Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Evaluation of Chalcone Derivatives as Novel Sunscreen Agent
Next Article in Special Issue
Single Origin Coffee Aroma: From Optimized Flavor Protocols and Coffee Customization to Instrumental Volatile Characterization and Chemometrics
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Pain Management: Relevant Protein Kinases and Their Inhibitors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Maillard Reaction Products in Gluten-Free Bread Made from Raw and Roasted Buckwheat Flour
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 26
Issue 9
10.3390/molecules26092697
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sensory and Chemical Characteristic of Two Insect Species: Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio Larvae Affected by Roasting Processes

by
Anna K. Żołnierczyk
* and
Antoni Szumny
Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Norwida 25, 50-375 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2021, 26(9), 2697; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092697
Submission received: 15 February 2021 / Revised: 1 May 2021 / Accepted: 2 May 2021 / Published: 4 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Maillard Reaction: Formation of Flavour Compounds)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The volatile compounds from insects (Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae) roasted at 160, 180, or 200 °C and fed with potato starch or blue corn flour were isolated by solid-phase microextraction (SPME), and identified by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). In the tested material, 48 volatile compounds were determined. Among them, eight are pyrazines, aroma compounds that are formed in food products during thermal processing due to the Maillard reaction. Eleven of the identified compounds influenced the roast, bread, fat, and burnt aromas that are characteristic for traditional baked dishes (meat, potatoes, bread). Most of them are carbonyl compounds and pyrazines. To confirm the contribution of the most important odorants identified, their odor potential activity values (OAVs) and %OAV were calculated. The highest value was noted for isobuthylpyrazine, responsible for roast aroma (%OAV > 90% for samples roasted at lower temperatures), and 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, responsible for burnt aroma (%OAV > 20% for samples roasted at the highest temperature). According to the study, the type of feed did not significantly affect the results of the sensory analysis of roasted insects. The decisive influence was the roasting temperature. The highest scores were achieved for Tenebrio molitor larvae heat-treated at 160 °C.

1. Introduction

Insects have been eaten for over 5 million years, when our ancestors—the first hominids—consumed insects as protein supplements [1]. Some insect species are disruptive to humans and animals, for example, crop and grain storage pests [2,3]. However, we have far more benefits from the presence of insects in all the globe. Pollinating insects play a large role in nature, and eating insects can be helpful in fighting hunger in the world. At least 2 billion people in almost 80% of countries eat insects in various forms [4]. In many countries, insects are consumed because of their taste and nutritional value (they can be a source of nutritious protein, fats, and other nutrients) [5,6]. To date, more than 1900 species of insects have been described as food for humans [7,8].
In the near future, food production methods and the criteria for its choice by consumers probably will change [9], because people are increasingly aware of the need to reduce consumption and live a “zero waste” life. Production of one kilo of beef requires around ten kilograms of feed [10]. The same ten kilograms can also be a source of food for nine kilograms of insects [11]. Global meat requirements have been increasing intensively in recent years [12] and the production of “insect meat” would be a good approach for a solution to this problem. At the same time, the meat industry is one of the largest sources of pollution [13] and zoonoses such as “mad cow disease”, bird flu, or swine flu [14]. We can treat insects as an environmentally friendly animal protein in our food [15,16,17]. Insect protein is one of the four main trends (insects, vertical agriculture, aquaponics, and laboratory-grown meat) that can affect future world nutrition trends [18,19,20]. Insect meat is rich in amino acids, fats, sugars, and has a high concentration of some vitamins (e.g., B and K) [21,22].
Most Europeans do not consider insects as food, it is a food taboo [23,24,25]. Until 31 December 2017, the legal status of insects as food was unclear. Some experts believe that insects are food for general consumption, the same as farm animals. Others claimed that insects are so-called “novel food” and it is necessary to obtain the appropriate authorization [26,27]. Others thought insects were not food. In countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, or France, serving insects as a food was allowed and in Poland it was not. From January 1, 2018, insects and their parts can be placed on the market as “novel food” if they obtain the approval of the European Commission [28]. Novel food is defined as food that has not been consumed to any significant degree in the EU before 15 May 1997 (when the first novel food legislation entered into force) [29]. This can be a newly developed, innovative food or food produced using new technologies and production processes, as well as food traditionally eaten outside of the EU. For example, one of the Finnish food companies has introduced bread with the addition of insects (ground cricket powder) [30]. Insect foods can also be found in stores in Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands [31,32]. In addition, processed animal protein derived from insects may be used for feeding aquaculture animals and fur animals [33,34].
Insects are most often consumed whole (blanched, chilled, dried, fried) or ground (powdered or paste) [35,36,37]. Protein and fat isolates from insects are also used [38,39]. Known examples are protein bars with insect protein, paste with flies’ eggs, cricket flour, caterpillar burgers, larvae dumplings, crunchy fried locusts, or tempura grasshopper. The taste of insects is very diverse but it is not unusual and we can compare it to dishes known to us. It depends on the insect species and the stage of development of the insect and the method of preparation. For example, roasted grasshoppers taste like salted and oiled sardines, butter-fried locusts taste like shrimp, ant larvae have a watermelon flavor, and adult ants taste like lemon, while termites seem to taste like hazelnuts [40]. In recent years, interest in researching the biological activity of chemical compounds obtained from insects has increased. For example, peptides derived from insect proteins have anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-oxidant, anti-diabetic, and antihypertensive (angiotensin-converting inhibitors (ACE)) [41,42,43].
The Maillard reactions (non-enzymatic browning reactions) were first described by Louis-Camille Maillard in 1912 [44]. It is a group of chemical reactions between amino acids and reducing sugars, usually occurring at elevated temperature, during heat treatment of food products [45]. Then, hundreds of different flavor and aroma compounds are formed in subsequent reactions. Treatment with elevated temperature causes many changes in the chemical composition and affects the nutritional value of food and its taste and smell [46]. This process creates compounds considered to be carcinogenic or mutagenic [47,48], as well as antioxidant substances with potential positive effects on the human body [49]. Some of the Maillard reaction products formed during the thermal processing of food have been known recently thanks to the development of modern separation and identification techniques [50]. Determining the chemical structures and biological properties of compounds allows improving technological processes in terms of food safety and functionality.
Therefore, the aim of the present research was to investigate the roasting of two insect species: Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae at different temperatures (160, 180, and 200 °C) and to detect the Maillard compounds that were formed in the process. Furthermore, it was planned to see how these compounds would affect the odor profile of the roasted insects.

