Next Article in Journal
A Multi-Scale Feature Extraction Algorithm for Chinese Herbal Medicine Image Classification
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Assessment of Tool Wear and Surface Topography After Superfinish Turning of Inconel 718 with Carbide and Ceramic Inserts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comprehensive Review of Plant Protein Digestibility: Challenges, Assessment Methods, and Improvement Strategies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/app15084269
applsci-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Impact of the Addition of Alphitobius diaperinus Larval Powder on the Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensorial Properties of Shortbread Cookies

by
Sylwia Mierzejewska
1,
Zdzisław Domiszewski
1,
Joanna Piepiórka-Stepuk
1,
Anna Bielicka
1,
Arkadiusz Szpicer
2 and
Iwona Wojtasik-Kalinowska
2,*
1
Division of Food Industry Processes and Facilities, Koszalin University of Technology, Racławicka Street, 15-17, 75-620 Koszalin, Poland
2
Department of Technique and Food Development, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 4269; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084269
Submission received: 12 March 2025 / Revised: 7 April 2025 / Accepted: 10 April 2025 / Published: 12 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Future Industry of Polysaccharides, Protein and Pectin in Food Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Based on the EFSA opinion dated 4 July 2022, the safety of frozen and freeze-dried larvae of Alphitobius diaperinus for human consumption was confirmed, leading to their approval as a novel food in the European Union. Given the increasing demand for sustainable protein sources and alternative foods, studies explored the application of A. diaperinus larval powder as an additive in shortbread cookie production. In this experiment, wheat flour was partially replaced with insect powder at varying levels (10%, 20%, 30%, and 50% w/w), while butter was substituted with margarine. The analysis covered the protein content, moisture, ash, color, textural properties, and sensorial evaluation of the baked products. The results indicated that increasing the proportion of insect powder significantly raised the protein content and reduced moisture, impacting the cookie structure and brittleness. The sensorial evaluation indicated that incorporating up to 20% insect powder produced cookies with an optimal flavor, aroma, and texture balance, assessed at the level of 4.5 points and 11.7 N, respectively. Storage studies revealed that higher insect powder levels slowed moisture loss and reduced hardness over a 14-day period, stabilizing texture. However, excessive insect powder incorporation led to reduced consumer acceptability. These findings confirm the potential of A. diaperinus powder as an innovative additive to enhance the nutritional value of traditional baked goods, while also underscoring the need to modify technological parameters during production.

1. Introduction

Based on the EFSA opinion (4 July 2022) confirming the safety of frozen and freeze-dried Alphitobius diaperinus (lesser mealworm) larvae for human consumption [1], the European Union approved this insect species for trade as a novel food. The approval was formalized on 6 January 2023 with the publication of Implementing Regulation 2023/58, permitting the marketing of frozen, pasteurized, dried, and powdered forms of A. diaperinus larvae [2]. This regulation is part of the European Union’s broader framework for authorizing selected insect species in food production.
The first insect species approved by the European Commission were Locusta migratoria (migratory locust) and Tenebrio molitor larvae (yellow mealworm), followed by Acheta domesticus larvae (house cricket) [1]. These species and specific usage conditions were added to the EU list of novel foods. The growing interest in insects as a novel food stems from nutritional, cultural, and ecological factors, including their high nutritional value, potential as an alternative food source for a growing global population, low production costs, and sustainable, environmentally friendly farming practices. Additionally, consumer curiosity and the demand for novel culinary experiences contribute to this trend [3,4,5].
Above all, insect production to meet the needs of feeding the growing human population is the farming of the future, offering one solution to ensure access to cheap and efficient food sources [6,7,8]. Insect farms require far fewer resources than traditional livestock, consuming less water, feed, and space, and have higher reproductive capacities, making them an attractive option for food producers. Moreover, they produce fewer greenhouse gases, making them more environmentally friendly [9,10,11]. The need for innovation in these areas is a key trend influencing the increase in insect-based food products in the market and changing the approach of both producers and consumers towards this type of food.
Edible insects, approved for consumption in the EU, are seen as a promising innovation in the food sector, with insect-derived products offering a viable alternative protein source. They provide easily digestible proteins (with an amino acid composition comparable to meat), fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals [12,13,14,15,16]. The nutritional value of insects varies based on the developmental stage, breeding environment, and diet [17]. Their protein content (dry matter basis) ranges from approximately 50% in Tenebrio molitor larvae to 62% in A. diaperinus larvae [18,19], surpassing conventional animal-based foods (beef, eggs, and milk) as well as plant-based foods (soy and lentils) [20].
Insects also contain fiber (10–15%) and fats (15–30%), and some of them have a sugar content (for instance, T. molitor at 0.64% and A. diaperinus at 5.31%) [18]. Edible insects are rich in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids and are an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids [21]. They may also be a potential solution to alleviate vitamin (particularly B-group) and mineral deficiencies. They contain, among other things, Na, Mg, P, K, and Ca, as well as Fe, Zn, and Se, which makes them an exceptionally valuable source of minerals [22,23,24]. A few studies show that improper breeding conditions for edible insects may result in the presence of plant and bacterial toxins and dioxins, as well as pesticides and heavy metals [25,26,27,28]. Insects can also cause allergic reactions. These may be triggered during breeding by injection allergens (bees, wasps, and ants) and contact and inhalation allergens (e.g., exoskeletons and droppings), as well as during consumption (food allergens) [7]. According to the EFSA (Panel on New Foods and Food Allergens), the components that may cause allergic reactions are insect proteins and metabolites resulting from the feeding method (spoiled feed). People with shellfish and dust mite allergies may also experience problems. To minimize this risk, breeders must follow certain breeding rules, including a minimum 24 h fasting period before killing the insects, to allow the larvae to discard their bowel contents.
Edible insects are a common food source in many cultures across South America, Africa, and Asia. Despite their nutritional benefits, acceptance of edible insects in Western cultures remains low. This reluctance is often attributed to a lack of knowledge and their association with poor hygiene and potential food safety risks [9,29]. To address this, scientists and food producers propose incorporating insects in powdered form—rendering them unrecognizable to consumers—into traditional food products such as bread, pasta, confectionery, and muesli. This strategy not only aims to increase consumer acceptance of novel foods but also enhances the nutritional value of traditional products while introducing new sensorial properties [9,30,31,32].
For example, adding insect powder to carbohydrate-rich foods (e.g., bread and confectionery) enriches them with protein, essential amino acids, and fatty acids, thereby improving their nutritional value. Moreover, due to the textural properties of powdered insects resulting from their ability to bind water and form emulsions, food products exhibit different textural characteristics compared with traditional products [33,34]. The most attention in this regard is given to bakery products (crackers, crumbly cookies, and bars) [35]. Currently, bakery products account for about 40% of the value of confectionery production in Poland, with a significant portion exported to the European Union market [36]. Given the broad consumer interest in these products across all age groups, studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of A. diaperinus larvae powder on the physicochemical and textural properties of crumbly cookies made using a traditional recipe.
In this study, wheat flour was partially replaced with A. diaperinus powder at levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 50%, while butter (milk fat) was substituted with margarine (vegetable fat). Fat plays a crucial role in crumbly cookies by contributing to their delicate structure and porosity [37]. In this case, fats were sourced from both margarine and insect powder (animal fat). However, the existing literature on cookie production with insect powder does not specify the type of fat used, with most studies referring to it simply as margarine. Margarine may contain hydrogenated fat, a known source of trans fatty acids (TFAs) [38,39]. It is widely known that these acids have a negative impact on human health [40,41]; however, from a technological perspective, they give crumbly baked goods their characteristic sensorial properties [42,43], which is why they are most commonly used.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Identification of Flours and Mixtures Prepared for Baking Crumbly Cookies

Wheat flour type 450 “Złote Pola”, produced by the Grain-Milling Enterprise PZZ Stoisław S.A. (Mścice, Poland), and A. diaperinus insect powder, produced by Isaac Nutrition (Köln, Germany), were used for baking. The chemical composition of the flours is presented in Table 1. Insect powder primarily consists of protein and lipids.
Baking mixtures were prepared by blending insect powder with wheat flour at proportions of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 50% (w/w) (Figure 1). The wheat flour, A. diaperinus powder, and resulting mixtures were analyzed for the moisture content, ash content, and color, following the methods outlined in the methodological section. The control sample consisted of 100% wheat flour.
Margarine was used as the fat source. According to the manufacturer’s declaration (Bungle Polska), the margarine contained vegetable fats (palm and rapeseed oils) and partially hydrogenated palm fat.

2.2. Baking and Evaluation of the Obtained Products

The proportion of ingredients in the crumbly cookie recipe was as follows: 50% baking mixture, 25% fat (vegetable fat), 12% powdered sugar, 12% eggs, and 1% sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). The control sample consisted of dough made with 100% wheat flour (Table 2).
The sifted flour was combined with the remaining ingredients and kneaded to a uniform consistency. The dough was then refrigerated at 6–8 °C for 20 min. After chilling, it was rolled out to a thickness of approximately 5 mm, and cookies with a diameter of 40 mm were cut out, yielding about 50 cookies per batch. The cookies were baked at 180 °C for 12 min without air convection.
The baked cookies were evaluated for their sensorial properties, color, hardness, and water content following the methods outlined in the methodological section. All measurements were taken 2 h after baking. Additionally, texture changes were analyzed during storage at 22 °C and 50–55% humidity after packaging in paper bags. Evaluations were conducted on days 4, 8, and 14 of storage.

2.3. Proximal Analysis of Flours and Cookies

The proximate analysis of wheat flour, insect powder, and cookies was conducted according to the methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) for protein [44], moisture [45], acidity [46], and ash [47] content [48].
Protein content was determined using the Kjeldahl method. The conversion factor for the calculation of protein from the nitrogen content was 6.25, while the solvent used for fat extraction was petroleum ether. The moisture content was determined using the TGA (thermogravimetric analysis) method using infrared radiation (IR) in a hot air oven at 105 °C. Total acidity was ascertained by titrating the sample with a standardized base solution (0.1 M NaOH). This process neutralized the acidic components. The ash content was determined after mineralization in a muffle furnace at 900 °C. Each measurement was taken from three replicates per sample.

2.4. Color Measurement

The color of the flour and baked cookies was evaluated using a colorimeter (RT100, Lovibond Tintometer, Dortmund, Germany) in a CIEL*a*b* system, in which color is represented by an achromatic component (L*) and two chromatic components (a* and b*) [14], where −a* is greenness, +a* is redness, −b* is blueness, and +b is yellowness. The instrument was calibrated with black and white standard tiles before each measurement set. Samples were measured at an ambient temperature (20 °C). The total color difference (ΔE) was calculated using Equation (1) to assess color changes during storage. According to the classification by Piepiórka-Stepuk et al. (2023) [49], ΔE values were categorized as follows: imperceptible (0–0.5), barely noticeable (0.5–1.5), noticeable (1.5–3), clearly visible (3–6), and large (>6). Measurements were taken in five replicates per sample.
∆ E = ( L * − L 0 * ) 2 + ( a * − a 0 * ) 2 + ( b * − b 0 * ) 2
where L0*, a0*, and b0* are the color parameters of baked cookies enriched with insect flour and L*, a*, and b* are the color parameters of the control sample (without the addition of insect flour).
The results of the colors were additionally presented in the cylindrical color space L*C*H*. For this purpose, the measured results were converted by determining the hue angle (H*) and saturation (C*). The value of H* represents the visual impression. The color can be estimated based on specific values of this parameter (H*: 0–90°, red–yellow; H*: 90–180°, yellow–green; H*: 180–270°, green–blue; and H*: 270–360°, blue–red. The C* value is the distance of the point from the center of the arrangement and describes the color saturation (so-called color purity). The further from the center of the arrangement (from the value 0), the deeper and purer the color. Accordingly, a* and b* values were used to calculate (Equations (2) and (3)) to ascertain the browning index (BI).
B I = 100 ( x − 0.31 ) 0.17
x = ( a * + 1.75 ⋅ L * ) ( 5.65 ⋅ L * + a * − 3.01 ⋅ b * )

2.5. Texture Properties of Cookies

The texture evaluation was based on the hardness index, defined as the maximum force required to deform (break) the sample (F1) during puncturing (N). This measurement indicated the cookies’ crispness. Each analytical sample consisted of a baked cookie disk with a diameter of 40 mm and a height of 5 mm.
The analysis was conducted using a penetration test with a TMS-Pro texture analyzer (Food Technology Corporation, Sterling, VA, USA) following the methodology described by Bawa et al. (2020) [50], Tappi et al. (2021) [51], Conforti et al. (2006) [52], and Dolik et al. (2013) [53]. The texture analyzer was connected to a PC running Texture Lab Pro software, which recorded selected parameter values. A flat-ended cylindrical probe (d = 10 mm) was used, with a displacement speed of 0.8 mm/s along the y-axis. Tensometric sensors with a 50 N pressure force were used for the measurements, which were performed in triplicate for each product. From the force–time curves (f = F(s)), the crispness of the cookies (H) was determined as the force registered at the positive peak value.

