmo-
spheric temperature prevailing during the storage period in the second trial (36).
ORDER REPRINTS
30 VAN HAL
Protein Quality: Although protein content remained unchanged during storage,

the quality of the protein did change. Available lysine decreased in oven-dried flour
during six months of storage regardless of storage temperature or type of packaging
material. The biggest reduction (70%) occurred in the first two months and changed
little between 4 and 6 months of storage time. There was an indication that available
lysine decreased less at 4°C than at 25°C (1).
Carotenoids: During storage, auto-oxidation of carotenoids may take place,
leading to a loss of color and an undesirable decline in nutritional value. The stability
of beta-carotene proved to be strongly and adversely affected by storage temperature
and light, with low temperature (4°C) and storage in the dark to be optimal for
stability (1). Head-space oxygen in the storage bags influenced β-carotene content.
Samples stored for six weeks under 2% oxygen suffered an average loss of 4.4%
of beta-carotene more than samples stored under 0% oxygen (β-carotene content of
43,294 versus 45,299 µg/100 g). With an extended storage period, most likely the
loss of beta-carotene may have been even greater (29). There was an unexpected
increase (20.7%) in the amount of pigment extracted from samples taken at intervals
from sweetpotato flour stored for 6 weeks. The authors believe that this increase is
due to an increased extractability of the pigments because synthesis of beta-carotene
is very unlikely in dry flour. In contrast with Woolfe (1), they found no influence
of storage temperature (at 0, 7, 14 or 21°C) on the β-carotene content. Starch has
been found to have a protective effect against oxidative beta-carotene discoloration
in dehydrated foods since the starch is a barrier against oxidative attack (3). So
possibly, sweetpotato varieties with higher levels of starch and lower levels of sugars
would be less at risk.
The form in which the dried sweetpotato is stored (flakes, flour, chips) seems
to influence carotene content. Although exact storage conditions are unknown, the
following examples can serve as an indication. When (drum-dried) flakes are stored
in air, between 20% and 40% of the carotene is destroyed within 30 days. Flour
containing 50 mg/100 g total carotenoids lost 50% of its carotenoids in 5 months
of storage (1). The total carotenoid content of sweetpotato dried chips stored for 11
months in a craft paper bag was almost linearly reduced to a mean of 82% of its
initial content (see also Figure 3) (81).
Color
White Flour: Immediately after production, sweetpotato flour made from white va-
rieties can have a whiteness comparable to powdered white rice (72). Discoloration
of the flour during storage is described by Orbase and Autos (48), who found that
the flour from 4 different varieties stored for 6 months (in polyethylene, cotton, and
polyethylene/cotton packaging) did not change in color. Only during one trial did
the flour stored in polyethylene bags turned greyish, probably because of moisture
absorbed as a result of a flash flood at the experiment station. Unfortunately, data
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 3. The effect of storage time on carotenoid content in sweetpotato dried chips.
on moisture content of the samples are not given, nor are the method of color mea-
surement. Also Hamed et al. (36) found that as the storage period proceeded, the
flour darkened slightly in color, with the darkening accelerated by an increase in
moisture content and temperature.
Orange Flour: Because the yellow–orange color is caused by the presence of
carotenoid pigments, mainly beta-carotene, preservation of the carotenoids is essen-
tial for color retention. Gurkin Ulm (3) used a Hunter color difference meter and
found that the degree of yellowness (b* value) was the only color component affected
by storage of the flour. Yellowness decreased slightly with increased storage time
(maximum 6 weeks), increased temperature (0–21°C) and increased levels of oxygen
(0% and 2%) in the packages probably due to the loss of pigments other than beta-
carotene. Storage had no effect on the luminosity and redness of the flour. As well
as temperature and the presence of oxygen, moisture absorption can also lead to
bleaching of the pigments, resulting in a colorless product. Prevention of color loss
can be achieved with proper packaging and storage of the flour (29).
Contamination
Microbiological Contamination: When sweetpotato chips are not dried to a low
enough moisture content, they rapidly develop mold spores and spoil (75). de Car-
valho et al. (33) found mold growing in flour stored in paper craft bags. Orbase and
Autos (48) studied the effect of different packaging materials (polyethylene, muslin
cloth, and polyethylene/muslin cloth) on the microbiological quality of sweetpotato
flour. The microbial count (bacteria, molds, and yeasts) did not change over time
and consequently was the same for flour stored in different packaging materials
ORDER REPRINTS
32 VAN HAL
(⫾3 ⫻ 10 4 ), below the tolerable limit of 1 ⫻ 10 6. Their study on the shelf-life of

