| Literature DB >> 35407063 |
Nthabeleng Vanqa1, Vusi Vincent Mshayisa1, Moses Basitere2.
Abstract
In this study, edible insect flours from Gonimbrasia belina (Mashonzha), Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly larvae) and Macrotermes subhylanus (Madzhulu) were prepared and assessed in terms of proximal, physicochemical, techno-functional and antioxidant properties. The crude protein of the edible insect flours varied between 34.90-52.74%. The crude fat of the insect flours differed significantly (p < 0.05), with H. illucens (27.93%) having the highest crude fat. G. belina was lighter (L*) and yellower (+b*) compared to H. illucens and M. subhylanus, and there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the redness (+a*) of the edible insect flours. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in foam capacity and foam stability of all three edible insect flours. Moreover, the antioxidant activity against the DPPH radical was low for H. illucens (3.63%), with M. subhylanus (55.37%) exhibiting the highest DPPH radical. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the techno-functional properties and antioxidant indices of the edible insect flours. PC1 accounted for 51.39% of the total variability, while component 2 accounted for 24.71%. In terms of PC1, the FS, OBC and FC were responsible for the major differences in the edible insect flours. The findings revealed that edible insect flours are a good source of antioxidants and can be used as an alternative protein source and a potential novel food additive due to their techno-functional qualities.Entities:
Keywords: G. belina; H. illucens; M. subhylanus; Madzhulu; Mashonzha; antioxidant activity; black soldier fly; edible insect flours; metal chelation; nutritional properties; techno-functional properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407063 PMCID: PMC8997929 DOI: 10.3390/foods11070976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Proximate composition of three edible insect flours.
| Edible Insects | Crude Protein (%) | Ash (%) | Moisture (%) | Crude Fat (%) | Carbohydrates (%) | Energy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 46.70 ± 0.82 b | 11.38 ± 2.20 b | 5.68 ± 0.25 a | 14.04 ± 0.12 b | 22.10 ± 1.45 a | 399.38 ± 6.03 a |
|
| 34.90 ± 0.47 a | 7.50 ± 1.65 a | 5.76 ± 0.01 ab | 27.93 ± 6.13 c | 23.66 ± 7.84 a | 485.58 ± 26.69 b |
|
| 52.74 ± 1.47 c | 6.41 ± 0.07 a | 6.40 ± 0.06 b | 6.36 ± 0.05 a | 27.27 ± 1.19 a | 379.91 ± 1.06 a |
Values are mean ± standard deviation. Means within a column followed by the same superscript are not significantly (p > 0.05) different.
Physicochemical properties of three edible insect flours.
| Edible Insects | L* | a* | b* | Bulk Density (g/mL) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 57.95 ± 0.31 c | 3.92 ± 1.49 a | 20.02 ± 1.97 b | 0.65 ± 0.01 b | 6.12 ± 0.03 a |
|
| 53.69 ± 0.54 b | 4.46 ± 0.36 a | 13.08 ± 2.68 a | 0.51 ± 0.01 a | 8.93 ± 0.05 b |
|
| 43.52 ± 0.56 a | 5.72 ± 3.90 a | 12.00 ± 2.70 a | 0.64 ± 0.00 b | 6.14 ± 0.02 a |
Values are mean ± standard deviation. Means within a column followed by the same superscript are not significantly (p > 0.05) different.
Figure 1Ground edible insect flour of three different species. (A) G. belina; (B) M. subhylanus; and (C) H. illucens.
Figure 2Water activity of three edible insect flours. Values are mean ± standard deviation, means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Techno-functional properties of three edible insect flours.
| Edible Insects | WBC (g/g) | OBC (g/g) | EC (%) | ES (%) | FC (%) | FS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.30 ± 0.12 ab | 0.89 ± 0.12 a | 41.76 ± 2.84 a | 33.75 ± 2.29 a | 5.81 ± 3.69 a | 95.32 ± 2.37 a |
|
| 0.11 ± 0.02 a | 1.35 ± 0.09 b | 67.33 ± 8.49 b | 42.45 ± 5.07 b | 5.69 ± 1.41 a | 97.38 ± 1.70 a |
|
| 1.46 ± 0.06 b | 1.48 ± 0.07 b | 45.44± 4.28 a | 32.80 ± 0.47 a | 4.71 ± 2.46 a | 97.51 ± 1.22 a |
Values are mean ± standard deviation. Means within a column followed by the same superscript are not significantly (p > 0.05) different. WBC: water-binding capacity, OBC: oil biding capacity, EC: emulsion capacity, ES: emulsion stability, FS: foam stability, and FC: foam capacity.
Figure 3Scavenging effect of DPPH-RS, ABTS-RS and Fe2+ chelating activity of edible insect flours. Values are mean ± standard deviation; means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Reducing power activity of edible insect flours. Values are mean ± standard deviation; means with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Principal components analysis plot for techno-functional properties and antioxidant indices of edible insect flours.