Skip to main content
PMC home page
Food Science and Biotechnology logoLink to Food Science and Biotechnology
. 2023 Feb 28;32(7):875–883. doi: 10.1007/s10068-023-01284-3

Characteristics of physically modified starches

Sang-Jin Ye 1, Moo-Yeol Baik 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10130308  PMID: 37123068

Abstract

Starch is an abundant natural, non-toxic, biodegradable polymer. Due to its low price, it is used for various purposes in various fields such as the cosmetic, paper, and construction industries as well as the food industry. Due to recent consumer interest in clean label materials, physically modified starch is attracting attention. Manufacturing methods of physically modified starch include pregelatinization, hydrothermal treatment such as heat moisture treatment and annealing, hydrostatic pressure treatment, ultrasonic treatment, milling, and freezing. In this study, toward development of clean label materials, manufacturing methods and characteristics of physically modified starches were discussed.

Keywords: Starch, Physical modification, Clean label

Introduction

Starch is derived from the cereals, roots, tubers, and stems of various types of plants, and its physicochemical properties vary by source. Starch is composed of linear amylose and branched amylopectin as a combination of α-1,4 and α-1,6 linkages of glucose. The starch granules are composed of amylose and amylopectin, amylose is mostly a linear polymer with a molecular weight between 5 × 105 and 1 × 106, and amylopectin is a branched polymer with a molecular weight of several million (Belitz et al, 2008; Eliasson, 2006; Wang et al, 1998). The granules contain variably positioned amorphous and crystalline regions in the form of growth rings positioned within a lamellar structure (Gallant et al, 1997). Native starch is relatively dense and insoluble in water, limiting its use in the industry due to characteristics such as poor thermal stability. To solve this problem, starch is modified by physical, chemical, and enzymatic methods. However, consumers interest in clean label and physically modified starch is increasing because it can be classified as a component rather than an additive and can be used without constraints of regulations or labels. Additionally, physical treatments are generally easier to perform and often less expensive than chemical transformations and do not produce effluents containing unwanted reagents or reagent by-products.

In general, physical treatment of starch destroys or rearranges the packing structure of molecules in starch granules, resulting in various properties such as thermal stability and digestibility. Physical treatment is generally divided into thermal treatment and non-thermal treatment. The representative examples of thermal treatment are pregelatinization, heat moisture treatment, and annealing. Non-thermal treatment includes ultrasonic treatment, milling, freezing, and high hydrostatic pressure treatment. These various physical treatments can be combined depending on the intended outcome.

Thermal treatment

Pregelatinized starch

Pregelatinized starch is the most used physically modified starch. It has cold and hot water dispersibility, high viscosity, and is widely used for characteristics such as smooth texture. Since this starch has been dried to interrupt crystallinity, it swells immediately when put in water and quickly forms a viscose slurry. As such, it can be applied without additional heating. Due to these characteristics, this pregelatinized starch is widely used in food production.

There are three methods to produce pregelatinized starch: typical drum drying, extrusion, and spray drying (He et al, 2020; Majzoobi et al, 2011; von Borries-Medrano et al, 2018). Because these methods use different equipment and processing conditions, they result in starches with different characteristics. In the drum drying method, a starch–water slurry is quickly gelatinized and dried between counter-rotating drums heated with steam. The dried film is scraped from the drums and pulverized into various mesh sizes. The second process uses extrusion based on type of starch, moisture content, temperature, and screw speed. The characteristics vary depending on conditions. In this process, the extrudate is dried and ground into various sizes. The third spray drying method has the advantage of relatively less damage to the particles. The spray drying method depends on type of starch and moisture content, and powders with different characteristics can be obtained by controlling the inlet temperature and spray speed of the dryer (Fu et al, 2012).

Effects of temperature and processing time on production of pregelatinized starch using drum drying have been investigated (Karapantsios, 2006). In an investigation of the physicochemical properties of drum-dried pregelatinized wheat starch, the native starch granules were destroyed, the molecular structure was disrupted, and the crystallinity of starch was reduced. However, this type of starch shows cold water viscosity characteristics, high water absorption and expansion, and can be used as a thickener in various fields (Majzoobi et al, 2011). A study confirmed that pregelatinized starch was more soluble at room temperature than granular cold-water swollen starch (Li et al, 2014).

Various studies on extrusion manufacturing have been conducted, and differences in moisture content and solubility based on temperature and extrusion speed have been confirmed. Depolymerization may occur during the manufacture of pregelatinized starch, and the molecular weight of amylose and amylopectin of wheat starch decreased during the extrusion process (Colonna et al, 1984; Doublier et al, 1986). These changes were reported to be due to the high shear force generated in the extruder (Pei‐Ling et al, 2010).

In the spray drying method, physicochemical properties such as thermal properties, solubility, and viscosity of pregelatinized starch vary by preheating temperature, starch concentration and heating time. A study using cassava starch confirmed that the viscosity characteristics, swelling power, and crystallization changed as the concentration and temperature increased (Santos et al, 2019). In a study using corn starch, changes in morphological characteristics of granule size and crystallinity were analyzed according to pretreatment temperature (Fu et al, 2012).

Chemically modified starches can also be used to make pregelatinized starch. In this case, a modified starch might be achieved after pregelatinization, but it may not be a pure physically modified starch. Pregelatinized starch products can be used in a variety of applications where heat is not available or where sufficient heat is not achieved for gelatinization and are added to improve texture and water retention in various types of food. Such starches can be useful as dry mixes for convenient home use. Because of its high water-holding capacity, it is used in products such as pudding, cream, and cake mix.

