Multi Dimentional Food Printing technology

3D and 4D food printing

1. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 1

2. Designer Foods
•Products that are customized to
meet specific dietary
preferences, health needs, or
aesthetic desires
•Shift from traditional food
production to a tailored
approach, crafting food with
customized nutritional content
and visual appeal to meet
individual preferences
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 2

3. Why Designer Foods?
•Change in life style and behavior
•Consumer preferences (Age, Religion,
Income, Community)
•Health conscious and demand for nutritive
food
•Demand of personalized food
•Enhancing Culinary Innovation
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 3
Child Athlete
Pregnant
women
Old age
people
Personalized
food

4. SCOPE AND APPLICATIONS OF MULTI DIMENSIONAL
FOOD PRINTING
21/09/24 4Division of PHT & AE
PHM-692: Credit Seminar
Presenter:
SUNEEL SUBRAY HEGDE
I Ph.D
Division of PHT & AE
ICAR- IIHR Bengaluru
Seminar In-charge:
Dr. R B TIWARI
Principal Scientist & Head
Division of PHT & AE
ICAR- IIHR Bengaluru

5. 5
CONTENTSCONTENTS
Basics of Spectroscopy

1
Types of 3D Food Printing3
4 4D Food Printing
SWOT Analysis6
Future Thrust7
Conclusion 8
4
Division of PHT & AE21/09/24
Introduction 1

6. •Digitally controlled process of
making complex 3D solid food
products layer-by-layer from a
digital file fort
•Also known as Additive
manufacturing, Food layer
manufacturing
•Enables detailed control of
ingredients and creation of
complex, customized food shapes
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 6Varvara et al.,
2021

7. Year Company Achievement
2006
Cornell
University
Fab@Home: First multi-material 3D food printer
2009
Evil Mad Scientist
Laboratories
CandyFab: Printed large sugar sculptures using
selective melting and fusing of sugar grains
2012Choco Edge First commercially available 3D chocolate printer
2014
3D Systems &
Hershey's
Chocolate printer: Printed various shapes and sizes
using milk, dark, and white chocolate
2018Nova meat
First meat-free steak made from vegetables that
mimics meat texture
2023Revo Foods
World's first 3D printed food product in
supermarkets: "THE FILET Inspired by Salmon"
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 7
Waghmare et al., 2023

8. Formulation of Print Materials
I.Selecting Base Ingredients
•Purees: Vegetables, fruits and legumes
•Gels: Hydrocolloids and plant-based gels
•Pastes: Nut butters, seed and grain pastes
•Powders: Dried fruits, vegetables and
protein powders
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 8
III.Ensuring Printability
Consistency and Viscosity: Thickeners (e.g., xanthan gum, guar gum) and binders (e.g., egg
whites, flaxseed gel
Stability and Uniformity: Homogenization, stabilizers(e.g., lecithin, glycerin)
II.Enhancing Nutritional Content
•Vitamins and Minerals: Natural sources
or fortification
•Protein Isolates: Whey protein, pea
protein, soy protein
•Fiber Enrichment: Oat bran, wheat bran
Waghmare et al., 2023

9. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 9Nachal et al., 2019

10. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 10
Pereira et al., 2021

11. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 11
Varvara et al.,
2021

12. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 12
Aspect Extrusion PrintingBinder Jetting Sintering Inkjet Printing
DefinitionForces material
through a nozzle to
create layers
Deposits a binder onto
powder to build layers
Deposits powder in
layers and binds with
a selective agent
Deposits droplets of
edible ink or material
layer by layer
ProcessLayer material,
extrude, repeat
Layer powder, apply
binder, repeat
Layer powder, bind
with heat or laser
Deposit droplets to
form the design layer
by layer
MaterialsPastes, doughs, gelsFood powders and
edible binders
Food powders that
can be fused
Edible inks, gels, or
purees
Final
Product
Customized food
items with precise
shapes
Solid food structures
with intricate details
Detailed and complex
shapes with fused
powders
Detailed color designs
and patterns
ApplicationArtistic, personalized,
or complex culinary
creations
Complex food shapes,
decorations, and
custom designs
Detailed structures
and decorations in
food items
Personalized
decorations, detailed
edible designs
Pereira et al., 2021

13. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 13
•Advanced form of 3D printing
technology
•Printed food structures are
designed to change shape,
texture, or other properties over
time in response to external
stimuli such as temperature,
moisture, or pH
Navaf et al., 2022

14. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 14
3D Food Printing 4D Food Printing
Uses 3D printing technology to create food items
layer by layer
Builds on 3D printing by incorporating time-
dependent changes
Creates objects with three-dimensional shapes
and structures
Adds a fourth dimension of time, allowing objects
to change shape or properties over time based on
environmental conditions
Food materials are prepared and extruded, layer
by layer, or deposited according to a digital
model.
Designed to respond to environmental changes,
such as swelling, shrinking, or changing texture
Static in shape and structure once printed; may
require additional processing like cooking
Dynamic; the food changes or adapts after
printing due to stimuli-responsive properties
Creating complex shapes, customized designs,
and artistic food items
Can alter its form or properties over time for
enhanced functionality or consumer experience
Customized chocolates, intricate cakes,
personalized confections
Self-Assembling Foods, Thermochromic Candy
Navaf et al., 2022

15. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 15

16. Objective:
• To produce functional strawberry products using wheat and corn
starches in three different proportions of 10%, 15%, and 20% (w/w)
• To study the physico-chemical properties of the final products
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE
3D Printing of Functional Strawberry Snacks: Food Design,
Texture, Antioxidant Bioactive Compounds, and Microbial
Stability
Anica Bebek Markovinovic, Predrag Putnik, Tomislav Bosiljkov, Deni Kostelac,
Jadranka Frece, Ksenija Markov, Adrijana Žigoli´c, Jelena Kaurinovi´c, Branimir
Pavli´c , Boris Duralija, Sandra Zavadlav and Danijela Bursa´c Kovacevi´c
CASE STUDY -
1
16

17. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 17
Sample Starch Type Starch Content 3D Program
1 Control sample - -
2 Corn starch 10% Program 1
3 Corn starch 10% Program 2
4 Corn starch 15% Program 1
5 Corn starch 15% Program 2
6 Corn starch 20% Program 1
7 Corn starch 20% Program 2
8 Wheat starch 10% Program 1
9 Wheat starch 10% Program 2
10 Wheat starch 15% Program 1
11 Wheat starch 15% Program 2
12 Wheat starch 20% Program 1
13 Wheat starch 20% Program 2
Table 1: Design of the experiment
Material and Methods
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

18. •3D Printing: A heart shape with three layers
•Statistical analysis: Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 18
Material and Methods
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023
Program 1 Program 2
Printing speed(mm min
−1
) 8000 14000
Printing line thickness(mm) 3.5 3.4
Mixture flow rate 1.4 1.65
Nozzle height of the first layer(mm)6 4.5

19. Variable n a
w pH
Starch type p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
Corn 12 0.94 ± 0.0
 
b
3.38 ± 0.0
 
b
Wheat 12 0.95 ± 0.0
 
a
3.50 ± 0.0
 
a
Starch content p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
10% 8 0.94 ± 0.0
 
b
3.25 ± 0.0
 
b
15% 8 0.95 ± 0.0
 
a
3.53 ± 0.0
 
a
20% 8 0.95 ± 0.0
 
a
3.53 ± 0.0
 
a
3D Program p
 = 0.12 
‡
p
 ≤ 0.01
‡

Program 1 12 0.95 ± 0.0
 
a
3.53 ± 0.0
 
a
Program 2 12 0.95 ± 0.0
 
a
3.53 ± 0.0
 
a
Dataset average 24 0.95 ± 0.0 3.53 ± 0.0
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 19
Results are expressed as mean ± standard error. Values represented with different letters are statistically different
at p ≤ 0.05; † significant factor in multifactor analysis; ‡ not a significant factor in multifactor analysis
Table 2: Association of 3DP parameters with the contents of aw and pH in the 3DP samples
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

20. Variable n TPC HCA FL TF ANTH CT
Starch type p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p 
= 0.04 
†
p 
= 0.01 
†
Corn 12 74.47 ± 1.08
 
b
19.44 ± 0.25
 
a
6.90 ± 0.16
 
a
5.30 ± 0.05
 
a
7.50 ± 0.03
 
b
43.90 ± 0.27
 
b
Wheat 12 82.66 ± 1.08
 
a
13.64 ± 0.25
 
b
3.70 ± 0.16
 
b
4.50 ± 0.05
 
b
7.61 ± 0.03
 
a
45.01 ± 0.27
 
a
Starch % p
 = 0.54 
‡
p
 = 0.09 
‡
p
 ≤ 0.01 
†
p
 = 0.04 
†
p 
≤ 0.01 
†
p 
≤ 0.01 
†
10% 8 77.4 ± 1.32
 
a
16.00 ± 0.30
 
a
4.47 ± 0.20
 
c
4.86 ± 0.06
 
ab
7.82 ± 0.04
 
a
45.02 ± 0.33
 
b
15% 8 79.48 ± 1.32
 
a
17.04 ± 0.30
 
a
6.06 ± 0.20
 
a
5.04 ± 0.06
 
a
7.94 ± 0.04
 
a
47.14 ± 0.33
 
a
20% 8 78.83 ± 1.32
 
a
16.58 ± 0.30
 
a
5.37 ± 0.20
 
b
4.80 ± 0.06
 
b
6.91 ± 0.04
 
b
41.20 ± 0.33
 
c
3D Program p
 = 0.03 
†
p
 = 0.08 
‡
p
 = 0.09 
‡
p
 ≤ 0.01 †
p 
≤ 0.01 
†
p 
= 0.02 
†
Program 1 12 76.62 ± 1.08
 
