Skip to Content
  • Review
  • Open Access

25 August 2021

A 3D Food Printing Process for the New Normal Era: A Review

Department of Green Chemical Engineering, Sangmyung University, 31 Sangmyungdae-Gil, Dongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheonan-si 31066, Korea
This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioprocess Design and Optimization

Abstract

Owing to COVID-19, the world has advanced faster in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, along with the 3D printing technology that has achieved innovation in personalized manufacturing. Three-dimensional printing technology has been utilized across various fields such as environmental fields, medical systems, and military materials. Recently, the 3D food printer global market has shown a high annual growth rate and is a huge industry of approximately one billion dollars. Three-dimensional food printing technology can be applied to various food ranges based on the advantages of designing existing food to suit one’s taste and purpose. Currently, many countries worldwide produce various 3D food printers, developing special foods such as combat food, space food, restaurants, floating food, and elderly food. Many people are unaware of the utilization of the 3D food printing technology industry as it is in its early stages. There are various cases using 3D food printing technology in various parts of the world. Three-dimensional food printing technology is expected to become a new trend in the new normal era after COVID-19. Compared to other 3D printing industries, food 3D printing technology has a relatively small overall 3D printing utilization and industry size because of problems such as insufficient institutionalization and limitation of standardized food materials for 3D food printing. In this review, the current industrial status of 3D food printing technology was investigated with suggestions for the improvement of the food 3D printing market in the new normal era.

1. Introduction

The product development and service industry is increasing to meet personal needs as COVID-19 has made social distancing a mandatory practice. In the post-corona era, called the new normal era, the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is approaching much faster. Among the personalized production process technologies required in this era, 3D printing technologies are increasingly being highlighted. Three-dimensional printing technology is a technology created by stacking plastic in three dimensions [1] and is known as additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping, whereby products are built on a layer-by-layer basis through a series of cross-sectional slices [2]. Three-dimensional printing technology was invented in 1986 by Chuck Hull in the USA. It is a technology that produces three-dimensional objects using stacked layers using a computer model program and was invented to produce a complex structure of high polymer materials. In the past, it mainly produced expensive equipment such as automobiles, aviation, and medical care, owing to the advantages of high-speed production, and has recently expanded the scope of application of technology [3].
The representative use of 3D printing techniques in medicine has been applied to the use of robotic exoskeletons based on the principles of private motor learning, which is greatly beneficial for generating private space for the rehabilitation of a patient, a critical part of patient rehabilitation [4]. Furthermore, 3D printing and robot support are actively applied in connecting processes through patient-controlled polysensory stimuli and transport experience useful for nerve plasticity modification, which were successfully achieved by two analyses of patient-generated biometric signals and artificial intelligence. Three-dimensional printing techniques have been applied to new materials, classifications, and controls to suit the characteristics of a personal skeletal framework [5,6]. Patient-tailored solutions are difficult to be solved because they are dependent on individual health conditions, functional skills, support requirements, and body dimensions [7] Material research in a wide range of 3D printing technologies is critical for the development of patient-therapeutic rehabilitation devices. The number of outbreaks of various diseases is increasing in many countries regardless of the country’s health infrastructure. Medically customized solutions are critical for neurological rehabilitation, especially for stroke, brain damage, spinal cord damage, neurodegenerative elderly care diseases (MCI), Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and others. Adaptive treatment, rehabilitation, and management forms are important when the levels and types of functional disorders vary significantly. Three-dimensional printing and reverse engineering (scanning) techniques can easily produce personalized designed artificial medical products (e.g., exoskeletons) through detailed morphological analysis using products and materials tailored to body components [8]. The problem with existing medical technologies is the relatively long training time for a small number of experts, including engineers. The time required for development of a new solution/personalized therapy needs to be shortened [9]. Therefore, artificial intelligence-based semi-computerization combined techniques are required, and AI/CI design systems and new multimaterial 3D printing technologies can help patients with emergency management and rehabilitation. Skills are needed to closely examine the body, nervous system, types, and levels of dysfunction [10]. Auxiliary technologies with a variety of features are currently being studied to improve marginal departure time and poor movement patterns that exclude extensive use, such as high energy demand, long-term wear, and use [11]. Importantly, the intensity, complexity, and specificity of the robot motion can be supported by patient-tailored 3D printing solutions [12]. Three-dimensional printing technology is characterized by additive manufacturing, which is equivalent to three-dimensional printing, and is controlled by computer programs used to create it. It accumulates biological materials and is made of products with accurate geometric shapes. Among the 3D printing technologies commonly used in medicine, mainly layer processing and other removal of surplus materials are suitable for medical applications [13,14]. This is suitable for biomedical applications but does not cover all possible clinical domains. Additional research, development, and commercialization are required to expand its applications. One of the methods proposed by researchers to apply 3D printing to medicine is to develop an advanced exoskeleton with 3D printers by introducing an innovative approach. The developed medical products are converted to computer intelligence (CI) utilized for rare 3D printed exoskeleton subjects. Personalized medical services are expected to expand further in the Fourth Industrial Revolution era, which is rapidly approaching due to COVID-19, and 3D printing technology is expected to emerge as a key technology in the field.