2.6. Sensorial Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted in a sensorial analysis laboratory, with assessors seated in individual, separate booths, following standard procedures [54]. A qualified panel of 10 assessors participated, each screened for sensory sensitivity according to PN-ISO 3972:2011 [55] and PN-ISO 5496:2006 [56].
The assessed attributes included color, crispness (perceived upon the first bite), loudness of the sound when biting, taste, smell, and overall consumer acceptability. Evaluations were performed using a six-point hedonic scale, where 6 indicated a highly desirable product, 5 desirable, 4 acceptable, 3 undesirable, 2 highly undesirable, and 1 defective. The average scores for each characteristic were used to determine the overall score for the cookies.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

All experiments were conducted in five replicates for each variant of the baking mix and shortbread cookies. Color measurements were also performed in five replicates. Statistical analyses were carried out to evaluate the effect of the percentage inclusion of Alphitobius diaperinus powder on selected properties of the baking mixes and shortbread cookies. The empirical data were subjected to a multi-stage statistical evaluation using Statistica 13 software. The distribution of the independent variables was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test, confirming normality. Homogeneity of variance between groups was assessed using Fisher’s F-test. For all measured parameters, the F-statistic values satisfied the inequality (Fcrit < F), which allowed for the rejection of the null hypothesis of H0 (μ = μ0) and the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis of H1 (μ ≠ μ0). This indicated a statistically significant effect of the percentage level of A. diaperinus powder incorporated into the baking mix on the final attributes of the evaluated products. To assess the significance of the observed effects, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. Post hoc comparisons of group means were conducted using Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test at a significance level of α = 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physicochemical Properties of Flour and Baking Mix

Flour, A. diaperinus powder, and their mixtures exhibited statistically significant differences in the moisture content (Table 3). The moisture content of the wheat flour (control = 12.0%) was three times higher than that of the A. diaperinus powder (AD100% = 4.14%). These findings aligned with previous studies, which also reported a low water content in insect powders, ranging from 5.4% [31] to 6.3% [57]. An increasing proportion of insect powder in the baking mixture resulted in a lower water content.
The moisture content is a critical parameter influencing both the microbiological quality of baking mixtures and the technological performance of flour, affecting the final product. A low water content in the baking mixture reduces gluten’s ability to bind water. Additionally, the gluten content decreases as the proportion of A. diaperinus powder increases. As a result, dough supplemented with insect powder becomes less elastic and more brittle—properties beneficial for shortcrust dough. However, an excessively low moisture content in the baking mixture can negatively affect the product, causing difficulties in obtaining a homogeneous raw dough mass and forming cookies. It may also cause the cookies to be too brittle, delicate, and crumble after baking.
The tested mixtures exhibited significant differences in ash, with the highest ash content in A. diaperinus powder (3.67%) and the lowest in wheat flour (0.49%). Consequently, increasing the proportion of insect powder led to a higher ash content in the baking mixture. According to the literature, the ash of insect powders varies based on the developmental stage (larva or adult), ranging from 2.95% to 5.22% [16,31,58,59,60,61,62,63]. The ash primarily consists of calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and sodium [64,65].
Regarding the Lab* color components of the baking mixtures, significant differences were observed between wheat flour and insect powder mixtures (Table 1), with variations depending on the proportion of insect powder. The insect powder had the darkest color, with color components of L* = 58.59, a* = 6.12, and b* = 25.57. The brightest color was found in wheat flour (average L* = 98.89). Thus, as the proportion of powdered insects in wheat flour increased, the L* value decreased and the mixture became darker. With an increasing proportion of powdered insects, the yellowness (a*) and redness (b*) of the mixtures also increased.
An additional analysis of the ∆H* and ∆C* parameters revealed that the tested mixtures exhibited a brownish hue (H: 77.04–80.56) with low saturation (C parameter value: 13.49–16.58). The calculated browning index (BI) value (Figure 2) significantly increased with a higher proportion of A. diaperinus powder in the produced baking mixtures. Furthermore, changes in the ∆E values (∆E > 6 compared with the control sample and between the analyzed mixtures) indicated that the differences in the color, browning level, and degree of darkening of the tested mixtures would be noticeable to consumers and may influence their perception.
The color and intensity of A. diaperinus powder may result not only from the natural pigmentation of live larvae but also from the production process. Key processing steps before grinding include blanching [61], freezing, lyophilization [4,16,60,63], and drying using airflow, contact, or microwave methods [63,66,67,68]. High temperatures during the initial processing of A. diaperinus larvae can influence the final color of the powder.
This effect is primarily attributed to the Maillard reaction, which occurs between amino acids and reducing sugars under heat, leading to the formation of melanoidins—compounds responsible for the brown color and characteristic flavor [63,69]. However, the manufacturer of the insect powder used in this study did not provide details on the larvae’s cultivation or production technology, which could also impact the nutrient composition [58].

