Optimization of the Formulation and Properties of 3D-Printed Complex Egg White Protein Objects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. 3D Printing
2.3. Experimental Design and Optimization of the Printing Formulation
2.4. Preparation of the Complex Printing System
2.5. Sensory Evaluation
2.6. Property Analysis of Different Formulations
2.6.1. Relationship between Viscosity and Sensory Evaluation
2.6.2. Rheological Measurement
2.6.3. Tribological Measurement
2.7. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) of the Printing Mixture Systems
2.8. Statistics
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Optimization of 3D Printing Formulation
3.1.1. Single-Factor Results
3.1.2. Analysis of Response-Surface Design
3.2. Effects of the Amounts of the Added Materials on the Sensory Evaluation
3.3. Relationship between Viscosity and Sensory Evaluation
3.4. Rheological Behavior
3.5. Tribological Behavior
3.6. SEM Image of the Printing Systems
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Analysis of Response-Surface Design
Variables | Symbol | Coded Levels | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
Gelatin (g) | X1 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
Cornstarch (g) | X2 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
Sucrose (g) | X3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
EWP (g) | X4 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
Test Order | X1: Gelatin (g) | X2: Cornstarch (g) | X3: Sucrose (g) | X4: EWP (g) | Viscosity η50 (Pa·s) | Y: Sensory (score) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0.483 ± 0.008 | 12.35 ± 0.73 |
2 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 0.587 ± 0.013 | 18.45 ± 0.89 |
3 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 0.857 ± 0.017 | 17.70 ± 1.04 |
4 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 0.959 ± 0.014 | 26.05 ± 1.08 |
5 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 0.937 ± 0.016 | 17.95 ± 0.97 |
6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 0.977 ± 0.021 | 20.75 ± 0.95 |
7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1.112 ± 0.016 | 23.25 ± 0.99 |
8 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.693 ± 0.026 | 26.70 ± 1.06 |
9 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0.952 ± 0.014 | 12.70 ± 0.77 |
10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1.721 ± 0.023 | 23.10 ± 1.11 |
11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1.885 ± 0.015 | 19.45 ± 0.97 |
12 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1.619 ± 0.019 | 31.35 ± 1.42 |
13 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1.586 ± 0.025 | 17.40 ± 1.12 |
14 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1.379 ± 0.030 | 24.85 ± 1.27 |
15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1.558 ± 0.028 | 23.80 ± 1.12 |
16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.371 ± 0.040 | 32.25 ± 1.34 |
17 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.083 ± 0.012 | 21.85 ± 1.19 |
18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.375 ± 0.038 | 34.15 ± 1.62 |
19 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0.753 ± 0.011 | 15.20 ± 1.08 |
20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1.320 ± 0.018 | 30.05 ± 1.86 |
21 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0.896 ± 0.014 | 17.40 ± 1.07 |
22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1.814 ± 0.016 | 22.55 ± 1.25 |
23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0.795 ± 0.012 | 15.55 ± 0.93 |
24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.058 ± 0.017 | 20.35 ± 1.15 |
