Introduction

Aquatic macroinvertebrates refer to the small organisms that have no internal skeletal system and live part or all of their lives in water. They comprise a diverse group of organisms that includes insects, molluscs, annelids and crustaceans. They show their presence in aquatic bodies by swimming, clinging or burrowing in the bottom substrate. Many aquatic insects and molluscs species are consumed worldwide due to their taste and seasonal availability.

This practice of consumption was an old and well-established tradition in many parts of the world and recently has gained popularity and acceptance due to the promising source of nutrition challenges facing the world ^{[1- 3]}.The trend has gradually been increasing from tropical countries to Western societies ^[4]. Generally, it is used as ingredient in many cooking recipes in countries like Africa, Asia, South America, and Australia ^[5]. It is reported that the majority of edible macroinvertebrates contains a rich nutrient concentration ^{[6, 7]}. As a part of their daily diet, it may be an important component in eliminating deficiency diseases related to malnutrition ^[8]. With the rapid increase in human population size, there would be tremendous pressure on animal source foods. It is projected that the world population would exceed 9 billion around 2050 and there will be a food crisis due to a reduction in food production ^[9]. To combat this crisis, one of the alternatives of a protein-rich source is edible insects ^[7]. It has been speculated that a 10% increase in the global animal protein supply through mass production of insects would largely eliminate the malnutrition problem and also decrease the pressure on other protein sources ^[9]. Therefore, insects and other forms of terrestrial and aquatic macroinvertebrates may offer an important resource for humans nutrition and are worthy of development in various bio-prospecting aspects ^[7]. Although there is a considerable amount of information on the entomophagy and nutrient contents of terrestrial insects,the information on aquatic macroinvertebrates is scanty. The proliferation rate of insects is very high and many of them are pest on crops causing economic damage to farmers. The consumption of such insects is part and partial of the traditional pest management practices. However many edible terrestrial andaquatic macroinvertebratesare disease vectors^[10,11]. So understanding these issues and refinement of traditional food habits is a major concern of an entomophagous community.

Figure 1: Map of study area (Poba reserve forest). Click here to View figure

Poba reserve forest (PRF) situated in the eastern part of Assam is a repository of a variety of aquatic fauna distributed heterogeneously in the aquatic bodies of the reserve forest. Many species of aquatic macroinvertebrates are used as non-conventional food by the ethnic communities inhabiting around the reserve forest.So far no detailed exploration on diversity and proximate nutrient analysis on aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna had been carried out. Realizing the paucity of information the present study was undertaken on 12 commonly preferred species by the consumers under phylum Arthropoda and Mollusca collected from different aquatic bodies of PRF. The inventorization of proximate nutrients composition may help the communities for the ideal quantity of intake of neutraceutically valuable invertebrate resources. Further, this information may encourage sustainable use of these alternative cheap sources of non-conventional food resources and for possible domestic and commercial uses.

Materials and Methods

Sample Collection

The samples were collected from different perennial and ephemeral water bodies of PRF (latitude 27˚50′11″N and Longitude 95˚17′45″E) of Assam, India covering an area of about 102.21 km² of land. Some specimens were collected from local markets during the seasons of their availability. Collected specimens were brought to the laboratory, sorted and preserved in 80% ethanol for future uses. Identification of the recorded specimens was done following standard taxonomic keys ^[12-16] and available updated literature from IUCN along with the technical support of the Zoological Survey of India. Kolkata, India.

Proximate Analysis

Moisture, Ash, and fibre contents were carried out following standard methods ^[17]. Nitrogen was determined by the micro-Kjeldahlmethod ^[18]. Crude protein content was subsequently calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content by a factor of 6.25. Fat content was determined by using the Soxhlet extraction method ^[19]. Carbohydrate content was calculated by subtracting the sum of the weights of protein, fibre, ether extract and ash from the total dry matter and reported as nitrogen-free extractives ^[20].