flour from different sweetpotato varieties did not show significant progression of the
microbial count (1.53 to 9.63 ⫻ 10 4 ), and again all observations were below the
tolerable limit.
Insects: During storage of sweetpotato flour in different packaging materials
(polyethylene, muslin cloth, and polyethylene/muslin cloth) no insects were ob-
served in the flour during the first four months of storage for all types of materials.
Coffee bean weevil was initially observed during the fifth month on the surface of
both the polyethylene and the muslin cloth bags but no insects were found inside
the bags. The polyethylene/muslin cloth containers remained insect-free until the
sixth month (48). When insect infestation is found in the flour after processing, stor-
age can be improved by exposing the flour to strong sunshine before storage since
this practice kills 100% of the insects (70).
Lumpiness: Some investigators have checked on the lumpiness of sweetpotato flour
during storage (24,36,48). Lizado and Guzman (24) stated that no lumps occurred
upon standing, although the period of storage was not mentioned (type of packaging
material ⫽ polyethylene bags). Hamed et al. (36) found that flour stored in cloth
sacks became lumpy as the storage period progressed (11/2 months). Plenty of
lumps did develop in flour stored in polyethylene (after 5 months of storage) or mus-
lin bags (after 4 months), possibly as result of moisture absorption following a
flash flood. However, under the same circumstances, no lumps in flour stored in
polyethylene/muslin cloth bags developed even after six months of storage. Addi-
tional protection was achieved using a double bagging method (48).
Products: Storage of sweetpotato flour was shown to have either no effect or a
positive effect on the organoleptic qualities of products prepared with the flour. Roa
et al. (53) showed that the general quality and life span of the bakery products tested
(cookies, cake, doughnut, fillings) were still good and remained acceptable with 6-
month stored flour. Storage of sweetpotato flour for 8 months could have reduced
the shelf life of products (for example cookies and cakes), found to be lower in the
second batch. The bitter taste reported could have been due to their formulation and/
or the effect of the baking time on products made from the longer-stored sweetpotato
flour. The same results were found by Orbase and Autos (48). Sensory evaluation
revealed that in terms of texture, aftertaste, flavor, and general acceptability ratings
no differences existed between cookies prepared from flour stored for 5 and 6 months
in different packaging materials, and cookies prepared from freshly processed sweet-
potato flour. There was a significant difference noted for color attributes of products
made from flour stored for 6 months. A positive effect was noted by Gurkin Ulm
(3) who reported favorably on the contribution of storage of flour (6 weeks) to the
quality of muffins prepared with sweetpotato (more crumbly, less sticky, and greater
overall acceptability).
ORDER REPRINTS
CONCLUSION
Processing sweetpotato into the form of flour improves the shelf life and makes it
easier to incorporate it into food products. Sweetpotato flour can partially substitute
for wheat flour in sweet baked products provided that the price of the sweetpotato
flour is competitive with wheat flour. Sweetpotato flour can act as an important
source of β-carotene. The most important quality characteristics of sweetpotato flour
are moisture content, protein and β-carotene content, microbiological quality, color,
taste, and odor. A variety of data show that with existing technology flour with
desirable quality can be made.
Critical points in the process of producing sweetpotato flour are the raw material,
the peeling, the soaking, and the drying step. The roots should be low in polyphenolic
compounds and have a high dry matter content. If a white color is required, peeling is
necessary. But not peeling increases yield. Soaking can prevent discoloration without
deterioration of other quality characteristics if carried out in water with sodium meta-
bisulfite (0.5%, some minutes). A decrease in pH possibly can improve the inhibitory
effect on browning but further research is required. The influence of heat treatment
during drying lies in the partial destruction of the protein and the induction of isomer-
ization of β-carotene, with lower heat intensity causing less damage. This favors the
use of solar drying, which is cheap, although it requires much attention to hygiene
practices.
For storing sweetpotato flour, its initial moisture content should be low. Although
some increase in moisture content during storage is almost inevitable, levels of mois-
ture uptake can be limited using appropriate packaging. Quality changes during stor-
age are in protein quality, β-carotene content due to auto-oxidation, browning, and
microbiological contamination. However quantitative data are very scarce.
To improve processing and storage technologies, further research is needed on the
effect of pH on the soaking solution on browning, the microbiological contamination
during the different processing steps, and the influence of storage conditions on flour
quality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Jennifer Woolfe and Catherine Brabet for their technical revision and Greg
Scott for his editing.
REFERENCES
1. J. A. Woolfe, ‘‘Sweetpotato: An Untapped Food Resource,’’ Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, 1992.
ORDER REPRINTS
34 VAN HAL
2. D. Horton and H. Fano, ‘‘Potato Atlas,’’ International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru, 1985.
3. S. Gurkin Ulm, ‘‘The Effect of Storage Conditions on Selected Quality Attributes of Sweetpotato
Flour,’’ Thesis of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1988.
4. J. R. Roa, in ‘‘Taking Root: Proceedings of the Third UPWARD Review and Planning Work-
shop,’’ UPWARD, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, 1995, p. 73.
5. B. N. Okigbo, in ‘‘New Crops for Food and Industry. International Symposium on New Crops
for Food and Industry, Southampton 1986,’’ (G. Wickens, N. Haq, and P. Day, eds.), Chapman
and Hall, London, 1989, p. 123.
6. J. Woolfe, in ‘‘Sweetpotato Cultures of Asia and South Pacific. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
UPWARD International Conference,’’ UPWARD, Los Banos, Philippines, 1991, p. 385
7. F. W. Martin, J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico, 67(4), 494 (1983).
8. T. v. Den, in ‘‘SAPPRAD on the First Year of Phase III, A Compilation of Annual Reports, July
1991–June 1992 Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (E. T. Rasco, Jr, F. B. Aromin, V. R. Amante, and
P. J. S. Lopez, eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Philippines, 1992, p. 76.

