C. Anandharamakrishnan

3D Printing of Foods


Скачать книгу

Classification of food hydrocolloids.

Origin Examples of hydrocolloids
Plant Gum arabic, basil seed gum, gum karaya, konjac, locust bean gum, flaxseed gum, guar gum, and starches
Animal Chitin, chitosan, and gelatin
Seaweeds Agar, alginate, xylan, carrageenan, and ulvan
Microbial Gellan gum, tara gun, xanthan gum, dextran, curdlan, and pullulan
Synthetic Carboxymethyl cellulose, methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, and other cellulose derivatives

      In another study, Vancauwenberghe et al. (2017) developed a pectin‐based food stimulant for 3D printing applications. The study correlates the effect of the degree of methoxylation of pectin with a concentration of Ca2+ ions as a cross‐linking agent that aids in printability. Results showed that the formulation of food ink was greatly influenced by the density of the polymeric network and its degree of cross‐linking with Ca2+ ions. The addition of sugar to the food stimulant affects the viscoelastic behaviour and hence could be positively correlated with printability. As the incorporation of sugar dehydrates the polymeric matrix thereby enhancing the gelation mechanism with the formation of hydrogen bonds that would result in higher young’s modulus with firmer pectin‐based gel (Vancauwenberghe et al. 2017). Further, the study demonstrates the production of porous aerated 3D structure with the use of bovine serum albumin (BSA) and remains to be a base for future works for the development of food stimulants with added flavours and textures for food 3D printing.

      The nature of the material supply is an essential criterion in determining the final quality of the 3D printed edible constructs. Printability refers to the inherent ability of the material to withstand its own weight upon deposition over the printing platform (Kim et al. 2018). A material to possess good printability must have enough dimensional and mechanical stability to retain its shape after printing. Based on the nature and printability of the material supply, the ingredients for 3D printing can be categorized as natively printable, non‐printable traditional materials and alternative ingredients (Sun et al. 2018). The first class of natively printable materials include chocolates, cheese, cake frostings, hydrogels, etc., which are innately printable on their own without the addition of additives. This class of material supply requires less processing with ease of handling during printing. A second class of traditional materials includes staple cereals, fruits and vegetables, eggs and flesh foods that are common in our day‐to‐day life but are non‐printable on its own. This kind of material requires certain pre‐processing such as the addition of food additives or mixing a proportionate amount of natively printable materials for converting them into a printable form. The most common application is the use of food hydrocolloids as additives for making non‐printable materials printable. The third category includes alternate ingredients like insects, algae, fungi, and lupin seeds which are quite a good source of nutrients but are uncommon foods (Sun et al. 2015). They are widely used as a novel approach for the development of sustainable food to tackle the ever‐growing food demand. A detailed description of the classification of materials based on printability was discussed in the subsequent chapters.

      1 Amicucci, M.J., Nandita, E., and Lebrilla, C.B. (2019). Function without structures: the need for in‐depth analysis of dietary carbohydrates. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 67 (16): 4418–4424.

      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 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.

      4 Dai, F.‐J. and Chau, C.‐F. (2017). Classification and regulatory perspectives of dietary fiber. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 25 (1): 37–42.

      5 Devi, A. and Khatkar, B.S. (2016). Physicochemical, rheological and functional properties of fats and oils in relation to cookie quality: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 53 (10): 3633–3641.

      6 Dick, A., Bhandari, B., and Prakash, S. (2019). Post‐processing feasibility of composite‐layer 3D printed beef. Meat Science 153: 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.02.024.

      7 Dong, X., Huang, Y., Pan, Y. et al. (2019). Investigation of sweet potato starch as structural enhancer for 3D printing of Scomberomorus niphonius surimi. Journal of Texture Studies 50: 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12398.

      8 Godoi, F.C., Prakash, S., and Bhandari, B.R. (2016). 3d printing technologies applied for food design: status and prospects. Journal of Food Engineering 179: 44–54.

      9 Godoi, F.C., Bhandari, B.R., Prakash, S., and Zhang, M. (2019). An introduction to the principles of 3D food printing. In: Fundamentals of 3D Food Printing and Applications (eds. F.C. Godoi, B.R. Bhandari, S. Prakash and M. Zhang), pp. 1–18. Elsevier.

      10 Hoffman, J.R. (2019). Dietary Supplementation in Sport and Exercise: Evidence, Safety and Ergogenic Benefits. Routledge.

      11 Huang, M., Zhang, M., and Bhandari, B. (2019). Assessing the 3D printing precision and texture properties of brown rice induced by infill levels and printing variables. Food and Bioprocess Technology 12: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947‐019‐02287‐x.

      12 Kim,