Effects of Edible Insect Powders as Meat Partial Substitute on Physicochemical Properties and Storage Stability of Pork Patties

Nayoung Choi1, Sanghun Park1, Yunhwan Park1, Gyutae Park1, Sehyuk Oh1, Yun-a Kim1, Youngho Lim1, Soyoung Jang1, Youngjin Kim1, Ki-Su Ahn2, Xi Feng3, Jungseok Choi1,*
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
2Chungcheongbuk-do Research and Extension Services, Cheongju 28130, Korea
3Department of Nutrition, Food Science, and Packaging, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192, United States
*Corresponding author : Jungseok Choi, Department of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea, Tel: +82-43-261-2551, Fax: +82-43-273-2240, E-mail:

© Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Nov 09, 2023 ; Revised: Feb 11, 2024 ; Accepted: Feb 13, 2024

Published Online: Jul 01, 2024


In this study, physicochemical and antioxidant properties, and storage stability (1, 3, and 7 days) of pork patties added with edible insect powders (EIP) of four species (Larvae of Tenenbrio molitor, Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis, Allomyrina dichotoma, and Gryllus bimaculatus) as meat partial substitutes were investigated. Twenty percent of each EIP was added to pork patties, and four treatments were prepared. On the other hand, two control groups were set, one with 0.1 g of ascorbic acid and the other without anything. Adding EIP decreased water content but increased protein, fat, carbohydrate, and ash contents. In addition, the use of EIP increased the water holding capacity and texture properties as well as decreased the cooking loss. However, the sensory evaluation and storage stability were negatively affected by the addition of EIP. The 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity had a positive effect on storage stability. It is believed that the addition of EIP resulted in high antioxidants due to the presence of polyphenol compounds in EIP. These results indicate that EIP has great potential to be used as meat partial substitute to improve the quality improvement and antioxidant in pork patties. However, in order to improve storage stability and consumer preference, further research is needed to apply it to patties by reducing the amount of EIP or adding auxiliary ingredients.

Keywords: edible insects; partial substitute; phenolic compounds; cooking loss; antioxidant


As the world population grows, meat consumption per capita also increases (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; van Huis et al., 2013). Meat is an important protein source in the human diet because it contains adequate and balanced amino acid composition (van der Weele et al., 2019; Wu, 2022). However, it is challenging to meet the demand for meat (animal protein) due to climate change and the reduction of agricultural land (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2016; Premalatha et al., 2011; van Huis and Tomberlin, 2017). Therefore, there is a need to use an alternative protein source that can replace meat to meet the growing demand for proteins.

Protein is an essential macronutrient that must be obtained from animals (meat, dairy, etc.) and vegetables (legumes, etc.). Adequate intake of protein is necessary for health (WHO, 2007; Wu et al., 2014). Edible insects are often proposed as a substitute for animal proteins because they are known to be high in protein, more than 50% (Beets, 1997; Bukkens, 1997). Edible insects provide protein and energy and are high in monounsaturated fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids. They are also rich in micronutrients, such as copper (Cu) and iron (Fe; Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013). They produce less greenhouse and ammonia gas as well as with efficient land use, and productive yield (Klunder et al., 2012; Oonincx et al., 2010). As a result, edible insects show great potential to be used as an environmentally friendly future food resource (Akhtar and Isman, 2018).

It has been reported that 10 species of insects are consumed in Korea and more than 1,900 species of insects are consumed worldwide (Lange and Nakamura, 2021). The representative insects that are eaten in Korea include Tenenbrio molitor L., Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L., Gryllus bimaculatus and Allomyrin dichotoma L. T. molitor L. is a type of Carabidae that is cultivated all over the world. It is mainly used as an animal feed or protein supplement because it is rich in protein and essential fatty acids (Kim et al., 2021; van Broekhoven et al., 2015). P. brevitarsis seulensis L. is a phytophagous insect belonging to Cetoniinae and has traditionally been used to treat inflammation, breast cancer, and liver disease. Its larvae have been proven to have various physiological effects such as antioxidant and antibacterial effects (Choi et al., 2019; Song et al., 2017; Suh and Kang, 2012; Yoon et al., 2003). G. bimaculatus belongs to Orthoptera and has the highest protein content and unsaturated fatty acid (UFA) content (Churchward-Venne et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2004). A. dichotoma L. belongs to Scarabaeidae and has anti-tumor, anti-hepatic fibrosis, and antibacterial effects (Miyanoshita et al., 1996; Sagisaka et al., 2001; Yoshikawa et al., 1999).

This study aimed to determine the physicochemical and antioxidant properties and storage stability of pork patties added with edible insect powder (EIP) of four species. The results of this study can pave a fundament for the future development of meat products with EIPs as protein substitutes.

Materials and Methods

Materials used in the research

Freeze-dried edible insects of four species (T. molitor L., P. brevitarsis seulensis L., G. bimaculatus, A. dichotoma L.) were provided by Chungcheongbukdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services. Edible insects were ground for 1 min using a mixer (Hanilelec, Cheongju, Korea) to prepare T. molitor L. powder (TMP), P. brevitarsis seulensis L. powder (PBP), G. bimaculatus powder (GBP), and A. dichotoma L. powder (ADP). The EIPs that were ground were stored frozen at –50°C until use. Minced pork (Manpyeong Livestock Products, Cheongju, Korea), ice, salt (Beksul, Haenam, Korea), pepper (Ottogi, Anyang, Korea), sodium tripolyphosphate (Samchun Chemical, Peongtak, Korea), and ascorbic acid (ES Food, Gunpo, Korea) was used to manufacture pork patties.

Phenolic analysis of edible insect powder by high-performance liquid chromatography

One mL of 95% methanol and 10 g of EIP were mixed. After stirring for 3 h in a constant temperature water bath at 37°C, the extraction was filtered using Whatman No. 2 filter paper (Advantec®, Tokyo, Japan). Three replications were carried out.

Reversed-phase (RP) high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis was performed using a 4.6×250 mm RP spherisorb ODS2 column based on the method of Dimitrova et al. (2007) with minor modifications. Chromatographic analysis was performed using a Young Lin HPLC. The 20 mM potassium dihydrogen phosphate buffer (pH 2.92) was used as mobile phase A and methanol was used as mobile phase B. Elution was started with 3% methanol and allowed to reach 100% methanol in 65 min. The flow rate was at 1.0 mL/min. Phenol content was monitored at 220 nm and 280 nm. A total of seven phenolic acids (gallic acid, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, phenylacetic acid, and benzoic acid) were determined with authentic standards.

Manufacturing of pork patties

Pork patties were prepared by mixing pork meat with EIPs at the ratio as shown in Table 1. Six types of pork patties were prepared with the addition of EIPs (T20, P20, G20, A20; respectively 20%), positive control (PC, 0.1% ascorbic acid), or negative control (NC, without any addition). Equal amounts of ice, salt, pepper, and sodium tripolyphosphate were added to all treatments. Finished patties were divided into 100 g each and molded with a molding machine (diameter of 10 cm, thickness of 1 mm). Manufactured patties were aged for 24 h in refrigeration at 4°C. Samples were wrapped and stored at 4°C for 7 days and evaluated on days 1, 3, and 7.

Table 1. Formulation of pork patties
Ingredients [% (w/w)] Treatment
PC NC T20 P20 G20 A20
Pork meat 90 90 70 70 70 70
Ice 10 10 10 10 10 10
Edible insect powder TMP - - 20 - - -
PBP - - - 20 - -
GBP - - - - 20 -
ADP - - - - - 20
Total 100
Ascorbic acid 0.1 - - - - -
Additive1) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1) Salt, 1.2%; pepper, 0.1%; sodium tripolyphosphate, 0.2%.

PC, positive control; NC, negative control; TMP, Tenebrio molitor L. powder; PBP, Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; GBP, Gryllus bimaculatus powder; ADP, Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.

Download Excel Table
Proximate composition

Proximate composition was measured following AOAC (1990) methods. Water content was determined with a conventional oven at 105°C. Protein content was quantified with Kjeldahl method. Fat content was examined with Folch extraction method. Ash content was determined with a Muffle oven. The carbohydrate content was determined by subtracting the sum of moisture content, protein content, fat content, and ash content from the total sum of 100%.

pH measurements

Sample (5 g) was mixed with 50 mL of distilled water and homogenized with a stomacher (Stomacher® 400 Circulator, BioMed, London, UK) at 200 rpm for 30 s. Then, the pH of the mixture was determined with a pH meter (Orion STAR A211, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Water holding capacity

Water holding capacity (WHC) of sample was determined with a centrifugation method. After weighing 0.5 g of sample and placing the sample in an upper filter tube of a centrifuge tube (Union 55R, Hanil Science, Daejeon, Korea), the filter tube and sample were subjected to heating in a water bath at 80°C for 20 min. Following heating, the mixture was cooling at room temperature for 10 min. The filter tube was then placed at the bottom of the centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 447×g for 10 min. The upper filter tube was removed and weighed. The WHC value was calculated using the following formula:

[ ( Total water  Free water ) / Total water ] × 100 .
Cooking loss

After vacuum packaging, the sample was placed in a 70°C water bath and heated for 40 min. Water on the surface of the heated sample was wiped off, and the weight of sample was measured. The weight difference before and after heating was used to calculate the cooking loss (CL) with the following formula:

CL ( % ) = [ ( Initial weight ( g ) Final weight ( g ) / Initial weight ( g ) ) ] × 100 .

The center portion of the surface of the uncooked patties was measured. Color parameters of CIE L*, CIE a*, and CIE b*-value were measured with a spectrocolorimeter (CM-26d, Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) in the standards set of Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE). The average of measured values was obtained and recorded.

Texture profile analysis

To evaluate texture profile analysis (TPA), a rheometer (Model Compac-100, Sun Scientific, Dobbs Ferry, NY, USA) equipped with a probe (No. 3, ϕ20 mm) of area 3.14 cm2 was used. The sample size was 1 cm3 and two compression cycles were used to obtain the force versus time curve. The table speed was 60 mm/min, the crosshead speed was 200 mm/min, and the load cell was 2 kg (max. 4 kg). TPA is expressed as hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness, and gumminess.

Sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation was performed with ten trained panelists (male and female, age range 20–29) in the Department of Animal Science at Chungbuk National University. Color, flavor, juiciness, umami, hardness, texture, and overall preference were measured. Sensory scores were assessed on a 5-point scale (1=extremely bad or undesirable, and very weak, and 5=extremely good or desirable, and very strong). The approved consent procedure for sensory evaluation is Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chungbuk National University (No. CBNU-202302-HR-0017).

Total microbial count

A stomacher bag containing 5 g of the sample was combined with 45 mL of a 0.1% peptone solution. The mixture was homogenized in a stomacher (Stomacher® 400 Circulator, BioMed) at 200 rpm for 30 s. After serially diluting the homogeneous sample, it was inoculated into a plate count agar medium (Microgiene, Suwon, Korea) and incubated at 37°C for 48 h. The number of microorganisms was determined using a colony counter. It is expressed as Log CFU/g.

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance

Sample (10 g) was combined with cold 10% perchloric acid 15 mL and tertiary distilled water 25 mL using a homogenizer (AM-7, Nissei, Izumichom, Tokyo). After homogenization at 10,000 rpm for 15 s, the homogenate was filtered using Whatman No. 2 filter paper (Advantech, Tokyo, Japan). Subsequently, 5 mL of 0.02 M thiobarbituric acid solution was mixed with 5 mL of the filtrate (5 mL of tertiary distilled water for blank). The mixture was then kept in a cool, dark location for 16 h. Absorbance at 529 nm was then measured using a spectrophotometer (DU-650, Beckman, Brea, CA, USA). Absorbance was converted to malonaldehyde content using a standard curve. The resulting thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) level was expressed as mg malonaldehyde per 1,000 g of the sample (mg MDA/kg).

