4.7 Article

Effect of Moisture and Oil Content in the Supercritical CO2 Defatting of Hermetia illucens Larvae

Journal

FOODS
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12030490

Keywords

H; illucens; edible insects; oil; defatting; supercritical fluid extraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Supercritical defatting process was used to extract oil from H. illucens larvae, and the effect of moisture content on oil recovery and composition was analyzed. Results showed that moisture content had no negative impact on oil recovery efficiency, which was mainly determined by the initial oil content. The extracted oil was rich in saturated fatty acids, especially lauric acid, and contained minor lipids such as squalene and phytosterols.
The supercritical defatting of H. illucens was scaled up at 450 bar and 60 degrees C from a 270 cm(3) extraction cell to a vessel five times larger. Then, eight different H. illucens larvae batches, with variable content of oil (16.80-29.17% w/w) and moisture (4.45-15.95% w/w) were defatted. The effect of these parameters on yield and oil composition was analyzed. The presence of moisture in the larvae batch, in the range of the values studied, had no negative effect on the oil recovery efficiency, which was mainly determined by the initial content of oil in the larvae samples. Furthermore, no differences were determined in the fatty acid profile of the oils recovered, which were rich in saturated fatty acids, mainly lauric acid (ca. 50% w/w). Minor lipids, such as squalene and phytosterols, were determined in all the oil samples. The moisture content in the oils extracted was in the range of 0.118-1.706% w/w. Therefore, some samples exceeded the limits recommended for volatile matter in edible fats and oils (0.2%, including moisture). Yet, concerning the oil peroxide index, values were much lower than those corresponding to the oil extracted using hexane.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available