179,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
3D Printing of Foods Explore the fascinating realm of 3D food printing and its applications In 3D Printing of Foods, a team of distinguished researchers delivers a comprehensive and eye-opening exploration of the rapidly developing field of 3D food printing. In the book, the authors offer readers an examination of "food printability," the foundation of 3D food printing. They discuss the enormous research gap in the subject that remains to be addressed and envisage a robust discipline in which food processing techniques, combined with 3D food printing, gives rise to a range of synergistic applications. In addition to treatments of safety challenges and research requirements, the book tackles food industry market trends and consumer preferences, as well as the globalization of printed foods and consumer perception of 3D printed foods. 3D Printing of Foods also explores the integration of electrohydrodynamic processes and encapsulation with 3D food printing. Readers will also find: * Thorough introductions to 3D printing technology, 3D printing approaches, and food components and their printability * In-depth examinations of the factors affecting the printability of foods, printability and techniques, and natively printable foods * Practical discussions of pre-processing of non-printable foods and alternative ingredients used in food printing * Comprehensive explorations of 4D printing technology and the applications of 3D food printing technology Perfect for 3D printing professionals and enthusiasts, as well as food scientists, 3D Printing of Foods is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in a one-stop resource addressing this cutting-edge technology with nearly limitless potential.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1166
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
1 Introduction to 3D Printing Technology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Digital Manufacturing: From Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Manufacturing
1.3 Milestones in 3D Printing Technology
1.4 Different Historical Eras in 3D Printing
1.5 Prospects of 3D Food Printing
1.6 Design Considerations of 3D Printer
1.7 Software Requirements and Hardware Integration
1.8 Designing, Digital Imaging, and Modelling
1.9 Food Printing Platforms
1.10 Comparison Between Food 3D Printing and Robotic Food Manufacturing
1.11 Conclusion
References
2 3D Printing Approaches
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Additive Manufacturing
2.3 3D Food Printing Technologies
2.4 Extrusion‐Based Printing
2.5 Selective Sintering
2.6 Inkjet Printing
2.7 Binder Jetting
2.8 Bio‐Printing
2.9 Future Prospects and Challenges
2.10 Conclusion
References
3 Food Components and Their Role in Printability
3.1 Recipes in ‘Print and Eat Technology’
3.2 Role of Food Constituents
3.3 Panorama of Food Printing
3.4 Insights on the Printability of Different Food Constituents
3.5 Classification of Foods Based on Their Printability
3.6 Conclusion
References
4 Factors Affecting the Printability of Foods
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Factors That Affect Extrusion 3D Printing
4.3 Intrinsic Properties
4.4 Extrinsic Properties
4.5 Factors Affecting Other 3D Printing Technologies
4.6 Conclusion
References
5 Printability and Techniques
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Printability and Material Characteristics
5.3 Material Characterization Techniques
5.4 Assessment of Printability
5.5 Printability Evaluation of 3D Printed Constructs
5.6 Conclusion
References
6 Natively Printable Foods
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Natively Printable Materials as Basic Food 3D Printing Formulations
6.3 Printability: Concepts and Underlying Mechanisms
6.4 Types of Natively Printable Materials
6.5 Insights and Scope for Commercialization
6.6 Concluding Remarks
References
7 Pre‐Processing of Non‐Printable Foods
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Natively Non‐Printable Materials
7.3 Pre‐Processing and Formulations for 3D Printing
7.4 Post‐Printing Stability of the Printed 3D Constructs
7.5 Scope of Non‐Printable Materials for 3D Printing Applications
7.6 Conclusion
References
8 Alternative Ingredients Used in Food Printing
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Alternative Food Sources and the Sustainability Perspective
8.3 Rationale of Alternative Material Supplies
8.4 Innovative Food Sources
8.5 3D Printing of Alternative Ingredients
8.6 Future Trends and Perspectives
8.7 Challenges and Limitations
8.8 Conclusion
References
9 Post‐Processing of 3D Printed Foods
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Material Supply Requirements for Food 3D Printing
9.3 Post‐Processing Methods
9.4 Novel Post‐Processing Methods
9.5 Assessment of Post‐Processing Characteristics
9.6 Sensorial Characterization
9.7 Requisites, Challenges, and Future Trends
9.8 Conclusion
References
10 4D Printing Technology
10.1 Introduction
10.2 4D Printing: Concept and Functionality
10.3 Smart Materials for 4D Printing
10.4 Mechanism of Shape Memory Polymers
10.5 Shape Memory Effect in 4D Printing
10.6 Stimuli‐Responsive Systems
10.7 Programming Strategies
10.8 Spontaneous Transformation in Foods
10.9 Recent Advancements in 4D Food Printing
10.10 Future Trends and Challenges
10.11 Conclusion
References
11 Applications of Food 3D Printing Technology
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Applications of 3D Food Printing
11.3 Future Outlook of 3D Food Printing
11.4 Conclusion
References
12 Integrating Encapsulation Technique with 3D Food Printing
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Integration of 3D Printing and Encapsulation
12.3 Structure Modified Delivery Systems
12.4 Techniques and Methods for Micro and Nanoencapsulation
12.5 Future Outlook and Prospects of Synergistic Approaches
12.6 Barriers and Research Constraints
12.7 Conclusion
References
13 Integrating Electrohydrodynamic Processes with Food 3D Printing
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Encapsulation Techniques Involving Electrohydrodynamic Process
13.3 Applications in the Food Industry
13.4 Integrating 3D Printing with Electrospraying/ Electrospinning
13.5 Future Perspectives and Challenges
13.6 Conclusion
References
14 Globalization of Printed Foods and Consumer Perception to 3D Printed Foods
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Circular Economy in Food Printing
14.3 Globalization of Food 3D Printing Technology
14.4 New Horizons of 3D Food Printing
14.5 3D Food Printing – A Classic Disruptive Technology
14.6 Technological Barriers and Challenges
14.7 Conclusion
References
15 Food Industry Market Trends and Consumer Preferences
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Food Service Market: Consumption to Prosumption
15.3 Food Decisions and Consumer Attitude
15.4 Approaches and Methods to Assess Consumer Perception
15.5 Consumer's Acceptance of Novel Foods
15.6 Intervention Tools for Enhancing Consumer Knowledge
15.7 Trends, Advancements, and Future Directions
15.8 Conclusion
References
16 Safety, Challenges, and Research Needs
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Implications of Food Printing
16.3 Applicability and Storability
16.4 Food Safety Considerations
16.5 Legal Framework and Regulations
16.6 Challenges and Research Needs
16.7 Conclusion
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Common slicing software used in 3D printing.
Table 1.2 List of online sources for downloading 3D models.
Table 1.3 Different scanning technologies.
Table 1.4 Software used for repairing STL file after 3D scanning.
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Classification of food hydrocolloids.
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Summary of the mechanism of printability of natively printable mat...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Summary of the role of commercially important hydrocolloids in foo...
Table 7.2 Printability of the traditional food materials.
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Recent trends on the market growth rate of alternative proteins.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Schematic representation of subtractive and additive manufacturin...
Figure 1.2 Workflow of 3D printing process.
Figure 1.3 Prospects of 3D food printing.
Figure 1.4 Value chain of 3D food printing. (a) consumer buying 3D printed f...
Figure 1.5 Illustration of printing movements in various printer configurati...
Figure 1.6 Operation of delta type 3D printer. (a) Illustration of printing ...
Figure 1.7 Stepper motor and its controlling mechanism.
Figure 1.8 Common STL errors.
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Classification of AM technologies.
Figure 2.2 Schematic view of CARK food 3D printer.
Figure 2.3 Schematic diagram of typical extrusion‐based 3D printing.
Figure 2.4 Different types of extrusion mechanism (a) piston‐based extrusion...
Figure 2.5 3D printed samples using dual extrusion of different internal str...
Figure 2.6 3D printing of material supply using multi‐head 3D food printer M...
Figure 2.7 Hot‐melt extrusion of complex 3D geometry bunny using chocolate....
Figure 2.8 3D printed wheat starch hydrogels.
Figure 2.9 Schematic diagram of selective laser printing.
Figure 2.10 3D printed sugar constructs using sintering process (a) 2D patte...
Figure 2.11 Schematic diagram of inkjet printing.
Figure 2.12 Schematic diagram of binder jetting.
Figure 2.13 Steps involved in 3D bioprinting process.
Figure 2.14 Schematic representation of integration of 3D printing with plan...
Figure 2.15 Schematic diagram of 3D bioprinting.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Schematic representation of gelation mechanism of starch granules...
Figure 3.2 Schematic representation of sintering process.
Figure 3.3 Confocal micrographs of cheese sample showing distribution of fat...
Figure 3.4 Multi‐material 3D printed meat (a) Raw and cooked samples, (b) 3D...
Figure 3.5 Effect of particle size on 3D printing of fibrous spinach powder ...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Sensory evaluation of 3D printed rice starch of varied printing c...
Figure 4.2 Effect of calcium content on critical shear rate of the model che...
Figure 4.3 Steady shear rheology of egg yolk and egg white material supplies...
Figure 4.4 Dynamic oscillatory rheology of chicken‐based material supply. (a...
Figure 4.5 Temperature sweep plot of model cheese. (a) Storage modulus and l...
Figure 4.6 Window of dimensional stability of different material supplies ba...
Figure 4.7 Oscillatory stress sweep measurements for different material supp...
Figure 4.8 Complex viscosity of chicken‐based material supply.
Figure 4.9 Rheological analysis of milk protein composite gel. (a) Thixotrop...
Figure 4.10 Comparison of the relative Young's modulus of the 3D printed pec...
Figure 4.11 Testing of snap‐ability of 3D printed chocolates. (a) Illustrati...
Figure 4.12 Three‐dimensional plot showing the effects of baking temperature...
Figure 4.13 Coefficient of friction curve of different samples of 3D printed...
Figure 4.14 TGA thermograms of microcapsules of buckwheat based complex coac...
Figure 4.15 Two‐dimensional contour plots of 3D printed xanthan/konjac gum m...
Figure 4.16 Different categories of 3D printing behaviour of mashed potato b...
Figure 4.17 3D printed lemon juice gel. (a) Relationship between extrusion r...
Figure 4.18 Optimization of extrusion rate of egg white (EW) and egg yolk (E...
Figure 4.19 Flow rate as a function of dispenser pressure of sodium caseinat...
Figure 4.20 Effect of printing variables on the printing speeds of 3D printi...
Figure 4.21 3D printed constructs of different chocolate formulations (a)–(d...
Figure 4.22 3D printed chocolates of different model designs. (a) Hexagonal ...
Figure 4.23 Printing performance of yellow flesh peach incorporated buckwhea...
Figure 4.24 Relationship between weight and porosity fraction of raw and coo...
Figure 4.25 Desirability profile for relative deviation of perimeter of 3D c...
Figure 4.26 Schematic representation of operating regime of inkjet printing ...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Morphology of 3D printed surimi gel with different levels of NaCl...
Figure 5.2 Morphology of 3D printed potato starch sample at different condit...
Figure 5.3 Pectin‐based model 3D constructs of cube and honeycomb structures...
Figure 5.4 3D pore analysis of 3D printed pectin gel. (a) Cross‐sectional im...
Figure 5.5 Macro and microstructural analysis of 3D printed pectin gel. (a) ...
Figure 5.6 Micro CT images of insect enriched 3D printed snacks.
Figure 5.7 Structural properties of insect enriched 3D printed snacks. (a) D...
Figure 5.8 Confocal images showing distribution of carrot callus in callus‐b...
Figure 5.9 Protein and fat distribution of different formulation of baking d...
Figure 5.10 XRD spectra of wheat starch of different wavelength interval. (a...
Figure 5.11 XRD spectra of varieties of rice paste with different levels of ...
Figure 5.12 SAXS analysis of 3D printed potato starch samples of different h...
Figure 5.13 Kratky plots of 3D printed corn starch and rice starch samples. ...
Figure 5.14 SAXS of 3D printed corn starch and rice starch samples. (a) Diff...
