## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Impact of PEF Pretreatment and Drying Methods on Microbiological Quality
Contamination with spore-forming bacteria varied depending on the batch, which may have been related to the cultivation methods (e.g., access to soil may have increased the content of spore-forming bacteria). The high content of TVC, TYMC, and aerobic spore-forming bacteria indicates the need to use antimicrobial techniques, such as pre-treatment or drying. Previous studies have shown that a short heating step (1 min of boiling) could eliminate _Enterobacteriaceae_ from the larvae, reducing the TVC by more than three log cycles, while spore-forming bacteria remain in the product, unable to germinate [64]. [PERSON] et al. [17] also obtained a reduction in TVC, fungi, and _Enterobacteriaceae_ after blanching yellow mealworm larvae, while the microwave drying of blanched larvae did not cause a significant reduction in spore-forming bacteria, which was achieved in our study after the PEF pretreatment was applied before drying [17]. Th genetic analysis of aerobic spore-forming bacteria indicates the frequent presence of _B. cereus_, _B. cytotoxicus_, and _B. thuringiensis_ in edible insect larvae, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Total Viable** & **Total Yeast** & **Listeria mono-** & _Escherichia_ & _Staphylococcus_ & **Aerobic Spore-** & **Anerobic** \\  & **Count** & **Count** & **(YTMC)** & _cytogens_ & _coli_ & _aurens_ & **Forming** \\  & & & & & & & **Bacteria** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{Microbial count (log CFU/g)} \\ \hline Fresh & 6.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF0\_CD & 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF5\_CD & 6.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF20\_CD & 5.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF40\_CD & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF0\_IR-CD & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF5\_IR-CD & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF20\_IR-CD & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ PEF40\_IR-CD & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 & \(\angle\)2.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The changes in the microbial quality (log CFU/g) of fresh yellow mealworm larvae and PEF-treated and dried with convective (CD) and infrared-convective (IR-CD) methods. which may pose a danger to consumers by producing toxins, so reducing the number of those microorganisms and controlling their level is a key parameter for the approval for consumption of yellow mealworm larvae [65].