Estimation of Minerals

Selected minerals were determined in an Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry; (ARCOS, Simultaneous ICP Spectrometer, SPECTRO Analytical Instruments GmbH, Germany) after acid digestion of the tissue samples with nitric acid and perchloric acid (5:1v/v) respectively ^[21].

Statistical Analysis

Data of the analysis are presented as means ± standard error (SE). Mean differences in proximate and minerals concentrations among the twelve freshwater macroinvertebrates were determined with one-way ANOVA using LSD in SPSS (Version 21) Software. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05 levels.

Results

The systematic position and taxonomic keys of the twelve recorded freshwater macroinvertebrates are listed in Table 1. Analysis of the proximate composition of the species depicts a fair amount of nutrients (Table 2). There were significant differences in the means of the proximate compositions among theanalyzedspecies (P< 0.05).The highest amount of moisture content was observed in Pilaglobosa(63.72%) and least in Sartorianaspinigera(45.72%).The ash content of the recorded species ranges from 3.29% to 12.46% highest in Corbiculaassamensis and least in Lamellidenscorrianus. The highest fibre content was recorded in Sartorianaspinigera(11.41%), Cybistertripunctatus(11.00%) andLethocerusindicus(11.31%) against the Lamellidenscorrianus(0.28%) having the least fibre content.For most of the species, crude protein was the most abundant substance ranged from 18.10%(Macrobrachiumassamense) to 50.50%(Lobothelphusafungosa). Lipid content was recorded highest in Sartorianaspinigera (16.32%) and least in Lamellidensmarginalis (2.05%). The mean value of carbohydrate content was 11.32 %, being highest in Bellamyabengalensis (22.54%), and lowest in Macrobrachiumassamense (5.25%).

Table 1: Systematic position and taxonomic keys of analysed freshwater Macroinvertebrates.

Table 2: Percentage Proximate composition.(% per 100 g Dry tissue).

Values with different alphabets in each column are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 level.

The results of the analysis of selected minerals are given in Table 3. Calcium (Ca) content was highest in Bellamyabengalensis (138.62 mg/100g) and lowest in Parreysiacorrugata (5.44 mg/100g). The highest amount of Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn) and Zinc (Zn) contents were observed in Macrobrachiumassamense(2.73 mg/100g), Sartorianaspinigera (35.02 mg/100g), Macrobrachiumassamense (11.42 mg/100g)andLethocerusindicus(3.71 mg/100g) and lowest in Cybistertripunctatus (0.08 mg/100g), Lobothelphusafungosa (0.76 mg/100g), Pilaglobosa (1.07 mg/100g) and Parreysiacorrugata (0.93 mg/100g) respectively. The presence of selected heavy metals Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Molybdenum (Mo), and Mercury (Hg) were not detected in any of the specimens.

Table 3: Mineral composition (mg/100g).

ND- Not detected

± Standard Error

Values with different alphabets in each column are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 level.

Discussion

Studies on nutrient compositions of edible macroinvertebrates around the world show that most of them had a satisfactory amount of energy, protein, fats, fibres, minerals and vitamins ^[22-25].Although, some edible species such as Macrotermessubhyalinus is not rich in amino acids like tryptophan and lysine for compensating the nutritional gap ^[26].Reports on the nutritional aspects of some aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebratesof the north-eastern region of India suggested the presence of many important nutrients ^[27-30].In the present study results of the analysis of proximate composition shows that there was a significant difference (P< 0.05) in the analyzed specimens (Table 2). The Variations in nutrient contents of edible macroinvertebrates aredue to the life stages, the prevalence of various biotic and abiotic factors in their habitats and diet ^[31-34].For example, the fatty acid composition of edible grasshopper Ruspoliadifferensis reported to be influenced by the plants on which they feed^[35]. Methods of food processing also influence the nutrient content to a greater extend ^{[31, 33]}.

Figure 2: Photographs of some freshwater Macroinvertebrates from the study sites: A. Parreysiafavidens;  B.Bellamyabengalensis; C. Barytelphusafungosa; D.Brotiacostula; E. Cybistertripunctatus;F. Lamellidenscorrianus; G. Lethocerousindicus;  H. Macrobrachiumassamense; I. Pilaglobosa J.Parreysiacorrugata Click here to View figure

The present study revealed that the moisture content in Pilaglobosa was higher compared to other macroinvertebrate species under study. The high amount of moisture content in food materials makes them a risk of microbial deterioration and spoilage ^{[36, 37]}. The values (58.62%, 56.80%, 63.72%, 62.86%) obtained in this study were lower than the value (85.9%, 82.1%, 85.5%, and 83.2%) reported earlier ^[38] for Lamellidensmarginalis, Bellamyabengalensis, Pilaglobosa and Helix sp. respectively. Analysis of ash content of the studied specimens revealed 7.56% on average which corroborated with the ash content for Lethocerusindicus and Cybistertripunctatus^[30] and higher than Lamellidensmarginalis, Bellamyabengalensis, Pilaglobosaand Helix sp. ^[38]. In general, the ash content of biological material is a reflection of the minerals contents in them and may be beneficial for the human body ^{[39, 40]}.The present findings of mean protein content ranged from 18.10 to 50.50 % (Table 2). The protein content of Lamellidenscorrianus and Lamellidensmarginalis in the present study slightly varied with the findings of other reports ^{[27, 38]}.The possible cause of variation in protein content may be associated with the reproductive stages of the specimens [^{41, 42]}.The carbohydrate content of the studied specimens ranges from 5.25 to 22.54 %which is higher than the report of Shantibala et al. (2014) ^[30].Carbohydrates serve as a source of energy for aquatic fauna and perform many major structural roles in cells ^[43]. Generally, the ratio for carbohydrate content is less compared to other nutrients in aquatic organisms and fluctuates widely in response to changes in its habitat conditions ^[44].The lipid content of the studied specimens ranges from 2.05 to 16.32 (Table 2) which is higher compared to the studies on mollusc and edible arthropods species ^{[24, 27]}.Sartorianaspinigera(16.32%), Cybistertripunctatus(12.35%) and Lethocerusindicus (13.21%)had the highest crude lipid content species which could contribute a significant source of dietary lipids.The crude fiber contents of the macroinvertebrate species in this study were quite similar with the other insect species such as termites and Componotussp. ^{[45, 46]}. Crude fibre has a significant physiological role in the organism’s body in maintaining internal distension for proper peristaltic movement of the intestinal tract ^[47]. A diet with low fibre content is associated with constipation. Food materials with high fibre content have been used for weight control and fat reduction, as they give a sense of satiety even when a small amount of food is consumed ^[48].

Minerals are the most important factors for the human body in maintaining several physiological processes and are constituents of bones, teeth, tissue, blood, muscles and nerve cells. Many insect species contain a satisfactory amount of minerals such as iron which boast almost equal iron contents tobeef containing about 6 mg per 100 g of dry weight^[33]. In the present study,the most abundant mineral was calcium ranged from 5.44 to 138.62 mg/100g (Table 3).The calcium content of Pilaglobosa (19.87 mg/100g), Bellamyabengalensis(138.62 mg/100g), Helixsp (19.87 mg/100g)andLamellidensmarginalis (98.43 mg/100g) was lower than the studies reported earlier^[38].Calcium is an important nutrient that has a vital role in neuromuscular functioning, enzyme-mediated processes and blood clotting. Therefore a constant concentration of calcium in the body is necessary.The second most abundant mineral in the present study was iron which is a component of haemoglobin and myoglobin that acts as a carrier molecule and as a cofactor of various enzymes ^[49]. Most of the analyzed specimens have a considerable amount of iron (Table 3) compared to other terrestrial insects, such as Bombyxmori^[50]. Minerals like Zinc and Copper are the sole components of many enzymes involved in many physiological activities ^[51]. Deficiency of zinc has become a major public health problem especially for developing children and maternal health. Deficiency of this mineral can cause retardation of growth, Delayed sexual maturation, skin lesions, increased susceptibility to infections^[52].The present analyzedspecimens have zinc contents of 0.93 mg/100g(Parreysiacorrugata) to 3.71 mg/100g(Lethocerusindicus) which is lower than the amount for beef (12.5mg/100g) and palm weevil larvae (26.5mg/100g) ^[33].

