## 3 Results and Discussion  
### The Impact of PEF Pretreatment and Drying Methods on Fat Extraction Yield and Protein Content  
The fat extraction yield of fresh larvae equaled 1.67 \(\pm\) 0.06 g/100 g wet mass (w.m.), while dried yellow mealworm equaled 22.09 \(\pm\) 0.07 and 16.01 \(\pm\) 0.23 g/100 g d.m. for convective and infrared-convective samples, respectively. The two-factor ANOVA showed that the drying method (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.963), as well as the dose of the PEF energy intake (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.959), and the interaction between the dose of PEF energy intake and the drying method (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.970), affected the fat extraction yield. The fat extraction yield was in the range of 17.7-24.7 g/100 g d.m. (Figure 1a). The samples subjected to the PEF treatment resulted in a greater fat extraction yield for most of the analyzed samples. Higher extraction yields for the PEF-treated olives [32], sunflower seeds [33], and also insects [34] were provided in the related literature. What is more, for almost all of the convective-dried samples, a significantly higher fat extraction yield was recorded. The exception was a PEF-treated sample at 5 kJ/kg. The differences in the results obtained may be related to the varied composition of the insects studied, as well as structural changes (due to the electroporation phenomenon) and shrinkage in the course of drying. This may have caused the migration of fat globules to the tissue surface and subsequent loss [35; 36]. This may be related to the varied distribution of fat in tissue or its binding to other components, which requires further research using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or laser confocal scanning microscopy (LCSM).  
Protein is one of the most important macronutrients found in insects. The protein content assayed in fresh yellow mealworm equaled 15.45 \(\pm\) 0.09 g/100 g w.m., while in dried yellow mealworm larvae content was comparable and equaled 47.5-48.7 g/100 g d.m. (Figure 1b). The two-factor ANOVA illustrated that the dose of the PEF energy intake (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.635), the drying method (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.569), and the interaction between the dose of the PEF energy intake and the drying method (\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.699) affected protein content. The significant impact was noticed when the sample was PEF-treated at 20 and 40 kJ/kg before drying by means of the CD method. This significant decline in protein content may be connected to some structural changes, proteolysis, and reduced extractability due to the electroporation phenomenon and high temperature in the course of drying [9; 34]. The protein content in insects after the PEF treatment was also elaborated upon in the related  
Figure 1: Effect of the PEF pretreatment and drying methods (CD—convective drying, IR-CD—infrared-convective drying) on (**a**) fat extraction yield and (**b**) protein content of yellow mealworm larvae. The different letters above columns denote statistical differences between samples (\(p<0.05\)).  
literature. For instance, the study performed on yellow mealworm larvae showed that the PEF application at 20 kJ/kg prior to freeze-drying significantly decreased protein content by 5.5% as compared to an untreated sample [16]. [PERSON] et al. [37] illustrated that the PEF-assisted extraction process of house cricket (_Acheta domesticus_) flour allowed the protein yield to increase, especially after PEF at 4.9 kJ/kg and an extraction time of 60 min.