an adequate pre‐processing of raw materials that aids in tailoring the physiochemical properties suitable for food printing (Nachal et al. 2019). Hence designing of interface system was one of the critical factors that must consider the end‐users applications like domestic household level, industrial level, or lab scale. Based on this, the model design, tool path settings, and other process parameters were framed while designing the web‐based user template (Evans 2012). The advantage of these systems helps in achieving personalized nutrition, customized fabrication of 3D constructs with improved texture, new flavour, and mouthfeel. With such a user‐friendly interface system, consumers can directly print their food as per their individual needs and preferences.
1.10 Comparison Between Food 3D Printing and Robotic Food Manufacturing
Although food 3D printing and robotics‐based food manufacturing processes were aimed at automation and reduction of workload, there exists a distinct difference between them. The former technology relies upon the consumer’s needs allowing the users to manipulate ingredients while the latter involves the replacement of labour‐intensive operations and automation of manual processes (Sun et al. 2018a). Baked recipes and confectionery products such as sugar cubes can be prepared either by food printing or robotics‐based manufacturing. Basic ingredients remain to be same for both these processes, however, certain modifications are required for materials to be used in food printing. These modifications aid in tailoring the rheological and post‐deposition requirements for achieving a stable printed food. Applications of digital gastronomy in food 3D printing help in the fabrication of foods with a different eating experience that goes beyond the taste encompassing all aspects of gastronomy. For instance, robotic‐based chocolate manufacturing employs cocoa powder, butter, sugar, and full cream milk as raw materials; however, food printing uses the commercially available readymade chocolates (Sun et al. 2015b).
In terms of market value, the critical factors that distinguish food printing from conventional food processing techniques are customization, complexity, and production volume (Conner et al. 2014; Petrick and Simpson 2013). In the case of conventional processing, the unit cost would increase with the increase in complexity/ customization. Since the addition of complex designs requires more tools, energy, and labour. On the other hand, the unit cost would decrease with production volume without considering the complexity. In contrast to this scenario, the unit cost remains stable irrespective of the increase in complexity/ customization for 3D printing. This was because any changes in design could be done in the 3D model before printing which is not the case in conventional manufacturing. This feature adds value to food 3D printing to emerge as a promising technology that balances the cost as well as production volume without compromising the structural complexity of the designs (Pinkerton 2016).
1.11 Conclusion
3D printing as an AM technique is well flourished in several industrial sectors. As of food printing is concerned, FLM is at its nascent stage. Printing food is not as easy as it seems, as food is a complex substance that comprises several intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The criteria for achieving well defined 3D food structure and science behind the inherent chemical interactions and binding of the deposited layers have not yet been clarified. Researchers all around the world were working in exploring the potential applications of food printing for mass customization, personalized nutrition, intricate designing, etc. In terms of cost, food printing remains to be cheaper than conventional food processing techniques as printing combines multiple steps and eliminates human interventions. 3D food printing allows fabrication of edible 3D constructs of complex designs and helps in food customization. With the technological advancements, food printing seems to be a futuristic technology that would turn the so‐called ‘balanced diet’ into a ‘digitalized diet’.
References
1 3DSourced (2021). Featured stories: history of 3D printing. https://www.3dsourced.com/guides/history‐of‐3d‐printing (accessed 12 September 2021).
2 Anukiruthika, T., Moses, J.A., and Anandharamakrishnan, C. (2020). 3D printing of egg yolk and white with rice flour blends. Journal of Food Engineering 265: 109691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.109691.
3 Bandyopadhyay, A. and Heer, B. (2018). Additive manufacturing of multi‐material structures. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 129: 1–16.
4 Bechtold, S. (2016). 3D printing, intellectual property and innovation policy. IIC‐International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 47 (5): 517–536.
5 Beltagui, A., Rosli, A., and Candi, M. (2020). Exaptation in a digital innovation ecosystem: the disruptive impacts of 3D printing. Research Policy 49 (1): 103833.
6 Calignano, F., Peverini, O.A., Addamo, G. et al. (2019). High‐performance microwave waveguide devices produced by laser powder bed fusion process. Procedia CIRP 79: 85–88.
7 Chao, H., Li, Y., and Ying‐ying, Z. (2011). Research on repair algorithms for hole and cracks errors of STL models. International Conference on Information and Management Engineering, pp. 42–47.
8 Chen, J., Mu, T., Goffin, D. et al. (2019). Application of soy protein isolate and hydrocolloids based mixtures as promising food material in 3D food printing. Journal of Food Engineering 261: 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.03.016.
9 Conner, B.P., Manogharan, G.P., Martof, A.N. et al. (2014). Making sense of 3‐D printing: creating a map of additive manufacturing products and services. Additive Manufacturing 1: 64–76.
10 Derossi, A., Caporizzi, R., Ricci, I., and Severini, C. (2019). Critical variables in 3D food printing. In: Fundamentals of 3D Food Printing and Applications (eds. F.C. Godoi, B.R. Bhandari, S. Prakash and M. Zhang), 41–91. Elsevier.
11 Evans, B. (ed.) (2012). 3D printer toolchain. In: Practical 3D Printers, pp. 27–47. Berkeley, CA: Apress https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4302‐4393‐9_2.
12 Guo, C., Zhang, M., and Bhandari, B. (2019). Model building and slicing in food 3D printing processes: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18 (4): 1052–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541‐4337.12443.
13 Hamilton, C.A., Alici, G., and Panhuis, M. (2018). 3D printing vegemite and marmite: redefining “breadboards.”. Journal of Food Engineering 220: 83–88.
14 Hao, L., Mellor, S., Seaman, O. et al. (2010). Material characterisation and process development for chocolate additive layer manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 5 (2): 57–64.
15 Hon, K.K.B. (2007). Digital additive manufacturing: from rapid prototyping to rapid manufacturing. Proceedings of the 35th International MATADOR Conference, pp. 337–340.
16 Horvath, J. (ed.) (2014a). Driving your printer: G‐code. In: Mastering 3D Printing, pp. 65–76. Berkeley, CA: Apress https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4842‐0025‐4_6.
17 Horvath, J. (ed.) (2014b). The desktop 3D printer. In: Mastering 3D Printing, pp. 11–20. Berkeley, CA: Apress https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4842‐0025‐4_2.
18 Horvath, J. and Cameron, R. (eds.) (2015). Controlling your 3D printer. In: 3D Printing with MatterControl, pp. 71–83. Berkeley, CA: Apress https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4842‐1055‐0_6.
19 Huang, C.Y. (2018). Extrusion‐based 3D Printing and Characterization of Edible Materials [University of Waterloo]. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/12899
20 Jayaprakash,