3.2. Physicochemical Properties of Cookies

The protein content of the tested products is presented in Table 4. The lowest protein content was observed in cookies without A. diaperinus powder (7.7 g protein/100 g of finished product). Replacing wheat flour with insect powder at a 10% ratio increased the protein content by approximately 2 g/100 g compared with the control sample. Similar results were reported by Biró et al. (2020) [10], who observed a 3 g/100 g protein increase in biscuits when replacing oat flour with Acheta domesticus powder at the same 10% inclusion level. The presented results showed a clear correlation: the higher the percentage of insect powder in the cookies, the more the protein content linearly increased (linear model accuracy R2 = 0.9614), which enhances the nutritional value of the product.
The low moisture content of A. diaperinus powder (4.14 ± 0.01 g/100 g) significantly reduced the final product’s moisture as its proportion in the dough increased. This reduction directly affected cookie crispness, defined as the maximum force required to deform (break) the sample, as well as texture properties such as density and porosity. As moisture availability in the dough promotes gluten development, replacing wheat flour with insect powder reduced both gluten and water (due to the low moisture content of the insect powder), which led to a much weaker gluten network, making the cookies less risen and denser. The limited evaporation of water during baking, which causes dough to rise, could also have contributed to this effect.
Fat also plays an important role in texture formation by facilitating the even dispersion of starch molecules and incorporating air during kneading, increasing the number of gas cells [67]. In the final products, fat originated from both the margarine and insect powder. The fat-rich insect powder increased the total fat content in the dough, which influenced the cookie hardness. As the insect powder content increased, the force required to deform the cookies decreased, making them softer and crumblier. Cookies made with the AD50% mixture required half the deformation force (8.56 N) of the control sample (16.76 N for 100% wheat flour). Other studies confirm that incorporating A. domesticus or T. molitor powder similarly reduces shortcrust cookie hardness [50,64,70].
The TFA isomers present in hardened vegetable fat, along with saturated fatty acids (SFAs), contribute to the high melting point of fats [42]. Their presence (both TFAs and SFAs) in confectionery products plays a role in achieving a delicate structure and desirable texture [37,42,71].
At the same time, it was observed that as the proportion of insect powder in the product increased, the acidity of the baked goods also rose, which was consistent with the findings of other authors [10,72,73].
The color component analysis of the baked cookies (Table 4) showed that all samples were located in the first quadrant of the chromatic diagram. However, as the proportion of A. diaperinus powder increased, the L* and b* coordinates significantly decreased (α ≤ 0.05) compared with the control (L0* = 69.61 ± 0.49; b0* = 27.99 ± 1.06), indicating a darkening effect.
The red color component, represented by the positive value of a*, was significantly higher in the AD10%–AD50% samples than in the control and exhibited an increasing trend with a higher insect powder content. The control sample also showed slight redness (a* = 5.34 ± 0.40). The obtained chromatic coordinates were consistent with the results of other authors [4,74], both in terms of values and the trend of the changes. The values of the cylindrical coordinates ∆H* and ∆C* confirmed that the cookies had an orange–red hue (∆H50%: 60.64–∆H0: 79.18) with fairly intense saturation (∆C50%: 26.37–∆C0: 28.50; L*↓).
As reported by other authors, the final color of baked goods is influenced not only by the initial dough color but also by the Maillard reaction during baking [14,74,75,76]. This reaction is intensified by the additional protein from insect powder, increasing the availability of free amino acids. The reaction between reducing sugars and amino acids via the carbonyl group of the sugar further enhances browning [50]. Additionally, the Maillard reaction can be catalyzed by amino sugars, which are found in the insect matrix.
The calculated browning index (BI) and the Pearson correlation coefficient between the AD% and BI confirmed this relationship, showing a strong positive correlation (r = 0.95). These findings support the general trend that adding insect powder contributes to the browning and darkening of confectionery products [14,31,57].
The observed differences in individual color components were also perceptible to consumers, as confirmed by the sensorial analysis (Figure 3) and the calculated color difference value (ΔE), which quantified the color variation between the samples and the control. The ΔE value ranged from 6.13 for AD10% to 29.61 for AD50% (Figure 4), indicating that the color changes in the cookies were visible to consumers.

Sensorial Property Evaluation of Shortcrust Biscuits with the Addition of Flour from Alphitobius diaperinus

Figure 5 shows the results of the sensorial evaluation broken down into the individual sensorial attributes that were assessed (Figure 5a) and the average final rating of the baked goods (Figure 5b). It was shown that the addition of 10% and 20% A. diaperinus powder improved selected sensorial properties of the biscuits compared with the control sample. These biscuits had a balance between taste, aroma, color, and crispness. The taste of these variants was well-balanced, with caramel and nutty notes. The aroma was neutral, with a subtle nutty scent, while the crispness and biting sound were pleasant—findings consistent with previous studies [14,77]. Overall, these biscuits received positive evaluations. A further increase in the proportion of A. diaperinus powder above 20% led to a loss of acceptability among the panelists. These biscuits were characterized by a darker color, unpleasant odor, loss of sweetness, and excessive crispness. The biscuits with 50% insect powder had the lowest acceptability from the panel. These biscuits had a soapy and bitter taste, likely caused by over-baking, although the baking time and temperature were the same throughout the experiment. The reason for this could be the reduced moisture content in the baking mixture compared with the others, which intensified heat conduction and convection, leading to a faster heating of the product to 180 °C and, among other things, the caramelization of sugars.
Additionally, the high insect protein content in this mixture increased the availability of free amino acids, further intensifying the Maillard reaction [14,50,74,75,76]. These findings highlight the need to modify baking technology based on the proportion of insect powder in the baking mixture.
The results of the evaluation of individual attributes were averaged for the final assessment of the baked goods. Contrary to expectations, none of the baked biscuit variants received a score of five points in the final evaluation, with the closest to this value being the biscuits baked from a mixture with 20% A. diaperinus insect powder. Similar observations were made by other researchers, who showed that the addition of insect powder above 10–20% leads to a decrease in the overall consumer rating [59,72,74,78].

