MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403431945 · doi:10.1016/j.foostr.2024.100396

Impact of hydrocolloids on 3D meat analog printing and cooking

2024· article· en· W4403431945 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Hafizur Rahman Bhuiyan, Nushrat Yeasmen, Michael Ngadi

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Structure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFood scienceChemistryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effects of hydrocolloid addition on three-dimensional (3D) printing and cooking of plant ingredients-based meat analog (MA). The MA inks were formulated with soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, canola oil, water, and hydrocolloids (xanthan gum, pectin, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, guar gum, locust bean gum) at a ratio of 22:12:15:88:2. Formulated inks were used to create a specific 3D cylindrical model geometry and the printed structure were subjected to air frying (AF:180°C, 15 min) and infrared heating (IR:180°C, 15 min). Results showed that the MA ink’s viscosity (3871–5482 Pa. s), 3D printing rate (0.34–0.39 g.sec −1 ), printing error (2.51–10.37 %), and printing precision (81.97–97.27 %) were significantly (p<0.05) impacted by the incorporation of hydrocolloids. The dimensional stability (63.17–98.58 %), and cooking loss (6.70–17.41 %) were greatly impacted by both the hydrocolloids and post-printing cooking methods. Moisture (1.71 db) and fat (0.28 db) content of uncooked 3D printed MA were identical, whereas, differences in color attributes (L value:80.21–98.88, a value:0.01–0.13, b value:0.11–2.11) among the studied hydrocolloid added samples were observed. Moisture, fat, and color traits of 3D printed meat-analogs were significantly (p<0.05) impacted by post-printing cooking methods (AF, IR). During post-printing cooking, the loss of mass (moisture, fat) and changes in color tones were associated with the types of hydrocolloids incorporated in formulating the 3D printing ink. Surfaces and internal structure, mass loss, chemical profile, and glass-transition-temperature of 3D printed meat-analogs were significantly (p<0.05) impacted by both the type of incorporated hydrocolloids and post-printing cooking methods. • Incorporation of hydrocolloids greatly influenced 3D meat-analog printing process parameters. • Physicochemical, structural, and thermal traits were associated with types of hydrocolloids. • Performance of hydrocolloids on 3D meat-analogs were attribute-specific. • Cooking methods influences surfaces structure, chemical profile, and glass-transition-temperature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood StructureSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207