25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.291 ± 0.015 | 30.00 ± 1.61 |
26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.339 ± 0.016 | 30.35 ± 1.57 |
27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.327 ± 0.017 | 30.30 ± 1.59 |
28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.339 ± 0.016 | 30.35 ± 1.52 |
29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.320 ± 0.017 | 30.05 ± 1.59 |
30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.331 ± 0.018 | 30.30 ± 1.64 |
31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.386 ± 0.017 | 30.15 ± 1.61 |
32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.385 ± 0.018 | 30.30 ± 1.55 |
33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.391 ± 0.016 | 29.90 ± 1.58 |
34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.395 ± 0.018 | 28.90 ± 1.59 |
35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.368 ± 0.017 | 30.55 ± 1.63 |
36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.393 ± 0.017 | 29.85 ± 1.48 |
Test Order | Appearance | Flavor | Taste | Texture | Overall Acceptability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.51 ± 0.21 | 1.56 ± 0.14 | 3.35 ± 0.24 | 2.36 ± 0.20 | 2.57 ± 0.22 |
2 | 3.75 ± 0.26 | 3.22 ± 0.19 | 3.98 ± 0.23 | 3.58 ± 0.25 | 3.92 ± 0.24 |
3 | 3.59 ± 0.27 | 3.78 ± 0.27 | 3.25 ± 0.27 | 3.46 ± 0.26 | 3.62 ± 0.47 |
4 | 5.37 ± 0.35 | 4.23 ± 0.26 | 6.04 ± 0.35 | 5.20 ± 0.36 | 5.21 ± 0.33 |
5 | 3.52 ± 0.19 | 3.5 ± 0.31 | 3.78 ± 0.29 | 3.54 ± 0.31 | 3.61 ± 0.24 |
6 | 4.19 ± 0.21 | 4.56 ± 0.21 | 3.68 ± 0.26 | 4.15 ± 0.24 | 4.17 ± 0.27 |
7 | 4.69 ± 0.42 | 4.03 ± 0.32 | 5.12 ± 0.31 | 4.61 ± 0.37 | 4.80 ± 0.28 |
8 | 5.31 ± 0.36 | 5.65 ± 0.38 | 4.94 ± 0.35 | 5.42 ± 0.33 | 5.38 ± 0.32 |
9 | 2.49 ± 0.14 | 2.63 ± 0.22 | 2.48 ± 0.26 | 2.59 ± 0.16 | 2.51 ± 0.24 |
10 | 4.68 ± 0.33 | 4.33 ± 0.23 | 4.82 ± 0.32 | 4.59 ± 0.29 | 4.68 ± 0.32 |
11 | 3.91 ± 0.15 | 3.07 ± 0.15 | 4.46 ± 0.27 | 3.87 ± 0.19 | 4.14 ± 0.31 |
12 | 6.28 ± 0.39 | 6.65 ± 0.39 | 5.84 ± 0.27 | 6.31 ± 0.42 | 6.27 ± 0.35 |
13 | 3.42 ± 0.36 | 3.02 ± 0.32 | 3.97 ± 0.26 | 3.45 ± 0.37 | 3.54 ± 0.27 |
14 | 4.99 ± 0.35 | 4.21 ± 0.31 | 5.57 ± 0.35 | 4.98 ± 0.32 | 5.10 ± 0.31 |
15 | 4.77 ± 0.37 | 5.23 ± 0.32 | 4.38 ± 0.27 | 4.75 ± 0.35 | 4.67 ± 0.35 |
16 | 6.42 ± 0.41 | 6.02 ± 0.38 | 6.78 ± 0.39 | 6.53 ± 0.39 | 6.50 ± 0.42 |
17 | 4.41 ± 0.31 | 3.78 ± 0.28 | 4.69 ± 0.30 | 4.45 ± 0.32 | 4.52 ± 0.33 |
18 | 6.92 ± 0.34 | 5.89 ± 0.31 | 7.57 ± 0.34 | 6.84 ± 0.42 | 6.93 ± 0.35 |
19 | 3.02 ± 0.21 | 3.24 ± 0.23 | 2.89 ± 0.13 | 3.08 ± 0.30 | 2.97 ± 0.29 |
20 | 6.03 ± 0.36 | 5.98 ± 0.24 | 6.06 ± 0.47 | 6.00 ± 0.37 | 5.98 ± 0.36 |
21 | 3.47 ± 0.22 | 3.78 ± 0.25 | 3.13 ± 0.24 | 3.49 ± 0.23 | 3.53 ± 0.21 |
22 | 4.55 ± 0.31 | 4.76 ± 0.28 | 4.23 ± 0.32 | 4.50 ± 0.32 | 4.51 ± 0.31 |
23 | 3.15 ± 0.23 | 3.45 ± 0.25 | 2.72 ± 0.24 | 3.12 ± 0.26 | 3.11 ± 0.25 |
24 | 4.05 ± 0.31 | 3.56 ± 0.23 | 4.57 ± 0.25 | 4.09 ± 0.21 | 4.08 ± 0.26 |
25 | 6.01 ± 0.49 | 5.83 ± 0.36 | 6.19 ± 0.39 | 5.98 ± 0.37 | 5.99 ± 0.37 |
26 | 6.05 ± 0.46 | 6.57 ± 0.32 | 5.58 ± 0.38 | 6.06 ± 0.41 | 6.09 ± 0.38 |
27 | 6.07 ± 0.44 | 5.61 ± 0.36 | 6.45 ± 0.42 | 6.08 ± 0.45 | 6.09 ± 0.42 |
28 | 6.04 ± 0.45 | 5.83 ± 0.32 | 6.43 ± 0.39 | 6.01 ± 0.42 | 6.04 ± 0.39 |
29 | 6.02 ± 0.39 | 6.37 ± 0.31 | 5.67 ± 0.33 | 6.02 ± 0.38 | 5.97 ± 0.39 |
30 | 5.98 ± 0.35 | 5.32 ± 0.23 | 6.95 ± 0.41 | 6.03 ± 0.40 | 6.02 ± 0.38 |
31 | 6.03 ± 0.42 | 6.32 ± 0.31 | 5.76 ± 0.34 | 6.01 ± 0.39 | 6.03 ± 0.41 |
32 | 6.02 ± 0.40 | 5.98 ± 0.34 | 6.22 ± 0.35 | 6.03 ± 0.42 | 6.05 ± 0.40 |
33 | 6.01 ± 0.45 | 5.65 ± 0.36 | 6.22 ± 0.42 | 6.02 ± 0.43 | 6.00 ± 0.43 |
34 | 5.69 ± 0.44 | 5.42 ± 0.35 | 6.12 ± 0.45 | 5.81 ± 0.41 | 5.86 ± 0.39 |