3.3. Changes in the Moisture Content and Hardness of Biscuits During Storage

The baked biscuits were subjected to storage studies. Changes in the moisture content and hardness of the biscuits were measured on the 4th, 8th, and 14th day of storage at a temperature of 22 °C and humidity of 50–55% (Figure 6).
Crisp biscuits typically lose moisture quickly during storage, leading to increased hardness. This process begins during baking as water evaporates from the dough surface. After cooling, moisture migrates from the interior of the product to the surface and then evaporates into the surrounding environment, leading to further moisture loss.
As the proportion of A. diaperinus powder in the dough increased, the amount of evaporated water decreased from approximately 31% in the control sample to 15% in the sample with 50% inclusion. This could be attributed to two factors. One is the initial moisture content of the baked goods, which decreased as the proportion of insect powder increased. On the other hand, insect powder contains high amounts of fat, which may act as a factor that reduces water loss. The fat forms a type of barrier that slows down the evaporation of water from the internal layers of the dough, limiting the internal water transport and its evaporation into the environment. This is quite promising in terms of maintaining product quality during storage.
The decrease in the moisture content corresponded with an increase in biscuit hardness. The greatest hardness increase (over 105%) was recorded for the control sample, while the smallest increase occurred in the 50% insect powder sample.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the conducted research is significant in terms of expanding knowledge and the potential use of A. diaperinus powder to produce crisp biscuits with increased nutritional value, primarily regarding the protein content. The results presented above highlight the positive aspects of using A. diaperinus powder in biscuit production. The addition of edible insects to the dough mix led to an increase in the protein and fat content and a decrease in moisture, directly affecting the texture and sensorial properties of the final product. The sensorial evaluation results suggested that biscuits made with insect powder up to a 20% substitution level were sensorially acceptable. These biscuits had a darker color and a characteristic caramel–nut aftertaste and aroma. However, further increasing the insect powder content in the dough mix (above 20%) led to decreased consumer acceptance due to a worsening of taste (loss of sweetness and bitter aftertaste) and smell. Therefore, the level of enrichment of a dough mix for producing crisp biscuits should not exceed 20%.
The results obtained also indicate the need for modifications in the recipe and technological aspects compared with traditional products. Producing biscuits with a reduced water content while increasing the protein content results in faster baking and a more uniform baking process throughout the dough portion. This may require shortening the baking time to prevent undesirable changes associated with biscuit darkening (burning, intensification of Maillard reaction, and sugar caramelization). Therefore, reducing the baking time and increasing the water content in the recipe should protect the product from excessive drying and unfavorable changes in texture (compact and dense structure). Further research should also be conducted to eliminate trans fats from the recipe while maintaining the high sensorial quality of the final products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.M.; Methodology: S.M., J.P.-S., Z.D. and I.W.-K.; Formal Analysis: S.M., J.P.-S., Z.D. and I.W.-K.; Investigation: S.M., A.B., A.S. and J.P.-S.; Data Curation: A.B. and Z.D.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation: A.B., Z.D. and A.S.; Writing—Review and Editing: S.M., J.P.-S. and I.W.-K.; Visualization: J.P.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education from the statutory activities of the university.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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 J. 2022, 20, 7325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. EU Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/58 of 5 January 2023 Authorising the Placing on the Market of the Frozen, Paste, Dried and Powder Forms of Alphitobius Diaperinus Larvae (Lesser mealworm) as a Novel Food and Amending Implementing Regulation (EU); EU Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. Orkusz, A.; Wolańska, W.; Harasym, J.; Piwowar, A.; Kapelko, M. Consumers’ Attitudes Facing Entomophagy: Polish Case Perspectives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zielińska, E.; Pankiewicz, U. Nutritional, physiochemical, and antioxidative characteristics of shortcake biscuits enriched with Tenebrio molitor flour. Molecules 2020, 25, 5629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Homann, A.M.; Ayieko, M.A.; Konyole, S.O.; Roos, N. Acceptability of biscuits containing 10% cricket (Acheta domesticus) compared to milk biscuits among 5–10-year-old Kenyan schoolchildren. J. Insects Food Feed 2017, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISSN 0081-4539. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 802–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ordoñez-Araque, R.; Egas-Montenegro, E. Edible insects: A food alternative for the sustainable development of the planet. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2021, 23, 100304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Castro-López, C.; García, H.S.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Hernández-Mendoza, A.; Liceaga, A.M.; Santiago-López, L.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B. An insight to fermented edible insects: A global perspective and prospective. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Biró, B.; Sipos, M.A.; Kovács, A.; Badak-Kerti, K.; Pásztor-Huszár, K.; Gere, A. Cricket-Enriched Oat Biscuit: Technological Analysis and Sensory Evaluation. Foods 2020, 9, 1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vantomme, P. Way Forward to Bring Insects in the Human Food Chain. J. Insects Food Feed 2015, 1, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van Huis, A. Nutrition and health of edible insectsvan. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 23, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. De Castro, R.J.S.; Domingues, M.A.F.; Ohara, A.; Dos Santos Aguilar, J.G. Nutritional, functional and biological properties of insect proteins: Processes for obtaining, consumption and future challenges. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2018, 76, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Çabuk, B. Influence of grasshopper (Locusta migratoria) and mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) powders on the quality characteristics of protein rich muffins: Nutritional, physicochemical, textural and sensory aspects. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021, 15, 3862–3872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carcea, M. Quality and Nutritional/Textural Properties of Durum Wheat Pasta Enriched with Cricket Powder. Foods 2020, 9, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gonzalez, C.M.; Garzon, R.; Rosell, C.M. Insects as ingredients for bakery goods. A comparison study of H. illucens, A. domestica and T. molitor flours. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 51, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foote, N. UE: Food Agency Approves Mealworms for Consumption; EURACTIV: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://www.euractiv.pl/section/rolnictwowpr/news/owady-unia-europejska-zywnosc-larwa-macznika-bialko-efsa-bezpieczenstwo-zywnosci/ (accessed on 10 February 2025).
  18. Carriço-Sá, B.; Teixeira, C.S.S.; Villa, C.; Mendes, E.; Ferreira, I.M.P.L.V.O.; Mafra, I.; Costa, J. Protein extraction from edible insects: Implications for IgE-binding capacity. Food Chem. 2024, 468, 142453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lampova, B.; Kopecka, A.; Smíd, P.; Kulma, M.; Kurecka, M.; Ogrinc, N.; Heath, D.; Kourimska, L.; Doskocil, I. Evaluating protein quality in edible insects: A comparative analysis of house cricket, yellow mealworm, and migratory locust using DIAAS methodologies. LWT 2024, 213, 117062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Churchward-Venne, T.A.; Bailey, D.; Pinckaers, P.J.; van Loon, L.J. Ketone bodies and exercise performance: The next magic bullet or merely hype? Sports Med. 2017, 47, 383–391. [Google Scholar]
  21. Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; Laurent, S.; Veenenbos, M.E.; van Loon, J.J.A. Dietary enrichment of edible insects with omega 3 fatty acids. Insect Sci. 2020, 27, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Köhler, R.; Kariuki, L.; Lambert, C.; Biesalski, H.K. Protein, amino acid and mineral composition of some edible insects from Thailand. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Koseckova, P.; Zverina, O.; Pechova, M.; Krulíkova, M.; Duborska, E.; Borkovcov, M. Mineral profile of cricket powders, some edible insect species and their implication for gastronomy. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 107, 104340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, M.; Zhu Ch Smetana, S.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, F.; Du, Y. Minerals in edible insects: A review of content and potential for sustainable sourcing. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2024, 13, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mancini, A.; Dreassi, E.; Botta, M.; Tarchi, F.; Francardi, V. Bioaccumulation risk assessment of aflatoxin b1, ochratoxin and fumonisin b1 in tenebrio molitor larvae. REDIA 2020, 103, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kolakowski, B.M.; Johaniuk, K.; Zhang, H.; Yamamoto, E. Analysis of Microbiological and Chemical Hazards in Edible Insects Available to Canadian Consumers. J. Food Protect. 2021, 84, 1575–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amorello, D.; Barreca, S.; Orecchio, S. Critical evaluation of hazardous pollutants in edible insects: Asimple review. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 135, 106675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bednarska, A.J.; Świątek, Z. Subcellular partitioning of cadmium and zinc in mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor) larvae exposed to metal-contaminated flour. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 2016, 133, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Looy, H.; Dunkel, F.V.; Wood, J.R. How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cappelli, A.; Oliva, N.; Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Cini, E. Assessment of the rheological properties and bread characteristics obtained by innovative protein sources (Cicer arietinum, Acheta domesticus, Tenebrio molitor): Novel food or potential improvers for wheat flour? LWT 2020, 118, 108867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Mickowska, B.; Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A. Wheat bread supplementation with various edible insect flours. Influence of chemical composition on nutritional and technological aspects. LWT 2022, 159, 113220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Biró, B.; Gere, A.; Fodor, R.; Pásztor-Huszár, K.; Szedljak, I. Buckwheat-pasta enriched with silkworm powder: Technological analysis and sensory evaluation. LWT 2019, 116, 108542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Florowska, A.; Florowski, T. Insects—The food of the future. Food Ind. 2020, 74, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. van Huis, A. New Sources of Animal Proteins: Edible Insects. New Asp. Meat Qual. 2017, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Borges, S.; Sousa, P.; Pintado, M. Insects as Food Sources; Universidade Católica Portuguesa, CBQF—Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina—Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia: Porto, Portugal, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  36. Piwowarek, P. Polskie ciasta—Niezakłócony rozwój. Raport Banku Pekao SA. 2023. Available online: https://www.portalspozywczy.pl/slodycze-przekaski/wiadomosci/polskie-ciastka-niezaklocony-rozwoj-raport-banku-pekao-sa,223773.html (accessed on 10 February 2025).
  37. Krygier, K.; Żbikowska, A. The impact of fat on selected properties of sponge cake. ŻYWNOŚĆ Nauka Technol. Jakość 2002, 32, 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  38. Slover, H.T.; Thompson, R.H.; Davis, C.S.; Merola, G.V. Lipids in margarines and margarine-like foods. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1985, 62, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Toshtay, K.; Auyezov, A.; Azat, S.; Busquets, R. Trans fatty acids and saturated fatty acids in margarines and spreads in Kazakhstan: Study period 2015–2021. Food Chem. 2025, X, 102246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pipoyan, D.; Stepanyan, S.; Stepanyan, S.; Beglaryan, M.; Costantini, L.; Molinari, R.; Merendino, N. The effect of trans fatty acids on human health: Regulation and consumption patterns. Foods 2021, 10, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Mencin, M.; Abramovič, H.; Zlatić, E.; Demšar, L.; Piskernik, S.; Schreiner, M.; Vidrih, R. Content of trans-fatty acid isomers in bakery products on the Slovenian market. LWT 2021, 143, 111095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Żbikowska, A.; Rutkowska, J. Skład kwasów tłuszczowych a jakość i przydatność technologiczna tłuszczów do pieczenia. ŻYWNOŚĆ Nauka Technol. Jakość 2008, 4, 90–95. [Google Scholar]
  43. Żbikowska, A.; Krygier, K. Wpływ zawartości izomerów trans w tłuszczach na jakość ciast wysokotłuszczowych. ŻYWNOŚĆ Nauka Technol. Jakość 2003, 2, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  44. AOAC 992.15-1992; Crude Protein in Meat and Meat Products. AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 1996.
  45. AOAC 925.09-1925; Solids (Total) and Loss on Drying (Moisture). AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2015.
  46. AOAC Official Method 939.05; Fat Acidity—Grains Titrimetric Method. AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2013.
  47. AOAC 923.03-1923; Ash of Flour. Direct Method. AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2005.
  48. AOAC. Official Method of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Officiating Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Piepiórka-Stepuk, J.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I.; Sterczyńska, M.; Mierzejewska, S.; Stachnik, M.; Jakubowski, M. The effect of heat treatment on bioactive compounds and color of selected pumpkin cultivars. LWT 2023, 175, 114469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bawa, M.; Songsermpong, S.; Kaewtapee, C.; Chanput, W. Nutritional, sensory, and texture quality of bread and cookie enriched with house cricket (Acheta domesticus) Powder. J. Food Process. Pres. 2020, 44, e14601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tappi, S.; Glicerina, V.; Ragni, L.; Dettori, A.; Romani, S.; Rocculi, P. Physical and structural properties of honey crystallized by static and dynamic processes. J. Food Eng. 2021, 292, 110316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Conforti, P.A.; Lupano, C.E.; Malacalza, N.H.; Arias, V.; Castells, C.B. Crystallization of honey at −20 °C. Int. J. Food Prop. 2006, 9, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dolik, K.; Kubiak, M.S. Instrumentalny test analizy profilu tekstury w badaniu jakości wybranych produktów spożywczych. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  54. ISO 4121:2003; Sensory analysis—Guidelines for the Use of Quantitative Response Scales. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  55. PN-ISO 3972:2011; Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Method of Investigating Sensitivity of Taste. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
  56. PN-ISO 5496:2006; Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Initiation and Training of Assessors in the Detection and Recognition of Odours. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  57. Talens, C.; Lago, M.; Sim′o-Boyle, L.; Odriozola-Serrano, I.; Ibargüen, M. Desirability-based optimization of bakery products containing pea, hemp and insect flours using mixture design methodology. LWT 2022, 168, 113878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Amoah, I.; Cobbinah, J.C.; Yeboah, J.A.; Essiam, F.A.; Lim, J.J.; Tandoh, M.A.; Rush, E. Edible insect powder for enrichment of bakery products—A review of nutritional, physical characteristics and acceptability of bakery products to consumers. Future Foods 2023, 8, 100251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sriprablom, J.; Kitthawee, S.; Suphantharika, M. Functional and physicochemical properties of cookies enriched with edible insect (Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas atratus) powders. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2022, 16, 2181–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aguilera, Y.; Pastrana, I.; Rebollo-Hernanz, M.; Benitez, V.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Viejo, J.L.; Martin-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] [PubMed]
  61. Althwab, S.A.; Alhomaid, R.M.; Ali, R.F.M.; Mohammed El-Anany, A.; Mousa, H.M. Effect of migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) powder incorporation on nutritional and sensorial properties of wheat flour bread. Brit. Food J. 2021, 123, 3576–3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rumbos, I.; Karapanagiotidis, I.; Mente, E.; Athanassiou, G. The lesser mealworm 1887 Alphitobius diaperinus: A noxious pest or a promising nutrient source? Rev. Aquacult. 2019, 11, 1418–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lucas-Gonzalez, R.; Fernandez-Lopez, J.; Perez-Alvarez, J.A.; Viuda-Martos, M. Effect of drying processes in the chemical, physico-chemical, techno-functional and antioxidant properties of flours obtained from house cricket (Acheta domesticus). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2019, 245, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Djouadi, A.; Sales, J.R.; Carvalho, M.O.; Raymundo, A. Development of healthy protein-rich crackers using tenebrio molitor flour. Foods 2022, 11, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Awobusuyi, T.D.; Pillay, K.; Siwela, M. Consumer Acceptance of Biscuits Supplemented with a Sorghum–Insect Meal. Nutrients 2020, 12, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mafu, A.; Ketnawa, S.; Phongthai, S.; Schonlechner, R.; Rawdkuen, S. Whole wheat bread enriched with cricket powder as an alternative protein. Foods 2022, 11, 2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Haber, M.; Mishyna, M.; Martinez, J.J.I.; Benjamin, O. The influence of grasshopper (Schistocerca gregaria) powder enrichment on bread nutritional and sensorial properties. LWT 2019, 115, 108395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. da Rosa Machado, C.; Thys, R.C.S. Cricket powder (Gryllus assimilis) as a new alternative protein source for gluten-free breads. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 56, 102180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ribas-Agusti, A.; Martin-Belloso, O.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Elez-Martinez, P. Food processing strategies to enhance phenolic compounds bioaccessibility and bioavailability in plant-based foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 58, 2531–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Aleman, R.S.; Marcia, J.; Pournaki, S.K.; Borrás-Linares, I.; Lozano-Sanchez, J.; Fernandez, I.M. Formulation of Protein-Rich Chocolate Chip Cookies Using Cricket (Acheta domesticus) Powder. Foods 2022, 11, 3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Autio, K.; Laurikainen, T. Relationships between flour/dough microstructure and dough handling and baking properties. Trends Foods Sci. Technol. 1997, 6, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Osimani, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Roncolini, A.; Garofalo, C.; Clementi, F.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; Foligni, R.; Raffaelli, N.; et al. Bread enriched with cricket powder (Acheta domesticus): A technological, microbiological and nutritional evaluation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2018, 48, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Roncolini, A.; Milanović, V.; Aquilanti, L.; Cardinali, F.; Garofalo, C.; Sabbatini, R.; Clementi, F.; Belleggia, L.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M. Lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) powder as a novel baking ingredient for manufacturing high-protein, mineral-dense snacks. Food Res. Int. 2020, 131, 109031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ortolá, M.D.; Martínez-Catalá, M.; Del Carmen, A.Y.; Castelló, M.L. Physicochemical and sensory properties of biscuits formulated with Tenebrio molitor and Alphitobius diaperinus flours. J. Texture Stud. 2022, 53, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gantner, M.; Król, K.; Piotrowska, A.; Sionek, B.; Sadowska, A.; Kulik, K.; Wiącek, M. Adding mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) powder to wheat bread: Effects on physicochemical, sensory and microbiological qualities of the end-product. Molecules 2022, 27, 6155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Khuenpet, K.; Pakasap, C.; Vatthanakul, S.; Kitthawee, S. Effect of larval-stage mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) powder on qualities of bread. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2020, 16, 283–296. Available online: https://www.thaiscience.info/view_content.asp?id=10992804 (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  77. Kourimská, L.; Adamková, A. Jakość odżywcza i sensoryczna owadów jadalnych. Dz. NFS 2016, 4, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Roncolini, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Osimani, A.; Garofalo, C.; Sabbatini, R. Protein fortification with mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) powder: Effect on textural, microbiological, nutritional and sensory features of bread. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 04269 g001
Figure 1. Flours and their mixtures used for baking crumbly cookies. 1: 100% wheat flour type 450 (CO—control); 2: insect powder AD (Alphitobius diaperinus) (AD100%); 3, 4, 5, and 6: mixtures of A. diaperinus insect powder with wheat flour (w/w) (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Figure 1. Flours and their mixtures used for baking crumbly cookies. 1: 100% wheat flour type 450 (CO—control); 2: insect powder AD (Alphitobius diaperinus) (AD100%); 3, 4, 5, and 6: mixtures of A. diaperinus insect powder with wheat flour (w/w) (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Applsci 15 04269 g001