Figure 5.15 NMR spectra of 3D printed lemon juice gel with different concent...
Figure 5.16 NMR spectra of milk gels with different total protein contents (...
Figure 5.17 FTIR spectra of varieties of rice paste with different levels of...
Figure 5.18 DSC thermograms of 3D printing material supply of SPI and SPI mi...
Figure 5.19 Printability test used for testing lemon juice gel. (a) Line tes...
Figure 5.20 Lattice tests of 3D printed dough obtained by modulating the fil...
Figure 5.21 3D printing of cylindrical shaped dough samples with different i...
Figure 5.22 Schematic diagram of experimental setup used for analyzing the d...
Figure 5.23 Deformation behaviour of different levels of methylcellulose and...
Figure 5.24 Experimental setup of a cylindrical rig used for assessing dimen...
Figure 5.25 Images representing the deformation of 3D printed cylinders of d...
Figure 5.26 Images showing the elevation view of 3D printed triple‐steps of ...
Figure 5.27 Methodology used for evaluating printability of WPI/GG inks. (a)...
Figure 5.28 Ternary diagram showing the printability of the high oil composi...
Figure 5.29 Schematic representation of different levels of printability of ...
Figure 5.30 Scheme of flow chart used for decision making of 3D food printin...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Broad classification of natively printable materials.
Figure 6.2 Different concentrations of 3D printed starch samples using hot‐m...
Figure 6.3 Effect of material formulations on 3D printing of baking dough....
Figure 6.4 Methods employed for fabrication of hydrogels.
Figure 6.5 Effect of ozonation pre‐treatment on 3D printability cassava star...
Figure 6.6 Images of 3D printed starch‐modified hydrogel of different period...
Figure 6.7 Effect of microwave power levels on the quality of 3D printed coo...
Figure 6.8 3D printed milk protein gels of different protein contents. (a) 3...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Schematic flow process of 3D printing of natively non‐printable m...
Figure 7.2 Images of 3D printed fish surimi gel using different nozzle heigh...
Figure 7.3 Images of 3D printed objects from egg yolk paste at different hea...
Figure 7.4 3D printed snacks from fruits and vegetable blend at different pr...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Driving forces for the emergence of novel sustainable foods.
Figure 8.2 Overview of opportunities existing with alternative food ingredie...
Figure 8.3 Optimization of mushroom based 3D printed material supply of diff...
Figure 8.4 3D printed functional cookie fortified with
Arthrospira platensis
Figure 8.5 Process optimization of printing variables of size fractions of p...
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Overview of the 3D food printing process.
Figure 9.2 Effect of different post‐processing methods on appearance of 3D p...
Figure 9.3 3D structures of 3D printed and post‐processed 3D constructs.
Figure 9.4 Post‐processed 3D printed snack from composite flour.
Figure 9.5 3D printed chicken nugget. (a) 3D printed chicken nugget, and (b)...
Figure 9.6 3D printed snacks with different levels of insect enrichment bake...
Figure 9.7 Optimized conditions of 3D printed mushroom constructs. (a) 3D mo...
Figure 9.8 3D printed buckwheat dough. (a) With different period of microwav...
Figure 9.9 3D printed sous‐vide cooked beef sample at varying fat content. (...
Figure 9.10 Post‐processing of 3D printed noodles of different formulations ...
Figure 9.11 Effect of air‐frying on the 3D printed samples of different infi...
Figure 9.12 3D printing of symbiotic incorporated composite flour. (a) 3D pr...
Figure 9.13 Post‐processing characteristics of 3D printed beef. (a) Cooking ...
Figure 9.14 Cooking loss of 3D printed surimi gels containing different leve...
Figure 9.15 Self‐gelation mechanism of synergism of microwave and 3D printin...
Figure 9.16 Images of printed products at different microwave powers (No sha...
Figure 9.17 Microwave processed 3D printed mushroom‐based dough. (a) Spice‐b...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1
Overview
of 4D printing process.
Figure 10.2 Key requirements of 4D printing of smart materials.
Figure 10.3 Concept of SME. (a) shape memory cycle, and (b) analogy of SME....
Figure 10.4 Working concept of dual and triple shape memory effect (SME) of ...
Figure 10.5 Programming strategies of bending and buckling.
Figure 10.6 Images of pH‐triggered colour transition of the 3D constructs of...
Figure 10.7 4D printed turmeric‐sago constructs. (a) UV absorbance of differ...
Figure 10.8 4D colour transformation of potato/ purple sweet potato puree. (...
Figure 10.9 (a) Spontaneous colour transition of the 3D‐printed RCJ‐V‐PS‐Gel...
Figure 10.10 Spontaneous colour transformation of different combinations of ...
Figure 10.11 Radar chart showing changes in aroma of SPI‐3% carrageenan‐0.5%...
Figure 10.12 Dehydration‐triggered shape transition of 4D printed gel. (a) D...
Figure 10.13 4D shape transformation of bi‐layered pumpkin/ paper 3D constru...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Various opportunities exist with 3D printing of foods.
Figure 11.2 Cross‐sectional image showing the programmable texture modified ...
Figure 11.3 Lemon juice gel 3D printed in different customized shapes. (a) a...
Figure 11.4 Customized shapes of 3D constructs from different material suppl...
Figure 11.5 3D printing evaluation of litchi into squirrel shape with a hybr...
Figure 11.6 Correlation of rheology with the 3D printing of cooked beef past...
Figure 11.7 3D printed fresh vegetables for dysphagia patients. (a) 3D print...
Figure 11.8 3D printed designs of vegemite and marmite over the toasted brea...
Figure 11.9 Illustration of 3D printing as an educational aid. (a) and (b) c...
Figure 11.10 Optimization of 3D printing of grape pomace incorporated broken...
Figure 11.11 3D printing of grape pomace functional cookies. (a) 3D printed ...
Figure 11.12 Prototype of 3D printed food casing developed from agricultural...
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 3D printing of ascorbic loaded hydrogel. (a) Method of preparati...
Figure 12.2 3D printed sodium caseinate dispersions with loaded olive oil (l...
Figure 12.3 Fabrication of 3D printed baked functional cookie. (a) multiscal...
Figure 12.4 3D printed cubes of different formulations of pectin‐based bio‐i...
Figure 12.5 3D bioprinting of vascular construct. (a) illustration of cross‐...
Figure 12.6 Schematic representation of post‐hot‐melt extrusion used for lip...
Figure 12.7 Dropwise additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical melt‐based for...
Figure 12.8 Inkjet printing of antiviral polycaprolactone (PCX) nanoparticle...
Figure 12.9 Concentration of selected aromatic compounds of 3D constructs fr...
Figure 12.10 3D printing for partial tablet coating. (a) experimental set‐up...
Figure 12.11 Formulations, process parameters, and printed samples of differ...
Figure 12.12 Illustration of spray drying process.
Figure 12.13 Formation of core‐shell microparticles. (a) Schematic process o...
Figure 12.14 Modified three‐fluid nozzle for production of cross‐linked chit...
Figure 12.15 Modified spray dryer for aerosol formulations. (a) illustration...
Figure 12.16 Images of microencapsulated green tea polyphenols incorporated ...
Figure 12.17 Illustration of working principle of spray‐freeze‐drying.
Figure 12.18 Effect of temperature on foaming ability and structure of bubbl...
Figure 12.19 Schematic diagram of a RW™ drying system.
Figure 12.20 Illustration of the hot‐melt extrusion process used for product...
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1 System and design components of electrohydrodynamic processes. (...
Figure 13.2 Improvement of bioavailability of resveratrol through encapsulat...
Figure 13.3 Release profile and stability of nanoencapsulated and free polyp...
Figure 13.4 Schematic illustration of the two‐phase electrospinning for elec...
Figure 13.5 Quality changes in the appearance of strawberries stored at 21 °...
Figure 13.6 Retention of resveratrol in resveratrol‐loaded hollow zein (RHZ)...
Figure 13.7 Images showing the electrospun fibres from maltodextrin (MD)‐pro...
Figure 13.8 Viability of uncoated freeze‐dried and electrospray coating atom...
Figure 13.9 Allyl isothiocyanate loaded electrospun zein ultrafine fibres. (...
Figure 13.10 Edible coating with resveratrol loaded electrospun zein nanofib...
Figure 13.11 Curcumin release profiles from electrospun coatings of gelatin ...
Figure 13.12 Gravitational stability of different formulations of prepared e...
Figure 13.13 Schematic diagram of integration of electrospinning with 3D pri...
Figure 13.14 Schematic diagram of integration of multijet electrospinning wi...
Figure 13.15 Schematic diagram of integration of co‐spinning with 3D printin...
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 Materials and technology flow in 3D food printing ecosystem.
Figure 14.2 Design principles and technologies of Industry 4.0.
Figure 14.3 Food supply and distribution chain of 3D printing.
Figure 14.4 3D printed tablets with novel anticounterfeit design. (a) Data m...
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1 Various motives for the development of novel foods from consumer...
Figure 15.2 Relationship between the consumer's food choice motives and 3D p...
Figure 15.3 Conceptual framework for food ingredient's naturalness evaluatio...
Figure 15.4 Conventional approaches used for improving the sensory attribute...
Figure 15.5 Conceptual model showing influence of potential food‐related dis...
Figure 15.6 Illustration of integration of science‐based cooked foods and 3D...
Chapter 16
Figure 16.1 Overview of the current status of 3D printing of foods.
Figure 16.2 Evolutionary trends of new proteinaceous‐based foods in consider...
Figure 16.3 Characteristic features of 3D food printing technology.
Figure 16.4 Key steps of the past and the current EU novel food regulations....
Figure 16.5 Conceptual framework of food traceability system.
Figure 16.6 Drivers for traceability in the food supply chain.
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
xiv
xv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
3D Printing of Foods
C. Anandharamakrishnan
National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management ‐ Thanjavur (an Institute of National Importance; formerly Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology ‐ IIFPT), Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jeyan A. Moses
National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management ‐ Thanjavur (an Institute of National Importance; formerly Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology ‐ IIFPT), Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
T. Anukiruthika
National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management ‐ Thanjavur (an Institute of National Importance; formerly Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology ‐ IIFPT), Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
This edition first published 2022© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of C. Anandharamakrishnan, Jeyan A. Moses, and T. Anukiruthika to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial OfficeThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyThe contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication DataNames: Anandharamakrishnan, C., author. | Moses, Jeyan A., author. | Anukiruthika, T., author.Title: 3D printing of foods / C. Anandharamakrishnan, Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology (IIFPT), Thanjavur, India, Jeyan A. Moses, Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology (IIFPT), Thanjavur, India, T. Anukiruthika, Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology (IIFPT), Thanjavur, India.Other titles: Three dimensional printing of foodsDescription: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2021040694 (print) | LCCN 2021040695 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119669821 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119669753 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119671800 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Three‐dimensional food printing.Classification: LCC TP372.85 .A53 2021 (print) | LCC TP372.85 (ebook) | DDC 664–dc23/eng/20211105LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021040694LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021040695
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Alex_Traksel/Shutterstock
Preface
Gone are the days when food was consumed by the local population within a short span after the cultivation/harvest season. Today, food processing and preservation strategies have made major strides in striving to ensure food and nutritional security, at large. In recent years, with emerging applications in a range of other fields, 3D printing of foods has gained interest in research and technology development. Food processing is a complex and interdisciplinary field, relating agriculture, a series of postharvest unit operations, an intricate food supply chain, and stringent quality/safety parameters, all interlinked with consumer perception and acceptance. With the rising need for food customization, and providing personalized foods in terms of taste, mouthfeel, appearance, and nutrition, 3D printing of foods is gaining importance. 3D printing is an additive manufacturing approach involving layer‐by‐layer fabrication, using robotic controls. Advantages in terms of bulk customization, rapid prototyping, reduced wastages, and increasing health care applications have been the major strengths of the technology. Aerospace, automotive, and medical industries are the biggest takers, and technology is revolutionizing the manufacturing sector. The present scenario of the rising global population has increased the demand for the production of foods. In this regard, 3D printing allows us to produce foods sustainably even utilizing underexplored food sources and waste/by‐products. 3D printing of foods remains to offer a promising solution in satisfying global hunger, importantly, the ‘hidden hunger’: malnourishment. 3D food printing revolutionizes to customize foods based on genomic and biometric data, which are sensorially acceptable, making ‘imagination into reality.’ Eventually, food printing is poised to have a great impact on the economy, as it paves way for bridging the gap between small‐ and large‐scale entrepreneurs, thereby providing a great degree of flexibility to consumers in choosing the food in the way they want to eat.