9. L. M. Diamante and P. A. Munro, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 26, 99 (1991).
10. S. Widowati and D. S. Damardjati, in ‘‘SAPPRAD on the First Year of Phase III, A Compilation
of Annual Reports, July 1991–June 1992, Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (E. T. Rasco, Jr, F. B. Aro-
min, V. R. Amante, and P. J. S. Lopez, eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Philippines, 1992, p. 14.
11. D. Peters and C. Wheatley, Quart. J. Int. Agric., 36(4), 331 (1997).
12. M. Collins, ‘‘Economic Analysis of Wholesale Demand for Sweetpotatoes in Lima, Peru,’’ M.Sc.
Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville,
USA, 1989.
13. A. Overbeek, ‘‘Sweetpotato Bread in Metropolitan Lima: An Analysis of Relative Prices of
Sweetpotato, Wheat Flour and Related Commodities 1982–1990,’’ Thesis, Agricultural Univer-
sity Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1994.
14. Anonymous, in ‘‘Sweetpotato Research and Development for Small Farmers,’’ International
Sweetpotato Symposium Baybay (Philippines), May 20–26, 1987, (K. T. Mackay, M. K. Palomar,
and R. T. Sanico, eds.), SEAMEO-SEARCA, Philippines, 1989, p. 360.
15. V. L. Amano, in ‘‘Selected Research papers July 1994–June 1995, Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (T.
E. Rasco, Jr., and V. R. Amante, eds.), SAPPRAD Phillippines, 1996, p. 134.
16. Anonymous, in ‘‘Sweetpotato Research and Development for Small Farmers,’’ International
Sweetpotato Symposium Baybay (Philippines), May 20–26, 1987, (K. T. Mackay, M. K. Palomar,
and R. T. Sanico, eds.), SEAMEO-SEARCA, Philippines, 1989, p. 378.
17. M. B. Kanua and S. S. Rangat, in ‘‘Sweetpotato Research and Development for Small Farmers,’’
International Sweetpotato Symposium Baybay (Philippines), May 20–26, 1987, (K. T. Mackay,
M. K. Palomar, and R. T. Sanico, eds.), SEAMEO-SEARCA, Laguna (Philippines), 1989,
p. 271.
18. G. M. Nair, C. S. Ravindran, S. N. Moorthy, and S. P. Ghosh, in ‘‘Sweetpotato Research and
Development for Small Farmers,’’ International Sweetpotato Symposium Baybay (Philippines),
May 20–26, 1987,’’ (K. T. Mackay, M. K. Palomar, and R. T. Sanico, eds.), SEAMEO-SEARCA,
Philippines, p. 301.
19. C. Wheatley and G. J. Scott, in ‘‘Desarrollo de Productos de Raı́ces y Tubérculos, Volumen II–
América Latina,’’ (G. J. Scott, J. E. Herrera, N. Espinola, M. Daza, C. Fonseca, H. Fano, and
M. Benavides, eds.), CIP, Lima, 1992, p. 133.
20. N. Espinola, M. van Hal, C. León-Velarde, J. Roca, L. Diaz, L. Maldonado, and G. Scott, ‘‘El Creci-
miento de la Producción de Camote Mediante la Ampliación de su Utilización,’’ CIP, Lima, 1997.
21. N. Gakonyo, ‘‘Processed Sweetpotato: Responding to Kenya’s Urban Food Needs,’’ M.Sc thesis.
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornwell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1993.
22. V. Hagenimana, E. Carey, S. T. Gichuki, M. A. Oyunga, and J. K. Imungi, Changes in carotenoid
content after drying and processing sweetpotato products, Ecol. Food Nutr., 37, 450–473.
ORDER REPRINTS
23. L. S. Collado, L. B. Mabesa, and H. Corke, Genetic variation in color of sweetpotato flour related
to its use in wheat-based composite flour products, Cereal Chem., 74, 681–686 (1997).
24. M. L. C. Lizado and M. P.Guzman, Home Econ. J., 10(1), 62 (1982).
25. V. Hagenimana, E. Carey, J. Low, S. Gichuki, C. Owori, A. Oyunga, and J. N. Malinga, ‘‘Sweet-
potato Post Harvest in East Africa,’’ CIP Sub project Annual Progress Report, 1996.
26. V. Ruiz and J. Ruales, ‘‘Instructivo de Control de calidad para la elaboración de productos deri-
vados de yuca, Volumen I: Producción de almidon,’’ UATAPPY, EPN and IIT, Ecuador, 1995.
27. Anonymous, ‘‘Norma Tecnica Peruana, Harinas Sucedaneas Procedentes de Tuberculos y
Raices,’’ Itintec 205.042 Febrero 1976, INDECOPI, Lima, 1976.
28. S. Antarlina, in ‘‘UPWARD Proceedings of the Inaugural Planning Workshop on the User’s
Perspective with Agricultural Research and Development Baguio City, Philippines, April 3–5,
1990, Los Baños, Philippines, UPWARD,’’ CIP Reg. Office Region VII, Philippines, 1990, p. 68.
29. J. L. Collins and S. U. Gurkin, Tennessee Farm Home Sci., 20 (1990).
30. W. Martin, J.Agric.Univ. Puerto Rico, 68(4), 423 (1984).