2. Results

2.1. Water Loss

On the basis of the obtained results (Table 1), we can conclude that during the roasting of the tested insect larvae, regardless of the temperature used and the time of thermal treatment, water is lost on average by 50%. The high water loss along with the presence of chitin in the larvae make them crunchy and not juicy after baking.

2.2. GC-MS Analysis

Table 2 shows the odor and flavor descriptors of 48 compounds present in the odor profile of roasted insects identified by SPME (GC-MS). The variety of these compounds is huge. There are compounds with fruit, nut, floral, vegetable, roasted, and many other aromas. Seventeen of them are carbonyl compounds (aldehydes and ketones), ten are alcohols, and eight are pyrazines, which are formed under the influence of high temperature in the baking of food products as a result of the Maillard reaction. Moreover, on the basis of literature data, odor threshold values (OTV) were assigned to the determined volatile compounds (Table 2). Identification of the compounds was done by Kovats indexes, and mass spectra of the compounds and NIST05 (NIST, 2011) spectral library collection (MS). The retention index standards used in this study consisted of a mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons (C7–C20).
Of the 48 odorous compounds identified in roasted insects (Table 2), furan-2-carbaldehyde (1) and benzaldehyde (16) were responsible for the burnt aroma. Pyrazines: 2,5-dimethylpyrazine (7), 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine (24), 2-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine (25), 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine (26), and isobutylpyrazine (34) were responsible for roast aroma in tested insects. Nonan-2-one (38) smells like milk and maltol (42) smells like baked bread. Only 11 of them have a decisive influence on the flavor of roasted insects (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6; complete tables in the Supplementary Material: S13 and S14).
Differences between groups of two insect species, fed in two variants (PS, BC) and roasted at three different temperatures (160, 180, and 200 °C), were determined (Table 3 and Table 4). The evaluation was based on Duncan’s test, p < 0.05. Based on this test, in almost all tested variants, statistical differentiation was found in the content of individual components, key for the formation of aroma of the product (the changes in compounds (16) and (24) were statistically not significant for insects fed with potato starch (Table 3)).
The potential odor activity values (OAVs) and %OAV were calculated by dividing the concentrations of aroma compounds with their sensory thresholds (OTV) from the literature. OAVs were calculated using solid phase microextraction (SPME) with a standard addition (3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine). A calibration curve in linear range was established. Concentration ranges of the compounds were determined based on the peak areas of compounds. The highest OAV and %OAV was noted for isobutylpyrazine (34), responsible for roast aroma (%OAV > 90% for samples roasted at lower temperatures), and 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, responsible for burnt aroma (%OAV > 20% for samples roasted at the highest temperature). It is generally assumed that the odorants with higher OAVs contribute in a stronger manner to the overall aroma.

2.3. Sensory Evaluation

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show a diagram for the average scores of olfactory attribute intensities of roasted larvae. Significant flavor differences were noticed between the larvae baked at different temperatures. Out of the mealworm trials in the TMBCI and TMPSI (baked in 160 °C), the dominant aromas were roasted bacon and bread. On the other hand, for the TMBCIII and TMPSIII trials, the burnt flavor turned out to be the most characteristic and they were the least acceptable in the overall assessment. The samples containing roasted superworm larvae at 160 °C were also characterized by roasted bacon and oily aroma. The larvae baked at 200 °C were burnt. The sensory analysis results are in agreement with the chemical analysis (Table 5 and Table 6). Samples roasted at 160 °C had a high value of %OAV for isobutylpyrazine (34), responsible for the roast aroma, while samples roasted at 200 °C had a relatively high value %OAV for 2,5-dimethylpyrazine (7), which was responsible for the burnt aroma, among others.