Heavy metal contamination in the aquatic organism, generally in Mollusca is a serious concern as they occur at the very low trophic levels in the food chains. Snails can accumulate metals higher than any other group of invertebrates ^[53]. However, in the present study evaluation of minerals depicted devoid of heavy metal contents suggesting the studied species can be used for consumption. The absence of heavy metal alone can’t be considered for safe consumption. Some edible insects containnaturally content toxic substances such as cyanogenic glycosides^[54]. Consumption of grasshopper and locust if consumed without removing their feet can cause intestinal blockage.Similarly,Chitin covering of the exoskeleton of many insects is generally indigestible and causes allergies ^[55].There is also a risk of microbial disease transmission as Intestinal microbiota of many terrestrial and aquatic insects could be a favourable growth medium for undesirable microorganisms^{[10, 11]}.

In different parts of the world Aquatic insects such as mayflies are well harvested and eaten in countries like China, Vietnam, Japan and New Guinea^[56]. In Thailand, many aquatic species of Nepidae, Hydrophilidae, Dytiscidae, Nepidae, Notonectidae and Belostomatidaeare reported to be commonly used edible insects^[57].In India, about 255 insect species are used as non-conventional food by different ethnic tribes during the seasons of their availability. Among these, the most preferred species belongs to the family of Coleoptera followed by Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Odonata, Lepidoptera and Isoptera^{[58, 59]}.

Many reports on entomophagy revealed that it is practiced in all seven states of the north-eastern region of India ^[60-62]. More recently the enormous diversity of insects and other macroinvertebrate fauna are speculated as one of the major sources of future therapeutic agents. Ironically the poor section of the society across various communities consumes a good number of insects and mollusc species available around their localities as traditional food habits to meet their therapeutic and nutritional requirements during the lean period.

However, detail scientific knowledge on this food practice is quite scanty among the user communities. Therefore the present study is a kind of scientific validation of these traditional food habits which may lead to the inventorization and utilization of bio-resources having nutritional and therapeutic potentials in a sustainable approach.

Conclusion

The result of the present work reflects that most of the analyzed freshwater macroinvertebrates have a fair amount of crude protein, carbohydrate, lipids and minerals.The studied macroinvertebrate species represented the most preferred and the cheapest source of protein among the ethnic communities of the study area. This practice of entomophagy should be encouraged as many people can’t afford protein-rich food such as fish or meat. At the same time more exploration and its identification, as well as proper scientific research on the nutritional and anti-nutritional composition, are needed to study the prevailing freshwater macroinvertebrate consumption in the study area which would prove beneficial as a local source of nutrients. Further, the information on nutritional aspects could be effectively used for better utilization of freshwater macroinvertebrates to combat malnutrition and undernourishment of the poor people of the society.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Department of life sciences, Dibrugarh University, Assam and Z.S.I Kolkata for the technical support and facilities for carrying out this work.

Conflict of Interest 

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

1. Omotoso O.T. Nutritional quality, functional properties and anti-nutrient compositions of the larva of Cirinaforda (Westwood) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 2006; 7(1): 51-55.
   CrossRef
2. Durst P.B., Johnson D.V., Leslie R.N., Shono K (ed): Forest insects as food: humans bite back. RAP publication. 2010.
3. Ash C., Jasny B.R., Malakoff D.A., Sugden A.M. Feeding the future. 2010; 327(5967): 797-797.
   CrossRef
4. Mlček J., Rop O., Borkovcova M., Bednar M.A. A comprehensive look at the possibilities of edible insects as food in Europe -A review. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences. 2014; 64: 147-157.
   CrossRef
5. Kim S.K., Weaver C.M., Choi M.K. Proximate composition and mineral content of five edible insects consumed in Korea. CyTA-Journal of Food. 2017; 15(1): 143-6.
   CrossRef
6. Bukkens S.G. The nutritional value of edible insects. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 1997; 36(2-4): 287-319.
   CrossRef
7. Xiaoming C., Ying F., Hong Z., Zhiyong C. Review of the nutritive value of edible insects. Proceeding of a workshop on Asia-Pacific resources and their potential for development, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2008; 85-92.
8. Mishra N., Hazarika N.C., Narain K., Mahanta J. Nutritive value of non-mulberry and mulberry silkworm pupae and consumption pattern in Assam, India. Nutrition Research. 2003; 23(10): 1303-11.
   CrossRef
9. Alexandratos N. World food and agriculture to 2030/50. In: Highlights and views from MID-2009: Paper for the Expert Meeting on “How to Feed the World. 2009.
10. Klunder C., Wolkers-Rooijackers J., Korpela J.M., Nout M.J.R. Microbiological aspects of processing and storage of edible insects. Food control. 2012; 26(2): 628-631.
    CrossRef
11. Kouřimská L., Adámková A. Nutritional and sensory quality of edible insects. NFS journal. 2016; 4: 22-26.
    CrossRef
12. SubbaRao N.V. Handbook of Freshwater Molluscs of India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 1989.
13. Dey A. Handbook on Indian freshwater molluscs. AICOPTAX-Mollusca, Zoological Survey of India. 2007.
14. Subramanian K.A., Sivaramakrishnan K.G. Aquatic Insects of India-A Field Guide. Ashoka Trust for Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, India. 2007; pp 62.
15. Bal A., Basu R.C. Insecta: Hemiptera: Mesoveliidae, Hydrometridae, Veliidae&Gerridae. In: State Fauna Series 5, Fauna of West Bengal, Zoological Survey of India Calcutta, Part 5. 1994; 511-534.
16. Needham J.G., Needham P.R. A guide to the study of freshwater biology. Holdenday. Inc. San Fransisco. 1962.
17. Horwitz W., Latimer G.W. Official methods of analysis of AOAC 18. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, Md. 2005.
18. Pearson D. Chemical Analysis of Foods. 7th Ed. Livingstone, London, Churchill. 1976; pp 7-11.
19. Deutsch M.J. AOAC official method 985.29. Total dietary fiber in foods, enzymatic-gravimetric method. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. 1995.
20. James C.S.(ed): Analytical chemistry of foods. Springer Science & Business Media. 2013.
21. Puwastien P., Siong T.E., Kantasubrata J., Caven G., Felicionoand R.R., Judprasong K. Asean manual of food analysis. Regional Centre of ASEAN network of Food Data System. Institute of Nutrition, Mahidol University. 2011; pp 1-90.
22. Rumpold B.A., Schlüter O.K. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research. 2013; 57(3): 802-823.
    CrossRef
23. Ramos Elorduy J. The importance of edible insects in the nutrition and economy of people of the rural areas of Mexico. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 1997; 36: 347-366.
    CrossRef
24. Xiaoming C., Ying F., Hong Z., Zhiyong C. Review of the nutritive value of edible insects. In: Forest insects as food: humans bite back, proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacific resources and their potential for development (Durst P.B., Johnson D.V., Leslie R.L., Shono K, ed). Bangkok, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 2010.
25. Womeni H.M., Linder M., Tiencheu B., Mbiapo F.T., Villeneuve P., Fanni J., Parmentier M. Oils of insects and larvae consumed in Africa: potential sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Oléagineux, Corps gras, Lipides. 2009; 16(4-5-6): 230-5.
    CrossRef
26. Sogbesan A., Ugwumba A. Nutritional evaluation of termite (Macrotermessubhyalinus) meal as animal protein supplements in the diets of Heterobranchuslongifilis. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2008; 8: 149-157.
27. Sonowal J., Kardong D. Nutritional evaluation of freshwater bivalve, Lamellidens spp. from the upper Brahmaputra basin, Assam with special reference to dietary essential amino acids, omega fatty acids and minerals. Journal of Environmental Biology. 2020; 41(4): 931-941.
    CrossRef
28. Singh R.K., Alka K., Singh O.G., Singh K.K. Protein and carbohydrate contents of certain edible insects in Manipur. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2015; 77(3): 235-239.
    CrossRef
29. Mishra N., Hazarika N.C., Narain K., Mahanta J. Nutritive value of non-mulberry and mulberry silkworm pupae and consumption pattern in Assam, India. Nutrition Research. 2003; 23(10): 1303-11.
    CrossRef
30. Shantibala T., Lokeshwari R.K., Debaraj H. Nutritional and antinutritionalcomposition of the five species of aquatic edible insects consumed in Manipur, India. Journal of Insect Science. 2014; 14(1).
    CrossRef
31. Van Huis A., Van Itterbeeck J., Klunder H., Mertens E., Halloran A., Muir , Vantomme P. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security (No. 171). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013.
32. Ademolu K.O., Idowu A.B., Olatunde G.O. Nutritional value assessment of variegated grasshopper, Zonocerusvariegatus (L.) (Acridoidea: Pygomorphidae), during post-embryonic development. African Entomology. 2010; 18(2): 360-364.
    CrossRef
33. Bukkens S.G.F. Insects in the human diet: nutritional aspects. In: Ecological implications of minilivestock; role of rodents, frogs, snails, and insects for sustainable development (M.G. Paoletti, ed.). New Hampshire: Science Publishers. 2005; pp 545–577.
34. Oonincx D.G., van Itterbeeck , Heetkamp  M. J., Van den Brand  H., van Loon J.J., van Huis A. An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. Plos One. 2010; 5(12): e14445.
    CrossRef
35. Rutaro K., Malinga G.M., Lehtovaara V.J., Opoke R., Valtonen A., Kwetegyeka J., Nyeko P., Roininen H. The fatty acid composition of edible grasshopper Ruspoliadifferens (Serville) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) feeding on diversifying diets of host plants. Entomological Research. 2018; 48(6): 490-498.
    CrossRef
36. De W Blackburn C. (ed): Food spoilage microorganisms. Woodhead Publishing. 2006.
    CrossRef
37. Majumdar A., Pradhan N., Sadasivan J., Acharya A., Ojha N., Babu S. Bose S. Food Degradation and Foodborne Diseases: A Microbial Approach. In: Microbial Contamination and Food Degradation. Academic Press. 2018; pp 109-148.
    CrossRef
38. Baby R.L., Hasan I., Kabir K.A., Naser M.N. Nutrient analysis of some commercially important molluscs of Bangladesh. Journal of Scientific Research. 2010; 2(2): 390-6.
    CrossRef
39. Adeyeye E.I. Bio-concentration of macro and trace minerals in four prawns living in Lagos Lagoon. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 2000; 43: 367-373.
40. Kinyuru J.N., Kenji G.M., Muhoho S.N., Ayieko M. Nutritional potential of longhorn grasshopper (Ruspoliadifferens) consumed in Siaya district, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2010; 12: 32-46.
41. Lee S.Y. Growth and reproduction of the green mussel Pernaviridis (L.) (Bivalvia: Mytiliacea) in contrasting environments in Hong Kong. Asian Marine Biology.1986; 3: 111-127.
42. Wafer M.V.M.,Vijayaraghawan S., Krishnakumari L. Seasonal changes in the nutritive values of the Green Mussel Mytilusviridis (L.). Indian Journal of Marine Science. 1976; 5: 252-254.
43. Lairson L.L., Henrissat B., Davies G.J., Withers S.G. Glycosyltransferases: structures, functions, and mechanisms. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2008; 77: 521-55.
    CrossRef
44. Babu A., Kesavan K., Annadurai D., Rajagopal S. Bursa spinosa– A mesogastropod fit for human consumption. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2010; 2(1): 79-83.
45. Adeduntan S. A. Nutritional and antinutritional characteristics of some insects foraging in Akure forest reserve Ondo state, Nigeria. Journal of Food Technology. 2005; 3: 563-567
46. Mbah C.E., Elekima G.O.V. Nutrient composition of some terrestrial insects in Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru Zaria Nigeria. Science World Journal. 2007; 2(2).
    CrossRef
47. Oduor P.M., Struszczyk M.H., Peter M.G. Characterisation of chitosan from blowfly larvae and some crustacean species from Kenyan marine waters prepared under different conditions. Discovery and Innovation. 2008; 20(2): 129-36.
48. Ekop E.A., Udoh A.I., Akpan P.E. Proximate and anti-nutrient composition of four edible insects in AkwaIbom State, Nigeria.World Journal of Applied Science and Technology.2010; 2(2): 224-31.
49. Beard J., Han O. Systemic iron status. BiochimicaetBiophysicaActa (BBA)-General Subjects. 2009; 1790(7): 584-8.
    CrossRef
50. Dunkel D. Nutritional values of various insects per 100 grams. The Food Insect Newsletter. 1996; 9: 1-8.
51. Halfdanarson T.R., Kumar N., Li C.Y., Phyliky R.L., Hogan W.J. Hematological manifestations of copper deficiency: a retrospective review. European journal of haematology. 2008; 6: 523-31.
    CrossRef
52. World Health Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Human vitamin and mineral requirements. Vitamin E, Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation, Bangkok, Thailand. Rome: World Health Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002; 121-31.
53. Zhou Q., Zhang J., Fu J., Shi J., Jiang G. Biomonitoring: an appealing tool for assessment of metal pollution in the aquatic ecosystem. 2008; 606(2): 135-50.
    CrossRef
54. Zagrobelny M., Dreon A.L., Gomiero T., Marcazzan G.L., Glaring M.A., Møller B.L., Paoletti M.G. Toxic moths: source of a truly safe delicacy. Journal of Ethnobiology. 2009; 29(1): 64-76.
    CrossRef
55. Van der Fels H.J. Risk profile related to production and consumption of insects as food and feed: EFSA Scientific Committee. EFSA Journal. 2015; 13(10): 4257.
    CrossRef
56. Williams D.D., Williams S.S. Aquatic insects and their potential to contribute to the diet of the globally expanding human population. 2017; 8(3): 72.
    CrossRef
57. Hanboonsong Y. Edible Insects and Associated Food Habits in Thailand. In: Forest Insects as Food: Humans Bite Back; Proceedings of a Workshop on Asia-Pacific Resources and Their Potential for Development. (Durst, P.B., Johnson, D.V., Leslie, R.L., Shono, K., Eds.) FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand. 2010; 173-182.
58. Hazarika H.N. Entomophagy with special reference to Assam. International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management. 2018; 4(4): 458-62.
59. Sangma R.H., Pal R., Singh D.R. Edible Insects of Northeast India. In:Bioprospecting of indigenous bioresources of North-East India. Springer, Singapore. 2016; pp 253-267.
    CrossRef
60. Pathak K.A., Rao K.R. Insect pests as human food of tribals in North Eastern Region of India. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2000; 62(1): 97-100.
61. Chakravorty J., Ghosh S., Meyer-Rochow V.B. Comparative survey of entomophagy and entomotherapeutic practices in six tribes of Eastern Arunachal Pradesh (India). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2013; 9(1): 50.
    CrossRef
62. Ronghang R., Teron R., Tamuli A.K., Rajkhowa R.C. Traditional zootherapy practiced among the Karbis of Assam (India). The Ecoscan. 2011; 1: 161-6.