35 | 6.06 ± 0.38 | 6.24 ± 0.37 | 6.11 ± 0.37 | 6.03 ± 0.39 | 6.11 ± 0.38 |
36 | 5.98 ± 0.41 | 5.44 ± 0.35 | 6.35 ± 0.42 | 6.01 ± 0.40 | 6.07 ± 0.38 |
Source of Variation | Sum of Squares (SS) | Degree of Freedom (df) | Mean Squares (MS) | F-Value | p-Value | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 290.51 | 1 | 290.51 | 888.89 | <0.0001 | |
X2 | 284.97 | 1 | 284.97 | 871.93 | <0.0001 | |
X3 | 54.30 | 1 | 54.30 | 166.15 | <0.0001 | |
X4 | 40.82 | 1 | 40.82 | 124.90 | <0.0001 | |
X1X2 | 1.82 | 1 | 1.82 | 5.58 | 0.0279 | |
X1X3 | 13.32 | 1 | 13.32 | 40.76 | <0.0001 | |
X1X4 | 19.14 | 1 | 19.14 | 58.57 | <0.0001 | |
X2X3 | 0.53 | 1 | 0.53 | 1.61 | 0.2186 | |
X2X4 | 1.32 | 1 | 1.32 | 4.05 | 0.0573 | |
X3X4 | 0.36 | 1 | 0.36 | 1.10 | 0.3059 | |
X12 | 10.93 | 1 | 10.93 | 33.44 | <0.0001 | |
X22 | 118.97 | 1 | 118.97 | 364.00 | <0.0001 | |
X32 | 214.76 | 1 | 214.76 | 657.12 | <0.0001 | |
X42 | 306.90 | 1 | 306.90 | 939.03 | <0.0001 | |
Regression | 1358.65 | 14 | 97.05 | 296.94 | <0.0001 | Significant |
Residual | 6.86 | 21 | 0.33 | |||
Lack of Fit | 4.86 | 10 | 0.49 | 2.67 | 0.0611 | Not significant |
Pure Error | 2.00 | 11 | 0.18 | |||
Cor Total | 1365.52 | 35 | ||||
R2 | 0.9950 | |||||
Adj-R2 | 0.9916 | |||||
CV | 2.32 | |||||
Std. Deviation | 0.57 | |||||
Adeq precision | 59.832 |
References
- Millen, C.I. The Development of Colour 3D Food Printing System: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Mechatronics at Massey University. Master’s Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Celi, M.; Rudkin, J. Drawing food trends: Design potential in shaping food future. Futures 2016, 83, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Sun, J.; Peng, Z.; Zhou, W.; Fuh, J.Y.; 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]
- 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]
- Jia, F.; Wang, X.; Mustafee, N.; Hao, L. Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric business models in 3D chocolate printing: A simulation study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 102, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mantihal, S.; Prakash, S.; Godoi, F.C.; Bhandari, B. Optimization of chocolate 3D printing by correlating thermal and flow properties with 3D structure modeling. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 44, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Yang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wei, Y.; Li, Y. 3D printing of shape memory polymer for functional part fabrication. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 84, 2079–2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, B.R.; Roos, Y.H. Dissolution of sucrose crystals in the anhydrous sorbitol melt. Carbohydr. Res. 2003, 338, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, C.; Mo, X.; Teoh, S.; Hutmacher, D.W. Scaffold development using 3D printing with a starch-based polymer. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2002, 20, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, L.; Mellor, S.; Seaman, O.; Henderson, J.; Sewell, N.; Sloan, M. Material characterisation and process development for chocolate additive layer manufacturing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2010, 5, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalsoom, U.; Nesterenko, P.N.; Paull, B. Recent developments in 3D printable composite materials. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 60355–60371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipton, J.; Arnold, D.; Nigl, F.; Lopez, N.; Cohen, D.; Norén, N.; Lipson, H. Multi-material food printing with complex internal structure suitable for conventional post-processing. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 9–11 August 2010; pp. 809–815. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, T.; Tu, Z.-C.; Wang, H.; Shangguan, X.; Zhang, L.; Niu, P.; Sha, X.-M. Promotion of foam properties of egg white protein by subcritical water pre-treatment and fish scales gelatin. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 512, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, S.; Trujillo-Reyes, J.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; White, J.C.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Cerium Biomagnification in a Terrestrial Food Chain: Influence of Particle Size and Growth Stage. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 6782–6792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lasse, M.; Deb-Choudhury, S.; Haines, S.; Larsen, N.; Gerrard, J.A.; Dyer, J.M. The impact of pH, salt concentration and heat on digestibility and amino acid modification in egg white protein. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 38, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Zhao, L.; Chen, X.D.; Mercadé-Prieto, R. Swelling of whey and egg white protein hydrogels with stranded and particulate microstructures. Int. J. Boil. Macromol. 2016, 83, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.; Niu, F.; Su, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Gu, L.; Yang, Y. Characteristics and emulsifying properties of acid and acid-heat induced egg white protein. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 54, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raikos, V.; Campbell, L.; Euston, S.R. Effects of sucrose and sodium chloride on foaming properties of egg white proteins. Food Res. Int. 2007, 40, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y.; Wang, F.; Huang, W.; Tang, X.; Zou, Q.; Li, Z.; Ogawa, A. Sucrose substitution by polyols in sponge cake and their effects on the foaming and thermal properties of egg protein. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 57, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billiet, T.; Vandenhaute, M.; Schelfhout, J.; Van Vlierberghe, S.; Dubruel, P. A review of trends and limitations in hydrogel-rapid prototyping for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 6020–6041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Prakash, S.; Dai, X.; Meng, Y. Enzymolysis and glycosylation synergistic modified ovalbumin: Functional and structural characteristics. Int. J. Food Prop. 2018, 21, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, L.; Wang, H.; Ren, G.Y.; Duan, X.; Yin, G.J. Effect of freeze-drying and spray drying processes on functional properties of phosphorylation of egg white protein. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2015, 8, 116–123. [Google Scholar]
- Mohammadi, R.; Mohammadifar, M.A.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Rouhi, M.; Ghasemi, J.B.; Delshadian, Z. Extraction optimization of pepsin-soluble collagen from eggshell membrane by response surface methodology (RSM). Food Chem. 2016, 190, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, F.; Zhu, W.; Qiu, Y.; Kang, H. Optimization of demineralization on Cyprinus carpio haematopterus scale by response surface methodology. J. Food Sci. Tech. MYS 2015, 52, 1684–1690. [Google Scholar]
- Kaur, M.; Sandhu, K.S.; Arora, A.; Sharma, A. Gluten free biscuits prepared from buckwheat flour by incorporation of various gums: Physicochemical and sensory properties. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 628–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, W.C.; Chai, P.-S. Effect of Flaxseed Flour and Xanthan Gum on Gluten-Free Cake Properties. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2017, 5, 717–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nguyen, P.T.; Kravchuk, O.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. Effect of different hydrocolloids on texture, rheology, tribology and sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel of low-fat pot-set yoghurt. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 72, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Tong, Q.; Zhu, W.; Ren, F. Pasting, rheological properties and gelatinization kinetics of tapioca starch with sucrose or glucose. J. Food Eng. 2013, 114, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, P.T.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. Tribological method to measure lubricating properties of dairy products. J. Food Eng. 2016, 168, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Zhang, T.; Chen, X.; Fang, K.; Hou, M.; Gu, N. The effects of porosity and stiffness of genipin cross-linked egg white simulating aged extracellular matrix on proliferation and aggregation of ovarian cancer cells. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 520, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilaiyaraja, N.; Likhith, K.; Babu, G.S.; Khanum, F. Optimisation of extraction of bioactive compounds from Feronia limonia (wood apple) fruit using response surface methodology (RSM). Food Chem. 2015, 173, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuorro, A.; Fidaleo, M.; Lavecchia, R. Response surface methodology (RSM) analysisof photodegradation of sulfonated diazo dye Reactive Green 19 by UV/H2O2 process. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Yang, C. Investigation on fish surimi gel as promising food material for 3D printing. J. Food Eng. 2018, 220, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shama, F.; Sherman, P. Identification of stimuli controlling the sensory evaluation of viscosity II. Oral methods. J. Texture Stud. 1973, 4, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, R.K.; Morris, E.R.; Ross-Murphy, S.B.; Taylor, L.J.; Dea, I.C. Characterization of the perceived texture of thickened systems by dynamic viscosity measurements. Food Hydrocoll. 1989, 3, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kravchuk, O.; Torley, P.; Stokes, J.R. Food Texture is Only Partly Rheology. In Food Materials Science and Engineering; Bhandari, B., Roos, Y.H., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 349–372. [Google Scholar]
- Ibanoğlu, E. Effect of hydrocolloids on the thermal denaturation of proteins. Food Chem. 2005, 90, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiroodi, S.G.; Rasco, B.A.; Lo, Y.M. Influence of xanthan-curdlan hydrogel complex on freeze-thaw stability and rheological properties of whey protein isolate gel over multiple freeze-thaw cycle. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, 1498–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scaraggi, M.; Persson, B. Theory of viscoelastic lubrication. Tribol. Int. 2014, 72, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020164
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(2):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020164
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Lili, Xiaopan Yang, Bhesh Bhandari, Yuanyuan Meng, and Sangeeta Prakash. 2020. "Optimization of the Formulation and Properties of 3D-Printed Complex Egg White Protein Objects" Foods 9, no. 2: 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020164