Granular cold-water-swelling (GCWS) starch

Granular cold-water-swelling (GCWS) starch is a type of pregelatinized starch, which is called instant starch, and it has viscosity and gel properties more similar to those of cook-up starches than previously mentioned pregelatinized starches (BeMiller and Huber, 2015). These starches are generally prepared in four ways. The first is heating amylose-containing starch in an alcoholic suspension (Eastman and Moore, 1984; Rajagopalan and Seib, 1991). The second is spray drying of the heated starch suspension, and the third is to treat the starch with an aqueous alkaline alcohol solution at room temperature (Chen and Jane, 1994b; Pitchon et al, 1981). The fourth method is instantaneous controlled pressure drop (DIC) (BeMiller and Huber, 2015). As GCWS starch can be prepared in various ways, several studies have been confirmed that property changes due to selection of various conditions in each process. In corn starch heated in an alcohol suspension state, decomposition of amylopectin molecules was confirmed with a decrease in crystallinity as viewed by X-ray diffraction pattern. In one study, the authors showed that amylopectin was decomposed during heat treatment and formed a complex similar to V-type amylose (Jane et al, 1986). The second method, spray drying, has been used for a long time, and differences in properties according to conditions have been confirmed (Pitchon et al, 1981). In addition, conditions of choice can be achieved by varying moisture content, pretreatment temperature, pH, drying method, and additives (Hedayati et al, 2016a, b; Wang et al, 2011; Zhu et al, 2019).

Use of an alkaline aqueous solution also can produce desired characteristics. In addition, starch treated under fixed conditions showed higher solubility in colder water. It has been reported that the solubility of corn starch decreases as the ethanol concentration increases (Chen and Jane, 1994a). Change also was verified by application of high pressure during ethanol treatment (Eastman and Moore, 1984). These methods cause only physical changes by modifying the basic structure of the D-glucopyranosyl unit.

Both pregelatinized starch (PG) and GCWS starch are used to achieve desired viscosity at room temperature, but they show important differences in functional properties due to molecular and granular differences. First, since PG is fully gelatinized, it does not show a gelatinized endothermic peak in thermal characterization, but it does maintain some microscopic birefringence indicating crystallinity (Hedayati et al, 2016a, b). Differences were also confirmed in morphological characteristics, with granules showing less damage (Yan and Zhengbiao, 2010). In addition, in a study conducted with buckwheat starch, GCWS showed relatively higher light transmittance and solubility than PG but lower crystallinity and swelling power (Li et al, 2014). Both processing methods can be used to achieve characteristics of a wide variety of end products. As there remain limitations to use of GCWS, it can be combined treatment with other physical non-thermal treatment technologies such as high hydrostatic pressure or ultrasonic treatments.

Heat moisture treated starch

Heat moisture treated (HMT) starch is heated at a temperature above the glass transition temperature (80–140 °C) for a specified period of time (1–24 h) at low moisture content (< 35%). The first study in which HMT was performed to modify starch was reported in Sair and Fetzer (1944). HMT improves the internal structure by increasing the mobility of starch chains and spiral structures under limited moisture and high temperature conditions in order to achieve desired changes in the physical properties (Hoover, 2010; Hoover and Manuel, 1996; Jacobs and Delcour, 1998). HMT also destroys less stable structures allowing increased stability by changing or reorganizing internal structures (Luo et al, 2006). Before HMT, starch is sealed to retain moisture by preventing evaporation through use of high pressure. The energy of the excess water molecules is converted into kinetic energy that causes large-scale segmental movements and changes in the internal structure of starch (Wang et al, 2021). By inducing dramatic movement of water molecules through high heat treatment under limited moisture, different changes can be achieved under different conditions. In studies of the effect of HMT depending on the type of starch, it was reported that A-type crystalline starch was not modified and maintained its original polymorphic (Hoover, 2010; Zeng et al, 2015). Even in C-type crystalline starch, there was no change in pattern after HMT (Molavi et al, 2018). However, it has been reported that B-type crystalline starch can be converted into A-type or mixed form through HMT treatment (Perera et al, 1997; Varatharajan et al, 2011).

When HMT treatment was performed on various types of starch, gelatinization temperatures (onset temperature (To), peak temperature (Tp), and conclusion temperature (Tc)) generally increased and gelatinization enthalpy decreased (Pinto et al, 2015; Shin et al, 2005; Vasanthan et al, 1995; Vermeylen et al, 2006). Also, when HMT treatment is performed at a higher temperature, the size of the granules increases, viscosity characteristics decreases, and enthalpy decreases (Malumba et al, 2010). In most starches, swelling power and solubility decreased in HMT starch. As the water content and temperature increase during treatment, the solubility and swelling power decrease, which leads to increased crystallinity, crystallization transition from B-type to A-type, and formation of amylose–lipid complex. These changes were due to mutual or homogeneous binding of amylose and amylopectin, and the change in crystallinity pattern varies with temperature (Hoover, 2010; Varatharajan et al, 2011). In several studies on the viscosity characteristics of HMT starch, the pasting temperature and pasting time increased, and the peak viscosity and breakdown tended to decrease (BeMiller and Huber, 2015). The effects of HMT on setback or final viscosity differ by type of starch. It has been reported that properties such as stability of paste gels may vary depending on the type of starch (Gunaratne and Hoover, 2002; Hoover et al, 1993; Takaya et al, 2000).

In studies related to digestion characteristics, enzymatic degradation has been reported to decrease or show no change (Chung et al, 2009a, b; Englyst et al, 1992; Franco et al, 1995; Kweon et al, 2000). In addition, it was reported that the degree of digestibility could be affected by amylose or moisture content (Van Hung et al, 2016). Many studies on the digestion characteristics of HMT starch have been conducted and showed different tendencies based on type of starch. The mechanism of enzymatic reaction needs to be analyzed separately from the mechanism of thermal or viscosity characteristics.

Annealed (ANN) starch

Annealing is a hydrothermal treatment method of relatively long exposure to a temperature between the glass transition temperature (Tg) and the gelatinization onset temperature (To) under conditions of sufficient moisture (> 40%). The achieved physical and chemical properties of annealing treatment are based on type of starch, temperature, and treatment time. It may be difficult to summarize the overall effect because numerous changes occur. Annealing treatment has been carried out for as short as 0.5 h (Kiseleva et al, 2004) and as long as 192 h (Gomes et al, 2004). The moisture content was also carried out under various conditions, up to 90% (Kohyama and Sasaki, 2006). Because of these various conditions, the results of general property changes are not as consistent as those of HMT starch. In general, annealing is performed above the glass transition temperature under sufficient moisture. These conditions increase the mobility of double helix chains inside starch granules to foster recrystallization, through processes such as aligning internal double helix structures (Gomand et al, 2012; Hoover, 2000; Vermeylen et al, 2006).

Previous studies have shown no significant changes in shape of starch granules with change in condition. However, some reports noted reduced birefringence and increased porosity (Gough and Pybus, 1971; Rocha et al, 2012; Shi et al, 2021). In addition, some studies have reported change in crystalline pattern (Genkina et al, 2004), although it is more common for annealing to not affect the crystalline pattern (Chung et al, 2009a, b; Li et al, 2020; Rocha et al, 2011; Samarakoon et al, 2020). Generally recognized changes in thermal properties are increased gelatinization temperature and reduced temperature range of phase transition with increased annealing temperature (BeMiller and Huber, 2015; Jacobs and Delcour, 1998; Jayakody and Hoover, 2008; Liu, 2013). However, although the melting enthalpy of double helical structure (ΔH) generally is unchanged (BeMiller and Huber, 2015; Vermeylen et al, 2006; Wang et al, 1997), some studies have shown increased stability due to hydrothermal treatment (Hoover and Vasanthan, 1994; Nakazawa and Wang, 2003). Decreased stability that can be attributed to gelatinization of some weak crystalline phases (Tester et al, 1998; Vamadevan et al, 2013).

For solubility and swelling power, most studies show that annealing affects both solubility and swelling power (Jacobs and Delcour, 1998; Jayakody et al, 2007; Singh et al, 2011; Tester and Debon, 2000). In addition, the effect of annealing at 45 °C for 24 to 72 h was confirmed in three types of corn starch with different amylose and amylopectin contents. As the amylose content increased, the swelling power significantly increased, as did the annealing effect (Wang et al, 2014). The effect of annealing on viscosity properties is complex and differs by starch type. In general, annealing increases the pasting temperature and thermal stability and decreases peak viscosity and final viscosity (Adebowale and Lawal, 2002; Adebowale et al, 2005; Olu-Owolabi et al, 2011; Shih et al, 2007; Simsek et al, 2012; Song et al, 2014). Similar to the results of HMT, these results show a decrease in viscosity because swelling is limited due to structural stability inside the starch. On the other hand, some studies have reported higher peak viscosity after annealing (Jacobs et al, 1995).

Study on the digestibility of annealed starch was also conducted. Many studies have reported slight or no increase (Alvani et al, 2014; Chung et al, 2009a, b; Liu et al, 2015; Simsek et al, 2012). On the other hand, there have been some reports of a partial decrease in resistant starch. (Chung et al, 2009a, b; Song et al, 2014). In this way, annealing treatment of various types of starch under different moisture content, temperature, and time conditions shows irregular tendencies in various physicochemical properties. Therefore, in addition to moisture, temperature, and time conditions, more information about the properties of the starch itself are needed in the study of annealing treatment.

Non-thermal treatment

Ultrasonic treatment

Ultrasound waves have frequencies exceeding the threshold of human hearing. Ultrasonic treatment creates areas of intense heat and high shear stress. The detailed mechanism of sonication has been briefly described (BeMiller and Huber, 2015). Ultrasonic treatment of starch is performed under sufficient moisture and various characteristics and concentrations of dissolved gas, temperature, processing time, power, frequency, and amplitude. Many studies have investigated changes in starch properties based on the above factors. Depending on the intensity and duration of ultrasound treatment, partial gelatinization may occur due to the increase in temperature (Yu et al, 2013). In addition, in a study in which potato starch in suspension was subjected to ultrasonication, hydrogen gas produced conical pits in the granules, whereas air or oxygen gas produced surface erosion and holes, the size of which increased in inverse proportion to solubility. With carbon dioxide treatment, no damage was reported in the gas or vacuum conditions (Gallant et al, 1972). In addition to damage to granules, changes in swelling power, solubility, gel transparency, hardness, and adhesion have been identified (Jambrak et al, 2010; Majzoobi et al, 2014; Zheng et al, 2013).

In corn, potato, tapioca, and sweet potato starches, changes in viscosity were confirmed by ultrasonication. The viscosity of the starch solution was effectively reduced as the ultrasonication temperature increased (Iida et al, 2008). In addition, the influence of ultrasound was studied according to the amylose content in corn starch, and it had a greater influence on linear amylose than amylopectin. (Luo et al, 2008). In terms of thermal properties, ultrasonic treatment reduced the gelatinization enthalpy due to destruction of starch granules (Jambrak et al, 2010). Analysis of the viscosity characteristics of ultrasonicated starch near the onset of gelatinization showed decreased peak and final viscosities as well as particle size due to solubilization of starch aggregates by ultrasonication (Zuo et al, 2009). Ultrasonication damages the surface and weakens the granular structure and can cause a gelatinization-like reaction in some weak crystalline structures, which may result in other physical and chemical changes.

High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment

High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment is generally performed by subjecting the starch suspension to a pressure of 400 MPa or more. Adjusting the concentration, treatment time, and pressure of suspension for various types of starch allows a variety of gelatinization degrees to be obtained. When gelatinization is performed by HHP treatment, gelatinization is performed at various pressures depending on type of starch. When the temperature is increased, the required pressure may decrease for target gelatinization degree. Characteristic changes according to pressure, moisture content, and treatment time were observed in rice, as well as in various starches of barley, maize, and potato (Bauer et al, 2004; Błaszczak et al, 2005; Douzals et al, 2001; Katopo et al, 2002; Kim and Baik, 2022; Muhr and Blanshard, 1982; Stolt et al, 2000; Vallons and Arendt, 2009). A commonality of several studies is variation according to type of starch and increase in degree of gelatinization increased as temperature, pressure, moisture content, and treatment time increased.