In addition to medical applications, the 3D printing process has been adapted to various industries such as aerospace, automotive, fabric and fashion, and electric and electronic industries. Three-dimensional printing technology is an eco-friendly technology for manufacturing buildings that are difficult to make geometrically feasible. In the construction sector, 3D printing technology has been used to build entire buildings or to produce the necessary construction parts. Building information modeling (BIM) is increasingly applicable to architecture and can share information and knowledge about 3D buildings using BIM, a digital representation of functional and physical characteristics. Information about initial planning to construction completion and reliable decision sources can be formed over the lifecycle of the building [15,16]. These 3D printing technologies are innovative, collaborative, and can support more efficient ways to design, create, and maintain buildings. Buildings with 3D printing technology can reduce construction time and costs and communicate efficiently and clearly with construction engineers. Examples of 3D printed buildings are the Apis Cor Printed House in Russia [16] and the Canal House in Amsterdam [17].
Food 3D printing technology is gaining attention [18]. Three-dimensional food printing technology can process and produce different designs using ingredients such as meat, chocolate, candy, pizza dough, cotton, and sauce, which have been mainstream in the restaurant industry [19]. Three-dimensional food printing technology can control the type and amount of ingredients that can determine the amount, nutrient, and flavor characteristics of ingredients, enabling personalized food production [20]. A personalized service delivery industry is expected to become more active in an environment that minimizes personal contact due to social distancing in COVID-19. In the post-corona era, 3D food printing technology is expected to increase demand for the development of customized personal foods for special diets such as athletes, children, pregnant women, patients, etc. [21]. Therefore, customized foods require a very delicate and creative process, which best suits the 3D food printing technology. Three-dimensional food printing technology requires food design programs before manufacturing. This program enables the design and implementation of the procedure algorithm. The food design order is automatically recognized by the printing device. A 3D food printer creates a layer-by-layer process with continuous printing for layer accumulation [19]. These 3D printing techniques allow the process to proceed with the structure and shape of personalized foods by adding specific ingredients selected by personal preferences [22]. Food substrates, especially chocolate, but not limited to (i.e., jelly and dough) are traditionally cast in molds or manually shaped to obtain desired shapes when processed into personal products. However, flat foods such as sugar, chocolate, pasta, pizza, and biscuits, which are stereotyped by molds, can be new and exciting 3D foods using 3D printing technology. Therefore, although 3D food printing technology is difficult to consider as an energy-efficient technology for eco-friendly, good quality control, and low-cost food production, it enables the creation of new processes for food customization with satisfaction of individual preferences and needs. Furthermore, 3D food printers enable a healthy diet food design with proper nutrition automatically regulated by personal medical information data [19].
In this review, we discuss the current and future outlook of the technology of food 3D printing containing the types of personalized 3D food printing technology, the development of food materials suitable for the 3D printing process, and the application of 3D food printers to various food industries for the new normal era.

3. Conclusions

Three-dimensional food printing technology, first introduced by Hod Lipson at Cornell University in 2006 [104], is recognized for its potential and is expected to be invaluable in a variety of ways. Concurrently, many companies and researchers worldwide have researched it to secure original technologies and have developed various food printing technologies in the global market. Pretreatment technology with the formulation of food printing materials has also been developed to make various 3D foods per customer demand. The 3D food printer will supply a health food diet for personal healthcare and art with taste in an individual-designed food schedule in the near-coming new normal era called the fourth industrial age. In addition, numerous ways to deal with food, such as increasing choices in the use of flour and dried wheat worms instead of rice, will greatly help future food and environmental problems. The food industry is a very sensitive area followed by system limitations and problems. To solve such problems, the field of application should be specified, while sufficient technical skills in the field should be secured. If optimized technology is secured for a specific group, it can solve social and environmental problems by contributing to the creation of new values. Therefore, 3D food printing will be continuously advanced by customer demand and come closer to home-kitchen places as personal helpers for cooking.

Funding

This research was funded by a 2019 Research Grant from Sangmyung University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kim, C.T.; Meang, J.S.; Shin, W.S.; Shim, I.C.; Oh, S.I.; Jo, Y.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, C.J. Food 3D-printing technology and its application in the food industry. Food Eng. Prog 2017, 21, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gu, Z.; Fu, J.; Lin, H.; He, Y. Development of 3D bioprinting: From printing methods to biomedical applications. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 15, 529–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kim, S.H. Technology opportunities in 3D printing. Korean Ind. Chem. News 2015, 18, 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rojek, I.; Mikołajewski, D.; Dostatni, E.; Macko, M. AI-Optimized Technological Aspects of the Material Used in 3D Printing Processes for Selected Medical Applications. Materials 2020, 13, 5437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Molteni, F.; Gasperini, G.; Cannaviello, G.; Guanziroli, E. Exoskeleton and nd-Effector Robots for Upper and Lower Limbs Rehabilitation: Narrative Review. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 10 (Suppl. S2), S174–S188. [Google Scholar]
  6. Palermo, A.E.; Maher, J.L.; Baunsgaard, C.B.; Nash, M.S. Clinician-Focused Overview of Bionic Exoskeleton Use After Spinal Cord Injury. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil. 2017, 23, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Torres, F.; Puente, S.; Úbeda, A. Assistance Robotics and Biosensors. Sensors 2018, 18, 3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Jiang, M.; Zhou, Z.; Gravish, N. Flexoskeleton Printing Enables Versatile Fabrication of Hybrid Soft and Rigid Robots. Soft Robot. 2020, 7, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mohammadi, A.; Lavranos, J.; Choong, P.; Oetomo, D. Flexo-glove: A 3D printed soft exoskeleton robotic glove for impaired hand rehabilitation and sssistance. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 July 2018; pp. 2120–2123. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yoo, H.J.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Park, C.; Lee, B. Development of 3D-printed myoelectric hand orthosis for patients with spinal cord injury. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2019, 16, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Heung, K.H.L.; Tang, Z.Q.; Ho, L.; Tung, M.; Li, Z.; Tong, R.K.Y. Design of a 3D printed soft robotic hand for stroke rehabilitation and daily activities assistance. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the IEEE Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24–28 June 2019; pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xing, F.; Xiang, Z.; Rommens, P.M.; Ritz, U. 3D Bioprinting for Vascularized Tissue-Engineered Bone Fabrication. Materials 2020, 13, 2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kruth, J.-P.; Leu, M.C.; Nakagawa, T. Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping. Ann. ClRP 1998, 47, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Campbell, I.; Bourell, D.; Gibson, I. Additive manufacturing: Rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 255–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Shahrubudin, N.; Lee, T.C.; Ramlan, R. An Overview on 3D Printing Technology: Technological, Materials, and Applications. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 35, 1286–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sakin, M.; Kiroglu, Y.C. 3D printing of building a: Construction of the sustainable houses of the future by BIM. Energy Procedia 2017, 134, 702–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hager, I.; Golonka, A.; Putanowicz, R. 3D printing of building components as the future of sustainable construction? Procedia Eng. 2016, 151, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Park, H.J.; Kim, H.W. Global Food 3D Printing Technology and Industry Trends and Future Prospect. World Agr. 2017, 2020, 147–168. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lili, L.; Yuanyuan, M.; Ke, C.; Yang, Z. 3D Printing Complex Egg White Protein Objects: Properties and Optimization. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  20. Singh, P.; Raghav, A. 3D Food Printing: A Revolution in Food Technology. Act. Sci. Nutr. Health 2018, 2, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dankar, I.; Pujola, M.; Omar, F.E.; Sepulcre, F.; Haddarah, A. Impact of Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Potato Puree-Food Additive Complexes on Extrusion-Based 3D Printing. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Wang, Y. 3D printing: Printing precision and application in food sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 69, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kim, M.J.; Kim, M.K.; You, Y.S. Food 3D Printing Technology and Food Materials of 3D Printing. Clean Technol. 2020, 26, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jiménez, M.; Romero, L.; Dom-nguez, I.; del Mar Espinosa, M.; Dom-nguez, M. Additive Manufacturing Technologies: An Overview about 3D Printing Methods and Future Prospects. Complexity 2019, 2019, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Jin, Y.A.; Li, H.; He, Y.; Fu, J.Z. Quantitative analysis of surface profile in fused deposition modelling. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 8, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Turunen, S.M.; Melchels, F.P.W.; Kellomaki, M. A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes. Ann. Med. 2008, 40, 268–280. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, G.B.; Lee, S.; Kim, H.; Yang, D.H.; Kim, Y.H.; Kyung, Y.S.; Kim, C.S.; Choi, S.H.; Kim, J.B.; Ha, H.; et al. Three-Dimensional Printing: Basic Principles and Applications in Medicine and Radiology. Korean J. Radiol. 2016, 17, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Godoi, F.C.; Prakash, S.; Bhandari, B.R. 3d printing technologies applied for food design: Status and prospects. J. Food Eng. 2016, 179, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lanaro, M.; Forrestal, D.P.; Scheurer, S.; Slinger, D.J.; Liao, S.; Powell, S.K.; Woodruff, M.A. 3D printing complex chocolate objects: Platform design, optimization, and evaluation. J. Food Eng. 2017, 215, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Yang, C. Impact of rheological properties of mashed potatoes on 3D printing. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Silva, D.N.; Gerhardt de Oliveira, M.; Meurer, E.; Meurer, M.I.; Lopes da Silva, J.V.; Santa-Bárbara, A. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2008, 36, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Raphael, O.; Hervé, R. Clinical applications of rapid prototyping models in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. In Advanced Applications of Rapid Prototyping Technology in Modern Engineering; Hoque, M., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; pp. 173–206. [Google Scholar]
  33. Krkobabi’c, M.; Medarevi’c, D.; Peši’c, N.; Vasiljevi’c, D.; Ivkovi’c, B.; Ibri’c, S. Digital Light Processing (DLP) 3D Printing of Atomoxetine Hydrochloride Tablets Using Photoreactive Suspensions. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, D. Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 63–103. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmidt, J.; Colombo, P. Digital light processing of ceramic components from polysiloxanes. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2018, 38, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Patel, D.K.; Sakhaei, A.H.; Layani, M.; Zhang, B.; Ge, Q.; Magdassi, S. Highly Stretchable and UV Curable Elastomers for Digital Light Processing Based 3D Printing. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Choong, Y.Y.C.; Maleksaeedi, S.; Eng, H.; Su, P.C.; Wei, J. Curing characteristics of shape memory polymers in 3D projection and laser stereolithography. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2017, 12, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Varghese, G.; Moral, M.; Castro-García, M.; López-López, J.J.; Marín-Rueda, J.R.; Yagüe-Alcaraz, V.; Hernández-Afonso, L.; Ruiz-Morales, J.C.; Canales-Vázquez, J. Fabrication and characterisation of ceramics via low-cost DLP 3D printing. Bol. La Soc. Esp. Ceram. Y Vidr. 2018, 57, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schirmeister, C.G.; Hees, T.; Licht, E.H.; Mülhaupt, R. 3D printing of high density polyethylene by fused filament fabrication. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 28, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, F.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. Recent development in 3D food printing. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3145–3153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sun, J.; Zhou, W.; Yan, L.; Huang, D.; Lin, L. Extrusion-based food printing for digitalized food design and nutrition control. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Noort, M.W.J.; Diaz, J.V.; Van Bommel, K.J.C.; Renzetti, S.; Henket, J.; Hoppenbrouwers, M.B. Method for the Production of an EDIBLE object Using SLS. WO Patent 2016085344, 2 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  43. Singhal, S.; Rasane, P.; Kaur, S.; Garba, U.; Bankar, A.; Singh, J.; Gupta, N. 3D food printing: Paving way towards novel foods. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2020, 92, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jandyal, M.; Malav, O.P.; Nitin, M.; Chatli, M.K.; Kumar, P.; Wagh, R.V.; Kour, S.; Tanwar, T. 3D Printing of Meat: A New Frontier of Food from Download to Delicious: A Review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2021, 10, 2095–2111. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sachs, E.; Cima, M.; Cornie, J. Three-dimensional printing: Rapid tooling and prototypes directly from a CAD model. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 1990, 39, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Southerland, D.; Walters, P.; Huson, D. Edible 3D printing. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1 January 2011; pp. 819–822. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yang, J.; Wu, L.; Liu, J. Rapid Prototyping and Fabrication Method for 3-D Food Objects. U.S. Patent No. 6280785, 28 March 2000. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sun, J.; Peng, Z.; Zhou, W.; Fuh, J.Y.H.; Hong, G.S.; Chiu, A. A Review on 3D Printing for Customized Food Fabrication. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 1, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Yoon, H.S.; Lee, M.; Jin, X.; Lee, S.; You, Y.S.; Rhee, J.K. 3D printing technology and its applications in the future food industry: A review. Food Sci. Ind. 2016, 12, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bhandari, B.R.; Howes, T. Implication of Glass Transition for the Drying and Stability of Dried foods. J. Food Eng. 1999, 40, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bhandari, B.R.; Roos, Y.H. Dissolution of Sucrose crystal in the Anhydrous Sorbitol Melt. Carbohyd. Res. 2003, 338, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Haque, M.K.; Roos, Y.H. Differences in the Physical state and Thermal Behavior of Spray-Dried and Freeze-Dried Lactose and lactose/Protein Mixtures. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2006, 7, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Roos, Y.H. Glass Transition Temperature and its Relevance in Food Processing. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 1, 469–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Slade, L.; Levine, H. Water and the Glass Transition-Dependence of the Glass Transition on Composition and Chemical Structure: Special Implications for Flour Functionality in Cookie Baking. J. Food Eng. 1995, 22, 431–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, J.Y.; Pandya, J.K.; McClements, D.J.; Lu, J.; Kinchla, A.J. Advancements in 3D food printing: A comprehensive overview of properties and opportunities. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gholamipour-Shirazi, A.; Norton, I.; Mills, T. Designing hydrocolloid based food-ink formulations for extrusion 3D printing. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 95, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, L.; Meng, Y.; Dai, X.; Chen, K.; Zhu, Y. 3D printing complex egg white protein objects: Properties and optimization. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019, 12, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yang, F.; Zhang, M.; Prakash, S.; Liu, Y. Physical properties of 3D printed baking dough as affected by different compositions. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 49, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Theagarajan, R.; Moses, J.A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. 3D extrusion printability of rice starch and optimization of process variables. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2020, 13, 1048–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xiao, J.Y.; Zhan, M.Q.; Cong, R.H.; Hua, M.H.; Ma, F.L.; Wan, Y. Study on the 3D printing formability of chocolate with Chinese medicine functional factor. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2019, 40, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  61. Teng, X.; Zhang, M.; Bhandri, B. 3D printing of Cordyceps flower powder. J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 42, e13179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ramachandraiah, K. Potential Development of Sustainable 3D-Printed Meat Analogues: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dong, X.