b
16.21 ± 0.25
 
a
5.32 ± 0.16
 
a
4.79 ± 0.05
 
b
7.43 ± 0.03
 
b
43.95 ± 0.27
 
b
Program 2 12 80.51 ± 1.08
 
a
16.87 ± 0.25
 
a
5.32 ± 0.16
 
a
5.01 ± 0.05
 
a
7.69 ± 0.03
 
a
44.96 ± 0.27
 
a
Dataset
average
24 78.57 ± 1.0816.54 ± 0.185.30 ± 0.124.90 ± 0.047.56 ± 0.0244.46 ± 0.19
21/09/24
Division of PHT & AE
20
Results are expressed as mean ± standard error. Values represented with different letters are statistically different at
 
p 
≤ 0.05; 
†
 
significant factor
in multifactor analysis;
 
‡
 
not a significant factor in multifactor analysis. TPC—Total phenolic compounds (mg 100 g
−1
); HCA—Hydroxycinnamic
acids (mg 100 g
−1
); FL—Flavanols (mg 100 g
−1
); TF—Total flavonoids (mg 100 g
−1
); ANTH—Monomeric anthocyanins (mg 100 g
−1
); CT—Condensed
tannins (mg 100 g
−1
);
Table 3 : Association of 3DP processing parameters with the contents of bioactive compounds in
the 3DP samples
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

21. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 21
Table 4 : Influence of 3DP processing parameters on color values
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023
Parameter 3DP Program Type of StarchStarch Content
L* 0.34 0.47 ≤0.01 *
a* 0.72 0.82 0.29
b* 0.60 0.80 0.59
C* 0.89 0.82 0.42
h (°) 0.17 0.66 0.11
L*—lightness; a*—redness; b*—yellowness; C*—chroma; h°—hue angle; *—statistically significant (p < 0.05)

22. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 22
Fig. 1.
 Influence of added starch, 10% (A); 15% (B); 20% (C), on the lightness (L*) of
microscopic pictures (500×) of 3DP samples
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

23. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 23
3DP ProgramType of Starch
Starch Content
(%)
Length
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Program 1
corn 10 53.36 ± 0.5351.22 ± 0.4912.24 ± 0.29
corn 15 52.11 ± 0.5651.45 ± 0.2512.41 ± 0.23
corn 20 52.12 ± 0.6651.76 ± 0.3112.49 ± 0.38
wheat 10 52.25 ± 0.3151.33 ± 0.5111.72 ± 0.76
wheat 15 52.26 ± 0.4151.36 ± 0.1412.25 ± 0.38
wheat 20 51.76 ± 0.3850.98 ± 0.9112.36 ± 0.88
Program 2
corn 10 52.12 ± 0.8951.11 ± 0.7511.87 ± 0.48
corn 15 53.28 ± 0.3951.25 ± 0.5711.81 ± 0.71
corn 20 52.23 ± 0.6251.34 ± 0.6712.66 ± 0.43
wheat 10 52.25 ± 0.5451.25 ± 0.5512.41 ± 0.27
wheat 15 51.56 ± 0.3751.46 ± 0.7712.49 ± 0.57
wheat 20 51.22 ± 0.6752.91 ± 0.3912.55 ± 0.64
Results are presented as an average value of triplicate measurements ± STDEV
Table 5 : Influence of 3DP processing parameters on the dimension of 3DP samples
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

24. Microorganism
Type
Sample
Days of Storage
0 2 4 7 10
Aerobic
mesophilic
bacteria
control 1.5×10
2
9×10
2
1.8×10
3
n.d. n.d.
vanillin 1 g L
−1
n.d. 9×10
2
9×10
2
3.8×10
4
 * 9×10
4
 *
vanillin 2 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 9×10
2
citral 75 mg L
−1
n.d. 1×10
2
1.4×10
2
9×10
3
3.6×10
4
*

citral 150 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Enterobacteria
ceae
control n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 1 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 2 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 75 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 150 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 24
n.d.—not detected; above the safety limit of 10
4
 
CFU g
−1
; *—not satisfactory criterion (≤10
4
 
CFU mL
−1
)
Table 6 : Microbiological counts (CFU g
−1
) of the 3DP samples during 10 days of storage
at 4°C
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

25. Microorga
nism Type
Sample
Days of Storage
0 2 4 7 10
Salmonella
 
sp.
control n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 1 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 2 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 75 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 150 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Escherichia
coli
control n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 1 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 2 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 75 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 150 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Yeasts and
molds
control n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 1 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
vanillin 2 g L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 75 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
citral 150 mg L
−1
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 25
n.d.—not detected; above the safety limit of 10
4
 
CFU g
−1
; *—not satisfactory criterion (≤10
4
 
CFU mL
−1
)
Cont..
Bebek Markovinovic et al., 2023

26. •The type of starch significantly affected the stability of bioactive
compounds
•The type of 3D printing program has a significant effect the bioactive
compounds, where the use of program 2 resulted in greater stability
of all analyzed components
•The microbiological safety of the product was confirmed as no
pathogenic bacteria were detected in the samples during 10 days of
storage at 4°C
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 26
Inference

27. Objective: To explore the use of tapioca sago as a base
material for 4D printing, with a focus on curcumin-based
spontaneous color transformation triggered by sodium
bicarbonate as the stimulus
21/09/24 27Division of PHT & AE
CASE STUDY - 2

28. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 28
Material and Methods
•Gelatinized Sago powder
•Turmeric powder (TP) with 7% curcumin was added to
the sago powder (at 0, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% w/w)
Flower-shaped 3D model
Printing parameters used during the optimization
1.Print speed (2000, 1500, 1000 and 500 mm/min)
2.Compressive pressure (1, 2 and 3 bar)
3.Nozzle diameter size (0.84 and 1.28 mm)
Shanthamma et al., 2021
•Immersed in solutions with
varying concentrations of sodium
bicarbonate (1, 3, and 5% w/w)

29. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 29
Fig. 2: Rheological behavior of the 3D printing material supplies
Shanthamma et al., 2021
Control
0.5% TP
1.5% TP
2.5% TP

30. Fig. 3: Optimization of 3D printing variables for the (a) Control, (b) 0.5% TP, (c) 1.5% TP and (d)
2.5% TP Formulation
21/09/24
Division of PHT & AE 30
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(a)
(d)
(c)
(b)

31. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 31
Fig. 4: Sensory evaluation of 3D-printed constructs obtained using different nozzle sizes
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(a) (b)

32. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 32
Fig. 5: Sensory evaluation of 3D-printed constructs obtained using different nozzle sizes
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(c) (d)

33. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 33
Fig. 6: Sensory evaluation of 3D-printed constructs obtained using different nozzle sizes
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(e) (f)

34. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 34
Fig. 7: Sensory evaluation of 3D-printed constructs obtained using different nozzle sizes
Thread
quality
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(g) (h)

35. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 35
Fig. 8: Stimulus−concentration and time-dependent changes in (a) L* values, b) a* and
(c) b* values during the color transformation
Shanthamma et al., 2021
(a) (b) (c)

36. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 36
Fig. 9: Visual images of stimulus concentration and time-dependent color
transformation of the 3D-printed constructs with 2.5% TP
Shanthamma et al., 2021

37. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 37
Fig. 10: Acceptance evaluation of 4D-printed constructs with 2.5% TP
Shanthamma et al., 2021

38. •The 3D printing process was optimized for sago-based materials
using a 2.5% turmeric powder blend, with parameters set at 2000
mm/min printing speed, 3 bar pressure and 0.84 mm nozzle
diameter
•Samples immersed in 5% sodium bicarbonate demonstrated
superior color values and received higher sensory scores
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 38
Inference

39. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 39
Market Outlook
3D Food Printing Market Size 2023 to 2034 (USD
Million)
3D Food Printing Market Share, By
Region, 2023
https://www.precedenceresearch.com/3d-food-printing-market

40. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 40
51.6 % of consumers are willing to try 3DPF
Consumers who want healthy food adapted to their needs are also more receptive
to 3D printed foods
54.1 % of consumers indicate that if 3DPF were nutritionally richer than the existing
product on the market, they would be willing to buy it
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF 3D PRINTED FOODS
Silva et al., 2024

41. SWOT Analysis
•Technological innovation
•Diversity of applications
•Personalization potential
•Reduction of food waste
•Efficient resource use
Strengths
•Technological limitations
•High costs
•Consumer acceptance
and perception
Weaknesses
•Market expansion
•Research and
development
•Education and
awareness
Opportunities
•Regulations and standards
•Ethical challenges
•Impact on traditional
employment
Threats
21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 41
Zhang et al., 2022

42. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 42
Deep-Space Food Science Research Improves 3D-Printing
Capabilities
FUTURE THRUST
BeeHex : 3D Printed Pizza
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2024/ip_2.html

43. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 43
Multidimensional food printing technology could transform the
processed food industry by providing personalized, nutrient-
dense meals to a wide range of consumers
Consumer preference for printed food technology is still
developing
This innovation paves the way for new business opportunities in
the food industry
Further optimization and development are required before it can
achieve widespread commercial success
CONCLUSION

44. 21/09/24 Division of PHT & AE 44