HHP gelatinization proceeds with a different mechanism from heat-induced gelatinization, and various studies related to this difference have been conducted (Buckow et al, 2007; Douzals et al, 1996; Rubens and Heremans, 2000). In order to confirm differences in heat and pressure gelatinization mechanisms, changes in crystalline structure (XRD), short-range structure (FTIR), and lamellar and fractal structures (SAXS) have been confirmed (Liu et al, 2020; Yang et al, 2013). Gelatinization occurs when external water penetrates into the granule interior due to pressure, increasing the degree of hydration. During HHP treatment, the volume of starch suspension decreases and starch molecules are suspended in water. According to Le Chatelier’s principle, hydration of the starch granules would be preferential because they occupy a smaller volume than the native suspension (Douzals et al, 1996, 1998). In addition, one of the differences from heat-induced gelatinization is that there is no agitation or mixing (shear force) during pressure treatment, which allows the process to proceed while maintaining the granules.

As there is a difference in gelatinization temperature according to type of starch, gelatinization pressure varies. Within the A-type crystalline structure, double helix packing results in a low water content and relatively high density, whereas the B-type crystalline structure is more open with a hydrated helical core. In support of this, many studies have reported that A-type starch is more sensitive to pressure than B-type starch. Wheat starch with an A-type pattern is most pressure sensitive. C-type (mixture of A and B types) tapioca starch showed intermediate properties, and B-type potato starch showed strong resistance to pressure (Bauer and Knorr, 2005). Potato starch generally reacts at 600 MPa or more, but it is possible to induce gelatinization at a lower pressure by increasing the water content (Kawai et al, 2007; Thevelein et al, 1981). The difference in sensitivity to pressure can be easily explained by the different packing arrangement of crystallites. However, even in the same type of starch, depending on the amylose content, the sensitivity to gelatinization pressure varies widely. In this regard, glutinous rice starch is more sensitive to pressure than normal rice starch (Oh et al, 2008).

There have been several reports on other physicochemical properties of starch modified by HHP. It was reported that in corn starch, gelatinization enthalpy decreased and gelatinization temperatures (onset temperature (To), peak temperature (Tp), and conclusion temperature (Tc)) increased when pressure of 500 MPa was applied, and gelatinization was complete at 600 MPa (Vallons and Arendt, 2009). Studies have reported that the solubility and swelling power of quinoa starch increase as the pressure (300–600 MPa) and temperature (25–70 °C) increase (Ahmed et al, 2018). However, in the case of mung bean starch, solubility and swelling power at 90 °C or higher decreased as the pressure increased (Li et al, 2011). In this way, HHP treatment under different conditions has various effects by type of starch. Compared to heat treatment of wheat starch, the gel obtained by pressure treatment showed fewer aging characteristics as almost no amylose leaching occurred due to maintenance of granular shape (Douzals et al, 1998). In addition, with taro starch, transparency, hardness, and adhesion are greater in pressure-treated gel than in that receiving heat treatment (Liu et al, 2013). There are also reports of increased gel strength in pressure treated gels due to some not fully gelatinized granules, resulting in increased G' and G" values (Guo et al, 2015). Pressure treatment in sorghum and buckwheat starch reduces viscosity characteristics such as peak viscosity and final viscosity because it limits the leaching of amylose and amylopectin (Ahmed and Al-Attar, 2017; Liu et al. 2016a, b, c). The physicochemical changes caused by HHP treatment of starch are attributed to limited leaching of amylose and amylopectin in the maintained the granules after gelatinization.

Similar physical modifications to those of conventional heat treatment methods (pregelatinized starch, HMT, ANN) can be induced by denaturation caused by pressure energy. Considering that water is an essential factor in pressure treatment as a transfer medium, pressure annealing as a new physical modification method can be performed under sufficient moisture conditions.

Freezing, thawing and freeze drying

When starch is frozen with water, fine ice crystals are generated while passing through the maximum ice crystal formation zone depending on the freezing speed. These crystals affect the structure of starch and associated features. During thawing, amylose or amylopectin are leached due to syneresis, producing change in chemical properties. The effect of freezing and thawing on potato starch confirmed particle surface damage and increased specific surface area. (Szymońska and Wodnicka, 2005). In addition, the water matrix formed during deep freezing compresses the starch granules, which can cause leaching of amylopectin from the inside to the surface (Szymońska et al, 2000). It has also been reported that lyophilization weakens crystallinity in the internal structure of starch and damages the surface. This damage fosters enzyme access into the starch granules to increase digestibility (Apinan et al, 2007). However, in corn, where water transport is relatively limited, these changes were not observed (Larder et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2014).

Methods for physical modification of starch are largely divided into thermal treatment and non-thermal treatment. Physical modification treatments have been applied to different types of starch under different conditions. Even in a specific type of starch treated under similar conditions, the changes in physicochemical properties were observed depending on the amylose and amylopectin contents. Thus, the outcomes of physical starch alteration might not be predictable. Because starch traits vary by type, detailed adjustments under various conditions such as temperature, moisture, and time will be required to affect the desired change. Most thermal treatment modification methods use water as a heat transfer medium to induce movement of water molecules and provide fluidity to the internal structure of starch, inducing restructuring. It might be possible to develop new physical modification methods with similar effects based on pressure rather than heat. In addition, a new physical process that is expected to have a synergistic effect will be able to proceed by continuously proceeding with the existing physical process of different mechanisms in two or three steps.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A1F106258312).

Funding

Funding was provided by National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant Number 2021R1F1A106258312).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have conflicts of interest to disclose.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Sang-Jin Ye, Email: lifesci2015@khu.ac.kr.

Moo-Yeol Baik, Email: mooyeol@khu.ac.kr.