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, W.; Huang, Y.; Qu, W.; Pan, J.; Qi, H.; Prakash, S. Impact of microbial transglutaminase on 3D printing quality of Scomberomorus niphonius surimi. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 124, 109123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Severini, C.; Derossi, A.; Ricci, I.; Caporizzi, R.; Fiore, A. Printing a blend of fruit and vegetables. New advances on critical variables and shelf life of 3D edible objects. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Severini, C.; Azzollini, D.; Albenzio, M.; Derossi, A. On printability, quality and nutritional properties of 3D printed cereal based snacks enriched with edible insects. Food Res. Int. 2018, 106, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Vakevainen, K.; Ludena-Urquizo, F.; Korkala, E.; Lapvetelainen, A.; Peraniemi, S.; von Wright, A.; Plumed-Ferrer, C. Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 120, 108912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vancauwenberghe, V.; Delele, M.A.; Vanbiervliet, J.; Aregawi, W.; Verboven, P.; Lammertyn, J.; Nicolaï, B. Model-based design and validation of food texture of 3D printed pectin-based food simulants. J. Food Eng. 2018, 231, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Feng, C.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. Materials properties of printable edible inks and printing parameters optimization during 3D printing: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 3074–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Liu, C.; Ho, C.; Wang, J. The development of 3D food printer for printing fibrous meat materials. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–14 August 2018; Volume 284, pp. 12–19. [Google Scholar]
  70. Liu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, K.; Bao, Y.; Mac Regenstein, J.; Zhou, P. Fabrication of gel-like emulsions with whey protein isolates using micro fluidization: Rheological properties and 3D printing performance. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019, 12, 1967–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, L.; Yang, X.; Bhandari, B.; Meng, Y.; Prakash, S. Optimization of the formulation and properties of 3D-printed complex egg white protein objects. Foods 2020, 9, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Lipton, J.I.; Cutler, M.; Nigl, F.; Cohen, D.; Lipson, H. Additive manufacturing for the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 43, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Andrianaivo, M.R.; Graciela, W.P. Effects of Lamination and Coating with Drying Oils on Tensile and Barrier Properties of Zein Films. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2860–2863. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pant, A.; Lee, A.; Karyappa, R.; Lee, C.; An, J.; Hashimoto, M.; Tan, U.; Wong, G.; Chua, C.; Zhang, Y. 3D food printing of fresh vegetables using food hydrocolloids for dysphagic patients. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 114, 106546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Puttalingamma, V. Edible Coatings of Carnauba Wax—A Novel Method for Preservation and Extending Longevity of Fruits and Vegetables A Review. Int. J. Food Saf. 2014, 16, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  76. Derry, J. A Study on the Processing Methods of Shellac, and the Analysis of Selected Physical and Chemical Characteristics. Master’s Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  77. Shahbazi, M.; Jäger, H. Current Status in the Utilization of Biobased Polymers for 3D Printing Process: A Systematic Review of the Materials, Processes, and Challenges. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2021, 4, 325–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Péreza, B.; Nykvist, H.; Brøgger, A.F.; Larsen, M.B.; Falkeborg, M.F. Impact of macronutrients printability and 3D-printer parameters on 3D-food printing: A review. Food Chem. 2019, 287, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Yang, F.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Liu, Y. Investigation on lemon juice gel as food material for 3D printing and optimization of printing parameters. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 87, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. He, C.; Zhang, M.; Guo, C. 4D printing of mashed potato/purple sweet potato puree with spontaneous color change. Innov. Food. Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 59, 11020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dankar, I.; Haddarah, A.; El Omar, F.; Sepulcre, F.; Pujolà, M. Assessing the microstructural and rheological changes induced by food additives on potato puree. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Chuanxing, F.; Qi, W.; Hui, L.; Quancheng, Z.; Wang, M. Effects of pea protein on the properties of potato starch-based 3D printing materials. Int. J. Food Eng. 2018, 14, 20170297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vancauwenberghe, V.; Katalagarianakis, L.; Wang, Z.; Meerts, M.; Hertog, M.; Verboven, P.; Moldenaers, P.; Hendrickx, M.E.; Lammertyn, J.; Nicolai, B. Pectin based food-ink formulations for 3-D printing of customizable porous food simulants. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 42, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Derossi, A.; Caporizzi, R.; Azzollini, D.; Severini, C. Application of 3D printing for customized food. A case on the development of a fruit-based snack for children. J. Food Eng. 2017, 220, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lipton, J.; Arnold, D.; Nigl, F. Multi-Material Food Printing with Complex Internal Structure Suitable for Conventional Post-Processing; Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium: Austin, TX, USA, 2010; pp. 809–815. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lille, M.; Nurmela, A.; Nordlund, E.; Metsä-Kortelainen, S.; Sozer, N. Applicability of protein and fiber-rich food materials in extrusion-based 3D printing. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kim, H.W.; Bae, H.; Park, H.J. Reprint of: Classification of the printability of selected food for 3D printing: Development of an assessment method using hydrocolloids as reference material. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wang, L.; Zhang, M.; Yang, C. Investigation on fish surimi gel as promising food material for 3D printing. J. Food Eng. 2017, 220, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Le Tohic, C.; O’Sullivan, J.J.; Drapala, K.P.; Chartrin, V.; Chan, T.; Morrison, A.P.; Kerry, J.P.; Kelly, A.L. Effect of 3D printing on the structure and textural properties of processed cheese. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lee, H. 3D printing technology and food industry in future. Food Preserv. Process. Ind. 2017, 16, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sun, J.; Peng, Z.; Yan, L.; Fuh, J.; Hong, G.S. 3D food printing-An innovative way of mass customization in food fabrication. Int. J. Bioprint. 2015, 1, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, N.; Qiao, D.; Zhao, S.; Lin, Q.; Zhang, B.; Xie, F. 3D printing to innovate biopolymer materials for demanding applications: A review. Mater. Today Chem. 2021, 20, 100459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Weller, C.; Kleer, R.; Piller, F.T. Economic implications of 3D printing: Market structure models in light of additive manufacturing revisited. Int. J. Product. Econ. 2015, 164, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Van Bommel, K.; Spicer, A. Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow food movement. Organ. Stud. 2011, 32, 1717–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Park, M.; Lee, Y.; Kim, K.; Park, S.; Han, J. Actual Conditions of the Food industry’s Application of Food Tech and Its Tasks: Focusing on Alterative Livestock Products and 3D Food Printing; RI-879; Science Report from Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI): Naju, Korea, 2019; pp. 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  96. 3D Food Printing-Golbal Market Trajectory & Analytics. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5301799 (accessed on 24 July 2021).
  97. Food Ink Ltd. Available online: http://foodink.io/ (accessed on 24 July 2021).
  98. Global Fermented Food and Ingredients Market, Emergen Research. Available online: https://www.emergenresearch.com/industry-report/fermented-food-and-ingredients-market (accessed on 24 July 2021).
  99. Adebiyi, J.; Obadina, A.; Adebo, O.; Kayitesi, E. Comparison of nutritional quality and sensory acceptability of biscuits obtained from native, fermented, and malted pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) flour. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Torrico, D.; Fuentes, S.; Viejo, C.; Ashman, H.; Dunshea, F. Cross-cultural effects of food product familiarity on sensory acceptability and non-invasive physiological responses of consumers. Food Res. Int. (Ottawa Ont.) 2019, 115, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Tuorila, H.; Hartmann, C. Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Krishnaraj, P.; Anukiruthika, T.; Choudhary, P.; Moses, J.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. 3D extrusion printing and post-processing of fibre-rich snack from indigenous composite flour. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019, 12, 1776–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lin, C. 3D Food Printing: A Taste of the Future. J. Food Sci. Edu. 2015, 14, 86–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Malone, E.; Lipson, H. Fab@Home: The personal desktop fabricator kit. In Proceedings of the 17th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 14–16 August 2006; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.