31. L. S. Collado and H. Corke, Cereal Chem., 73(4), 439 (1996).
32. R. M. Leonard and E. Schultz, Rev. Fac. Agron. Univ. Centr. Venezuela, 38, 182 (1989).
33. M. P. M. de Carvalho, F. H. Jablonka, G. R. P. Cavalcanti, and R. S. Siqueira, ‘‘Pesquisa Agropec-
uária Brasileira,’’ 15(3), 267 (1980).
34. S. Maneepun, S. Reungmaneepaitoon, and M. Yunchalad, in ‘‘Product Development for Root
and Tuber Crops, Volume I–Asia,’’ (G. J. Scott, S. Wiersema, and P. I. Ferguson, eds.), CIP,
Lima, 1992, p. 229.
35. M. O. Iwe and J. O. Ohuh, Lebensm. Wissens. und Technol., 25, 569 (1992).
36. M. G. E. Hamed, M. F. Hussein, F. Y. Refain, and S. K. El-Samahy, Cereal Chem., 50(2), 133
(1973).
37. G. M. Sammy, Trop. Agric., 47(2), 115 (1970).
38. D. Peters and C. Wheatley, ‘‘Effects of Sweetpotato Varieties on Flour Quality and Root: Flour
Conversion Rate: Participatory Trial for Flour and Product Development in East Java, Indonesia,’’
CIP, Bogor, Indonesia, Trop. Agric., (submitted).
39. A. Aguayo Barbachan and R. Y. Tokumura Tokumura, ‘‘Estudio de Prefactibilidad par la Instala-
ción de una Planta Procesadora de Harina de Camote en el Valle de Canete,’’ UNALM, Lima,
Peru, 1995.
40. J. A. Woolfe, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops, Vol III Africa,’’ (G. Scott,
P. Ferguson, and J. Herera, eds.), CIP and IITA, Lima and Ibadan, 1993, p. 221.
41. W. M. Walter, G. L. Catignani, L. L. Yow, and D. H. Porter, J. Agric. Food Chem., 31, 947
(1983).
42. T. H. Yang, Y. C. Tsai, Y. C. Sheu, and W. J. Chen, J. Chin. Agric. Chem. Soc., 5(1&2), 47,
1967.
43. B. D. Ezell and M. S.Wilcox, Science, 103, 193 (1946).
44. L. B. Almeida and M. V. C. Penteado, J. Food Comp. Anal., 1, 341 (1988).
45. H. W. Loef, ‘‘Inleiding tot de kwaliteitsbeoordeling van levensmiddelen Deel I: Kleur en kleur-
meting,’’ Syllabus no. 06215612, Agricultural University Wageningen, Wageningen, 1988.
46. M. V. Martinez and J. R. Whitaker, Trends Food Sci.Technol., 6(6), 195 (1995).
47. M. Friedman, J. Agric. Food Chem., 44(3), 631 (1996).
48. B. R. Orbase and N. B. Autos, in ‘‘Selected Research Papers, July 1994–June 1995, Volume 2:
Sweetpotato,’’ (T. E. Rasco, Jr., and V. R. Amante, eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Phillippines, 1996,
p. 167.
49. S. J. Tian, J. E. Rickard, and J. M. V. Blanshard, J. Sci. Food Agric., 57, 459 (1991).
50. S. N. Moorthy, J. Rickard, and J. M. V. Blanshard, in ‘‘Cassava Flour and Starch: Progress in
Research and Development,’’ (D. Dufour, G. M. O’Brien, and R. Best, eds.), CIRAD/CIAT,
Colombia, 1996, p. 150.
ORDER REPRINTS
36 VAN HAL
51. L. S. Collado, H. Corke, and R. R. del Rosario, ‘‘The Physical Properties of Sweetpotato Flour
and Starch,’’ (to be submitted).
52. R. Best, G. Scott, and C. Wheatley, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops, Volume
III Africa,’’ (G. Scott, P. Ferguson, and J. Herera, eds.), CIP, Lima, 1993, p. 281.
53. R. L. Roa, L. Z. Ebron, and I. Adion, in ‘‘Selected Research papers July 1994–June 1995, Volume
2: Sweetpotato,’’ (T. E. Rasco, Jr., and V. R. Amante, eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Philippines,
1996, p. 14.
54. P. Peralta Izarra, in ‘‘Desarrollo de Productos de Raı́ces y Tubérculos Volumen II–América
Latina,’’ (G. J. Scott, J. E. Herrera, N. Espinola, M. Daza, C. Fonseca, H. Fano, and M. Benavides,
eds.), CIP, Lima, 1992, p. 111.
55. C. Angue and A. Inocencio, in ‘‘SAPPRAD, a Compilation of Annual Reports July 1991–June
1992 Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (E. T. Rasco, F. B. Aromin, V. R. Amante, and P. J. Lopez, eds.),
SAPPRAD, Manila, Philippines, 1992, p. 55.
56. J. Wright, ‘‘The Potential for Sweetpotato Bread in Peru: Literature Review to Date,’’ CIP, Lima,
1995.
57. L. S. Palomar, J. A. Perez, and R. D. Lauzon, ‘‘Sweetpotato Flour Processing,’’ Pris Leaflet
Series. PRIS, Philippines, 1987.
58. A. Odaga and R. Wanzie, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops, Vol III Africa,’’
(G. Scott, P. Ferguson, and J. Herera, eds.), CIP and IITA, Lima and Ibadan, 1993, p. 377.
59. A. Esquite Castillo, in ‘‘Desarrollo de Productos de Raı́ces y Tubérculos Volumen II–América
Latina’’ (G. J. Scott, J. E. Herrera, N. Espinola, M. Daza, C. Fonseca, H. Fano, and M. Benavides,
eds.), CIP, Lima, 1992, p. 219.
60. T. van Den, R. C. Guarte, L. S. De la Rosa, P. F. Cerna, I. C. Tabianan, and A. C. Dignos, in
‘‘Proceedings of the Eight Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops. Bang-
kok, Oct. 30–Nov. 5, 1988,’’ Bangkok, ISTRC Department of Agriculture of Thailand, 1990, p. 600.
61. N. Gakonyo, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops, Vol III Africa,’’ (G. Scott,
P. Ferguson, and J. Herera, eds.), CIP and IITA, Lima and Ibadan, 1993, p. 337.
62. G. R. Ammerman and J. B. Edmond, in ‘‘Sweetpotatoes: Production, Processing and Marketing,’’
(J. B. Edmond and G. R. Ammerman, eds.), Connecticut AVI Publishing, USA, 1971, p. 283.
63. R. Eusebio, D. Aranguiren, and L. Ebron, in ‘‘Selected Research Papers July 1994–June 1995,
Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (E. T. Rasco, Jr., and V. R. Amante, eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Philip-
pines, 1996, p. 147.
64. J. M. Taylor, in ‘‘Sweetpotato: Proceedings of the First International Symposium,’’ (R. L. Vil-
lareal and T. D. Griggs, eds.), Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Taiwan, 1982,
p. 393.
65. F. G. Winarno, in ‘‘Sweetpotato: Proceedings of the First International Symposium,’’ (R. L. Vil-
lareal and T. D. Griggs, eds.), Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Taiwan, 1982,
p. 373.
66. J. L. Silva, ‘‘Sweetpotatoes: Processing and Products,’’ Southern Co-operative Series Bulletin,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi (USA), 1990.
