Cited by 293Insect Utilization and EffectsAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesSeed and Plant Biochemistry

On printability, quality and nutritional properties of 3D printed cereal based snacks enriched with edible insects

Severini, C., Azzollini, D., Albenzio, M., Derossi, A.·2018·Food Research International

Abstract

3D printing technology was employed to obtain snacks with a designed cylindrical geometry from wheat flour dough enriched by ground larvae of Yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) as novel source of proteins. The main microstructural features, overall quality, and nutritional attributes were studied as a function of formulation, time and temperature of baking. The addition of ground insects up to 20 g/100 g (d.b.) resulted in softer dough. This caused an overflow in dough deposition producing the increase in diameter, height and weight of snacks. Baking conditions did not alter the overall aspect of the snacks, but modification of the main dimensional and microstructure attributes were observed due to the better water evaporation. The optimization of baking conditions found that 22 min and 200 °C allowed obtaining a maximum desirability of 0.693. Baked in these conditions, the printed snacks enriched with 10 and 20% of ground insects significantly increased the total essential amino acid, from 32.5 (0% insects) to 38.2 and 41.3 g/100 g protein, respectively. The protein digestibility corrected amino acid score increased from 41.6 to 65.2 from 0 to 20% insect enrichment, with lysine and methionine + cysteine being the respective limiting amino acid. Our results evidenced the rational promotion of insects based on nutritional arguments and validated the use of 3D printing as technology to manufacture innovative printed snacks without adverse impact on technological quality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.034

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Severini, C., Azzollini, D., Albenzio, M., & Derossi, A.
Affiliations
University of Foggia (IT)
Corresponding author
Severini, C.
Venue
Food Research International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
106
Pages
666-676
ISSN
0963-9969 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792655923
Cited by
293
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 6
FWCI
22.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Food Research International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi del Molise (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Utilization and Effects
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Seed and Plant Biochemistry
Keywords
3D food printing, edible insects, Tenebrio molitor, yellow mealworm larvae, cereal-based snacks, wheat dough, baking conditions, dough microstructure, protein quality, amino acid composition, protein digestibility, insect protein
MeSH terms
Amino Acids, Animals, Edible Grain, Cooking, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Flour, Food Handling, Food, Fortified, Hot Temperature, Nutritive Value, Protein Conformation, Quality Control, Tenebrio, Triticum, Insect Proteins, Snacks, Printing, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review