Applsci 15 04269 g002
Figure 2. Color parameters of wheat flour and baking mixtures with different proportions of insect powder (AD: A. diaperinus) at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Figure 2. Color parameters of wheat flour and baking mixtures with different proportions of insect powder (AD: A. diaperinus) at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Applsci 15 04269 g002
Applsci 15 04269 g003
Figure 3. Cookies fortified with A. diaperinus insect powder. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Figure 3. Cookies fortified with A. diaperinus insect powder. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Applsci 15 04269 g003
Applsci 15 04269 g004
Figure 4. Color parameters of shortbread cookies with varying insect powder contents in the dough mixture. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). a–d Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Figure 4. Color parameters of shortbread cookies with varying insect powder contents in the dough mixture. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). a–d Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Applsci 15 04269 g004
Applsci 15 04269 g005
Figure 5. Hedonic scale scores of the sensorial properties evaluated in the biscuits formulated with different mixtures of flour for baking (a) and average rating (b). CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). a–b Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Figure 5. Hedonic scale scores of the sensorial properties evaluated in the biscuits formulated with different mixtures of flour for baking (a) and average rating (b). CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%). a–b Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Applsci 15 04269 g005
Applsci 15 04269 g006
Figure 6. Changes in moisture and hardness of cookies after 4, 8, and 14 days of storage. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Figure 6. Changes in moisture and hardness of cookies after 4, 8, and 14 days of storage. CO: control (100% wheat cookies); AD: A. diaperinus at different percentages (AD10%, AD20%, AD30%, and AD50%).
Applsci 15 04269 g006
Table 1. Chemical composition of powder obtained from lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) and wheat flour (manufacturer data).
Table 1. Chemical composition of powder obtained from lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) and wheat flour (manufacturer data).
Fat [g/100 g]Protein [g/100 g]Carbs [g/100 g]Includes Sugars [g/100 g]Calories [kcal]
AD26.2 62.02.70.5505.0
WF1.0 11.071.0 2.4342.0
AD: insect powder from Alphitobius diaperinus; WF: wheat flour.
Table 2. Proportion of individual ingredients in the baking mixture.
Table 2. Proportion of individual ingredients in the baking mixture.
Baking Mixture VariantProportion of Wheat Flour in the Baking Mixture
WF [%]		Proportion of Alphitobius diaperinus Powder in the Baking Mixture
AD [%]		Proportion of Alphitobius diaperinus Powder in the Raw Dough
AD [%]
CO—Control sample 10000
AD10%90105
AD20%802010
AD30%703015
AD50%505025
AD: insect powder from Alphitobius diaperinus; WF: wheat flour.
Table 3. Selected properties and color parameters (L*, a*, b*, ΔC*, and ΔH*) of CO (control flour; 100% wheat) and flour enriched with 10%, 20%, 30%; 50%, and 100% Alphitobius diaperinus powder.
Table 3. Selected properties and color parameters (L*, a*, b*, ΔC*, and ΔH*) of CO (control flour; 100% wheat) and flour enriched with 10%, 20%, 30%; 50%, and 100% Alphitobius diaperinus powder.
CO: ControlInsect Powder (%, w/w Flour Basis) AD: Alphitobius diaperinus
Wheat Flour 100%AD10%AD20%AD30%AD50%AD100%
Moisture12.09 ± 0.01 f11.33 ± 0.01 e10.89 ± 0.01 d10.13 ± 0.02 c7.60 ± 0.02 b4.14 ± 0.01 a
Ash [%]0.49 ± 0.01 a0.64 ± 0.10 a0.98 ± 0.10 a1.34 ± 0.04 b2.03 ± 0.03 c3.67 ± 0.01 e
CIE L*98.89 ± 1.32 d89.81 ± 0.96 c75.47 ± 2.95 b74.14 ± 0.58 b59.04 ± 0.65 a58.59 ± 1.29 a
CIE a*0.87 ± 0.05 a2.36 ± 0.12 b2.81 ± 0.49 bc3.07 ± 0.10 c3.72 ± 0.49 d6.12 ± 0.37 e
CIE b*8.45 ± 0.24 a14.19 ± 0.79 bc13.19 ± 0.68 b14.95 ± 0.62 cd16.15 ± 1.27 d25.57 ± 0.92 e
Chroma ∆C*8.50 ± 0.24 a14.38 ± 0.80 bc13.49 ± 0.69 b15.26 ± 0.62 cd16.58 ± 1.32 d26.30 ± 0.85 e
Hue ∆H* [°]84.13 ± 0.47 c80.56 ± 0.09 b78.39 ± 1.97 a77.98 ± 0.34 a77.04 ± 1.08 a76.52 ± 1.14 a
Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Table 4. Nutritional compositions and physical properties of control and Alphitobius-diaperinus-powder-enriched cookies.
Table 4. Nutritional compositions and physical properties of control and Alphitobius-diaperinus-powder-enriched cookies.
Control Insect Powder (%, w/w Flour Basis) AD: Alphitobius diaperinus
Sample Wheat Flour 100%AD10%AD20%AD30%AD50%
Protein [g/100 g]7.73 ± 0.11 a9.81 ± 0.14 b11.63± 0.03 c14.27 ± 0.02 d18.81 ± 0.09 e
Moisture [g/100 g]6.79 ± 0.16 e5.40 ± 0.08 c6.17 ± 0.02 d 5.06 ± 0.09 b 4.50 ± 0.09 a
Acidity [%]0.08 ± 0.00 a0.80 ± 0.02 b1.44 ± 0.02 c2.27 ± 0.20 d3.24 ± 0.03 e
Hardness [N]16.76 ± 0.65 d14.28 ± 1.05 c11.72 ± 0.87 b 11.06 ± 0.93 ab 8.56 ± 1.84 a
Color
CIE L*69.61 ± 0.49 d63.97 ± 2.89 c50.43 ± 1.10 b49.12 ± 1.59 b41.45 ± 1.23 a
CIE a*5.34 ± 0.40 a7.04 ± 0.90 b10.34 ± 0.93 c11.67 ± 0.61 cd12.90 ± 0.60 d
CIE b*27.99 ± 1.06 c26.83 ± 0.90 bc25.27 ± 0.70 b27.05 ± 1.28 bc22.98 ± 1.12 a
Chroma ∆C*28.50 ± 1.05 bc27.75 ± 0.76 abc27.31 ± 0.79 ab29.46 ± 1.38 c26.37 ± 0.87 a
Hue ∆H* [°]79.18 ± 0.86 d75.28 ± 2.13 c67.76 ± 1.82 b66.66 ± 0.61 b60.64 ± 2.02 a
Different lowercase letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the means (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05, and n = 5).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mierzejewska, S.; Domiszewski, Z.; Piepiórka-Stepuk, J.; Bielicka, A.; Szpicer, A.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I. Analysis of the Impact of the Addition of Alphitobius diaperinus Larval Powder on the Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensorial Properties of Shortbread Cookies. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084269

AMA Style

Mierzejewska S, Domiszewski Z, Piepiórka-Stepuk J, Bielicka A, Szpicer A, Wojtasik-Kalinowska I. Analysis of the Impact of the Addition of Alphitobius diaperinus Larval Powder on the Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensorial Properties of Shortbread Cookies. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(8):4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084269

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mierzejewska, Sylwia, Zdzisław Domiszewski, Joanna Piepiórka-Stepuk, Anna Bielicka, Arkadiusz Szpicer, and Iwona Wojtasik-Kalinowska. 2025. "Analysis of the Impact of the Addition of Alphitobius diaperinus Larval Powder on the Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensorial Properties of Shortbread Cookies" Applied Sciences 15, no. 8: 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084269

APA Style

Mierzejewska, S., Domiszewski, Z., Piepiórka-Stepuk, J., Bielicka, A., Szpicer, A., & Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I. (2025). Analysis of the Impact of the Addition of Alphitobius diaperinus Larval Powder on the Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensorial Properties of Shortbread Cookies. Applied Sciences, 15(8), 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084269

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop