1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Variants preparation

Three formulations of the product were prepared, that based on the soya chop – B0 – control, without added insect protein; B5 - with a 5% WBP content; B10 - with a 10% WBP content. In order to introduce mealworm protein into the product, in variants B5 and B10 the amount of soybean chop and soy protein isolate was decreased and replaced by FTIP and WBP in the specified ratios as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Burger analogues variants composition [%]. B0 – control, without added insect protein; B5 – with a 5% WBP content; B10 – with a 10% WBP content.

Table 1. Burger analogues variants composition [%]. B0 – control, without added insect protein; B5 – with a 5% WBP content; B10 – with a 10% WBP content.

Ingredients [%]	Burger analogues
	B0	B5	B10
Soy chop1	13.6	6.8	6.8
Soy protein isolate GS5200 A2	10	7.4	4.4
Fiber Textured Insect Protein	-	21.6	21.6
Whole Buffalo Powder	-	5	10
Sodium Alginate FD 901 AR3	1.4	1.4	1.4
Transglutaminase ACTIVA WM4	1.5	1.5	1.5
Refined sunflower oil5	7	7	7
Beetroot juice BIO6	2	2	2
Spices: - Salt7 - Pepper8 - Smoked paprika9 - Spicy paprika10 - Garlic10 - Cumin8 - Nutmeg8	- 1.3 - 0.5 - 1 - 0.2 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.2	- 1.3 - 0.5 - 1 - 0.2 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.2	- 1.3 - 0.5 - 1 - 0.2 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.2
Virgin coconut oil11	7	7	7
Water	53.3	46.3	44.3

1) Sante Sp. z o.o, Warsaw, Poland; 2) Novichem Sp. z o.o., Chorzów, Poland; 3) Danisco GRINDSTED®, Grindsted, Denmark; 4) Ajinomoto Foods Europe SAS, Paris, France; 5) EOL (Edible Oils Limited) Polska Sp. z o.o, Szamotuły, Poland; 6) Naura, Białystok, Poland; 7) P.P.H. „STANLAB” s.j., Lublin, Poland; 8) McCormick Polska S.A., Stefanowo, Poland; 9) Prymat Sp. z o.o, Jastrzebie Zdroj, Poland; 10) ŻUK-POL Sp. z o.o, Wrocław, Poland; 11) Żywność Ekologiczna Bio Food Sp. z o.o., Ciechocin, Poland.

The initial stage of the burger analogues preparation consisted of soaking the soy chops in hot water, in a ratio 4:6 (soy:water) - for variant B0, 20.4 g of water was used, while in B5 and B10 this amount was reduced by half. After 30 minutes, the chops were minced using a Diana 886.5 type meat mincer (Zelmer, Rzeszów, Poland). Using homogenizer T 25 easy clean digital ULTRA-TURRAX® (IKA, Staufen, Germany), an emulsion was produced (for each variant separately), consisting of the remaining water, sunflower oil, sodium alginate, transglutaminase, spices and beetroot juice concentrate (10 000 rpm for 5 minutes). The coconut oil was previously frozen at -18°C and using a grater, chips of about 5 mm in diameter were created. The ingredients prepared in this way were weighed using a PS 1200/C/1 balance (Radwag, Radom, Poland) following the defined composition with the addition of soy protein isolate, FTIP and WBP. The ingredients were mixed and around 50 g burgers measuring 6 cm in diameter and 1.5 cm high were formed and wrapped in cling film. After a 24-hour incubation period at 4°C, the product was grilled on preheated pan (Tefal S.A.S., Rumilly, France) on both sides until a temperature of 72°C was reached at the geometric center.

2.2.2. Chemical properties

pH

The pH of the variants was measured using a S40 SevenMulti™ pH meter (Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland ), which was calibrated using buffer solutions (pH 4 and 7) prior to analysis. Samples for measurement were prepared by mixing 10 g of raw material with 50 ml of distilled water in a beaker. The measurement was performed after 10 minutes of incubation at room temperature until the value on the pH meter stabilized.

Crude protein content

The Kjeldahl method, according to AN-5511, was used to analyze the crude protein content of the variants. The samples were mineralized by heating in a TecatorTM Digestor 2520 oven (FOSS, Hillerod, Denmark) with a temperature of 420°C with the addition of concentrated H₂SO₄ and the catalysts K₂SO₄ and CuSO₄ x 5H₂O. Alkalisation and distillation were conducted in a KjeltecTM 9 Analyser (FOSS, Hillerod, Denmark) and total nitrogen content was converted to protein using the conversion factor N x 6.25.