67. K. Tantidham, P. Dulyapath, P. Chocpanit, S. Soontornarurungsi, and M. Thongjiem, in ‘‘SAP-
PRAD on the First Year of Phase III, A compilation of Annual Reports July 1991–June 1992
Volume 2: Sweetpotato,’’ (E. T. Rasco, Jr, F. B. Aromin, V. R. Amante, and P. J. S. Lopez,
eds.), SAPPRAD, Manila, Philippines, 1992, p. 112.
68. J. H. Moy and S. P. S. Chi, in ‘‘Sweetpotato: Proceedings of the First International Symposium,’’
(R. L. Villareal and T. G. Griggs, eds.), Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre,
Taiwan, 1982, p. 429.
69. L. M. Diamante, Radix, 9(1), 6 (1987).
70. Z. Zhao and F. Jia ‘‘Sweetpotato: Safe Storage and Indigenous Processing,’’ The Agricultural
Publishing House, China, 1985, p. 25 (translated from Chinese).
ORDER REPRINTS
71. Anonymous, in ‘‘Rural Development Administration (Korea) Annual Research Report 1988,’’
Suwon (Korea), 1988, p. 162.
72. E. V. Bayogan, C. C. Sagudan, and J. D. Baban, in ‘‘Assessment of Post-Production, Utilisation
and Processing Techniques, Losses, and Problems in Highland Sweetpotatoes,’’ Northern Philip-
pine Root Crops Research and Training Centre, La Trinidad, Philippines, 1990, p. 66.
73. A. Fernández, C. Vélez, A. de Stouvenel, A. L. Gómez, C. Wheatley, C. Ostertag, and L. Alonso,
in ‘‘Desarrollo de Productos de Raı́ces y Tubérculos Volumen II–América Latina,’’ (G. J. Scott,
J. E. Herrera, N. Espinola, M. Daza, C. Fonseca, H. Fano, and M. Benavides, eds.), CIP, Lima,
1992, p. 251.
74. A. B. Loreto, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops Volume I- Asia,’’ (G. J. Scott,
S. Wiersema, and P. I. Ferguson, eds.), CIP, Lima, 1992, p. 249.
75. D. G. Tardif-Douglin, in ‘‘Product Development for Root and Tuber Crops, Vol III Africa,’’ (G.
Scott, P. Ferguson, and J. Herera, eds.), CIP and IITA, Lima and Ibadan, 1993, p. 233.
76. A. E. Purcell and W. M. Walter, J. Agric. Food Chem., 30, 443 (1982).
77. L. A. Chandler and S. J. Schwartz, J. Agric. Food Chem., 36(1), 129 (1988).
78. J. L. Silva, M. D. Yazid, M. D. Ali, and R. Ammerman, J. Food Qual., 11, 387 (1989).
79. T. Watanabe, I. Yokozawa, U. Koizumi, Rep. Food Res. Inst. (Tokyo), 2(2), Chem. Abstr. 47:
7134C (1953).
80. P. Saint-Hilaire and H. François, Rech. Dev. Rural, 2(3), 214(1986).
81. V. Hagenimana, E. Carey, S. Gichuki, C. Owori, and M. A. Oyunga, ‘‘Sweetpotato Post Harvest
in East Africa,’’ CIP Sub project Annual Progress Report 1997, 1998.
Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!
Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright
Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before
using copyrighted content.
All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited
to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are
the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel
Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.
Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order

reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request
Permission/Reprints Here" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the
U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S.
copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’
(AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.
The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted,
reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without
permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the
limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or
personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such
Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing
on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as
part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do
not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website
User Agreement for more details.
Order now!
Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081FRI100100280

Vanhal 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vanhal 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]

On: 22 December 2014, At: 04:30

Food Reviews International

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR DURING

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/FRI-100100280

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR

Copyright  2000 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 3

QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR

Previous researchers have noted a lack of information on sweetpotato flour quality.

Total Total Reducing Dietary

Cream 6.5–7.8 4.1–8.5 64–74 S 6.9–9.7 10.7–13.8 1.3–2.53 (33)

(6.4) b (69) b (8.2) b (12) b (1.8) b

White 2.09–3.87 0.26–0.75 91.6–93.1 C 1.85–2.86 1.38–2.44 (20)

Table 2. Estimated Contribution of Sweetpotato Flour to the Daily Nutrient Needs

RDA (*) 37 g 600 mg 1.2 mg 1.8 mg 19.8 mg 30 mg 5–15 mg

Table 3. The Carbohydrate, Starch, and Sugar Fractions in Sweetpotato Flour

Total % starch % sugars

21 R: 69 – 85 R: 7.3–23.7 R: 86.8–95.9 R: 74.7–92.1 R: 7.9–25.3 (30)

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 7

Protein quality depends on the amino acid composition plus bio-availability. In

Lysine 4.20 3.55 3.82 4.47

Color and Discoloration

An important quality attribute of sweetpotato flour is appearance, primarily color,

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 9

Table 5. Carotenoid Content of Different

39848 15704 Mean: 1380

Whiteness and Discoloration

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 11

The microbiological quality of sweetpotato flour is quantitatively described by Es-

8.6 ⫻ 10 3 –1.2 ⫻ 10 5 3.3 ⫻ 10 2 –1.0 ⫻ 10 4 2.1 ⫻ 10 3 –6.8 ⫻ 10 4 (38)

8.4 10 4 –9.1 10 4 6.9 10 3 –8.9 10 3 6.2 10 3 –8.1 10 3

Maximum allowable levels (safety level):

Most information on sweetpotatotes functional properties refers to starch (reviewed

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 13

visco-amylographs for 44 different genotypes in distilled water showed a mean of

Processing provides an alternative to the difficulties associated with storage of fresh

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 15

Figure 1. Sweetpotato flour production. (*Optional 5,11,30,33,34,39,48,56–60).

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 17

Manually operated electric cuber (60);

The sweetpotato slices can be dipped in water (cold/boiling) or in solutions which

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 19

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 21

Table 7. Summary of Equations for Modeling the Drying of Sweetpotato Slices

‘‘High Tech’’ Drying Method

73,74) (Table 8).

Table 8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Packaging Material

Advantages cheap relatively cheap impermeable for relatively impermeable

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 23

Figure 2. Distribution of yield of flour of different sweetpotato varieties.

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 25

Influence of Processing on Sweetpotato Flour Quality

Table 9. Proximate Composition of Fresh Roots and Its Spray-Dried

Humidity 69–71 2.48 7.20

Fat 0.48 0.40 0.41

β-Carotene is another nutrient which is subject to degradative changes. β-Carotene

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 27

Discoloration of sweetpotato slices/shreds is the quality change occurring during

To solve problems of microbiological contamination during processing the following

QUALITY OF SWEETPOTATO FLOUR 29

Influence of Storage on Sweetpotato Flour Quality