References

  1. Adebowale K, Lawal O. Effect of annealing and heat moisture conditioning on the physicochemical characteristics of Bambarra groundnut (Voandzeia subterranea) starch. Food/nahrung. 2002;46(5):311–316. doi: 10.1002/1521-3803(20020901)46:5&#x0003c;311::AID-FOOD311&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adebowale KO, Olu-Owolabi BI, Olawumi E, Lawal OS. Functional properties of native, physically and chemically modified breadfruit (Artocarpus artilis) starch. Industrial Crops and Products. 21(3): 343-351 (2005)
  3. Ahmed J, Al-Attar H. Structural properties of high-pressure-treated chestnut flour dispersions. International Journal of Food Properties. 2017;20(sup1):S766–S778. doi: 10.1080/10942912.2017.1311343. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahmed J, Thomas L, Arfat YA, Joseph A. Rheological, structural and functional properties of high-pressure treated quinoa starch in dispersions. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2018;197:649–657. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.05.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alvani K, Tester RF, Lin C-L, Qi X. Amylolysis of native and annealed potato starches following progressive gelatinisation. Food Hydrocolloids. 2014;36:273–277. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.10.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Apinan S, Yujiro I, Hidefumi Y, Takeshi F, Myllärinen P, Forssell P, Poutanen K. Visual observation of hydrolyzed potato starch granules by α-amylase with confocal laser scanning microscopy. Starch-Stärke. 2007;59(11):543–548. doi: 10.1002/star.200700630. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer B, Hartmann M, Sommer K, Knorr D. Optical in situ analysis of starch granules under high pressure with a high pressure cell. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2004;5(3):293–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2004.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bauer B, Knorr D. The impact of pressure, temperature and treatment time on starches: pressure-induced starch gelatinisation as pressure time temperature indicator for high hydrostatic pressure processing. Journal of Food Engineering. 2005;68(3):329–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Belitz H-D, Grosch W, Schieberle P. Food chemistry. New York: Springer; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  10. BeMiller JN, Huber KC (2015). Physical modification of food starch functionalities. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. 6: 19–69 (2008) [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Błaszczak W, Valverde S, Fornal J. Effect of high pressure on the structure of potato starch. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2005;59(3):377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.10.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buckow R, Heinz V, Knorr D. High pressure phase transition kinetics of maize starch. Journal of Food Engineering. 2007;81(2):469–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.11.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen J, Jane J. Preparation of granular cold-water-soluble starches by alcoholic-alkaline treatment. Cereal Chemistry. 1994;71(6):618–622. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen J, Jane J. Properties of granular cold-water-soluble starches prepared by alcoholic-alkaline treatments. Cereal Chemistry. 1994;71(6):623–626. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chung H-J, Hoover R, Liu Q. The impact of single and dual hydrothermal modifications on the molecular structure and physicochemical properties of normal corn starch. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2009;44(2):203–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2008.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chung H-J, Liu Q, Hoover R. Impact of annealing and heat-moisture treatment on rapidly digestible, slowly digestible and resistant starch levels in native and gelatinized corn, pea and lentil starches. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2009;75(3):436–447. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.08.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Colonna P, Doublier J, Melcion J, De Monredon F, Mercier C. Extrusion cooking and drum drying of wheat starch. Cereal Chemistry. 1984;61(6):538–554. [Google Scholar]
  18. Doublier J, Colonna P, Mercier C. Extrusion cooking and drum drying of wheat starch. II. Rheological characterization of starch pastes. Cereal Chemistry. 63(3): 240–246 (1986)
  19. Douzals J-P, Marechal P-A, Coquille JC, Gervais P. Microscopic study of starch gelatinization under high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1996;44(6):1403–1408. doi: 10.1021/jf950239c. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Douzals J, Perrier-Cornet J, Coquille J, Gervais P. Pressure− temperature phase transition diagram for wheat starch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2001;49(2):873–876. doi: 10.1021/jf000497w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Douzals J, Perrier Cornet J, Gervais P, Coquille J. High-pressure gelatinization of wheat starch and properties of pressure-induced gels. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1998;46(12):4824–4829. doi: 10.1021/jf971106p. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Eastman JE, Moore CO. Cold-water-soluble granular starch for gelled food compositions. U.S. Patent 4465702 (1984)
  23. Eliasson A.-C. Carbohydrates in food. CRC Press (2006)
  24. Englyst HN, Kingman SM, Cummings J. Classification and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1992;46:S33–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Franco CM, Ciacco CF, Tavares DQ. Effect of the heat-moisture treatment on the enzymatic susceptibility of corn starch granules. Starch-Stärke. 1995;47(6):223–228. doi: 10.1002/star.19950470607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fu Z-Q, Wang L-J, Li D, Adhikari B. Effects of partial gelatinization on structure and thermal properties of corn starch after spray drying. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2012;88(4):1319–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.02.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gallant D, Degrois M, Sterling C, Guilbot A. Microscopic effects of ultrasound on the structure of potato starch preliminary study. Starch-Stärke. 1972;24(4):116–123. doi: 10.1002/star.19720240405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gallant DJ, Bouchet B, Baldwin PM. Microscopy of starch: evidence of a new level of granule organization. Carbohydrate Polymers. 1997;32(3–4):177–191. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8617(97)00008-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Genkina NK, Wasserman LA, Noda T, Tester RF, Yuryev VP. Effects of annealing on the polymorphic structure of starches from sweet potatoes (Ayamurasaki and Sunnyred cultivars) grown at various soil temperatures. Carbohydrate Research. 2004;339(6):1093–1098. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2004.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gomand SV, Lamberts L, Gommes CJ, Visser RG, Delcour JA, Goderis B. Molecular and morphological aspects of annealing-induced stabilization of starch crystallites. Biomacromolecules. 2012;13(5):1361–1370. doi: 10.1021/bm3000748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gomes AM, da Silva CEM, Ricardo NM, Sasaki JM, Germani R. Impact of annealing on the physicochemical properties of unfermented cassava starch (“Polvilho Doce”) Starch-Stärke. 2004;56(9):419–423. doi: 10.1002/star.200300271. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gough B, Pybus J. Effect on the gelatinization temperature of wheat starch granules of prolonged treatment with water at 50 C. Starch-Stärke. 1971;23(6):210–212. doi: 10.1002/star.19710230608. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gunaratne A, Hoover R. Effect of heat–moisture treatment on the structure and physicochemical properties of tuber and root starches. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2002;49(4):425–437. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8617(01)00354-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Guo Z, Zeng S, Zhang Y, Lu X, Tian Y, Zheng B. The effects of ultra-high pressure on the structural, rheological and retrogradation properties of lotus seed starch. Food Hydrocolloids. 2015;44:285–291. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.09.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. He X-H, Xia W, Chen R-Y, Dai T-T, Luo S-J, Chen J, Liu C-M. A new pre-gelatinized starch preparing by gelatinization and spray drying of rice starch with hydrocolloids. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2020;229:115485. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hedayati S, Majzoobi M, Shahidi F, Koocheki A, Farahnaky A. Effects of NaCl and CaCl2 on physicochemical properties of pregelatinized and granular cold-water swelling corn starches. Food Chemistry. 2016;213:602–608. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hedayati S, Shahidi F, Koocheki A, Farahnaky A, Majzoobi M. Physical properties of pregelatinized and granular cold water swelling maize starches at different pH values. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2016;91:730–735. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.06.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoover R. Acid-Treated Starches. Food Reviews International. 2000;16(3):369–392. doi: 10.1081/FRI-100100292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoover R. The impact of heat-moisture treatment on molecular structures and properties of starches isolated from different botanical sources. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010;50(9):835–847. doi: 10.1080/10408390903001735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoover R, Manuel H. Effect of heat—moisture treatment on the structure and physicochemical properties of legume starches. Food Research International. 1996;29(8):731–750. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(97)86873-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hoover R, Swamidas G, Vasanthan T. Studies on the physicochemical properties of native, defatted, and heat-moisture treated pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L) starch. Carbohydrate Research. 1993;246(1):185–203. doi: 10.1016/0008-6215(93)84032-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoover R, Vasanthan T. The flow properties of native, heat‐moisture treated, and annealed starches from wheat, oat, potato and lentil. Journal of Food Biochemistry. 18(2): 67–82 (1994)
  43. Iida Y, Tuziuti T, Yasui K, Towata A, Kozuka T. Control of viscosity in starch and polysaccharide solutions with ultrasound after gelatinization. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2008;9(2):140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2007.03.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jacobs H, Delcour JA. Hydrothermal modifications of granular starch, with retention of the granular structure: A review. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1998;46(8):2895–2905. doi: 10.1021/jf980169k. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jacobs H, Eerlingen R, Clauwaert W, Delcour J. Influence of annealing on the pasting properties of starches from varying botanical sources. Cereal Chemistry (USA) (1995)
  46. Jambrak AR, Herceg Z, Šubarić D, Babić J, Brnčić M, Brnčić SR, Bosiljkov T, Čvek D, Tripalo B, Gelo J. Ultrasound effect on physical properties of corn starch. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2010;79(1):91–100. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.07.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jane J, Craig S, Seib P, Hoseney R. Characterization of Granular Cold Water? Soluble Starch. Starch-Stärke. 1986;38(8):258–263. doi: 10.1002/star.19860380803. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jayakody L, Hoover R. Effect of annealing on the molecular structure and physicochemical properties of starches from different botanical origins–A review. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2008;74(3):691–703. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.04.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jayakody L, Hoover R, Liu Q, Donner E. Studies on tuber starches. II. Molecular structure, composition and physicochemical properties of yam (Dioscorea sp.) starches grown in Sri Lanka. Carbohydrate Polymers. 69(1): 148–163 (2007)
  50. Karapantsios TD. Conductive drying kinetics of pregelatinized starch thin films. Journal of Food Engineering. 2006;76(4):477–489. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.05.047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Katopo H, Song Y, Jane J-L. Effect and mechanism of ultrahigh hydrostatic pressure on the structure and properties of starches. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2002;47(3):233–244. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8617(01)00168-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kawai K, Fukami K, Yamamoto K. State diagram of potato starch–water mixtures treated with high hydrostatic pressure. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2007;67(4):530–535. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.06.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kim HY, Baik MY. Pressure moisture treatment and hydro-thermal treatment of starch. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2022;31(3):261–274. doi: 10.1007/s10068-021-01016-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kiseleva V, Genkina N, Tester R, Wasserman L, Popov A, Yuryev V. Annealing of normal, low and high amylose starches extracted from barley cultivars grown under different environmental conditions. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2004;56(2):157–168. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.01.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kohyama K, Sasaki T. Differential scanning calorimetry and a model calculation of starches annealed at 20 and 50 C. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2006;63(1):82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kweon M, Haynes L, Slade L, Levine H. The effect of heat and moisture treatments on enzyme digestibility of AeWx, Aewx and aeWx corn starches. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. 2000;59(1–2):571–586. doi: 10.1023/A:1010118314383. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Larder CE, Abergel M, Kubow S, Donnelly DJ. Freeze-drying affects the starch digestibility of cooked potato tubers. Food Research International. 2018;103:208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Li H, Dhital S, Flanagan BM, Mata J, Gilbert EP, Gidley MJ. High-amylose wheat and maize starches have distinctly different granule organization and annealing behaviour: A key role for chain mobility. Food Hydrocolloids. 2020;105:105820. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.105820. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Li W, Cao F, Fan J, Ouyang S, Luo Q, Zheng J, Zhang G. Physically modified common buckwheat starch and their physicochemical and structural properties. Food Hydrocolloids. 2014;40:237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.03.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Li W, Zhang F, Liu P, Bai Y, Gao L, Shen Q. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on physicochemical, thermal and morphological properties of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) starch. Journal of Food Engineering. 103(4): 388–393 (2011)