Fatty acids profile

Extraction of lipids from the variants was performed using the Folch method with a mixture of chloroform and methanol in a volume ratio of 2:1. The solution was filtered and the supernatant evaporated to dryness using a Rotavapor® R-215 vacuum evaporator (Büchi, Flawil, Switzerland). After lipids extraction, the fatty acids profile were analyzed.

50 mg ± 1 mg of the lipids were placed in a hydrolysis tube with addition of a few boiling stones, 4 ml of 0.5 M NaOH in MeOH and the same amount of 14% BF₃ in MeOH. The sealed tubes were placed in a water bath (70°C for 30 min). After the time had elapsed, the tubes were cooled in ice water and 1 ml of saturated NaCl solution was added to the hydrolysate, and then the fatty acid methyl esters were extracted three times with 2 ml of hexane. The combined hexane layers were dried through a layer of anhydrous magnesium sulphate, evaporated to dryness under reduced pressure (50°C; 150 mbar pressure) on a Rotavapor® R-215 vacuum evaporator (Büchi, Flawil, Switzerland), resuspended in 1.5 ml hexane and subjected to chromatographic analysis. Fatty acids were determined after methanolysis (0.5M NaOH/MeOH and 14% BF3/MeOH) using a gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) technique using a GC6890/5973 MSD instrument (Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). An HP88 column (length 100 m, diameter 0.25 mm, stationary phase film thickness 0.20 μm) was used. The carrier gas was helium 6.0 purity (Air Products, Siewierz, Poland), the flow rate of which was set at 1 ml/min, the sample injection was performed with a split (split 4:1), and the temperature program was followed with a temperature ramp: initial temperature 60°C maintained for 2 min, heating 20°C/min to 180°C, 3°C/min to 220°C maintained for 15 min and final heating at 5°C/min to 250°C with this temperature maintained for 8 min. The total analysis time was 50.33 min [41]. Fatty acids were identified through the comparison of their retention times with standards.

2.2.3. Physical properties

Cooking yield

The prepared variants were weighed and then subjected to thermal as described in section 2.2.1. After cooling to room temperature and weighing again, the cooking yield was calculated using the following formula:

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{o}\mathit{o}\mathit{k}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}\mathit{g} \mathit{y}\mathit{i}\mathit{e}\mathit{l}\mathit{d}=\frac{{\mathit{m}}_2}{{\mathit{m}}_1}·100\mathrm{\%}$$

where: m₁ - mass of raw sample; m₂ - mass of grilled sample.

Color

The color value of the burger analogues was determined using a hand-held Chroma CR-400 meter (Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Osaka, Japan). Color was recorded in the CIE-lab color space, where L* - is the brightness coordinate, ranging from 0 to 100 (black to white), +a*/-a* represents redness or greenness, +b*/-b* indicates yellowness or blueness [42]. The instrument was calibrated using a white ceramic calibration plate (L* = 93.5, a* = +0.3114, b* = +0.319). The measurement area was 8 mm in diameter. The analysis was performed before and after heat treatment, measuring the value at three random locations on the sample surface.

Texture profile analysis (TPA)

Texture profile analysis (TPA) was conducted using a Z010 testing machine equipped with an Xforce HP load cell with a nominal force of 100 N (Zwick Roell, Ulm, Germany). Textural properties in terms of hardness [N], cohesiveness [-], and chewiness [N x mm] were determined using the TPA method [43]. Samples were compressed twice to a deformation of 75% with a relaxation time of 30 s. Three samples from each variant with a cylindrical shape (15 mm x 15 mm, H x d) were prepared for this purpose and placed between two parallel plates. The analysis was performed at room temperature.

2.2.4. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory analysis was carried out at Miguel Hernández University of Elche (UMH), The Polytechnic School of Orihuela (EPSO) (Alicante, Spain). To carry out the sensory analysis, a questionnaire was prepared in advance using Google Form (Google, Mountain View, California, USA). A hedonic scale was used to assess the acceptability of burger analogues enriched with insect protein. The scale ranged from 1 to 9, where 9 meant ’very much like’ and 1 meant ’very much dislike’. Twenty-four panelists (n = 24, 50% female, 50% male, aged 22 – 62 years) - students and staff from the University took part in the evaluation, and rated the product according to eight attributes - appearance, color, aroma, firmness, juiciness, taste, aftertaste and overall acceptability. Participants were informed of the type of product tested and the allergens present. To ensure an objective evaluation, variantss were blindly coded with random three-digit numbers and served on a single plate divided into three sections.

2.2.5. Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed in triplicate, unless the description indicates otherwise. Results were reported as means ± standard deviations of measurements. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA analysis of variance, followed by Duncan’s post hoc test at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 to test for differences between mean values. Data were analyses using R software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Chemical properties

The burger analogues made with different concentration of WBP are shown in Fig. 1. The results presented in Table 2 describes the chemical properties – pH and protein content of variants with different WBP concentration. The pH of all variants is slightly acidic, ranging from 6.34 to 6.78. Variant B0 has the highest pH, while B5 and B10 have lower pH values with no significant difference between them, this indicates that the addition of WBP lowers the pH of the burger analogues. A comparable relationship was shown in a study by Kim et al. [44], where the effect of the addition of edible insect protein on the physicochemical properties of a drying-induced restructured jerky analogue was investigated - as the ratio of textured vegetable protein to insect protein decreased, the pH decreased.

Figure 1. Variants of burger analogues with different WBP content before and after being grilled with different WBP content (a) B0, (b) B5, (c) B10.

Figure 1. Variants of burger analogues with different WBP content before and after being grilled with different WBP content (a) B0, (b) B5, (c) B10.

The control variant (B0) had the highest protein content, while the variant with 5% WBP (B5) and 10% WBP (B10) had lower protein contents (18.41 ± 1.08 % and 17.99 ± 0.24 %, respectively). This decrease in protein content with increasing WBP concentration was statistically significant which would indicate that was concentration-dependent. The results suggest that the inclusion of WBP in burger analogues reduces the overall protein content, due to the lower protein content of the insect powder compared to the other ingredients used in the formulation. These results indicate that changing from soy protein to edible insect protein indeed reduced the overall protein content of the product. This is related to the higher fat content of the insect protein powder [45]. Despite the observed decrease in protein content with higher WBP concentration, it still holds great potential as a sustainable and nutritious ingredient for burger alternatives, this is primarily attributed to its elevated levels of essential amino acids [46,47].

The fatty acid profile of burger analogues was significantly affected (p ≤ 0.05) by WBP concentration. Analysis revealed that the total lipid content varied across the variants, with concentrations ranging from 31.00% ± 0.20 in the control (B0) to 35.26% ± 0.14 in the variant containing 10% WBP (B10). As the concentration of WBP increased, a notable increase in saturated fatty acids (SFA) was also observed, with the highest concentration (10%) exhibiting the highest SFA content (21.28 ± 0.004 g/100g). Conversely, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) decreased with increasing WBP concentration, with the lowest MUFA content observed in the 10% WBP variant (5.24 ± 0.003 g/100g). Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) also showed a decreasing trend with increasing WBP concentration, reaching the lowest level in the 10% WBP variant (8.74 ± 0.003 g/100g). The high fat and SFA content of the samples is related to the use of sunflower and coconut oil in the formulation, and the increase in lipid content in variants enriched with insect protein powder is attributed to the higher fat content naturally present in Alphitobius diaperinus in comparison to texturized soy [48,49]. In animal organisms, such as insects, the content of saturated fatty acids is higher compared to plants [50,51]. In all formulations, MUFA content was lower than PUFA content and this is consistent when comparing the fatty acid profile of soybean and Alphitobius diaperinus [33,52].

3.2. Physical properties

The data shows a slight decrease in cooking yield as the concentration of WBP increases, but the differences between the variants were not statistically significant as it can be seen on Fig. 2 (p ≤ 0.05). Research reported by Çabuk and Yılmaz [53] showed that the addition of insect protein powder had a negligible effect on differences in cooking yield of the pasta compared to the control. Small differences were also noticeable when compared to pasta enriched with vegetable protein. The lower yield may be related to the higher fat content of the insect protein powders compared to the plant protein isolates [54].

Figure 2. Effect of WBP content on cooking yield of burger analogues. Data represent the mean and error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3). Values indicated by different lowercase letters were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 2. Effect of WBP content on cooking yield of burger analogues. Data represent the mean and error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3). Values indicated by different lowercase letters were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

The addition of WBP had a significant (p ≤ 0.05) impact on the color parameters of the burger analogues, as indicated in Table 4. Regardless of whether the variants were subjected to heat treatment or not, an increase in the concentration of WBP led to a decrease in the values of all color coordinates. Moreover, when comparing raw and grilled samples, it was observed that there was a clear tendency for the L* (lightness) and b* (yellowness) values to decrease, while the a* (redness) values increased. Alterations in the microstructure and composition in the meat analogues during cooking could affect light scattering and absorption and so would be responsible for their color changes. Several studies have assessed the color of products enriched with insect protein. Wendin et al. [55] did not explicitly describe their findings, but the figures in their paper suggest that the addition of insect flour significantly influenced the color change in the products. Furthermore, other studies directly attributed the color change in the product to the addition of insect protein, particularly noting a reduction in L* (brightness) [36,56,57,58]. This is related to the fact that insect protein preparations are not isolates of insect protein but dehydrated whole ground insects and consist of other incest components. The heat treatment process of the insects increases the activity of the enzyme phenoloxidase, which catalyzes the darkening process of the insect flour [59]. In addition, studies have shown that chitin, a component of insect shells, also affects the darker color of insect powders [60].

Table 5. presents the results obtained for the TPA – hardness, cohesiveness and chewiness – of burger analogues. The addition of WBP had a significant effect on the cohesiveness of burger analogues, but not on hardness or chewiness. Hardness is defined as the maximum force of the first compression cycle to a specific deformation [61]. Increasing the concentration of insect protein powder in the samples slightly decreased the hardness when compared to the control (B0). As mentioned earlier, the insect protein preparation has a higher fat content compared to the soy protein isolate, which may affect the hardness of the variants in which WBP was incorporated. Furthermore, several studies have shown that the decrease in hardness is caused by a reduction in texturization due to the addition of flour from mealworm larvae into the extruded meat analogue, which led to a weakening of the internal molecular bonds [62,63,64]. Cohesiveness is the mechanical characteristic associated with the amount of deformation that a food can undergo before reaching its breaking point [65]. The variant with 5% WBP addition showed the highest value of cohesiveness, while the control variant showed the lowest value. In the case of chewiness, a different correlation was noted, although the B5 variant still showed the highest value it was the lowest for the variant with 10% WBP concentration. Similar results were obtained in a study of the effect of alternative proteins, including Alphitobius diaperinus powder, on the textural profile of bread [66]. Another study showed that TPA is also influenced by the species of insect used, as an additive to bread, to increase its protein content [67].

3.3. Sensory evaluation

In the consumer evaluation of the sensory characteristics (color, aroma, firmness, juiciness, taste, aftertaste, and overall acceptability) of the burger analogues, no significant statistical differences were found (p < 0.05) for all tested variants. Despite the variation in WBP concentration, the sensory profiles remained consistent, indicating that the addition of WBP did not significantly alter the sensory attributes of the burger analogues. Fig. 3. presents the results in graphical form. Regarding appearance, the 5% addition of WBP (B5) received the highest rating (5.75), surpassing the control (B0) at 5.63 and the 10% addition (B10) at 4.92. In terms of color, B5 achieved the greatest score (6.29), while both B0 and B10 scored equally at 5.33. Flavor scores were comparable across all treatments, with B10 obtaining the highest mark (5.96), followed by B5 (5.79) and B0 (5.75). Texture firmness was most preferred in B5 (5.63), trailed by B10 (5.04) and B0 (4.92). Juiciness scores were equivalent for B5 and B10 (5.46), while B0 scored 4.96. Taste was most favored in B10 (5.79), compared to B5 (5.75) and B0 (5.46). Aftertaste showed a preference for B5 (5.83) over B0 (5.42) and B10 (5.63). Finally, overall liking was greatest for B5 (5.88), followed by B10 (5.46) and B0 (5.25). The mean scores for all sensory attributes were around 5.0, indicating that the burger analogues were generally well-accepted by the panelists. It can be observed that moderate addition of WBP (5%) improve the visual appeal of the burgers, but a higher concentration (10%) detract from it. The addition of WBP to the burger analogues also slightly improved the perception of the smell, texture and taste of the product. Caparros Megido et al. [19] studied the effect of the addition of insect protein on sensory aspects of beef burgers and plant-based burger. It was shown that the addition of insect protein to the beef lowered the overall product acceptability score, while the value was higher when added to the lentil burger analogue. This may indicate that the addition of insect protein mimics the taste of conventional meat. The results presented by Smetana et al. [68] showed that the insect burger had a significantly higher overall acceptability score compared to the plant-based burger available in most supermarkets. The insect burger was also rated higher for flavor and texture, while the plant-based alternative received higher scores for appearance. The sensory evaluation indicates that while the addition of WBP can enhance certain sensory characteristics of burger analogues, the optimal concentration for overall sensory appeal appears to be around 5%. Further investigation with a larger sample size or trained sensory panels could be conducted to explore these potential subtle differences and even different types and concentrations of spices can be further studied to improve the sensory evaluation of the products.

