Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 56, Issue 7, pp 3355–3363 | Cite as

Protein quality and physicochemical properties of commercial cricket and mealworm powders

  • Andrea K. Stone
  • Takuji Tanaka
  • Michael T. NickersonEmail author
Original Article


The pressing need for protein supply growth gives rise to alternative protein sources, such as insect proteins. Commercial cricket and mealworm powders were examined for their protein quality, surface charge and functional attributes. Both insect powders had similar proximate compositions with protein and ash contents of ~ 66% db (dry weight basis) and 5% db, respectively, however cricket powder contained more lipid (16.1%, db) than mealworm powder (13.7%, db). Mealworm protein had an amino acid score of 0.71 and was first limiting in lysine, whereas cricket protein was first limiting in tryptophan with an amino acid score of 0.85. In vitro protein digestibility values of 75.7% and 76.2%, and in vitro protein digestibility corrected amino acid scores of 0.54 and 0.65, were obtained for mealworm and cricket powders, respectively. Zeta potential measurements gave isoelectric points near pH 3.9 for both insect powders. Mealworm and cricket powders had water hydration capacities of 1.62 g/g and 1.76 g/g, respectively, and oil holding capacities of 1.58 g/g and 1.42 g/g, respectively. Both insect proteins had low solubility (22–30%) at all pHs (3.0, 5.0, and 7.0) measured. Cricket powder had a foaming capacity of 82% and foam stability of 86%, whereas mealworm powder was non-foaming. Values for commercial pea and faba bean protein concentrates were reported for comparative purposes. The insect proteins had similar protein quality as the pulse proteins and had higher solubility at pH 5.0 but were much less soluble at pH 7.0.


Cricket protein Mealworm protein Insects Pulse protein Protein quality Functionality 



Financial support for this research was provided through the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Research Chair Program in Protein Quality and Utilization. Special thanks to Kelsey Waelchli and Renbo Xu who provided laboratory support.


  1. Adebowale YA, Adebowale KO, Oguntokun MO (2005) Evaluation of nutritive properties of the large African cricket (Gryllidae sp). Pak J Sci Ind Res 48:274–278Google Scholar
  2. AOAC International (2005) Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. AOAC International, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Azzollini D, Derossi A, Fogliano V, Lakemond CMM, Severini C (2018) Effects of formulation and process conditions on microstructure, texture and digestibility of extruded insect-riched snacks. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 45:344–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbut S (1996) Determining water and fat holding. In: Hall GM (ed) Methods of testing protein functionality. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 186–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosch G, Zhang S, Oonincx D, Hendriks W (2014) Protein quality of insects as potential ingredients for dog and cat foods. J Nutr Sci 3(e29):1–4. Google Scholar
  6. Cuj‐Laines R, Hernández‐Santos B, Reyes‐Jaquez D, Delgado‐Licon E, Juárez‐Barrientos JM, Rodríguez‐Miranda J (2018) Physicochemical properties of ready‐to‐eat extruded nixtamalized maize‐based snacks enriched with grasshopper. Int J Food Sci Technol 53:1889–1895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO (2013) Edible insects—future prospects for food and feed security. FAO forestry paper, vol 171. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO/WHO (1991) Protein quality evaluation: Report of the joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization (FAO/WHO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. Felix M, Lopez-Osorio A, Romero A, Guerrero A (2018) Faba bean protein flour obtained by densification: a sustainable method to develop protein concentrates with food applications. LWT 93:563–569. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finke MD (2002) Complete nutrient composition of commercially raised invertebrates used as food for insectivores. Zoo Biol 21:69–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finke MD (2007) Estimate of chitin in raw whole insects. Zoo Biol 26:105–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. González CM, Garzón R, Rosell CM (2018) Insects as ingredients for bakery goods. A comparison study of H. illucens, A. domestica and T. molitor flours. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 2:3. Google Scholar
  13. Hall FG, Jones OG, O’Haire ME, Liceaga AM (2017) Functional properties of tropical banded cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus) protein hydrolysates. Food Chem 224:414–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartmann C, Shi J, Giusto A, Siegrist M (2015) The psychology of eating insects: a cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual Prefer 44:148–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henchion M, Hayes M, Mullen AM, Fenelon M, Tiwari B (2017) Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 6:53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt AS, Ward AM, Ferguson G (2001) Effects of a high calcium diet on gut loading in varying ages of crickets (Acheta domestica) and mealworms (Tenebrio molitor). In: Edwards MS, Lisi KJ, Schlegel ML, Bray R (eds) Proceedings of the 4th conference on zoo and wildlife nutrition, Lake Buena Vista, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  17. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landry J, Delhaye S (1994) Determination of tryptophan in feedstuffs: comparison of sodium hydroxide and barium hydroxide as hydrolysis agents. Food Chem 49:95–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu S, Elmer C, Low NH, Nickerson MT (2010) Effect of pH on the functional behaviour of pea protein isolate-gum Arabic complexes. Food Res Int 43:489–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marono S, Piccolo G, Loponte R, Di Meo C, Attia YA, Nizza A, Bovera F (2015) In vitro crude protein digestibility of Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens insect meals and its correlation with chemical composition traits. Ital J Anim Sci 14:338–3434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinez M, Stone AK, Yovchev AG, Peter R, Vandenberg A, Nickerson MT (2016) Effect of genotype and environment on the surface characteristics and functionality of air-classified faba bean protein concentrates. Eur Food Res Technol 242:1903–1911. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nakagaki BJ, Defoliart GR (1991) Comparison of diets for mass-rearing Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) as a novelty food, and comparison of food conversion efficiency with values reported for livestock. J Econ Entomol 84:891–896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ndiritu AK, Kinyuru JN, Kenji GM, Gichuhi PN (2017) Extraction technique influences the physico-chemical characteristics and functional properties of edible crickets (Acheta domesticus) protein concentrate. Food Measure 11:2013–2021. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nowak V, Persijn D, Rittenschober D, Charrondiere UR (2016) Review of food composition data for edible insects. Food Chem 193:39–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 5:e14445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelgrom PJM, Vissers AM, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI (2013) Dry fractionation for production of functional pea protein concentrates. Food Res Int 53:232–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Purschke B, Brüggen H, Scheibelberger R, Jäger H (2018) Effect of pre-treatment and drying method on physico-chemical properties and dry fractionation behaviour of mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor L.). Eur Food Res Technol 244:269–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schösler H, de Boer J, Boersema JJ (2012) Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58:39–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stull VJ, Finer E, Bergmans RS, Febvre HP, Longhurst C, Manter DK, Patz JA, Weir TL (2018) Impact of edible cricket consumption on gut microbiota in healthy adults, a double-blind, randomized crossover trial. Sci Rep 8:10762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tinus T, Damour M, van Riel V, Sopade PA (2012) Particle size-starch–protein digestibility relationships in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). J Food Eng 113:254–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verbeke W (2015) Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual Prefer 39:147–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. White DA, Hart RJ, Fry JC (1986) An evaluation of the waters pico-tag system for the amino-acid analysis of food materials. J Anal Methods Chem 8:170–177. Google Scholar
  33. Wilde PJ, Clark DC (1996) Foam formation and stability. In: Hall GM (ed) Methods of testing protein functionality. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 110–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yi L, Lakemond CMM, Sagis LMC, Eisner-Schadler V, van Huis A, van Boekel MAJS (2013) Extraction and characterisation of protein fractions from five insect species. Food Chem 141:3341–3348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhao X, Vazquez-Gutierrez JL, Johansson DP, Landberg R, Langton M (2016) Yellow mealworm protein for food purposes— extraction and functional properties. PLoS ONE 11:1–17. Google Scholar
  36. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zielińska E, Karaś M, Baraniak B (2018) Comparison of functional properties of edible insects and protein preparations thereof. LWT—Food Sci Technol 91:168–174. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea K. Stone
    • 1
  • Takuji Tanaka
    • 1
  • Michael T. Nickerson
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Food and Bioproduct SciencesUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations