4.7 Article

Effects of High Hydrostatic Pressure assisted degreasing on the technological properties of insect powders obtained from Acheta domesticus & Tenebrio molitor

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
卷 292, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2020.110359

关键词

Yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor); House cricket (Acheta domesticus); Powder; High hydrostatic Pressure (HHP); Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) relaxometry

资金

  1. Middle East Technical University Research Fund Project [YLT-314-2018-3581]
  2. EURELAX COST Action [CA 15209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on defatting two edible insect species using High Hydrostatic Pressure (HHP) extraction at different temperatures and analyzed the impact on the functional properties of the insect powders. The results showed that temperature increase led to a decrease in protein solubility, but HHP was found to be effective for defatting and improving the functional properties of the powders for potential use as food additives.
In this study, two edible insect species; Acheta domesticus (house cricket) and Tenebrio molitor (yellow mealworm) were defatted using different extraction methods and characterized afterwards. The main goal of the study was to see the effect of High Hydrostatic Pressure (HHP) extraction at different temperatures on the functional properties of the insect powders. Protein content, solubility, water and oil binding capacity; total phenolic content and antioxidant activity were all effected from the extraction method. Results showed that, temperature increase from 30 to 40 degrees C caused a decrease in the protein solubility of both powders. NMR relaxometry was used to interpret the gelation behavior and FTIR spectroscopy showed absorbance peaks mainly in amide I, amide II and amide III regions for both species. Results confirmed that HHP can be used for defatting purposes and could improve the functional properties of the powders to be used as a food additive in formulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据