3. Discussion

Roasting refers to the dry thermal treatment of food in an oven and is usually applied to meat. The tested larvae Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio lost on average about 50% of their water when baked at three different temperatures (160, 180, and 200 °C) (Table 1). During roasting, juices (moisture) are lost and heat-labile (e.g., some vitamins are easily destroyed by heat). The study shows that the three temperatures used do not show appreciable variations in water loss. Roasting can improve the palatability and appearance of food by enhancing and preserving natural flavors. It can also improve food safety by destroying pathogenic microorganisms. It aims to increase the absorption of nutrients, allows the consumption of certain products, and gives flavor. Unfortunately, despite the overall improvement in the digestibility of, e.g., protein or carbohydrates, many ingredients are lost during thermal processing, so it is not recommended in every situation and with every product. The cooking loss is a combination of liquid and soluble substances lost from the meat during cooking. Overall, it can affect the nutritional value of food positively or negatively.
Sensory quality is one of the most important features in food, including meat products or insects, too. There are many factors affecting food quality, like, for example, feedstuff type and its composition or heat treatment. Feed components influence the nutritional and physio-chemical properties of meat and its sensory characteristics, which in turn are reflected in the quality of meat products. We assume that for insects, it will be similar. Due to the size and delicate nature of insects as food, they should be baked carefully so that they do not turn bitter and black (burnt and unpalatable). Sensory evaluation defined as “the systematic study of human reaction to physicochemical properties” enables obtaining information about the sensitivity of the human sense of taste and smell [64,65]. In sensory analysis, the respective groups were divided by the effect of feeding and temperature in the group of insect species. Standard deviation and Duncan’s test (p < 0.05) were applied. The corresponding Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 can be found in the Supplementary Materials S15–S20. Statistical tests show that there were in most cases significant statistical differences in all groups. The applied baking temperature had a greater effect on the smell of the insects. Mealworm larvae roasted at 160 °C (TMPSI, TMBCI) were characterized by the aroma of baked bacon, those roasted at 180 °C (TMPSII, TMBCII) showed a bread smell, and those roasted at 200 °C (TMPSIII, TMBCIII) had a burnt smell (Figure 1). In the case of superworm larvae, samples roasted at the lowest of the temperatures tested (ZMPCI, ZMBCI) were also characterized by an intense smell of roasted bacon (Figure 2). Similar results were obtained for larvae roasted at 180 °C (ZMPSII, ZMBCII), and the malty aroma was also recognized. Samples roasted at the highest temperature (ZMPSIII, ZMBCIII) were found to be burnt. Based on our own experience, we can conclude that depending on the species, we should bake insects at a temperature of 160 to 180 °C. Those temperatures are appropriate and they contribute in the panel test to major pleasantness. From the experiments carried out, the optimum temperature for baking the selected insect larvae is 160 °C (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Among the many aromatic compounds found in food, only those that are present in a concentration greater than their sensory detection threshold are significant. The odor detection threshold and odor activity value (OAV) are important for the importance of a volatile compound to the aroma of a food product. Because most essential odorants have low odor detection thresholds, the odor of these compounds can be detected when they are at low concentrations. To estimate odor potency, the OAV is used. This is the ratio of the concentration of a volatile compound to its odor detection threshold. The relevant odor descriptors of the compounds determined by GC-MS (SPME) in roasted samples of the insect larvae studied can be divided into general groups: fruity-floral, roast, bread-like, and burnt. The results obtained in the sensory analysis are supported by the chemical analysis of the aroma compounds and in respect with their OAV values (%OAV). For insects roasted at the lowest temperature (TMPSI, TMBCI, MPSI, ZMBCI), the highest OAV was found for isobutylpyrazine (34) and 2,5-dimethylpyrazine (7) and was more than 90% and about 20%, respectively (Table 5 and Table 6). Their presence determined mainly the aroma of the roast. As the roasting temperature of the insects was increased, a burning smell developed. The isobutylpyrazine (34) content (%OAV) decreased (roast aroma) and the 2,5-dimethylpyrazine (7) content increased (burnt aroma).
Pyrazines occur naturally in heat-treated food products and are produced on a mass scale by extraction from natural products, chemical synthesis, and biocatalysis (enzymatic, microbiological) [66]. They are used as flavor- and aroma-enhancing compounds. In the case of alkyl pyrazines, the increasing demand can no longer be supplied economically from natural sources. The natural occurrence of the main seven alkyl pyrazines in foods in Europe in tons per year was 2157 tons per year (in 2004). In contrast, the annual volume of use of the same pyrazine derivatives used as flavoring agents in Europe was 2157 kg per year, which represents 0.85% of naturally occurring compounds [67]. Therefore, new, preferably natural, sources of pyrazines are being sought. Roasted insects can find use as food additives that are a source of natural pyrazines. In January 2021, specialists from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a positive opinion on insect-based food products [68]. The project has not yet been approved by the European Commission, but specialist voices indicate that such approval is likely to be given. The novelty of using insects in food has aroused great interest among the public (potential consumers). Various insect-derived foods could be applied as a source of protein, lipids, vitamins, macro- and microelements, or volatile compounds for the diet.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Insect Breeding

Mealworms (TM) are the larval form of the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor, a species of darkling beetle. Darkling beetle is the common name of the large family of beetles Tenebrionidae. In nature, it lives where it is dark, warm, humid, and there are lots of decaying organic matter, i.e., under decaying pieces of bark of deciduous trees. Moreover, Tenebrio molitor is a pest of grain, flour, and food stores [69]. The life cycle of Tenebrio molitor is of variable length, from 280 to 630 days. Larvae hatch after 10–12 days (at 18–20 °C) and become mature after a variable number of stages (8 to 20), typically after 3–4 months, but the larva stage can last up to 18 months. Mealworms have short life cycles, and are easy to breed [69].
Superworms (ZM), Morio worms, or Zophobas, Zophobas morio (Fabricius, 1776) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) are a globally recognized feed for reptiles. In the wild, superworms larvae occur in dead (diseased) trees, where they feed on this wood. It is a popular food insect due to its ease of breeding and nutrition. Recent research efforts indicate that this insect could also be used as a partial replacement of fishmeal for farmed tilapia [70]. The life cycle of Z. morio is like other beetles, as it has an egg, larva, pupa, and adult stage. Larvae are similar to mealworm larvae, although they are much larger and more fat.
Insects for described research were purchased at a local terrarium store (Wrocław, Poland). The feeding medium for the insect larvae consisted of 100% blue corn flour (BC) or potato starch (PS). Rearing of larvae was carried out in plastic containers (in triplicate for each of the food variants) at 26 °C for 10 days. For 500 g of insect biomass, 500 g of blue corn flour (BC) and potato starch (PS) were added, respectively. After 5 days, another 200 g of feed was added.
At the end of the ten-day growth period, the larvae were separated from the feeding media by manual sieving and immediately preserved by freezing at −28 °C. The larvae were weighed about 1 g into separate glass screw-cap containers and stored at −28 °C until analysis. The mean larval weight for mealworms was 0.13 g and for superworms was 0.51 g. The larvae were baked whole and were crushed before SPME analysis.

4.2. Insect Samples

On the day of the analysis of the profile of fragrances (SPME), insects were thawed to room temperature and then baked according to the three following variants: I. 160 °C for 20 min; II. 180 °C for 15 min; III. 200 °C for 10 min (Table 7). After the baking process, the dishes were sealed and the samples were prepared for SPME analysis (in sub-replicate, three times).

4.3. Water Loss (WL)

Non-enzymatic browning reactions are not only chemically complicated. Physical phenomena also have an impact on Maillard’s reaction. One of the factors conditioning the reaction of non-enzymatic browning during heat treatment food is water activity (aw). In the tested materials, water loss during baking was expressed as g/100 g and was calculated by weighing the insect samples before (WB) and after roasting (WA), as follows: WL =100 × (WB − WA) / WB. The determination of each variant was carried out in triplicate.

4.4. SPME/GC-MS Conditions

For HS-SPME analysis (30 min exposure to a 2 cm DVB/CAR/PDMS fiber (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA)), about 0.5 g of roasted sample was put in to headspace vials and kept in a laboratory water bath at 50 °C. Next, 0.1 µg of equilibrium mixture of 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazines (Sigma Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) as an internal standard was added. Calibration function was constructed for 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazines ranging from 0.001 to 1 microgram (in vial suspended and intensively shaken in water before use), with excellent linearity, with an R2 value 0.993. We observed two signals with equal ratio. Semi-quantification of compounds was based on calculation of the area of unknown signals and comparison with the regression equation for the internal standard.
Analyte desorption (220 °C for 3 min) was performed on Shimadzu apparatus (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a Zebron ZB-5 MSI (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) column (Phenomenex, Shim-Pol, Warsaw, Poland). Fiber composition was chosen due to previous optimizations [71]. The potential OAV was calculated by dividing the concentration of the compounds in the sample by the sensory thresholds obtained from the literature. The concentration of the compounds was established by a standard calibration curve. The Kovats retention index values were calculated for each according to Adams [72], with a comparison of the obtained data with the values presented in NIST17 (NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library) database peaks by comparing their retention characteristics with those of the two closest eluting aliphatic hydrocarbons from the retention index standard, analyzed under identical conditions. Presumptive identification can often be made by comparing the Kovats retention index value with a value previously published in literature references. Identification of the compounds was done by comparison: I: spectrum presented in NIST17 (NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library); II: calculated retention index values with database NIST17; III: retention times of unknown compounds with available standards (1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 30, 32, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48).

4.5. Sensory Evaluation

In this study, for sensory evaluation, we chose descriptive sensory analysis. A nine-hedonic scale (Table 8) was used to investigate the degree of preference of the roasted larvae (160, 180, and 200 °C by 20, 15, or 10 min, respectively) of Tenebrio molitor (TM) and Zophobas morio (ZM) fed with potato starch (PS) or blue corn flour (BC) (sample codes in Table 7). Samples were roasted and 250 g of each sample were used. After thermal treatment, the insects were put in glass containers and stored in a fridge (−24 °C) until sensory and GC-MS analysis. Nine panelists were chosen from the teaching staff, graduate students, and master degree students of The Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences. The age distribution of the panelists was between 23 and 48. Among them were four men and five women. The panelists were trained for three one-hour sessions. To assist the panelists in establishing a framework for each attribute, reference smells were used during training to establish minimum and maximum intensities for each attribute. The samples were evaluated for sensory quality of roasted bacon, bread, oily, burnt, and malty aroma, and consistency using a varying scale from 9—which means like extremely, to 1—which means dislike extremely (Table 8). Descriptors for the evaluation of roasted insects were designated from the literature data about roasted food and in preliminary tests. A set of reference solutions in water (0.01–0.1%; concentrations well above the threshold, but assessed as not very intense) was prepared based on the odor descriptor set, which consisted of coffee (no. 12), bread crust (no. 85), bread (no. 86), beef found (no. 178), pork found (no. 179 (Sosa Ingredients, S.L., Spain)), malty aroma (soya milk, Mona Naturprodukte GmbH, Austria) and caramel (burned sugar). The sensory tests were done in a specially designed laboratory, which met relevant standards. The three treatments were evaluated in one session. The data were recorded on paper. The samples were coded and randomized. The insect samples were served on small plates. After each sample, the panelists drank water to restore their original tasting conditions.

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The data from quantitative volatile constituents were subjected to the analysis of variance using Duncan’s test (p < 0.05), all using the STATISTICA 13.3 software for Windows (StatSoft, Krakow, Poland).

5. Conclusions

There are clear environmental, economic, and nutritional aspects of breeding insects for feed and food. Moreover, the smell, taste, colour, and texture of a meal determines its acceptability. The sense of smell allows an initial evaluation of the taste we can expect, and reinforces its sensation when the food is in the mouth. During chewing and swallowing, the aroma reaches the inner part of the nose and this helps to enhance the culinary experience. Pyrazines and carbonyl compounds (Maillard reaction products) formed during the thermal treatment of insects determine the sensation of odor. It is therefore important to choose the right roasting conditions. Based on the performed sensory analysis and GC-MS (SPME), the characteristic aroma of roasted insects is shaped by 11 odor-active compounds. The %OAV of pyrazines for 160 °C roasted larvae was over 99% for mealworms and superworms. This is supposed to determine the strong roasted flavor in these samples. Mealworms roasted at 180 °C were characterized by a pleasant and desirable bread smell. In contrast, mealworms roasted at the highest temperature tested (200 °C) were characterized by an undesirable burnt smell.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online, S1: Chromatogram, TMBCI; S2: Chromatogram, TMBCII; S3: Chromatogram, TMBCIII; S4: Chromatogram, ZMBCI; S5: Chromatogram, ZMBCII; S6: Chromatogram, ZMBCIII; S7: Chromatogram, TMPSI; S8: Chromatogram, TMPSII; S9: Chromatogram, TMPSIII; S10: Chromatogram, ZMPSI; S11: Chromatogram, ZMPSII; S12: Chromatogram, ZMPSIII; S13: Table S1. Concentration and odor activity values of aroma active compounds (OAV) and %OAV of roasted Tenebrio molitor larvae; S14: Table S2. Concentration and odor activity values of aroma active compounds (OAV) and %OAV of roasted Zophobas morio larvae; S15: Table S3. Aroma profile of the roasted at 160 °C Tenebrio molitor larvae fed BC or PS; S16: Table S4. Aroma profile of the roasted at 180 °C Tenebrio molitor larvae fed BC or PS; S17: Table S5. Aroma profile of the roasted at 200 °C Tenebrio molitor larvae fed BC or PS; S18: Table S6. Aroma profile of the roasted at 160 °C Zophobas morio larvae fed BC or PS; S19: Table S7. Aroma profile of the roasted at 180 °C Zophobas morio larvae fed BC or PS; S20: Table S8. Aroma profile of the roasted at 200 °C Zophobas morio larvae fed BC or PS.

Author Contributions

A.K.Ż.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft; A.S.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication supported by Wrocław Centre of Biotechnology, the Leading National Research Centre (KNOW) program for years 2014–2018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of the compounds are not available from the authors.

References

  1. Lesnik, J.J. Termites in the hominin diet: A meta-analysis of termite genera, species and castes as a dietary supplement for South African robust australopithecines. J. Hum. Evol. 2014, 71, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kent, R.B. The African honeybee in Peru: An insect invader and its impact on beekeeping. Appl. Geogr. 1989, 9, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Midega, C.A.; Murage, A.W.; Pittchar, J.O.; Khan, Z.R. Managing storage pests of maize: Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices in western Kenya. Crop Prot. 2016, 90, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Tao, J.; Li, Y.O. Edible insects as a means to address global malnutrition and food insecurity issues. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ramos-Elorduy, J. Insects: A sustainable source of food? Ecol. Food Nutr. 1997, 36, 247–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramos-Elorduy, J. Insects: A hopeful food source. Ecol. Implic. Minilivestock 2005, 263–291. [Google Scholar]
  7. Van Huis, A. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Pal, P.; Roy, S. Edible insects: Future of human food—A review. Int. Lett. Nat. Sci. 2014, 21, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Menozzi, D.; Sogari, G.; Veneziani, M.; Simoni, E.; Mora, C. Eating novel foods: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 59, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smil, V. Nitrogen and food production: Proteins for human diets. Ambio A J. Hum. Environ. 2002, 31, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wegier, A.; Alavez, V.; Pérez-López, J.; Calzada, L.; Cerritos, R. Beef or grasshopper hamburgers: The ecological implications of choosing one over the other. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2018, 26, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Jayathilakan, K.; Sultana, K.; Radhakrishna, K.; Bawa, A. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Greger, M. The human/animal interface: Emergence and resurgence of zoonotic infectious diseases. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 33, 243–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oonincx, D.G.; Van Itterbeeck, J.; Heetkamp, M.J.; Van Den Brand, H.; Van Loon, J.J.; Van Huis, A. An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Sánchez-Muros, M.-J.; Barroso, F.G.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Insect meal as renewable source of food for animal feeding: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Halloran, A.; Roos, N.; Eilenberg, J.; Cerutti, A.; Bruun, S. Life cycle assessment of edible insects for food protein: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Alexander, P.; Brown, C.; Arneth, A.; Dias, C.; Finnigan, J.; Moran, D.; Rounsevell, M.D. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 15, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Goddek, S.; Joyce, A.; Kotzen, B.; Dos-Santos, M. Aquaponics and global food challenges. In Aquaponics Food Production Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  20. Germer, J.; Sauerborn, J.; Asch, F.; de Boer, J.; Schreiber, J.; Weber, G.; Müller, J. Skyfarming an ecological innovation to enhance global food security. J. Verbrauch. Lebensm. 2011, 6, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Żołnierczyk, A.K. Nutritional Properties of Edible Insects. In Environmental, Health, and Business Opportunities in the New Meat Alternatives Market; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 143–165. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed production. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shelomi, M. Why we still don’t eat insects: Assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mancini, S.; Moruzzo, R.; Riccioli, F.; Paci, G. European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food. A review. Food Res. Int. 2019, 122, 661–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Mora, C. The food neophobia scale and young adults’ intention to eat insect products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Belluco, S.; Halloran, A.; Ricci, A. New protein sources and food legislation: The case of edible insects and EU law. Food Secur. 2017, 9, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Grmelová, N. European law on insects in food and feed. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. 2016, 11, 2–8. [Google Scholar]
  28. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA); Turck, D.; Bresson, J.L.; Burlingame, B.; Dean, T.; Fairweather-Tait, S.; Heinonen, M.; Hirsch-Ernst, K.I.; Mangelsdorf, I.; McArdle, H.; et al. Guidance on the preparation and presentation of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. Efsa J. 2016, 14, e04594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Regulation, H.A.T. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1997, 40, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chen, Y. Potential of Industrial Side Streams in Insect Production. 2018. Available online: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/156689 (accessed on 4 May 2021).
  31. House, J. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 2016, 107, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Van Thielen, L.; Vermuyten, S.; Storms, B.; Rumpold, B.; Van Campenhout, L. Consumer acceptance of foods containing edible insects in Belgium two years after their introduction to the market. J. Insects Food Feed 2019, 5, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Makkar, H.P.; Tran, G.; Heuzé, V.; Ankers, P. State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 197, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Verbeke, W.; Spranghers, T.; De Clercq, P.; De Smet, S.; Sas, B.; Eeckhout, M. Insects in animal feed: Acceptance and its determinants among farmers, agriculture sector stakeholders and citizens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 204, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mitsuhashi, J. Insects as traditional foods in Japan. Ecol Food Nutr 1997, 36, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, X.; Feng, Y.; Chen, Z. Common edible insects and their utilization in China. Entomol. Res. 2009, 39, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bußler, S.; Rumpold, B.A.; Jander, E.; Rawel, H.M.; Schlüter, O.K. Recovery and techno-functionality of flours and proteins from two edible insect species: Meal worm (Tenebrio molitor) and black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Purschke, B.; Meinlschmidt, P.; Horn, C.; Rieder, O.; Jäger, H. Improvement of techno-functional properties of edible insect protein from migratory locust by enzymatic hydrolysis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 999–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O. Insect-based protein sources and their potential for human consumption: Nutritional composition and processing. Anim. Front. 