  61. Liu H, Fan H, Cao R, Blanchard C, Wang M. Physicochemical properties and in vitro digestibility of sorghum starch altered by high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2016;92:753–760. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Liu H, Guo X, Li W, Wang X, Peng Q, Wang M. Changes in physicochemical properties and in vitro digestibility of common buckwheat starch by heat-moisture treatment and annealing. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2015;132:237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu H, Guo X, Li Y, Li H, Fan H, Wang M. In vitro digestibility and changes in physicochemical and textural properties of tartary buckwheat starch under high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Food Engineering. 2016;189:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.05.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Liu H, Wang L, Cao R, Fan H, Wang M. In vitro digestibility and changes in physicochemical and structural properties of common buckwheat starch affected by high hydrostatic pressure. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2016;144:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.02.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Liu T. Influence of annealing on gelatinisation characteristics of starches. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University. 2013;40(5):786–789. [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu W, Guo Z, Zeng S, Zheng B. The influence of ultra-high pressure treatment on the physicochemical properties of areca taro starch. Zhongguo Liangyou Xuebao. 2013;28:80. [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu Z, Wang C, Liao X, Shen Q. Measurement and comparison of multi-scale structure in heat and pressure treated corn starch granule under the same degree of gelatinization. Food Hydrocolloids. 2020;108:106081. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Luo Z, Fu X, He X, Luo F, Gao Q, Yu S. Effect of ultrasonic treatment on the physicochemical properties of maize starches differing in amylose content. Starch-Stärke. 2008;60(11):646–653. doi: 10.1002/star.200800014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Luo Z, He X, Fu X, Luo F, Gao Q. Effect of microwave radiation on the physicochemical properties of normal maize, waxy maize and amylomaize V starches. Starch-Stärke. 2006;58(9):468–474. doi: 10.1002/star.200600498. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Majzoobi M, Radi M, Farahnaky A, Jamalian J, Tongtang T, Mesbahi G. Physicochemical properties of pre-gelatinized wheat starch produced by a twin drum drier. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2011;13(2):193–202. [Google Scholar]
  71. Majzoobi M, Seifzadeh N, Farahnaki A, Badii F. Effect of Ultrasound on Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Starch. Science and Technology. 2014;27(1):15–23. [Google Scholar]
  72. Malumba P, Janas S, Roiseux O, Sinnaeve G, Masimango T, Sindic M, Deroanne C, Béra F. Comparative study of the effect of drying temperatures and heat-moisture treatment on the physicochemical and functional properties of corn starch. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2010;79(3):633–641. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.09.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Molavi H, Razavi SMA, Farhoosh R. Impact of hydrothermal modifications on the physicochemical, morphology, crystallinity, pasting and thermal properties of acorn starch. Food Chemistry. 2018;245:385–393. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.10.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Muhr A, Blanshard J. Effect of hydrostatic pressure on starch gelatinisation. Carbohydrate Polymers. 1982;2(1):61–74. doi: 10.1016/0144-8617(82)90046-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Nakazawa Y, Wang Y-J. Acid hydrolysis of native and annealed starches and branch-structure of their Naegeli dextrins. Carbohydrate Research. 2003;338(24):2871–2882. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2003.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Oh H, Pinder D, Hemar Y, Anema S, Wong M. Effect of high-pressure treatment on various starch-in-water suspensions. Food Hydrocolloids. 2008;22(1):150–155. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.01.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Olu-Owolabi BI, Afolabi TA, Adebowale KO. Pasting, thermal, hydration, and functional properties of annealed and heat-moisture treated starch of sword bean (Canavalia gladiata) International Journal of Food Properties. 2011;14(1):157–174. doi: 10.1080/10942910903160331. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Pei-Ling L, Xiao-Song H, Qun S. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on starches: A review. Starch-Stärke. 2010;62(12):615–628. doi: 10.1002/star.201000001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Perera C, Hoover R, Martin A. The effect of hydroxypropylation on the structure and physicochemical properties of native, defatted and heat-moisture treated potato starches. Food Research International. 1997;30(3–4):235–247. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(97)00041-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pinto VZ, Vanier NL, Deon VG, Moomand K, El Halal SLM, da Rosa Zavareze E, Lim L-T, Dias ARG. Effects of single and dual physical modifications on pinhão starch. Food Chemistry. 2015;187:98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Pitchon E, O'rourke JD, Joseph TH. Process for cooking or gelatinizing materials. U.S. Patent 4280851 (1981)
  82. Rajagopalan S, Seib P. A. Process for the preparation of granular cold water-soluble starch. U.S. Patent 5037929 (1991)
  83. Rocha TS, Cunha VA, Jane J-L, Franco CM. Structural characterization of Peruvian carrot (Arracacia xanthorrhiza) starch and the effect of annealing on its semicrystalline structure. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011;59(8):4208–4216. doi: 10.1021/jf104923m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rocha TS, Felizardo SG, Jane J-L, Franco CM. Effect of annealing on the semicrystalline structure of normal and waxy corn starches. Food Hydrocolloids. 2012;29(1):93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Rubens P, Heremans K. Pressure–temperature gelatinization phase diagram of starch: an in situ Fourier transform infrared study. Biopolymers: Original Research on Biomolecules. 54(7): 524–530 (2000) [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Sair L, Fetzer W. Water Sorption by Cornstarch and Commercial. Modifications of Starches. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 36(4): 316–319 (1944)
  87. Samarakoon E, Waduge R, Liu Q, Shahidi F, Banoub J. Impact of annealing on the hierarchical structure and physicochemical properties of waxy starches of different botanical origins. Food Chemistry. 2020;303:125344. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Santos TPRD, Franco CML, Mischan MM, Leonel M. Improvement in spray-drying technology for preparation of pregelatinized cassava starch. Food Science and Technology. 2019;39:939–946. doi: 10.1590/fst.10418. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Shi X, Ding Y, Wan J, Liu C, Prakash S, Xia X. Effect of Annealing on Structural, Physicochemical, and In Vitro Digestive Properties of Starch from Castanopsis sclerophylla. Starch-Stärke. 2021;73(7–8):2100005. doi: 10.1002/star.202100005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Shih F, King J, Daigle K, An HJ, Ali R. Physicochemical properties of rice starch modified by hydrothermal treatments. Cereal Chemistry. 2007;84(5):527–531. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM-84-5-0527. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Shin SI, Kim HJ, Ha HJ, Lee SH, Moon TW. Effect of hydrothermal treatment on formation and structural characteristics of slowly digestible non-pasted granular sweet potato starch. Starch-Stärke. 2005;57(9):421–430. doi: 10.1002/star.200400377. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Simsek S, Ovando-Martínez M, Whitney K, Bello-Pérez LA. Effect of acetylation, oxidation and annealing on physicochemical properties of bean starch. Food Chemistry. 2012;134(4):1796–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.03.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Singh H, Chang YH, Lin J-H, Singh N, Singh N. Influence of heat–moisture treatment and annealing on functional properties of sorghum starch. Food Research International. 2011;44(9):2949–2954. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.07.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Song HY, Lee SY, Choi SJ, Kim KM, Kim JS, Han GJ, Moon TW. Digestibility and physicochemical properties of granular sweet potato starch as affected by annealing. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2014;23(1):23–31. doi: 10.1007/s10068-014-0004-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Stolt M, Oinonen S, Autio K. Effect of high pressure on the physical properties of barley starch. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2000;1(3):167–175. doi: 10.1016/S1466-8564(00)00017-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Szymońska J, Krok F, Tomasik P. Deep-freezing of potato starch. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2000;27(4):307–314. doi: 10.1016/S0141-8130(00)00137-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Szymońska J, Wodnicka K. Effect of multiple freezing and thawing on the surface and functional properties of granular potato starch. Food Hydrocolloids. 2005;19(4):753–760. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Takaya T, Sano C, Nishinari K. Thermal studies on the gelatinisation and retrogradation of heat–moisture treated starch. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2000;41(1):97–100. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8617(99)00115-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Tester R, Debon S, Karkalas J. Annealing of wheat starch. Journal of Cereal Science. 1998;28(3):259–272. doi: 10.1016/S0733-5210(98)90006-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Tester RF, Debon SJ. Annealing of starch—a review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2000;27(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/S0141-8130(99)00121-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Thevelein JM, Van Assche JA, Heremans K, Gerlsma SY. Gelatinisation temperature of starch, as influenced by high pressure. Carbohydrate Research. 1981;93(2):304–307. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6215(00)80862-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Vallons KJ, Arendt EK. Effects of high pressure and temperature on the structural and rheological properties of sorghum starch. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2009;10(4):449–456. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.06.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Vamadevan V, Bertoft E, Soldatov DV, Seetharaman K. Impact on molecular organization of amylopectin in starch granules upon annealing. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2013;98(1):1045–1055. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Van Hung P, Vien NL, Phi NTL. Resistant starch improvement of rice starches under a combination of acid and heat-moisture treatments. Food Chemistry. 2016;191:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Varatharajan V, Hoover R, Li J, Vasanthan T, Nantanga K, Seetharaman K, Liu Q, Donner E, Jaiswal S, Chibbar R. Impact of structural changes due to heat-moisture treatment at different temperatures on the susceptibility of normal and waxy potato starches towards hydrolysis by porcine pancreatic alpha amylase. Food Research International. 2011;44(9):2594–2606. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.04.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Vasanthan T, Sosulski F, Hoover R. The reactivity of native and autoclaved starches from different origins towards acetylation and cationization. Starch-Stärke. 1995;47(4):135–143. doi: 10.1002/star.19950470404. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Vermeylen R, Goderis B, Delcour JA. An X-ray study of hydrothermally treated potato starch. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2006;64(2):364–375. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.12.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. von Borries-Medrano E, Jaime-Fonseca MR, Aguilar-Méndez MA, García-Cruz HI. Addition of galactomannans and citric acid in corn starch processed by extrusion: Retrogradation and resistant starch studies. Food Hydrocolloids. 2018;83:485–496. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.03.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang J, Zhai W, Zheng W. Preparation of granular cold-water-soluble corn starch by surface modification with poly (ethylene glycol) Starch-Stärke. 2011;63(10):625–631. doi: 10.1002/star.201100033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wang Q, Li L, Zheng X. Recent advances in heat-moisture modified cereal starch: Structure, functionality and its applications in starchy food systems. Food Chemistry. 2021;344:128700. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Wang S, Wang J, Yu J, Wang S. A comparative study of annealing of waxy, normal and high-amylose maize starches: The role of amylose molecules. Food Chemistry. 2014;164:332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wang TL, Bogracheva TY, Hedley CL. Starch: as simple as A, B, C? Journal of Experimental Botany. 1998;49(320):481–502. [Google Scholar]
  113. Wang W, Powell A, Oates C. Effect of annealing on the hydrolysis of sago starch granules. Carbohydrate Polymers. 1997;33(2–3):195–202. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8617(96)00170-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Yan H, Zhengbiao G. Morphology of modified starches prepared by different methods. Food Research International. 2010;43(3):767–772. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.11.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Yang Z, Gu Q, Hemar Y. In situ study of maize starch gelatinization under ultra-high hydrostatic pressure using X-ray diffraction. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2013;97(1):235–238. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.04.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Yu S, Zhang Y, Ge Y, Zhang Y, Sun T, Jiao Y, Zheng XQ. Effects of ultrasound processing on the thermal and retrogradation properties of nonwaxy rice starch. Journal of Food Process Engineering. 2013;36(6):793–802. doi: 10.1111/jfpe.12048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Zeng F, Ma F, Kong F, Gao Q, Yu S. Physicochemical properties and digestibility of hydrothermally treated waxy rice starch. Food Chemistry. 2015;172:92–98. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Zhang B, Wang K, Hasjim J, Li E, Flanagan BM, Gidley MJ, Dhital S. Freeze-drying changes the structure and digestibility of B-polymorphic starches. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2014;62(7):1482–1491. doi: 10.1021/jf405196m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Zheng J, Li Q, Hu A, Yang L, Lu J, Zhang X, Lin Q. Dual-frequency ultrasound effect on structure and properties of sweet potato starch. Starch-Stärke. 2013;65(7–8):621–627. doi: 10.1002/star.201200197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhu B, Cao X, Liu J, Gao W. Effects of different drying methods on physicochemical and sizing properties of granular cold water swelling starch. Textile Research Journal. 2019;89(5):762–770. doi: 10.1177/0040517518755786. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Zuo JY, Knoerzer K, Mawson R, Kentish S, Ashokkumar M. The pasting properties of sonicated waxy rice starch suspensions. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry. 2009;16(4):462–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science and Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES