## 3 Results
### Proximate Composition  
The proximate compositions of _T. papillosa_ following various cooking methods are summarized in Table 3. Our results indicate that the cooked insects did not exhibit signifi \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Late Nymph**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Adult**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Raw** & **Roasted** & **Grilled** & **Raw** & **Roasted** & **Grilled** \\ \hline Protein (g/100 g) & 55.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 55.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 57.5 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 31.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 33.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 31.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Fat (g/100 g) & 23.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 23.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 23.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 50.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 50.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 51.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Fiber (g/100 g) & 14.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 12.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 14.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Ash (g/100 g) & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Carbohydrate (g/100 g) & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \(\delta\)-tocopherol (\(\mu\)g/g) & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \(\gamma\)-tocopherol (\(\mu\)g/g) & 5.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 18.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \(\alpha\)-tocopherol (\(\mu\)g/g) & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 6.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \(\gamma\)-oryzanol (mg/g) & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n=3\)). - Not detected. Means with different letters are significantly different at \(p\) < 0.05 within the same row of each sample using different treatments.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Proximate composition and oryzanol and tocopherols contents of stink bugs with different cooking methods. cant differences in the fat content compared to the raw samples. On a dry-weight basis, late nymphs displayed a higher protein content, whereas adults exhibited a higher fat concentration. Notably, there were no significant differences in the protein content between the cooked late nymph samples and the raw samples, while roasting led to a significant increase in the protein content for the adult samples. This aligns with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [27], who reported an increase in protein content for _Clarias gariepinus_ and _Oreochromis miloticus_ following the roasting process. Regarding the fiber content, both the roasting and grilling methods had a significant impact on the edible insects. The fiber content of late nymphs followed the decreasing order of raw (14.2%) > roasted (12.7%) > grilled (12.5%). Similarly, the fiber content of adult samples followed the decreasing order of raw (14.3%) > roasted (12.1%) > grilled (11.7%).