2015, 5, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mishyna, M.; Chen, J.; Benjamin, O. Sensory attributes of edible insects and insect-based foods–Future outlooks for enhancing consumer appeal. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nongonierma, A.B.; FitzGerald, R.J. Unlocking the biological potential of proteins from edible insects through enzymatic hydrolysis: A review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 43, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Otvos, L., Jr. Antibacterial peptides isolated from insects. J. Pept. Sci. An Off. Publ. Eur. Pept. Soc. 2000, 6, 497–511. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chernysh, S.; Kim, S.; Bekker, G.; Pleskach, V.; Filatova, N.; Anikin, V.; Platonov, V.; Bulet, P. Antiviral and antitumor peptides from insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12628–12632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Billaud, C.; Adrian, J. Louis-Camille Maillard, 1878–1936. Food Rev. Int. 2003, 19, 345–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nursten, H.E. The Maillard Reaction: Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Implications; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lund, M.N.; Ray, C.A. Control of Maillard reactions in foods: Strategies and chemical mechanisms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 4537–4552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Jägerstad, M.; Reuterswärd, A.L.; Öste, R.; Dahlqvist, A.; Grivas, S.; Olsson, K.; Nyhammar, T. Creatinine and Maillard Reaction pProducts as Precursors of Mutagenic Compounds Formed in Fried Beef; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lee, K.-G.; Shibamoto, T. Toxicology and antioxidant activities of non-enzymatic browning reaction products. Food Rev. Int. 2002, 18, 151–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vhangani, L.N.; Van Wyk, J. Antioxidant activity of Maillard reaction products (MRPs) in a lipid-rich model system. Food Chem. 2016, 208, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Misra, N.; Koubaa, M.; Roohinejad, S.; Juliano, P.; Alpas, H.; Inácio, R.S.; Saraiva, J.A.; Barba, F.J. Landmarks in the historical development of twenty first century food processing technologies. Food Res. Int. 2017, 97, 318–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Corsini, L.; Castro, R.; Barroso, C.G.; Durán-Guerrero, E. Characterization by gas chromatography-olfactometry of the most odour-active compounds in Italian balsamic vinegars with geographical indication. Food Chem. 2019, 272, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shimoda, M.; Shiratsuchi, H.; Nakada, Y.; Wu, Y.; Osajima, Y. Identification and sensory characterization of volatile flavor compounds in sesame seed oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 3909–3912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mori, K.; Tamada, S.; Uchida, M.; Mizumachi, N.; Tachibana, Y.; Matsui, M. Synthesis of optically active forms of seudenol, the pheromone of douglas fir beetle. Tetrahedron 1978, 34, 1901–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pittet, A.O.; Hruza, D.E. Comparative study of flavor properties of thiazole derivatives. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1974, 22, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qin, P.; Ma, T.; Wu, L.; Shan, F.; Ren, G. Identification of tartary buckwheat tea aroma compounds with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, S401–S407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. López-Galilea, I.; Fournier, N.; Cid, C.; Guichard, E. Changes in headspace volatile concentrations of coffee brews caused by the roasting process and the brewing procedure. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 8560–8566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schieberle, P. Odour-active compounds in moderately roasted sesame. Food Chem. 1996, 55, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cho, S.; Kays, S.J. Aroma-active compounds of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.). Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 1463–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. López-López, A.; Sánchez, A.H.; Cortés-Delgado, A.; de Castro, A.; Montaño, A. Relating sensory analysis with SPME-GC-MS data for Spanish-style green table olive aroma profiling. LWT 2018, 89, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Sawamura, M.; Thi Minh Tu, N.; Onishi, Y.; Ogawa, E.; Choi, H.-S. Characteristic odor components of Citrus reticulata Blanco (Ponkan) cold-pressed oil. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2004, 68, 1690–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Song, H.; Sawamura, M.; Ito, T.; Kawashimo, K.; Ukeda, H. Quantitative determination and characteristic flavour of Citrus junos (yuzu) peel oil. Flavour Fragr. J. 2000, 15, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pubchem. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  63. The Good Scents Company Information System. Available online: http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/index.html (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  64. Spillane, W.J. Optimising Sweet Taste in Foods; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mortzfeld, F.; Hashem, C.; Vrankova, K.; Winkler, M.; Rudroff, F. Pyrazines–valuable flavour & fragrance compounds: Biocatalytic synthesis and industrial applications. Authorea Prepr. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mortzfeld, F.B.; Hashem, C.; Vranková, K.; Winkler, M.; Rudroff, F. Pyrazines: Synthesis and industrial application of these valuable flavor and fragrance compounds. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 15, 2000064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. EFSA Panel on Nutrition, N.F.; Allergens, F.; Turck, D.; Castenmiller, J.; De Henauw, S.; Hirsch-Ernst, K.I.; Kearney, J.; Maciuk, A.; Mangelsdorf, I.; McArdle, H.J.; et al. Safety of dried yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. Efsa J. 2021, 19, e06343. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ramos-Elorduy, J.; Gonzalez, E.A.; Hernandez, A.R.; Pino, J.M. Use of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to recycle organic wastes and as feed for broiler chickens. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jabir, M.A.R.; Jabir, S.A.R.; Vikineswary, S. Nutritive potential and utilization of super worm (Zophobas morio) meal in the diet of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) juvenile. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 6592–6598. [Google Scholar]
  70. Białowiec, A.; Micuda, M.; Szumny, A.; Łyczko, J.; Koziel, J.A. Quantification of VOC emissions from carbonized refuse-derived fuel using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Molecules 2018, 23, 3208. [Google Scholar]
  71. Łyczko, J.; Jałoszyński, K.; Surma, M.; Masztalerz, K.; Szumny, A. HS-SPME analysis of true lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) leaves treated by various drying methods. Molecules 2019, 24, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Allured Publishing Corporation: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007; Volume 456. [Google Scholar]
Molecules 26 02697 g001 550
Figure 1. Aroma profile of the roasted Tenebrio molitor larvae (TMBC—Tenebrio molitor larvae feed blue corn flour; TMPS—Tenebrio molitor larvae feed potato starch).
Figure 1. Aroma profile of the roasted Tenebrio molitor larvae (TMBC—Tenebrio molitor larvae feed blue corn flour; TMPS—Tenebrio molitor larvae feed potato starch).
Molecules 26 02697 g001
Molecules 26 02697 g002 550
Figure 2. Aroma profile of the roasted Zophobas morio larvae (ZMBC—Zophobas morio larvae feed blue corn flour; ZMPS—Zophobas morio larvae feed potato starch).
Figure 2. Aroma profile of the roasted Zophobas morio larvae (ZMBC—Zophobas morio larvae feed blue corn flour; ZMPS—Zophobas morio larvae feed potato starch).
Molecules 26 02697 g002
Table
Table 1. Water loss (WL) in insects during roasting.
Table 1. Water loss (WL) in insects during roasting.
Insect Roasting VariantsWLInsect Roasting VariantsWL
TMBCI55.0 ± 1.8 bZMBCI48.5 ± 1.1 c
TMBCII54.6 ± 0.6 b,cZMBCII48.7 ± 0.8 c
TMBCIII57.1 ± 0.9 aZMBCIII48.3 ± 0.3 c
TMPSI57.3 ± 4.3 aZMPSI51.3 ± 1.2 a
TMPSII51.6 ± 0.8 dZMPSII50.7 ± 0.3 b
TMPSIII49.8 ± 1.0 eZMPSIII51.2 ± 0.9 a
Mean values with different letters (a–e) within the same column were statistically different (p < 0.05), the same letters form one homogeneous group. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Description of odor and odor threshold values (OTV) of odor-active compounds in roasted insects. Literature Kovats indexes were obtained from NIST database (2017).
Table 2. Description of odor and odor threshold values (OTV) of odor-active compounds in roasted insects. Literature Kovats indexes were obtained from NIST database (2017).
NoCompoundKovats IndexesOTV [ppm]Odor Description
Exp.Lit.
1Furan-2-carbaldehyde8438450.5Almond, baked potatoes, bread, burnt, spice [51]
25-Methylhex-5-en-2-one866873−Green
3Heptan-2-one8948980.6Intense fruity
4(E)-5-methylhex-3-en-2-one901896−Fruity
5heptanal9039060.021Citrus, fat, green, nut
63-methylsulfanylpropanal9079090.0002Cooked potato, soy
72,5-Dimethylpyrazine9119120.1Cocoa, roast beef, roasted nut, burnt
82-Acetylfuran91291310Balsamic, cocoa, coffee
92-Ethylpyrazine914916100Burnt, green, must, peanut butter, roasted, rum, wood
102,3-Dimethylpyrazine91991620Caramel, cocoa, hazelnut, peanut butter, roasted
11α-Pinene9339364Cedarwood, pine, sharp
122-Ethyl-1H-pyrrole9479410.06[52]
132,5-Dimethylfuran-3-one9489480.006Fruity estery, caramellic
14Linalool9529490.01Coriander, floral, lavender, lemon, rose
15Heptan-2-ol9569600.8Citrus, earth, fried, mushroom, oil
16Benzaldehyde9609620.1Bitter almond, burnt sugar, cherry, malt, roasted, pepper
172-Ethyl-4-methyl-1,3-thiazole9659710.00001Savory
18Dimethyl trisulfide9729690.06Cabbage, sish, onion, sulfur
19Seudenol977977 Pheromone [53]
20Oct-1-en-3-ol9839780.05Cucumber, earth, fat, floral, mushroom
21Sulcatone9899860.05Citrus, mushroom, pepper, rubber, strawberry
22Yomogi alcohol995996−Greenish
23Octan-2-ol99810030.1Fat, mushroom
242-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazine100110000.1Roasted hazelnut [54], buckwheat tea [55], fruity and flowery in coffee [56],
fruity in roasted sesame [57], almond and nutty in wild rice [58]
252-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazine1002100415Fruit, green
262,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine100410050.1Cocoa, earth, must, potato, roast
272-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazine100710060.12Green, must, nut, potato, roast
28Pseudocumene10191024−Plastic [59]
292-Acetylthiazole102110210.01Nut, popcorn, roast, sulfur
30Limonene103010320.01Purgent, lemon-like [60], sour [61]
31Eucalyptol103510320.012Camphor, cool, eucalyptol, mint
322-Phenylacetaldehyde104510464Berry, geranium, honey, nut, pungent
33Oct-2-enal105010590.003Dandelion, fat, fruit, grass, green, spice
34Isobutylpyrazine105610600.000016Green, pepper, coffee, roasted
35Oct-3-en-1-ol106110600.0012Dust, toasted nut
362-acetyl pyrrole106410740.2Bread, cocoa, hazelnut, licorice, walnut
37Oct-2-en-1-ol106710670.84Green, citrus, vegetable, fatty
38Nonan-2-one109610930.1Fragrant, fruit, green, hot milk
39Undecane1100110056Gasoline-like
40Nonanal1108110740Fat, green, lemon
41(E)-5-Methyl-2-propan-2-ylhex-2-enal11121109 Floral
42Maltol111611080.035Sweet, caramel-like, cotton, candy, fruity, bread, baked
43p-Menthatriene111911100.6Oily, chemical, cooling, woody, pine, thyme, herbal, tropical
44Dodecane120012000.766Gasoline-like
45Decanal120812080.02Floral, fried, orange peel, penetrating, tallow
462-Decen-1-ol12681270−Fruit
47Tridecane13001300−Gasoline-like
48Tetradecane14001400−Gasoline-like
Odor descriptors for individual compounds were taken from the Pubchem [62] and The Good Scents Company Information System [63] or from the scientific articles.
Table
Table 3. Concentration of aroma active compounds of roasted Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae fed with potato starch (PS).
Table 3. Concentration of aroma active compounds of roasted Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae fed with potato starch (PS).
NoCompoundTMPSITMPSIITMPSIIIZMPSIZMPSIIZMPSIII
1Furan-2-carbaldehyden.d.n.d.0.745 ± 0.096 An.d.n.d.n.d.
72,5-Dimethylpyrazinen.d.0.044 ± 0.005 B0.049 ± 0.006 B0.011 ± 0.002 D0.028 ± 0.005 C0.457 ± 0.037 A
16Benzaldehyden.d.0.006 ± 0.003 A0.002 ± 0.001 A0.004 ± 0.002 A0.003 ± 0.001 A0.006 ± 0.002 A
242-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazinen.d.0.012 ± 0.003 An.d.0.014 ± 0.001 A0.012 ± 0.001 An.d.
252-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazinen.d.n.d.0.058 ± 0.004 An.d.n.d.0.037 ± 0.004 B
262,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine0.031 ± 0.011 B0.013 ± 0.004 D0.048 ± 0.003 A0.021 ± 0.003 C0.014 ± 0.002 D0.027 ± 0.011 C
272-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazinen.d.n.d.n.d.0.004 ± 0.002 A0.014 ± 0.003 Bn.d.
34Isobutylpyrazine0.054 ± 0.008 A0.003 ± 0.002 C0.017 ± 0.002 B0.003 ± 0.001 C0.0003 ± 0.0001 D0.001 ± 0.0005 C
35Oct-2-en-1-ol0.027 ± 0.009 A0.003 ± 0.001 C0.012 ± 0.002 B0.002 ± 0.001 Cn.d.n.d.
38Nonan-2-one0.025 ± 0.005 A0.003 ± 0.002 Bn.d.n.d.0.003 ± 0.001 Bn.d.
42Maltol0.108 ± 0.012 A0.004 ± 0.001 C0.032 ± 0.004 B0.022 ± 0.004 B0.004 ± 0.002 C0.036 ± 0.007 B
Mean values with different letters (A–D) within the same row were statistically different (p < 0.05), the same letters form one homogeneous group. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. n.d. = not determined.
Table
Table 4. Concentration of aroma active compounds of roasted Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae fed with blue corn flour (BC).
Table 4. Concentration of aroma active compounds of roasted Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio larvae fed with blue corn flour (BC).
NoCompoundTMBCITMBCIITMBCIIIZMBCIZMBCIIZMBCIII
1Furan-2-carbaldehyden.d.n.d.0.055±0.008 An.d.n.d.n.d.
72,5-Dimethylpyrazine0.098 ± 0.007 B0.437 ± 0.011 A0.049 ± 0.003 D0.030 ± 0.005 E0.052 ± 0.006 C0.063 ± 0.027 C
16Benzaldehyden.d.0.076 ± 0.0030 C0.005 ± 0.003 D0.004 ± 0.001 D0.825 ± 0.073 A0.655 ± 0.89 B
242-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazinen.d.0.167 ± 0.012 An.d.0.013 ± 0.003 B0.008 ± 0.001 Bn.d.
252-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazinen.d.n.d.0.063 ± 0.009 An.d.0.009 ± 0.003 C0.047 ± 0.09 B
262,3,5-Trimethylpyrazinen.d.0.189 ± 0.013 B0.046 ± 0.005 C0.013 ± 0.005 D0.009 ± 0.003 D0.036 ± 0.007 C
272-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazinen.d.0.095 ± 0.008 An.d.0.002 ± 0.001 B,C0.004 ± 0.003 B,C0.011 ± 0.002 B
34Isobutylpyrazinen.d.0.033 ± 0.007 A0.011 ± 0.004 B0.0002 ± 0.0001 C0.0001 ± 0.00007 C0.00005 ± 0.00002 D
35Oct-2-en-1-oln.d.0.048 ± 0.006 A0.011 ± 0.002 Bn.d.n.d.n.d.
38Nonan-2-one0.043±0.003 A0.022 ± 0.003 B0.006 ± 0.003 C0.002 ± 0.001 C0.008 ± 0.002 Cn.d.
42Maltoln.d.0.022 ± 0.002 An.d.0.005 ± 0.002 Bn.d.n.d.
Mean values with different letters (A–E) within the same row were statistically different (p < 0.05), the same letters form one homogeneous group. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. n.d. = not determined.
Table
Table 5. %OAV of roasted Tenebrio molitor larvae.
Table 5. %OAV of roasted Tenebrio molitor larvae.
NoCompoundTMPSITMPSIITMPSIIITMBCITMBCIITMBCIII
1Furan-2-carbaldehyde−−4.30−−1.65
72,5-Dimethylpyrazine−0.143.5269.560.2010.88
16Benzaldehyde−42.5929.67−0.4923.37
242-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazine−0.04−−0.08−
252-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazine−−0.00−−0.00
262,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine0.010.040.03−0.090.07
272-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazine−−−−0.037−
34Isobutylpyrazine99.2456.3861.86−97.2262.64
35Oct-2-en-1-ol0.660.760.57−1.851.39
38Nonan-2-one0.010.01−30.440.010.01
42Maltol0.090.040.05−0.03−
Table
Table 6. %OAV of roasted Zophobas morio larvae.
Table 6. %OAV of roasted Zophobas morio larvae.
NoCompoundTMPSITMPSIITMPSIIITMBCITMBCIITMBCIII
1Furan-2-carbaldehyde−−−−−−
72,5-Dimethylpyrazine0.051.356.532.036.0111.79
16Benzaldehyde0.0020.020.010.0311.8915.39
242-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazine0.060.57−0.850.97−
252-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazine−−0.003−0.010.06
262,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine0.090.650.390.860.996.80
272-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazine0.020.54−0.140.351.65
34Isobutylpyrazine98.7696.1791.6094.9578.8364.32
35Oct-2-en-1-ol0.73−−−−−
38Nonan-2-one−0.15−0.120.95−
42Maltol0.280.551.471.02−−
Table
Table 7. Roasting condition and sample codes.
Table 7. Roasting condition and sample codes.
InsectFeedRoasting Temperature [°C]Roasting Time [min]Sample Code
Tenebrio molitorBlue corn flour16020TMBCI
18015TMBCII
20010TMBCIII
Potato starch16020TMPSI
18015TMPSII
20010TMPSIII
Zophobas morioBlue corn flour16020ZMBCI
18015ZMBCII
20010ZMBCIII
Potato starch16020ZMPSI
18015ZMPSII
20010ZMPSIII
Table
Table 8. Nine-point hedonic scale was used in the preference test.
Table 8. Nine-point hedonic scale was used in the preference test.
GradeScore
Like extremely9
Like very much8
Like moderately7
Like slightly6
Neither like or dislike5
Dislike slightly4
Dislike moderately3
Dislike very much2
Dislike extremely1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Żołnierczyk, A.K.; Szumny, A. Sensory and Chemical Characteristic of Two Insect Species: Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio Larvae Affected by Roasting Processes. Molecules 2021, 26, 2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092697

AMA Style

Żołnierczyk AK, Szumny A. Sensory and Chemical Characteristic of Two Insect Species: Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio Larvae Affected by Roasting Processes. Molecules. 2021; 26(9):2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092697

Chicago/Turabian Style

Żołnierczyk, Anna K., and Antoni Szumny. 2021. "Sensory and Chemical Characteristic of Two Insect Species: Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio Larvae Affected by Roasting Processes" Molecules 26, no. 9: 2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092697

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop