The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Conventional and Sustainable Lipid Extraction Methods for the Production of Oil and Protein Isolate from Edible Insect Meal
Open accessAbstract
Edible insects represent an interesting alternative source of protein for human consumption but the main hurdle facing the edible insect sector is low consumer acceptance. However, increased acceptance is anticipated when insects are incorporated as a processed ingredient, such as protein-rich powder, rather than presented whole. To produce edible insect fractions with high protein content, a defatting step is necessary. This study investigated the effects of six defatting methods (conventional solvents, three-phase partitioning, and supercritical CO2) on lipid extraction yield, fatty profiles, and protein extraction and purification of house cricket (Acheta domesticus) and mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) meals. Ethanol increased the lipid extraction yield (22.7%–28.8%), irrespective of the insect meal used or the extraction method applied. Supercritical CO2 gave similar lipid extraction yields as conventional methods for Tenebrio molitor (T. molitor) (22.1%) but was less efficient for Acheta domesticus (A. domesticus) (11.9%). The protein extraction yield ranged from 12.4% to 38.9% for A. domesticus, and from 11.9% to 39.3% for T. molitor, whereas purification rates ranged from 58.3% to 78.5% for A. domesticus and from 48.7% to 75.4% for T. molitor.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Current state of chitin purification and chitosan production from insects
Hahn, T., Tafi, E., Paul, A., Salvia, R., Falabella, P., & Zibek, S. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · doi:10.1002/jctb.6533 · Cited by 373
Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor Larvae) as an Alternative Protein Source for Monogastric Animal: A Review
Hong, J., Han, T., & Kim, Y. Y. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10112068 · Cited by 308
Quinteros, M. F., Martínez, J., Barrionuevo, A., Rojas, M., & Carrillo, W. (2022) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology11050776 · Cited by 41
Hua, X. Y., Sim, S. Y. J., Henry, C. J., & Chiang, J. H. (2024) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129427 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Laroche, M., Perreault, V., Marciniak, A., Gravel, A., Chamberland, J., & Doyen, A.
- Venue
- Foods
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2019-11-13
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 572
- ISSN
- 2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2988450299
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Conventional and Sustainable Lipid Extraction Methods for the Production of Oil and Protein Isolate from Edible Insect Meal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/foods8110572
- The paper
- Laroche, M., Perreault, V., Marciniak, A., Gravel, A., Chamberland, J., & Doyen, A. (2019). Comparison of Conventional and Sustainable Lipid Extraction Methods for the Production of Oil and Protein Isolate from Edible Insect Meal. Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110572
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.