Display options
Cite
Stone AK, Tanaka T, Nickerson MT. Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders. J Food Sci Technol. 2019;56(7):3355-3363doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2.
Stone, A. K., Tanaka, T., & Nickerson, M. T. (2019). Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders. Journal of food science and technology, 56(7), 3355-3363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2
Stone, Andrea K, et al. "Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders." Journal of food science and technology vol. 56,7 (2019): 3355-3363. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2
Stone AK, Tanaka T, Nickerson MT. Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders. J Food Sci Technol. 2019 Jul;56(7):3355-3363. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2. Epub 2019 Jun 10. PMID: 31274903; PMCID: PMC6582163.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Food Sci Technol. 2019 Jul;56(7):3355-3363. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2. Epub 2019 Jun 10.

Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders.

Journal of food science and technology

Andrea K Stone, Takuji Tanaka, Michael T Nickerson

Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Bioproduct Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Dr., Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8 Canada.

PMID: 31274903 PMCID: PMC6582163 DOI: 10.1007/s13197-019-03818-2

Abstract

The pressing need for protein supply growth gives rise to alternative protein sources, such as insect proteins. Commercial cricket and mealworm powders were examined for their protein quality, surface charge and functional attributes. Both insect powders had similar proximate compositions with protein and ash contents of ~ 66% db (dry weight basis) and 5% db, respectively, however cricket powder contained more lipid (16.1%, db) than mealworm powder (13.7%, db). Mealworm protein had an amino acid score of 0.71 and was first limiting in lysine, whereas cricket protein was first limiting in tryptophan with an amino acid score of 0.85. In vitro protein digestibility values of 75.7% and 76.2%, and in vitro protein digestibility corrected amino acid scores of 0.54 and 0.65, were obtained for mealworm and cricket powders, respectively. Zeta potential measurements gave isoelectric points near pH 3.9 for both insect powders. Mealworm and cricket powders had water hydration capacities of 1.62 g/g and 1.76 g/g, respectively, and oil holding capacities of 1.58 g/g and 1.42 g/g, respectively. Both insect proteins had low solubility (22-30%) at all pHs (3.0, 5.0, and 7.0) measured. Cricket powder had a foaming capacity of 82% and foam stability of 86%, whereas mealworm powder was non-foaming. Values for commercial pea and faba bean protein concentrates were reported for comparative purposes. The insect proteins had similar protein quality as the pulse proteins and had higher solubility at pH 5.0 but were much less soluble at pH 7.0.

Keywords: Cricket protein; Functionality; Insects; Mealworm protein; Protein quality; Pulse protein

References

  1. J Automat Chem. 1986;8(4):170-7 - PubMed
  2. Zoo Biol. 2007 Mar;26(2):105-15 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 29;5(12):e14445 - PubMed
  4. Appetite. 2012 Feb;58(1):39-47 - PubMed
  5. Food Chem. 2013 Dec 15;141(4):3341-8 - PubMed
  6. J Nutr Sci. 2014 Sep 25;3:e29 - PubMed
  7. Food Chem. 2016 Feb 15;193:39-46 - PubMed
  8. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 03;11(2):e0147791 - PubMed
  9. Food Chem. 2017 Jun 1;224:414-422 - PubMed
  10. Foods. 2017 Jul 20;6(7):null - PubMed
  11. Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 17;8(1):10762 - PubMed

Publication Types