Food printing is a rapidly emerging field and has the attractiveness of a range of advantages focusing on product customization and better utilization of resources. With growing consumer demands, we can be assured that this field would take a key segment in the food processing sector. However, the R&D needs are high and need to be better addressed before widespread commercialization and adoption of the technology. The speed of production must match/supplement other food processing technologies; it remains a challenge to bring the perfect blend between customization and mass production. Very importantly, the cost of a food 3D printer needs to be majorly relooked, considering prospects of widespread commercialization and usage. Addressing such concerns can for sure bring about the best with this technology in the food industry. While it continues to remain a debatable concern if 3D printed food materials are categorized as ‘processed foods,’ we envisage that 3D food printing in combination with food processing techniques can bring about a range of synergistic applications. This article focuses on the foundation of 3D food printing, the aspect of ‘food printability.’ We explain the complexity of defining this term and the huge research gap that needs to be addressed. Hence, we can hope that with a strong understanding of the intricacies of food properties and 3D printing mechanisms, we would one day see food 3D printers in every kitchen!
C. AnandharamakrishnanJeyan A. MosesT. Anukiruthika
1Introduction to 3D Printing Technology
CHAPTER MENU
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Digital Manufacturing: From Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Manufacturing
1.3 Milestones in 3D Printing Technology
1.4 Different Historical Eras in 3D Printing
1.4.1 Ancient Age
1.4.2 Middle Age
1.4.3 Modern Age
1.5 Prospects of 3D Food Printing
1.6 Design Considerations of 3D Printer
1.6.1 Printer Configurations
1.6.2 Components of a Typical 3D Printer
1.6.2.1 Enclosure, Build Plate, and Guide Rails
1.6.2.2 Mechanical Drive Systems
1.6.2.3 Microprocessor Controlling System
1.7 Software Requirements and Hardware Integration
1.8 Designing, Digital Imaging, and Modelling
1.8.1 Image Acquisition, Processing, and Modelling
1.8.2 Repairing and Post-Processing
1.9 Food Printing Platforms
1.9.1 Universal Platform
1.9.2 User-Defined Platform
1.9.3 Applicability of User Interface Systems
1.10 Comparison Between Food 3D Printing and Robotic Food Manufacturing
1.11 Conclusion
1.1 Introduction
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing appears to be a revolutionizing solid‐free fabrication (SFF) technique that grabs attention in recent years because of its inherent potential to transform virtual ideas into reality. Any manufacturing process involves a series of steps in converting the raw material into finished products. Manufacturing processes are classified as the additive process, subtractive process, formative process, and joining process (Bandyopadhyay and Heer 2018). As the name implies additive process involves the formation of an object by the addition of the material in a layered manner one above the other. On the other hand, the removal of the material by sculpturing an object out of the solid raw material is referred to as a subtractive process. In the formative process, the finished products are formed out of molten raw material as in the case of casting and forging. The latter is the joining process that combines the pieces of raw material either temporarily or permanently through fastening or welding. All the above processes other than additive manufacturing (AM) are grouped as traditional processing methods that involve a top‐down approach (Tofail et al. 2018). In contrast, AM represents a bottom‐up approach and is termed as a rapid prototyping (RP) layer‐based technique that involves the direct fabrication of physical objects from raw material (Figure 1.1) (Hon 2007). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/ American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defined AM as the process of creating a 3D object out of a computer‐designed 3D model through deposition and fusion of material in a layerbylayer manner (Jiang et al. 2019). Several other terms that were used synonymously in place of RP and AM are free‐form fabrication, ingress manufacturing, layered manufacturing, and digital manufacturing. 3D printing is one such technique of AM that allows for layer‐by‐layer construction of 3D objects with minimal processing and less wastage of raw materials (McClements 2017).
Figure 1.1 Schematic representation of subtractive and additive manufacturing.
The ISO/(ASTM) 52900:2015 standard had classified AM processes into seven different categories based on its working mechanism as material extrusion (ME), binder jetting (BJ), material jetting (MJ), powder bed fusion (PBF), sheet lamination (SL), directed energy deposition (DED), and vat photopolymerization (VP) (Tofail et al. 2018). Among these 3D printing techniques, extrusion‐based 3D printing is the most commonly used technique because of its simplicity and low cost (Jiang et al. 2019). Before food printing, 3D printing technology has widely applied for printing polymers (plastics, resins, and photopolymers), ceramics, metals, biomaterials, etc., with the assistance of external (thermal or mechanical) energy. The feed supply of these materials can be either in liquid or solid material in the form of powders/sheets/filaments. The process involves the deposition of feed materials in their fluidic state and gets fused and bonded together through appropriate chemical interactions. Raw materials such as polymers can be easily melted and bonded together due to their low melting point and glass transition temperatures while metals and ceramics require higher temperatures that employ an external heat source either laser or electron beams for post‐deposition (Ligon et al. 2017). Each of the AM technologies has its advantages and limitations and the specific printing technique can be selected based on its applicability and end‐use requirements. With the present scenario, 3D printing is expected to reach a peak of inflation in the coming years and is predicted to receive the main focus during 2019 and 2024 (Jayaprakash et al. 2019). This chapter covers the digital advancements of printing technology and printers, potential advantage, and applications of 3D food printing over the traditional food processing techniques.