Peroxide value

One gram of minced sample added into an Erlenmeyer flask. Then, 10 mL of chloroform was added to dissolve the sample and mixed with 15 mL of CH3COOH. To prepare a saturated KI solution, 99% potassium iodide was dissolved in tertiary distilled water at a ratio of 7:3. 1 mL of saturated KI solution was added into the Erlenmeyer flask, the sample was then homogenized for 1 min and kept in the dark for 10 min. After 10 min, 30 mL of distilled water was added, and the mixture was homogenized again. Then, 1 mL of 1% starch solution was added and the solution was titrated with 0.01 N Na2S2O3 solution until the indicator color was disappeared. A blank sample (distilled water) was conducted with the same procedure.

2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity

Sample (5 g) was homogenized with methanol (45 mL) with a homogenizer (AM-7, Nissei), followed by filtration with a Whatman No. 2 filter paper (Advantech). Blank sample was prepared with 5 mL methanol. Reference was prepared with 1 mL of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity and 4 mL methanol. The testing sample was prepared with 2 mL filtrate, 1 mL of DPPH radical scavenging activity, and 2 mL methanol. After wrapping with an aluminum foil, blank sample, reference, and test samples were kept in a dark room for 20 to 30 min. Then, 250 μL was added to a 96-well plate and measured the absorbance at 517 nm using a microplate reader (DU-650, Beckman). The DPPH radical scavenging activity value was calculated using the following formula:

DPPH radical scavenging activity ( % ) = [ 1 ( sample average absorbance / reference absorbance ) ] × 100.
Statistical analysis

All experiments were repeated three times. Statistical analysis was conducted by one-way analysis of variance using the generalized linear model of SAS program (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA, 1999). Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to evaluate the significant differences among treatments (p<0.05).

Results and Discussion

Proximate composition, pH, and phenolic compounds in edible insect powder

Phenolic acids, including gallic acid, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, phenylacetic acid, and benzoic acid, were analyzed and identified (Table 2). Phenolic compounds comprise one or more aromatic rings with hydroxyl groups (Balasundram et al., 2006). They exhibit antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral effects (Benavente-García et al., 1997). TMP consisted of gallic acid (1.17 μg/L) and p-coumaric acid (18.17 μg/L). PBP included vanillic acid (33.18 μg/L), caffeic acid (10.88 μg/L), syringic acid (17.27 μg/L), phenylacetic acid (17.51 μg/L), and benzoic acid (0.82 μg/L). GBP contained gallic acid (18.17 μg/L) and benzoic acid (0.79 μg/L). ADP had gallic acid (4.46 μg/L), caffeic acid (3.52 μg/L), syringic acid (3.83 μg/L), and phenylacetic acid (5.27 μg/L). It has been proved that the antioxidant capacity of edible insects is mainly provided by phenolic compounds. Aiello et al. (2023) reported that edible insects’ phenolic compounds can exert antioxidant biological activity with potential as bioactive sources. The phenolic chemicals from edible insects could improve food quality and provide antioxidant activity (Torres-Castillo and Olazarán-Santibáñez, 2023). Therefore, phenolic compounds of the four EIPs predicted the potential to be used as natural antioxidants in food.

Table 2. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of phenolic compounds of edible insect powder
Phenolic acids (μg/L) Treatments
Gallic acid 1.17±0.00 ND 18.17±0.00 4.46±0.15
Vanillic acid ND 33.18±0.00 ND ND
Caffeic acid ND 10.88±0.00 ND 3.52±0.00
Syringic acid ND 17.27±0.00 ND 3.83±0.18
p-Coumaric acid 6.24±0.05 ND ND ND
Phenylacetic acid ND 17.51±0.00 ND 5.27±0.01
Benzoic acid ND 0.82±0.00 0.79±0.00 ND

TMP, Tenebrio molitor L. powder; PBP, Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; GBP, Gryllus bimaculatus powder; ADP, Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder; ND, not detected.

Download Excel Table
Proximate composition

Fig. 1 displayed that proximate composition of pork patties added with EIPs. Moisture contents were significantly lower in treatments with EIP (p<0.05). Protein contents were higher in groups added with T20, P20, and G20 compared to PC and NC (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the treatment with A20 than PC and NC (p<0.05). As shown in Table 3, the protein contents of TMP (50.65%), PBP (60.35%), GBP (60.38%), and ADP (32.75%) influence the protein contents of patties. Kim et al. (2016) reported that emulsion sausages added with insects have lower moisture content but higher protein content. Carbohydrate content was significantly higher in the group added with A20 than those of PC and NC (p<0.05). This might be due to chitin, a dietary fiber, found in the exoskeleton of insects (Kipkoech, 2023; Montowska et al., 2019). Fat content and ash content were significantly higher in treatments added with EIP than those of PC and NC (p<0.05). Edible insects possess a wealth of UFAs and essential minerals, including copper, iron, magnesium, selenium, and zinc (Lu et al., 2024; Zielińska et al., 2015). These components could influence fat and ash contents in pork patties.

Table 3. Proximate composition and pH of edible insect powder itself
Traits Treatments
Protein (%) 50.65±0.47b 60.35±0.51a 60.38±0.18a 32.75±0.34c
Carbohydrate (%) 36.16±0.73b 36.01±0.49b 31.47±0.31c 64.17±0.36a
Fat (%) 11.92±0.43a 2.16±0.19c 7.24±0.16b 2.63±0.08c
Ash (%) 1.27±0.34ab 1.47±0.16a 0.91±0.06b 0.45±0.06c
pH 6.59±0.01d 7.47±0.00a 6.84±0.02c 7.19±0.00b

a–d Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

TMP, Tenebrio molitor L. powder; PBP, Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; GBP, Gryllus bimaculatus powder; ADP, Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.

Download Excel Table
Fig. 1. Proximate composition of pork patties formulated with various edible insect powders. (A) Moisture, (B) protein, (C) carbohydrate, (D) fat, and (E) ash content. a–d Means with different letters on bars indicate significant differences at p<0.05. PC, positive control; NC, negative control; T20, 20% Tenebrio molitor L. powder; P20, 20% Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; G20, 20% Gryllus bimaculatus powder; A20, 20% Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.
Download Original Figure
pH, water holding capacity, cooking loss, and color

The results of pH, WHC, CL, and patty color with added EIP are presented in Table 4. Additionally, Fig. 2 displays the color (visual appearance) of the patties in photographs after the cooking process. It was found that pH values were significantly higher in treatments added with EIP than those of PC and NC (p<0.05). TMP, PBP, GBP, and ADP had pH values of 6.59, 7.47, 6.84, and 7.19, respectively (Table 3). The pH of EIP might be affected by the pH of the patties. The isoelectric point of meat is 5.2–5.4. A pH higher than the isoelectric point of meat products can increase WHC and lower CL (Honikel, 2008). WHC indicates the ability of meat to retain water. It is an important criterion for evaluating meat quality (Honikel, 2004; Szmańko et al, 2021). Treatments added with EIP showed significantly (p<0.05) higher WHC values than those of PC and NC. When insect protein was added to phosphate-free meat emulsion increased the WHC (Kim et al., 2022). Also, CL was significantly lower in treatments added with EIP than those of PC and NC (all p<0.05). This result is attributed to decreased moisture and increased solid contents of meat emulsion formulation that contains insect powders (Kim et al., 2016). Bessa et al. (2023) have been reported that CL was decreased when Hermetia illucens L. was added as a meat substitute to burger patties.

Table 4. pH, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss (CL), color, texture profile analysis (TPA), and sensory evaluation of pork patties formulated with various levels of edible insect powder
Traits Treatments
PC NC T20 P20 G20 A20
pH 5.91±0.03f 5.98±0.01e 6.35±0.01c 6.70±0.01a 6.27±0.01d 6.51±0.01b
WHC (%) 60.14±2.24bc 55.31±1.20c 71.11±8.37ab 68.15±4.46ab 71.92±13.22ab 78.06±2.21a
CL (%) 19.81±0.35a 20.91±0.62a 8.29±0.44c 8.24±0.42c 12.58±2.19b 10.00±0.75c
(Uncooked) color
 CIE L* 53.61±0.98a 53.85±0.58a 46.11±0.28b 36.20±0.40e 41.88±0.93d 44.84±0.47c
 CIE a* 5.54±0.39b 5.25±0.97b 8.23±0.20a 5.75±0.31b 5.77±0.04b 2.39±0.08c
 CIE b* 13.57±1.02a 13.56±0.92a 14.11±0.33a 9.44±0.17c 11.35±0.02b 4.70±0.78d
 Hardness (kg) 1.74±0.31b 2.22±0.21b 2.16±0.47b 2.21±0.26b 4.22±0.70a 2.00±0.10b
 Springiness (%) 75.52±0.58a 66.29±8.08a 63.07±3.01ab 54.15±5.49bc 73.67±2.90a 51.71±0.89c
 Cohesiveness (%) 71.31±0.62a 59.39±8.91a 41.58±7.20b 30.62±5.93b 60.54±4.38a 36.96±5.35b
 Chewiness (kg) 0.84±0.70bc 1.32±0.26b 0.91±0.35bc 0.68±0.18c 2.54±0.34a 0.74±0.14bc
 Gumminess (kg) 123.98±21.12bc 132.15±26.25b 91.31±35.21bc 68.15±17.96c 254.08±34.07a 74.18±14.35bc
Sensory evaluation
 Color 4.30±0.67a 4.20±0.63a 2.50±0.53b 1.30±0.48c 1.60±0.52c 1.20±0.42c
 Flavor 4.00±0.47a 3.90±0.32a 2.50±0.85b 1.50±0.53c 2.40±0.84b 1.40±0.84c
 Juiciness 3.30±0.67a 3.60±0.52a 2.30±0.48b 1.90±0.57bc 1.60±0.70cd 1.20±0.42d
 Umami 3.90±0.57a 3.85±0.75a 2.80±0.92b 1.60±0.52c 1.90±0.74c 1.40±0.70c
 Texture 3.30±0.48 3.30±0.48 3.90±0.57 3.50±1.35 3.70±1.16 3.20±1.23
 Overall preference 4.30±0.67a 4.20±0.92a 2.60±0.97b 1.40±0.52cd 2.00±0.67bc 1.10±0.32d

All values are means±SD of three replicates.

Sensory scores were assessed on a 5-point scale base on 1=extremely bad or undesirable, and very weak, and 5=extremely good or desirable, and very strong.

a–f Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

PC, positive control; NC, negative control; T20, 20% Tenebrio molitor L. powder; P20, 20% Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; G20, 20% Gryllus bimaculatus powder; A20, 20% Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.

Download Excel Table
Fig. 2. Visual appearance of pork patties after cooking with various edible insect powders. PC, positive control; NC, negative control; T20, 20% Tenebrio molitor L. powder; P20, 20% Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; G20, 20% Gryllus bimaculatus powder; A20, 20% Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.
Download Original Figure

Compared to PC and NC, all treatments with EIP added showed lower CIE L*-value (p<0.05). CIE a*-value was the highest in the group with T20 and it was the lowest in treatment with A20 compared to PC and NC (p<0.05). CIE b*-value was significantly lower in the groups added with P20, G20, and A20, and higher added with T20 (p<0.05). Similarly, Choi et al. (2017) reported that the addition of yellow worms (T. molitor L.) to Frankfurt could reduce CIE L*-value but increase CIE a* and CIE b*-value. Lemke et al. (2023) reported that the addition of 20% insects to sausage products reduced in CIE L*-value compared to 10%. Cruz-López et al. (2022) reported that the CIE L*-value of sausage decreases when insect powder. Edible insects have different melanin contents (Wittkopp and Beldade, 2009). It could contribute color differences in the pork patties.

Texture profile analysis

The TPA values of patties made with various EIPs are shown in Table 4. The treatment with G20 had the highest hardness compared to PC and NC (p<0.05). This might be due to a decrease in water content when EIP was added. Kim et al. (2017) reported that hardness increased when meat was replaced with cricket powder, which was similar to this study. Springiness was significantly higher in the group of PC, NC, and G20 (p<0.05). Ho et al. (2022) reported that an increase in springiness was observed in the sausage partially substituted with cricket powder. Cohesiveness was significantly highest in G20 among the EIP-added treatments (p<0.05) and showed no significant difference from PC and NC. Chewiness and Gumminess were also significantly the highest in the group with G20 added compared to other treatments (p<0.05). Damasceno et al. (2023) found that albumin that can also affect the texture properties of meat is the most highly distributed protein in G.bimaculatus powder. The addition of albumin to meat batter can cause a change in hardness (Pietrasik, 2003). Carballo et al. (1995) reported that the addition of albumin-rich egg white to Bologna sausage increased its hardness and chewiness. Thus, the albumin component of G. bimaculatus could influence the tissue characteristics of pork patties. Our findings indicate that adding EIP as a meat partial substitute can improve the WHC and TPA of patties and reduce CL. Therefore, using EIP could be beneficial in enhancing the quality and texture properties of pork patties.

Sensory evaluation

Table 4 displays the sensory evaluation results of patties added with EIPs. Color, flavor, juiciness, and umami were lower in all treatments added with EIP than in those of PC and NC (p<0.05). The meat juice showed a trend opposite to the WHC results, this might be due to the high-fat content of edible insects with more fat released than those of PC and NC during cooking. Pinter et al. (2021) reported that more fat was released when cooking hamburger patties added with insects. Overall preference was lower for treatments added with EIP than those of PC and NC (p<0.05), which meant that the addition of EIPs to patties decreased acceptability. Megido et al. (2016) reported that beef burger patties added with mealworms had a lower preference than pure beef patties. Also, Cruz-López et al. (2022) stated that pork sausage with locust (Sphenarium purpurascens) powder had low preference. According to the results of this study, adding EIP to patties can lower preference, but it is believed that this can be solved by manufacturing by reducing the amount of EIP or adding auxiliary ingredients.

Total microbial count, lipid oxidation (thiobarbituric acid reactive substance, peroxide value)

Total microbial count (TMC) increased with the storage time (p<0.05; Table 5). Yong et al. (2023) reported that the number of microorganisms in Tteokgalbi added with edible insect extract increased with the storage time. All treatments added with EIPs had significantly higher TMC than PC and NC (p<0.05). By adding EIP, not only protein but also other nutrients increased (Fig. 1). It is thought that the number of microorganisms has increased because this nutrient-rich environment serves as a growth medium for various microorganisms (Anas et al., 2019; Elsharawy et al., 2018). Among treatments added with EIP, the treatment added with G20 had the lowest TMC (p<0.05). Malm and Liceaga (2021) found that the chitosan in the cricket had antibacterial effects. Thus, the reason why treatment with G20 had lower TMC value than other EIP-added treatments might be due to high antibacterial activity of crickets.

Table 5. Results of storage stability (TMC, TBARS, PV, DPPH) of pork patties formulated with various levels of edible insect powder
Traits Treatments Storage (days)
1 3 7
TMC (Log CFU/g) PC 3.33±0.46Bd 4.15±0.21Ad 5.81±0.02Ae
NC 3.88±0.04Cc 4.90±0.07Bc 5.81±0.11Ae
T20 6.15±0.01Ba 6.18±0.02Ba 6.80±0.02Ab
P20 6.27±0.01Ca 6.38±0.01Ba 6.95±0.00Aa
G20 3.63±0.21Ccd 4.85±0.00Bc 6.36±0.01Ad
A20 5.12±0.05Bb 5.22±0.06Bb 6.51±0.02Ac
TBARS (mg MDA/kg) PC 0.05±0.01Bd 0.06±0.01ABe 0.09±0.02Ac
NC 0.04±0.01Bd 0.08±0.01Ad 0.10±0.01Ac
T20 0.18±0.01Bc 0.19±0.01Bc 0.29±0.01Ab
P20 0.23±0.00b 0.25±0.02b 0.26±0.03b
G20 0.19±0.04Bc 0.25±0.01Bb 0.43±0.06Aa
A20 0.33±0.02Ba 0.39±0.01Ba 0.48±0.07Aa
PV (meq/kg) PC 14.92±0.06Ba 16.62±0.00Ac 14.26±0.05Cb
NC 13.66±0.02Cb 33.84±0.08Aa 31.52±0.13Ba
T20 2.64±0.00Bd 7.62±0.00Af 2.32±0.01Ce
P20 0.66±0.00Ce 18.28±0.02Ab 14.26±0.07Bb
G20 3.99±0.01Cc 13.64±0.04Ad 5.63±0.01Bc
A20 0.66±0.00Ce 8.28±0.02Ae 2.99±0.01Bd
DPPH (%) PC 86.45±0.94Abc 86.42±0.88Aa 85.23±1.31Aa
NC 63.96±4.07Ad 46.34±1.41Bd 42.60±1.72Bd
T20 83.20±1.02Ac 82.23±1.12Ac 74.39±1.77Bc
P20 88.29±4.70Ab 82.11±1.22Bc 80.62±1.64Bb
G20 95.40±0.73Aa 85.23±1.64Bab 83.20±1.02Bab
A20 94.58±0.93Aa 83.88±0.85Bbc 83.33±1.08Bab

A–C Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

a–f Means in a column with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

TMC, total microbial count; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; PV, peroxide value; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; PC, positive control; NC, negative control; T20, 20% Tenebrio molitor L. powder; P20, 20% Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis L. powder; G20, 20% Gryllus bimaculatus powder; A20, 20% Allomyrina dichotoma L. powder.

Download Excel Table

Since lipid oxidation causes a decrease in the quality of meat and meat products, peroxide value (PV) and TBARS were used as indicators of lipid oxidation to confirm this in this study (Love and Pearson, 1971; Turgut et al., 2017). PV measures the primary product of lipid oxidation (hydrogen peroxide) while TBARS measures the end product of lipid oxidation (Gan et al., 2022; Hadidi et al., 2022; Juntachote et al., 2007; Simic and Taylor, 1987). PV showed increasing until the 3rd day and then decreased, and TBARS increased values in all treatments as the storage period increased (p<0.05; Table 5). This is because hydroperoxides decompose into secondary products (Gunstone and Norris, 1983). All treatments added with EIP showed lower PV values but higher TBARS values than those of PC and NC (p<0.05). Han et al. (2023) reported that the TBARS value of hybrid sausage added with cricket flour increased. Also, it has been reported that adding silkworm pupae flours to emulsion sausage increases the TBARS value (Kim et al., 2016). It is believed to be due to the high fat content of EIP.

2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity

Table 5 showed DPPH radical scavenging activity of pork patties with EIPs. The treatments added with EIP showed higher antioxidant activities than those of NC (p<0.05). Yong et al. (2023) reported that Tteokgalbi with edible insect extract had high DPPH radical scavenging activity, but it decreased as the storage period increased. It also reported that the antioxidant activities of Dactylopius opuntiae extract were confirmed when applied to beef patties (Aragon-Martinez et al., 2023). When compared with the PC, the treatment with G20 showed a similar DPPH radical scavenging activity value. This is because GBP had a higher gallic acid content than other EIPs (Table 2). This is similar to the report that cricket (G. bimaculatus) has phenolic compounds, showing excellent antioxidant activity (Baigts-Allende et al., 2021; Kurdi et al., 2021). Di Mattia et al. (2019) reported that water-soluble extracts of crickets showed the highest antioxidant capacities and other insect extracts also showed high antioxidant capacities. From these results, we can assume that when EIP is added to patties, the antioxidant capacity from EIP could be beneficial to pork patties.


This study investigated the effect of adding EIP as meat partial substitute on the physicochemical properties and storage stability of pork patties. With the addition of EIP, the moisture content of the patties decreased while the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and ash contents increased. Additionally, pH and WHC increased, and CL decreased. TPA showed that hardness, chewiness, and gumminess were higher compared to PC and NC, but overall preference decreased. As a result of storage stability with the addition of EIP, TMC, and TBARS were higher compared to PC and NC, while PV was low values. According to the addition of EIP, DPPH radical scavenging activity was higher than NC, and among patties with EIP added, G20 was similar to or higher than PC. Therefore, the addition of EIP as a meat partial substitute showed a positive effect on the physicochemical properties and antioxidant activities of pork patties. Among the 4 species of EIP, G20 was the most promising insect powder to improve the quality of patties and enhance their antioxidant activities. These findings indicated that EIP can serve as meat partial substitute. However, in order to improve storage stability and preference, further research is needed to apply it to patties by reducing the amount of EIP or adding auxiliary ingredients.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.


This work was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through the High Value-added Food Technology Development Project, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (Project No. 321028-5). This research was supported by “Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS)” through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE) (2021RIS-001).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Choi N. Data curation: Choi N, Park Y. Formal analysis: Choi N, Park S, Oh S, Kim Y, Lim Y. Validation: Park G, Feng X, Choi J. Investigation: Choi N, Jang S, Kim Y, Ahn KS. Writing - original draft: Choi N. Writing - review & editing: Choi N, Park S, Park Y, Park G, Oh S, Kim Y, Lim Y, Jang S, Kim Y, Ahn KS, Feng X, Choi J.

Ethics Approval

The approved consent procedure for sensory evaluation is Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chungbuk National University (No. CBNU-202302-HR-0017).



Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. 2016; Reducing the global environmental impact of livestock production: The minilivestock option. J Clean Prod. 112:1754-1766


Aiello D, Barbera M, Bongiorno D, Cammarata M, Censi V, Indelicato S, Mazzotti F, Napoli A, Piazzese D, Saiano F. 2023; Edible insects an alternative nutritional source of bioactive compounds: A review. Molecules. 28:699


Akhtar Y, Isman MB. 2018; Insects as an alternative protein source. In Proteins in food processing. 2nd ed In: Yada RY, editor.(ed)Woodhead. Sawston, UK: pp p. 263-288


Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. 2012; World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy: p p. 71.


Anas M, Ahmad S, Malik A. 2019; Microbial escalation in meat and meat products and its consequences. Springer. Cham, Switzerland: pp p. 29-49


AOAC. 1990; Official methods of analysis. 15th edAssociation of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, USA: pp p. 777-788.


Aragon-Martinez OH, Martinez-Morales F, González-Chávez MM, Méndez-Gallegos SJ, González-Chávez R, Posadas-Hurtado JC, Isiordia-Espinoza MA. 2023; Dactylopius opuntiae [Cockerell] could be a source of antioxidants for the preservation of beef patties. Insects. 14:811


Baigts-Allende D, Sedaghat Doost A, Ramírez-Rodrigues M, Dewettinck K, Van der Meeren P, de Meulenaer B, Tzompa-Sosa D. 2021; Insect protein concentrates from Mexican edible insects: Structural and functional characterization. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 152:112267


Balasundram N, Sundram K, Samman S. 2006; Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial by-products: Antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chem. 99:191-203


Beets WC. 1997; The need for an increased use of small and mini‐livestock in integrated smallholder farming systems. Ecol Food Nutr. 36:237-245


Benavente-García O, Castillo J, Marin FR, Ortuño A, Del Río JA. 1997; Uses and properties of citrus flavonoids. J Agric Food Chem. 45:4505-4515


Bessa LW, Pieterse E, Marais J, Hoffman LC. 2023; Black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) as a meat replacer in a burger patty. J Insects Food Feed. 9:1211-1222


Bukkens SGF. 1997; The nutritional value of edible insects. Ecol Food Nutr. 36:287-319


Carballo J, Barreto G, Colmenero FJ. 1995; Starch and egg white influence on properties of bologna sausage as related to fat content. J Food Sci. 60:673-677


Choi MH, Kim KH, Yook HS. 2019; Antioxidant activity and quality evaluation of the larvae of Protaetia brevitarsis after feeding with Korean Panax ginseng. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 48:403-409


Choi YS, Kim TK, Choi HD, Park JD, Sung JM, Jeon KH, Paik HD, Kim YB. 2017; Optimization of replacing pork meat with yellow worm (Tenebrio molitor L.) for frankfurters. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 37:617-625


Churchward-Venne TA, Pinckaers PJM, van Loon JJA, van Loon LJC. 2017; Consideration of insects as a source of dietary protein for human consumption. Nutr Rev. 75:1035-1045


Cruz-López SO, Álvarez-Cisneros YM, Domínguez-Soberanes J, Escalona-Buendía HB, Sánchez CN. 2022; Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of sausages made with grasshopper (Sphenarium purpurascens) flour. Foods. 11:704


Damasceno BC, Nakajima M, Taarji N, Kobayashi I, Ichikawa S, Neves MA. 2023; Improvements in visual aspects and chemical, techno-functional and rheological characteristics of cricket powder (Gryllus bimaculatus) by solvent treatment for food utilization. Foods. 12:1422


Di Mattia C, Battista N, Sacchetti G, Serafini M. 2019; Antioxidant activities in vitro of water and liposoluble extracts obtained by different species of edible insects and invertebrates. Front Nutr. 6:106


Dimitrova B, Gevrenova R, Anklam E. 2007; Analysis of phenolic acids in honeys of different floral origin by solid-pase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography. Phytochem Anal. 18:24-32


Elsharawy NT, Ahmad AM, Abdelrahman HA. 2018; Quality assessment of nutritional value and safety of different meat. J Food Microbiol Saf Hyg. 3:1-5


Gan J, Zhao M, He Z, Sun L, Li X, Feng Y. 2022; The effects of antioxidants and packaging methods on inhibiting lipid oxidation in deep fried crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) during storage. Foods. 11:326


Gunstone FD, Norris FA. 1983; Oxidation. In Lipids in foods: Chemistry, biochemistry, and technology. 1st ed In: Gunstone FD, Norris FA, editors.(ed)Pergamon Press. Oxford, UK: p p. 58


Hadidi M, Orellana-Palacios JC, Aghababaei F, Gonzalez-Serrano DJ, Moreno A, Lorenzo JM. 2022; Plant by-product antioxidants: Control of protein-lipid oxidation in meat and meat products. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 169:114003


Han X, Li B, Puolanne E, Heinonen M. 2023; Hybrid sausages using pork and cricket flour: Texture and oxidative storage stability. Foods. 12:1262


Ho I, Peterson A, Madden J, Huang E, Amin S, Lammert A. 2022; Will it cricket? Product development and evaluation of cricket (Acheta domesticus) powder replacement in sausage, pasta, and brownies. Foods. 11:3128


Honikel KO. 2004; Water-holding capacity of meat. In Muscle development of livestock animals: Physiology, genetics and meat quality. In: te Pas MFW, Everts ME, Haagsman HP, editors.(ed)CABI. Wallingford, UK: pp p. 389-400


Honikel KO. 2008; Moisture and water-holding capacity. 1st edCRC Press. Boca Raton, FL, USA: pp p. 335-354


Juntachote T, Berghofer E, Siebenhandl S, Bauer F. 2007; Antioxidative effect of added dried Holy basil and its ethanolic extracts on susceptibility of cooked ground pork to lipid oxidation. Food Chem. 100:129-135


Kim HW, Setyabrata D, Lee YJ, Jones OG, Kim YHB. 2016; Pre-treated mealworm larvae and silkworm pupae as a novel protein ingredient in emulsion sausages. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 38:116-123


Kim HW, Setyabrata D, Lee Y, Jones OG, Kim YHB. 2017; Effect of house cricket (Acheta domesticus) flour addition on physicochemical and textural properties of meat emulsion under various formulations. J Food Sci. 82:2787-2793


Kim TK, Kim YJ, Kim J, Yun HJ, Kang MC, Choi YS. 2022; Effect of grafted insect protein with palatinose on quality properties of phosphate-free meat emulsion. Foods. 11:3354


Kim TK, Yong HI, Jung S, Sung JM, Jang HW, Choi YS. 2021; Physicochemical and textural properties of emulsions prepared from the larvae of the edible insects Tenebrio molitor, Allomyrina dichotoma, and Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis. J Anim Sci Technol. 63:417-425


Kipkoech C. 2023; Beyond proteins: Edible insects as a source of dietary fiber. Polysaccharides. 4:116-128


Klunder HC, Wolkers-Rooijackers J, Korpela JM, Nout MJR. 2012; Microbiological aspects of processing and storage of edible insects. Food Control. 26:628-631


Kurdi P, Chaowiwat P, Weston J, Hansawasdi C. 2021; Studies on microbial quality, protein yield, and antioxidant properties of some frozen edible insects. Int J Food Sci. 2021; :5580976


Lange KW, Nakamura Y. 2021; Edible insects as future food: Chances and challenges. J Future Foods. 1:38-46


Lemke B, Siekmann L, Grabowski NT, Plötz M, Krischek C. 2023; Impact of the addition of Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens on the physicochemical and sensory quality of cooked meat products. Insects. 14; :487


Love JD, Pearson AM. 1971; Lipid oxidation in meat and meat products: A review. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 48:547-549


Lu M, Zhu C, Smetana S, Zhao M, Zhang H, Zhang F, Du Y. 2024; Minerals in edible insects: A review of content and potential for sustainable sourcing. Food Sci Hum Wellness. 13:65-74.


Malm M, Liceaga AM. 2021; Physicochemical properties of chitosan from two commonly reared edible cricket species, and its application as a hypolipidemic and antimicrobial agent. Polysaccharides. 2:339-353


Megido RC, Gierts C, Blecker C, Brostaux Y, Haubruge É, Alabi T, Francis F. 2016; Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual Prefer. 52:237-243


Miyanoshita A, Hara S, Sugiyama M, Asaoka A, Taniai K, Yukuhiro F, Yamakawa M. 1996; Isolation and characterization of a new member of the insect defensin family from a beetle, Allomyrina dichotoma. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 220:526-531


Montowska M, Kowalczewski PŁ, Rybicka I, Fornal E. 2019; Nutritional value, protein and peptide composition of edible cricket powders. Food Chem. 289:130-138


Oonincx DGAB, van Itterbeeck J, Heetkamp MJW, van den Brand H, van Loon JJA, van Huis A. 2010; An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PLOS ONE. 5e14445


Pietrasik Z. 2003; Binding and textural properties of beef gels processed with κ-carrageenan, egg albumin and microbial transglutaminase. Meat Sci. 63:317-324


Pinter R, Molnar E, Hussein KN, Toth A, Friedrich L, Pasztor-Huszar K. 2021; Effect of refrigerated storage on the technological characteristics of meat stick made of insect and pork: Alternative burger meat. Prog Agric Eng Sci. 16:117-125


Premalatha M, Abbasi T, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. 2011; Energy-efficient food production to reduce global warming and ecodegradation: The use of edible insects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 15:4357-4360


Rumpold BA, Schlüter OK. 2013; Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Mol Nutr Food Res. 57:802-823


Sagisaka A, Miyanoshita A, Ishibashi J, Yamakawa M. 2001; Purification, characterization and gene expression of a glycine and proline-rich antibacterial protein family from larvae of a beetle, Allomyrina dichotoma. Insect Mol Biol. 10:293-302


Simic MG, Taylor KA. 1987; Free radical mechanisms of oxidation reactions. In Warmed-over flavor of meat. In: Angelo AJ, Bailey ME, editors.(ed)Academic Press. London, UK: pp p. 69-72


Song MH, Han MH, Lee S, Kim ES, Park KH, Kim WT, Choi JY. 2017; Growth performance and nutrient composition in the white-spotted flower chafer, Protaetia brevitarsis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) fed agricultural by-product, soybean curd cake. J Life Sci. 27:1185-1190.


Suh HJ, Kang SC. 2012; Antioxidant activity of aqueous methanol extracts of Protaetia brevitarsis Lewis (Coleoptera: Scarabaedia) at different growth stages. Nat Prod Res. 26:510-517


Szmańko T, Lesiów T, Górecka J. 2021; The water-holding capacity of meat: A reference analytical method. Food Chem. 357; :129727


Torres-Castillo JA, Olazarán-Santibáñez FE. 2023; Insects as source of phenolic and antioxidant entomochemicals in the food industry. Front Nutr. 10; :1133342


Turgut SS, Işıkçı F, Soyer A. 2017; Antioxidant activity of pomegranate peel extract on lipid and protein oxidation in beef meatballs during frozen storage. Meat Sci. 129:111-119


van Broekhoven S, Oonincx DGAB, van Huis A, van Loon JJA. 2015; Growth performance and feed conversion efficiency of three edible mealworm species (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on diets composed of organic by-products. J Insect Physiol. 73:1-10


van der Weele C, Feindt P, van der Goot AJ, van Mierlo B, van Boekel M. 2019; Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci Technol. 88:505-512


van Huis A, Tomberlin JK. 2017; Insects as food and feed: From production to consumption. Wageningen Academic. Wageningen, The Netherlands: pp p. 24-41


van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantomme P. 2013; Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy: pp p. 1-156.


Wang D, Bai Y, Li J, Zhang C. 2004; Nutritional value of the field cricket (Gryllus testaceus Walker). Insect Sci. 11:275-283


Wittkopp PJ, Beldade P. 2009; Development and evolution of insect pigmentation: Genetic mechanisms and the potential consequences of pleiotropy. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 20:65-71


World Health Organization [WHO]. 2007 Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition: Report of a joint FAO/ WHO/UNU expert consultation. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland: .


Wu G, Fanzo J, Miller DD, Pingali P, Post M, Steiner JL, Thalacker-Mercer AE. 2014; Production and supply of high-quality food protein for human consumption: Sustainability, challenges, and innovations. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1321:1-19


Wu J. 2022; Emerging sources and applications of alternative proteins: An introduction. Academic Press. Cambridge, MA, USA: pp p. 1-15


Yong HI, Kim TK, Cha JY, Lee JH, Kang MC, Jung S, Choi YS. 2023; Effects of edible insect extracts on the antioxidant, physiochemical, and microbial properties of Tteokgalbi during refrigerated storage. Food Biosci. 52; :102377


Yoon HS, Lee CS, Lee SY, Choi CS, Lee IH, Yeo SM, Kim HR. 2003; Purification and cDNA cloning of inducible antibacterial peptides from Protaetia brevitarsis (Coleoptera). Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 52:92-103


Yoshikawa K, Umetsu K, Shinzawa H, Yuasa I, Maruyama K, Ohkura T, Yamashita K, Suzuki T. 1999; Determination of carbohydrate-deficient transferrin separated by lectin affinity chromatography for detecting chronic alcohol abuse. FEBS Lett. 458:112-116


Zielińska E, Baraniak B, Karaś M, Rybczyńska K, Jakubczyk A. 2015; Selected species of edible insects as a source of nutrient composition. Food Res Int. 77:460-466