Figure 3. Spider plot of the sensory profile of burger analogues with the addition of WBP at different concentrations. For identification of varoiants codes refer to Table 1. Data represent the mean (n = 24). .

Figure 3. Spider plot of the sensory profile of burger analogues with the addition of WBP at different concentrations. For identification of varoiants codes refer to Table 1. Data represent the mean (n = 24). .

4. Conclusions

References

1. Gu, D.; Andreev, K.; E. Dupre, M. Major Trends in Population Growth Around the World. China CDC Wkly 2021, 3, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Calicioglu, O.; Flammini, A.; Bracco, S.; Bellù, L.; Sims, R. The Future Challenges of Food and Agriculture: An Integrated Analysis of Trends and Solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Chen, Y.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. 3D Printing of Steak-like Foods Based on Textured Soybean Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Bernard, B.; Lux, A. How to Feed the World Sustainably: An Overview of the Discourse on Agroecology and Sustainable Intensification. Reg Environ Change 2017, 17, 1279–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Ran, Y.; Lannerstad, M.; Herrero, M.; Van Middelaar, C.E.; De Boer, I.J.M. Assessing Water Resource Use in Livestock Production: A Review of Methods. Livest Sci 2016, 187, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Sakadevan, K.; Nguyen, M.-L. Livestock Production and Its Impact on Nutrient Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In; 2017; pp. 147–184.
7. Yusuf, D.; Haryo Bimo Setiarto, R. Quality Aspects Related to Meat Analogue Based on Microbiology, Plants and Insects Protein. Reviews in Agricultural Science 2022, 10, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Boukid, F. Plant-Based Meat Analogues: From Niche to Mainstream. European Food Research and Technology 2021, 247, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Milfont, T.L.; Satherley, N.; Osborne, D.; Wilson, M.S.; Sibley, C.G. To Meat, or Not to Meat: A Longitudinal Investigation of Transitioning to and from Plant-Based Diets. Appetite 2021, 166, 105584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Andreani, G.; Sogari, G.; Marti, A.; Froldi, F.; Dagevos, H.; Martini, D. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients 2023, 15, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Costa-Catala, J.; Toro-Funes, N.; Comas-Basté, O.; Hernández-Macias, S.; Sánchez-Pérez, S.; Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Veciana-Nogués, M.T.; Castell-Garralda, V.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Comparative Assessment of the Nutritional Profile of Meat Products and Their Plant-Based Analogues. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Duque-Estrada, P.; Petersen, I.L. The Sustainability Paradox of Processing Plant Proteins. NPJ Sci Food 2023, 7, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Li, M.; Duan, X.; Zhou, J.; Li, J.; Amrit, B.K.; Suleria, H.A.R. Plant Proteins and Their Digestibility. In Processing Technologies and Food Protein Digestion; Elsevier, 2023; pp. 209–232.
14. Colgrave, M.L.; Dominik, S.; Tobin, A.B.; Stockmann, R.; Simon, C.; Howitt, C.A.; Belobrajdic, D.P.; Paull, C.; Vanhercke, T. Perspectives on Future Protein Production. J Agric Food Chem 2021, 69, 15076–15083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Healy, L.E.; Tiwari, B.K. The Need for Future Proteins. In Future Proteins; Elsevier, 2023; pp. 3–12.
16. Sabaté, J.; Soret, S. Sustainability of Plant-Based Diets: Back to the Future. Am J Clin Nutr 2014, 100, 476S–482S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Borges, M.M.; da Costa, D.V.; Trombete, F.M.; Câmara, A.K.F.I. Edible Insects as a Sustainable Alternative to Food Products: An Insight into Quality Aspects of Reformulated Bakery and Meat Products. Curr Opin Food Sci 2022, 46, 100864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Lee, H.J.; Yong, H.I.; Kim, M.; Choi, Y.-S.; Jo, C. Status of Meat Alternatives and Their Potential Role in the Future Meat Market — A Review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020, 33, 1533–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Caparros Megido, R.; Gierts, C.; Blecker, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Haubruge, É.; Alabi, T.; Francis, F. Consumer Acceptance of Insect-Based Alternative Meat Products in Western Countries. Food Qual Prefer 2016, 52, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. White, K.P.; Al-Shawaf, L.; Lewis, D.M.G.; Wehbe, Y.S. Food Neophobia and Disgust, but Not Hunger, Predict Willingness to Eat Insect Protein. Pers Individ Dif 2023, 202, 111944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Karaağaç, Y.; Bellikci-Koyu, E. A Narrative Review on Food Neophobia throughout the Lifespan: Relationships with Dietary Behaviours and Interventions to Reduce It. British Journal of Nutrition 2023, 130, 793–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Sogari, G.; Riccioli, F.; Moruzzo, R.; Menozzi, D.; Tzompa Sosa, D.A.; Li, J.; Liu, A.; Mancini, S. Engaging in Entomophagy: The Role of Food Neophobia and Disgust between Insect and Non-Insect Eaters. Food Qual Prefer 2023, 104, 104764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Hopkins, I.; Farahnaky, A.; Gill, H.; Danaher, J.; Newman, L.P. Food Neophobia and Its Association with Dietary Choices and Willingness to Eat Insects. Front Nutr 2023, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Spatola, G.; Giusti, A.; Mancini, S.; Tinacci, L.; Nuvoloni, R.; Fratini, F.; Di Iacovo, F.; Armani, A. Assessment of the Information to Consumers on Insects-Based Products (Novel Food) Sold by e-Commerce in the Light of the EU Legislation: When Labelling Compliance Becomes a Matter of Accuracy. Food Control 2024, 162, 110440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Boukid, F.; Sogari, G.; Rosell, C.M. Edible Insects as Foods: Mapping Scientific Publications and Product Launches in the Global Market (1996-2021). J Insects Food Feed 2023, 9, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Omuse, E.R.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Yusuf, A.A.; Machekano, H.; Egonyu, J.P.; Kimathi, E.; Mohamed, S.F.; Kassie, M.; Subramanian, S.; Onditi, J.; et al. The Global Atlas of Edible Insects: Analysis of Diversity and Commonality Contributing to Food Systems and Sustainability. Sci Rep 2024, 14, 5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Mazurek, A.; Palka, A.; Skotnicka, M.; Kowalski, S. Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio Molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius Diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta Domesticus). Foods 2022, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Mintah, B.K.; He, R.; Agyekum, A.A.; Dabbour, M.; Golly, M.K.; Ma, H. Edible Insect Protein for Food Applications: Extraction, Composition, and Functional Properties. J Food Process Eng 2020, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Fernandez-Cassi, X.; Supeanu, A.; Jansson, A.; Boqvist, S.; Vagsholm, I. Novel Foods: A Risk Profile for the House Cricket (Acheta Domesticus). EFSA Journal 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Pippinato, L.; Gasco, L.; Di Vita, G.; Mancuso, T. Current Scenario in the European Edible-Insect Industry: A Preliminary Study. J Insects Food Feed 2020, 6, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. El-Shafie, H.A.F. Utilization of Edible Insects as Food and Feed with Emphasis on the Red Palm Weevil. In Food and Nutrition Security in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vol. 2; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2024; pp. 393–406. [Google Scholar]
32. Żuk-Gołaszewska, K.; Gałęcki, R.; Obremski, K.; Smetana, S.; Figiel, S.; Gołaszewski, J. Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An Overview. Insects 2022, 13, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Rumbos, C.I.; Karapanagiotidis, I.T.; Mente, E.; Athanassiou, C.G. The Lesser Mealworm Alphitobius Diaperinus: A Noxious Pest or a Promising Nutrient Source? Rev Aquac 2019, 11, 1418–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Turck, D.; Bohn, T.; Castenmiller, J.; De Henauw, S.; Hirsch-Ernst, K.I.; Maciuk, A.; Mangelsdorf, I.; McArdle, H.J.; Naska, A.; Pelaez, C.; et al. Safety of Frozen and Freeze-dried Formulations of the Lesser Mealworm (Alphitobius Diaperinus Larva) as a Novel Food Pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 2022, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Clarkson, C.; Mirosa, M.; Birch, J. Potential of Extracted Locusta Migratoria Protein Fractions as Value-Added Ingredients. Insects 2018, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Igual, M.; García-Segovia, P.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Effect of Acheta Domesticus (House Cricket) Addition on Protein Content, Colour, Texture, and Extrusion Parameters of Extruded Products. J Food Eng 2020, 282, 110032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Janssen, R.H.; Vincken, J.-P.; van den Broek, L.A.M.; Fogliano, V.; Lakemond, C.M.M. Nitrogen-to-Protein Conversion Factors for Three Edible Insects: Tenebrio Molitor, Alphitobius Diaperinus, and Hermetia Illucens. J Agric Food Chem 2017, 65, 2275–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Kurečka, M.; Kulma, M.; Petříčková, D.; Plachý, V.; Kouřimská, L. Larvae and Pupae of Alphitobius Diaperinus as Promising Protein Alternatives. European Food Research and Technology 2021, 247, 2527–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Herdeiro, F.M.; Carvalho, M.O.; Nunes, M.C.; Raymundo, A. Development of Healthy Snacks Incorporating Meal from Tenebrio Molitor and Alphitobius Diaperinus Using 3D Printing Technology. Foods 2024, 13, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Nam, H.K.; Kang, T.W.; Kim, I.-W.; Choi, R.-Y.; Kim, H.W.; Park, H.J. Physicochemical Properties of Cricket (Gryllus Bimaculatus) Gel Fraction with Soy Protein Isolate for 3D Printing-Based Meat Analogue. Food Biosci 2023, 53, 102772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Nowacki, D.; Martynowicz, H.; Skoczyńska, A.; Wojakowska, A.; Turczyn, B.; Bobak, Ł.; Trziszka, T.; Szuba, A. Lecithin Derived from ω-3 PUFA Fortified Eggs Decreases Blood Pressure in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Sci Rep 2017, 7, 12373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Pathare, P.B.; Opara, U.L.; Al-Said, F.A.-J. Colour Measurement and Analysis in Fresh and Processed Foods: A Review. Food Bioproc Tech 2013, 6, 36–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Bourne, M.C. Principles of Objective Texture Measurement. In Food Texture and Viscosity; Elsevier, 2002; pp. 107–188.
44. Kim, T.-K.; Yong, H.I.; Cha, J.Y.; Park, S.-Y.; Jung, S.; Choi, Y.-S. Drying-Induced Restructured Jerky Analog Developed Using a Combination of Edible Insect Protein and Textured Vegetable Protein. Food Chem 2022, 373, 131519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Kiiru, S.M.; Kinyuru, J.N.; Kiage, B.N.; Marel, A.K. Partial Substitution of Soy Protein Isolates with Cricket Flour during Extrusion Affects Firmness and in Vitro Protein Digestibility. J Insects Food Feed 2020, 6, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Mohsen, S.M.; Fadel, H.H.M.; Bekhit, M.A.; Edris, A.E.; Ahmed, M.Y.S. Effect of Substitution of Soy Protein Isolate on Aroma Volatiles, Chemical Composition and Sensory Quality of Wheat Cookies. Int J Food Sci Technol 2009, 44, 1705–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Perez-Santaescolastica, C.; de Pril, I.; van de Voorde, I.; Fraeye, I. Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profiles of Seven Edible Insects: Focus on Lipid Class Composition and Protein Conversion Factors. Foods 2023, 12, 4090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Mohammad Taghi Gharibzahedi, S.; Altintas, Z. Lesser Mealworm (Alphitobius Diaperinus L.) Larvae Oils Extracted by Pure and Binary Mixed Organic Solvents: Physicochemical and Antioxidant Properties, Fatty Acid Composition, and Lipid Quality Indices. Food Chem 2023, 408, 135209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Ryan, K.J.; Homco-Ryan, C.L.; Jenson, J.; Robbins, K.L.; Prestat, C.; Brewer, M.S. Lipid Extraction Process on Texturized Soy Flour and Wheat Gluten Protein-Protein Interactions in a Dough Matrix. Cereal Chem 2002, 79, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Fawole, F.J.; Labh, S.N.; Hossain, M.S.; Overturf, K.; Small, B.C.; Welker, T.L.; Hardy, R.W.; Kumar, V. Insect (Black Soldier Fly Larvae) Oil as a Potential Substitute for Fish or Soy Oil in the Fish Meal-Based Diet of Juvenile Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss). Animal Nutrition 2021, 7, 1360–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Narayanan Nair, M. Nutritional Composition of Novel Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Traditional Animal-Based Meats. Food Sci Nutr 2021, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Chowdhury, K.; Banu, L.; Khan, S.; Latif, A. Studies on the Fatty Acid Composition of Edible Oil. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 2007, 42, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Çabuk, B.; Yılmaz, B. Fortification of Traditional Egg Pasta (Erişte) with Edible Insects: Nutritional Quality, Cooking Properties and Sensory Characteristics Evaluation. J Food Sci Technol 2020, 57, 2750–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Lamsal, B.; Wang, H.; Pinsirodom, P.; Dossey, A.T. Applications of Insect-Derived Protein Ingredients in Food and Feed Industry. J Am Oil Chem Soc 2019, 96, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Wendin, K.; Berg, J.; Jönsson, K.I.; Andersson, P.; Birch, K.; Davidsson, F.; Gerberich, J.; Rask, S.; Langton, M. Introducing Mealworm as an Ingredient in Crisps and Pâtés – Sensory Characterization and Consumer Liking. Future Foods 2021, 4, 100082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Cavalheiro, C.P.; Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M.; Pintado, T.; Cruz, T. da M.P.; da Silva, M.C.A. Cricket (Acheta Domesticus) Flour as Meat Replacer in Frankfurters: Nutritional, Technological, Structural, and Sensory Characteristics. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 2023, 83, 103245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Pasqualin Cavalheiro, C.; Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M.; Pintado, T.; Avelar de Sousa, C.C.; Sant’Ana Falcão Leite, J.; Costa Alves da Silva, M. Potential of Cricket (Acheta Domesticus) Flour as a Lean Meat Replacer in the Development of Beef Patties. Foods 2024, 13, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Talens, C.; Llorente, R.; Simó-Boyle, L.; Odriozola-Serrano, I.; Tueros, I.; Ibargüen, M. Hybrid Sausages: Modelling the Effect of Partial Meat Replacement with Broccoli, Upcycled Brewer’s Spent Grain and Insect Flours. Foods 2022, 11, 3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Mshayisa, V.V.; Van Wyk, J.; Zozo, B. Nutritional, Techno-Functional and Structural Properties of Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia Illucens) Larvae Flours and Protein Concentrates. Foods 2022, 11, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Aguilera, Y.; Pastrana, I.; Rebollo-Hernanz, M.; Benitez, V.; Álvarez-Rivera, G.; Viejo, J.L.; Martín-Cabrejas, M.A. Investigating Edible Insects as a Sustainable Food Source: Nutritional Value and Techno-Functional and Physiological Properties. Food Funct 2021, 12, 6309–6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Gravelle, A.J.; Marangoni, A.G.; Barbut, S. The Influence of Particle Size and Protein Content in Particle-Filled Myofibrillar Protein Gels. Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Cho, S.Y.; Ryu, G.H. Effects of Mealworm Larva Composition and Selected Process Parameters on the Physicochemical Properties of Extruded Meat Analog. Food Sci Nutr 2021, 9, 4408–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Smetana, S.; Ashtari Larki, N.; Pernutz, C.; Franke, K.; Bindrich, U.; Toepfl, S.; Heinz, V. Structure Design of Insect-Based Meat Analogs with High-Moisture Extrusion. J Food Eng 2018, 229, 83–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Smetana, S.; Pernutz, C.; Toepfl, S.; Heinz, V.; Van Campenhout, L. High-Moisture Extrusion with Insect and Soy Protein Concentrates: Cutting Properties of Meat Analogues under Insect Content and Barrel Temperature Variations. J Insects Food Feed 2019, 5, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. DI MONACO, R.; CAVELLA, S.; MASI, P. PREDICTING SENSORY COHESIVENESS, HARDNESS AND SPRINGINESS OF SOLID FOODS FROM INSTRUMENTAL MEASUREMENTS. J Texture Stud 2008, 39, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. García-Segovia, P.; Igual, M.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Physicochemical Properties and Consumer Acceptance of Bread Enriched with Alternative Proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. González, C.M.; Garzón, R.; Rosell, C.M. Insects as Ingredients for Bakery Goods. A Comparison Study of H. Illucens, A. Domestica and T. Molitor Flours. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 2019, 51, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Smetana, S.; Profeta, A.; Voigt, R.; Kircher, C.; Heinz, V. Meat Substitution in Burgers: Nutritional Scoring, Sensorial Testing, and Life Cycle Assessment. Future Foods 2021, 4, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]