1.2 Digital Manufacturing: From Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Manufacturing
Digital manufacturing involves the direct fabrication of objects without setting pre‐tools or workpiece requirements. Although the terms RP and AM are used synonymously, there was a distinct difference among them. RP refers to the process associated with the development of a prototype model, i.e. here the model processing is restricted till the pre‐production step that could not be used as functional working objects. Thus, the progressive transformation of RP leads to the AM processes that involve the actual production of functional workpieces from prototype models. Thus, AM allows RP to evolve into rapid manufacturing (RM) with more flexibility, work freedom, and exploitation of applications in developing a layered physical object. 3D printing was found to have vast potential applications of prototyping in several industrial sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automotive, space engineering, civil constructions, art, aviation, archaeology, cosmetics, and fashion industries (Rahman et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the most attractive application of 3D printing in food manufacturing is designing foods in a customized manner that leads to the development of the food fabrication process commonly referred to as food 3D printing. 3D printing of foods has a quite huge market potential as it aids in the mass customization, personalized diets, and sustainability practices than the traditional food manufacturing technologies (Derossi et al. 2019). Thus, 3D printing of foods referred to as food layer manufacturing (FLM) involves the sequential process of fabricating three‐dimensional edible constructs in a layer‐by‐layer manner with the capability of binding the adjacent layers through phase transitions or by chemical reactions (Nachal et al. 2019). A typical 3D printing process follows a series of well‐defined steps (Figure 1.2). First, it starts with scanning of real‐time objects or the creation of a 3D model using computer‐aided design (CAD) software. The shape and surface characteristics are stored in a unique STL file format that is native to 3D printing technology. Later the digital representation of the stored 3D object is transformed to the sliced information using a slicing software that translates the 3D model into computer‐generated codes (G and M codes). Based on which the movement arms and motors of 3D printers are controlled (Bechtold 2016). Thus, the whole printing process is controlled digitally using computers with minimal human interactions.
Figure 1.2 Workflow of 3D printing process.
1.3 Milestones in 3D Printing Technology
Although 3D printing received a wide attention in recent years, the technology dated back to several decades. Printing technology that uses two laser beams to fabricate the 3D objects was patented by Wyn Swainson of Denmark in the 1970s (Bechtold 2016). Later in the 1980s, another patent on 3D printing was filed by Dr. Hideo Kodama of Japan. However, this patent got rejected as the deadline for filing was passed out. After that, the next patent was awarded to Charles Chuck Hull in 1986 for his efforts in developing a stereolithography (SLA) apparatus (Beltagui et al. 2020). Hull co‐founded 3D Systems, one of the leading companies in the 3D industry. Later the company introduces the first commercialized 3D printer based on SLA in 1988. Further, they have developed a new file format that was specific to 3D printing technology named STL that was understandable to 3D printers which aid in the printing of 3D objects. While in 1988 DTM Inc., developed the first 3D printer based on selective laser sintering (SLS) technique (Saptarshi and Zhou 2019). Another 3D printing technology named fused deposition modelling (FDM) which was the most commonly adopted 3D printing technique was developed by Scott and Lisa Crump in the 1980s. They received a patent on this FDM technology and co‐founded Stratasys, another major player among the 3D industries (Su and Al’Aref 2018).
During the 1990s with the advancements of technology researchers of Stanford and Mellon proposed several other 3D techniques applied for micro‐level casting and spraying of materials. In 1993, MIT filed a patent on inkjet technology that employs liquid‐based ink for the construction of 3D objects commonly used in inkjet printers (Prasad and Smyth 2016). Later this technique was transferred and licensed to Z corporation for the development and marketing of 3D printers. Apart from materials manufacturing at the industrial level, 3D printing allows to produce consumer end products. In 2005, the RepRap project (3D printing open‐source project) was started by Adrian Bowyer at the University of Bath for the development of 3D printers at a low cost that could be affordable to the consumers (Bechtold 2016).
1.4 Different Historical Eras in 3D Printing
Since the incipient of 3D printing technology, 3D printing has shaped and transformed into different forms. Various technological advancements in the development of these AM processes are summarized in the subsequent sections.
1.4.1 Ancient Age
As stated earlier, the 3D printing process was first demonstrated and documented by Kodama of MIT where he developed a method for fabrication of 3D models out of plastics through photo‐hardening of photopolymers cured by ultraviolet (UV) light (Kodama 1981). Later in 1984, three researchers named Mehute, Witte, and Andre filed a patent on the STL process which was unsuccessful with the lack of business potential (Sokolov et al. 2018). After that, the STL technology was commercialized by 3D systems corporations which resulted in a viable manufacturing process for 3D printing. Meanwhile, the other 3D printing FDM technology has become popular as it paved for the production of consumer‐oriented 3D printed products (Sanchez Ramirez et al. 2019). This technology involved extruding hot‐melted plastics through the nozzle die thereby resulting in the deposition of layers to form 3D objects. These printers were quite large as like ‘1970s 5 MB hard disk’ which were then gradually reduced in size with advancements in 3D printing technology.
1.4.2 Middle Age
Around the 1990s, 3D printing received a vast attention due to its advantageous features that drive researchers of different universities to start working on this emerging area. In the 1990s, EOS GmbH developed a ‘stereos’ system, the first commercial industrial 3D printer (Calignano et al. 2019). Then Stratasys filed a patent on FDM technology that leads to the development of domestic 3D printers. In the late 1990s, new technologies were introduced by many aspiring 3D printing companies such as dot‐on‐dot printing techniques that use polymer jet for the fabrication of 3D objects. One such technique is MIT’s inkjet printing that uses polymer solution in a drop‐on‐demand (DoD) manner (Prasad and Smyth 2016). Similarly, the Fraunhofer Institute of Germany introduced selective laser melting (SLM) in 1995 which employs laser light as a curing medium. Meanwhile, the Z corporation worked in collaboration with MIT for the development and production of FDM printers on a commercial scale. Another advancement of printing technology that made its application in the biological field is in regenerative medicine that supports the growth of human organs as the Wake Forest Institute made a successful attempt in the development of tissue scaffolds (Su and Al’Aref 2018). This medieval period remains to be a golden age that promoted various advancements in 3D technologies and 3D printers.
1.4.3 Modern Age
During the start of the twenty‐first century, 3D printing had moved and expanded its wing from the commercial scale and entered into the domestic level. In 2000, the workers of Object Geometries created the first inkjet 3D printer which was then commercialized by Z corporation that paves a way for the development of multi‐colour 3D printer which remains one of the milestones in the evolutionary history of 3D printers (Yang et al. 2018). Later in 2001, the desktop 3D printers were becoming common and in 2002 Wake Forest Institute worked in the development of miniature 3D printed kidney that mimics the functions of the human kidney (Ledford 2015). This leads to the advancements of 3D printing in biomedicine. Around 2005, the open‐source 3D printing project RepRap developed the first 3D printer capable of producing its part named RepRap Darwin (DIY 3D printers). RepRap introduces the word fused filament fabrication (FFF) that replaces the term FDM.
With the innovations of AM, the first 3D printed car was developed by Urbee in 2011, and then in 2013 3D printable gun was released (3DSourced 2021). Gradually the 3D printing moved from polymers to foods as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) experimented with 3D printing the foods for aeronauts in 2014 (Lipton et al. 2015). Meanwhile, the emergence of flexible new software enhances the mass production of 3D printers in 2017 and until to the present date. Beyond fashion jewellery and aircraft, 3D printing allows for the construction of affordable houses for the developing world. Still, many advancements are happening, and much research is going on in exploring the potential applications of 3D printing in different sectors.
1.5 Prospects of 3D Food Printing
The concept of 3D printing encompasses three key criteria: universal, practical, and efficient. With the development of information and technology, it becomes possible to print foods (one of the essential components for life) in the desired form by uploading a digital file to printers that deliver printed food (Bandyopadhyay and Heer 2018). The main purpose of applying this AM technology in food printing relies on the advantage of designing foods with newer texture, consistency, flavour, and taste with enhanced nutrition (Figure 1.3). A synergistic combination of material properties, chemical interactions, and binding mechanisms assist in achieving a stable 3D food constructs (Sun et al. 2018a). However, understanding material behaviour is cumbersome that stands to be a challenge in the food printing process since food is a complex substance with a wide variations in its physiochemical characteristics. Globally, several research works are going on in exploring the potential applications of 3D printing in the food sector. Researchers of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) have explored the application of food ingredients for 3D printing and converted them to tasty, printed food products because of the health issues due to busy lifestyles and environmental concerns from depletion of resources. Similarly, NASA is exploring and developing 3D printed space foods for astronauts (Sun et al. 2015b).
The idea of customization aids in the delivery of food items as per the requirements and needs. Researchers have customized foods like pizzas and cakes with the idea of incorporating complex shapes and intricate designs using 3D printing technology. Nowadays, the consumer perception towards diet is gradually changing due to changing lifestyle, and different age grouped people require a varying degree of nutrients. Formulating a balanced diet as per individual needs and preferences is the need of the day. This technology allows for personalized meals based on age groups and helps in reduced calorie intake. Thus, the concept of ‘personalized nutrition’ comes into focus which makes possible the delivery of ‘digitalized food’. 3D food printing reduces the multi‐step process into a single step which has the potential to revolutionize the future food industry. The supply chain of 3D food printing allows consumers to have a prime role in the value addition of the end products based on their requirements which is very minimal in the case of a conventional food supply chain (Figure 1.4) (Jayaprakash et al. 2019).
Figure 1.3 Prospects of 3D food printing.
1.6 Design Considerations of 3D Printer
1.6.1 Printer Configurations
Food printing is a synergistic combination of incorporating digital culinary skills with 3D printing techniques. 3D food printers are machines that have the potential capability of reproducing 3D edible constructs from a designed digitalized 3D models. In a broad sense, 3D printers are classified as cartesian, delta, polar, and selective compliance assembly robot arm (SCARA) based on the movement of printing arms (Figure 1.5) (Sun et al. 2018a).
A simple configuration of a 3D printer is a cartesian type. The movement of these printers is configured in a linear straight‐line path (coordinate axes) whose movements are controlled by moving printing nozzle, printing platform, and/or both simultaneously for respective movements in X, Y, and Z direction (Horvath 2014b). Based on the motion of coordinate planes, cartesian printers are grouped as XY head printers, XZ head printers, and XYZ head printers. In the former type of XY head printer, the print head moves in the XY plane, and the print bed moves in the Z plane. Another variation in print head is ‘XZ head printers’ where the print head moves in XZ plane and the print bed moves in Y plane, respectively. An example of this type of printer is Choc creator, a commercial 3D food printer specifically designed for the customized fabrication of 3D constructs from chocolates. The third case is ‘XYZ print head’ where the print bed remains stationary and only the print head moves in all directions as in the case of Foodini, a commercial 3D printer developed by Natural Machines (Derossi et al. 2019). Comparatively, the motion of XY and XYZ head printers remains faster than that of XZ head printers. However, this type of cartesian printer requires accurate and regular calibration before printing.
Figure 1.4 Value chain of 3D food printing. (a) consumer buying 3D printed foods; (b) consumer buying 3D food printer.
Source: Jayaprakash et al. (2019) / With permission of Elsevier.
Figure 1.5 Illustration of printing movements in various printer configurations. (a) Cartesian; (b) Delta; (c) Polar; (d) SCARA.
Source: Sun et al. (2018b) / With permission of Elsevier.
The second type is the delta 3D printers works on the triangular coordinate mechanism based on the Pythagoras theorem with relative movement of printing arms in three co‐ordinate axes (X, Y, and Z directions) (Sun et al. 2018a). These types of printing system consist of three pairs of carriages (arms) that moves simultaneously up and down and aids in printing with a stationary print bed. Here, each pair of arms form the diagonal of a triangle and makes an angle to other planes namely X and Z. Likewise, all the three carriages move at the same time thereby aids in simultaneous printing. The major advantage of the delta type over the cartesian is its higher printing speed because of less physical loads and its ability to print bigger‐sized objects especially in the Z direction (Horvath 2014b). However, this suffers from the limitation of low precision in printing smaller objects.
Another configuration of the 3D printer is polar which is the rarest that works based on the polar coordinate system. Here, the motion of printer arms is defined by an angle of 360° with a pre‐defined centre point along radial direction while printhead moves vertically up and down thereby forming a 3D construct (Sun et al. 2018a). An example of this type of configuration is the XOCO 3D printer, a commercial chocolate printer equipped with a rotating build plate with a single supporting pillar that holds a print head and glass covering (Ontwerp 2018). Another example for polar configuration is the TNO food printer that consists of three rotating arms provided with a pair of material cartridge facilitates dual print simultaneously (Van der Linden 2015). One of the advantageous features of this particular design is its less floor space requirement and its ability to print larger‐sized objects. In contrast to other configurations, polar printers can rotate and move either forward/backward and sideways. The rare availability of this type makes them expensive as it costs more than twice as that of cartesian (Derossi et al. 2019).
The last type of 3D printer is SCARA which consists of rotating elbows that move in an arc (X and Y directions) while a separate motor is provided to assist the movement in vertical (Z) direction. The movement along the Z‐axis can be achieved by raising or lowering the printing platform (Sun et al. 2018a). In comparison with other configurations, SCARA is more compact and portable. An example of SCARA type is Sanna food printers equipped with eight food capsules with a temperature control unit and supported by an infrared panel for cooking printed food (Tan et al. 2018). But these systems suffer from the limitation of possessing expensive components that are not widely available as like delta and cartesian type that narrow down its use and applicability in food 3D printing.
In addition to the above context, based on the structural configuration, 3D printers are also termed as triangle structure (Prusa printer), triangle‐claw structure (Rostock printer), rectangle‐cassette structure (Ultimaker printer), and rectangle‐pole structures (Printrobot printer) (Yang et al. 2017). With these basic configurations, 3D printers are modified and adapted for food applications. In general, food 3D printing must address the following key considerations since food material is being printed, the entire components must be food‐grade; printer parts must be resistant to corrosion and should possess enough strength to wear and tear. Different printers have been studied for the printing of various food materials by several researchers. A commercial 3D printer Felix 3.0 originally designed for polymer printing was modified with a motor‐driven system and adapted for extrusion‐based food printing (Chen et al. 2019). Researchers used this modified system for printing soy protein gels and studied the effect of hydrocolloids on strength of 3D printed protein matrix. In another study, researchers were attempted to develop a multi extruder system that can be applied for printing 3D constructs from multi‐material which has precise control over material deposition. A commercial food 3D printer, FoodBot developed by Changxing Shiyin Technology Co. Ltd. (China) was modified in this study and used for dual extrusion of composite food gel (Liu et al. 2018). 3D printed edible circuits from bread substrate were developed from a commercial desktop 3D printer, BioBot 1 (extrusion printer) (Hamilton et al. 2018). Researchers are exploring the advancements of 3D printers for food printing by modifying the structure and design of commercial 3D printers. Likewise, many studies are being conducted for the applicability and suitability of materials for 3D printing in context with printing multi‐materials using multi‐head printing systems.
1.6.2 Components of a Typical 3D Printer
The basic components of a food 3D printer include printing movement arms, drive unit assisted with pulley mechanism, mechanical motors and feed rollers, material dispensing unit, temperature controlling system, printing head, printing platforms, and micro‐processing controller unit (Nachal et al. 2019).
1.6.2.1 Enclosure, Build Plate, and Guide Rails
Frames are the supporting structures that carry the print head and carriage arms. Supporting frames are made from metal sheets with acrylic covering provided with nuts and bolts. It supports all the other accessory components which influence the printer’s stability and durability (Horvath 2014b). Based on the type of configuration of the 3D printer, the carriage arms differ in design and movement. The printing movement of the delta configuration is illustrated in Figure 1.6. These arms are facilitated with a motion mechanism achieved by linear motion guideways incorporated with GT2 belts and pulley controls. Belts assists in the smooth motion of respective arms in X, Y, and Z directions. In the case of cartesian type printers, the assembly is equipped with threaded steel rods on which the nuts are mounted that assist movement upwards and downwards along Z‐axis (Huang 2018). The design of the print head varies with configuration type and it consists of a feeder system mounted with printing. The method of material dispensing also varies with the printing technologies and the description of which are explained in subsequent chapters.
Figure 1.6 Operation of delta type 3D printer. (a) Illustration of printing movements, (b), (c), and (d) pictorial views of printing movement following Pythagorean theorem.
Source: Derossi et al. (2019) / With permission of Elsevier.
Figure 1.7 Stepper motor and its controlling mechanism.
Source: From Derossi et al. (2019) / With permission of Elsevier.
1.6.2.2 Mechanical Drive Systems
Irrespective of the type of structural configuration, the carriage arms are connected with a mechanical drive system for assisting its motion along X, Y, and Z directions. The drive systems consist of stepper motor‐operated in a pre‐defined step of pulses (Figure 1.7). This step‐up mechanism aids in the rotation of printer arms in full degrees (Horvath 2014b). In general, the step‐up motors consist of a stator and rotor. Based on the structural configuration and working principle, stepper motors are of three types: permanent magnet stepper motor, variable reluctance stepper motor, and hybrid stepper motor. Among these, hybrid steppers are the most used stepper motors for 3D printing applications as it combines the advantageous features of permanent and variable stepper motors. Other characteristics that define a stepper motor includes its dimensions and rotating power (torque). The United States National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) declares a dimensional number to stepper motors named NEMA’s number based on the length and associated torque (Derossi et al. 2019). Apart from guiding the movement of carriages, stepper motors are also used for controlling the amount of material deposited during printing.
1.6.2.3 Microprocessor Controlling System
The motherboard is the heart of any 3D printer, responsible for coordinating the motion of components like the extruder, print bed, motors, and sensors. End stops are provided at all the carriages that act as sensors and allow 3D printers in identifying printing locations along the three axes, preventing it from moving past its limit otherwise it could result in hardware damages (Horvath 2014b). An interface arrangement of liquid crystal display (LCD) replicating rapid prototyper (REP RAP
