Additive Manufacturing Workshop EPSRC Centre for EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Food, Nottingham 7 th and 8 th April 2016 Workshop Report Jennie Lord, EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Food, Nottingham Simon Baty, Louise Jones and Bryan Hanley, Food KTN
Executive Summary The workshop brought together stakeholders from industry and academia to discuss the potential of additive manufacturing in the agri/food area. The key conclusions were that research is needed to support fundamental, medium and short term applications. If such work id supported and carried out, there are significant improvements that could be made to current models and practices some of which would be dependent upon the realisation that additive manufacturing both offers a new way of working and a more inclusive paradigm for agri/food which has a more proactive participation from all members of the supply chain including real time feedback from consumers, health professionals and other end users directly to producers and manufacturers. The key conclusions were. 1. Research Council and Innovate funding should be made available for studies in the fundamental, medium and short term areas. 2. A route map showing which products might be developed as technologies and understanding increases should be developed. 3. The route map should be linked to a timeline of threats (e.g. pressure on production of animal protein) and opportunities (production of more nutritious food) to ensure that the enabling technology is being prioritised. 4. Synergies between food and other areas where additive manufacturing is or could be used should be further developed. This could lead to advances in additive manufacturing of more labile materials, the faster development of rapid prototyping in food and pharma and the identification of technology gaps and barriers.
1.0 Introduction This is the second in a series of workshops held to investigate the potential of additive manufacturing (3D printing) in food. The first workshop was held in Nottingham in November 2015 and began the process of determining the potential opportunities and barriers to the further adoption of this technology in the food area. The next step was to define these more deeply and to identify specific actions attached to the opportunities. This was the focus of the second workshop. The workshop was jointly sponsored by the KTN and the EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Food. It was held at the University of Nottingham. Additive manufacturing is an official industry standard term (ASTM F2792) and is defined as the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies. Synonyms are additive fabrication, additive processes, additive techniques, additive layer manufacturing, layer manufacturing, and freeform fabrication. More recently the phrase 3D printing has been adopted (see: https://wohlersassociates.com/2016report.htm). One of the key elements of traditional additive manufacturing is that it is led by engineering and design principles. The primary applications of additive fabrication are design/modelling, fit and function prototyping, and direct part production. The application of additive manufacturing for the production of food (and pharmaceutical) materials which are directly ingested is still comparatively rare, however opportunities exist to change production methods by using the principles of additive manufacturing to develop functionally novel products (http://www.bakingeurope.eu/publications/bakingeurope-spring-2016-preview.pdf). However the use of additive manufacturing for products rather than for equipment could represent a step change in the food and pharmaceutical manufacturing process and allow product functionality to be driven by design and delivery principles rather than by iterative processing using conventional technologies. The potential for additive manufacturing of food products can be driven by two distinct but linked propositions. The threat to the global food supply as a result of population increases, demographic changes and increasing wealth in Asia, Africa and other markets. This applies in particular to protein; however other raw materials have also been recognised as being potentially at risk. This includes the impact of growing crops for biofuel and other non-food uses, loss of plant diversity and the potential effect of global warming on the availability of arable land for food production. The opportunity to create new functionality in food, to reduce waste by increasing the efficiency of the use of raw materials and the production process and to reduce the burden of diet-related disease by rational food design (e.g. reduction of food energy density). These were the start points for the workshop and the participants built upon them to build a vision of the future and how to get there.
2.0 Current Situation 2.1 Products and Processes There are a number of existing products and most of them use single components. These include Single component products e.g. chocolate, icing sugar. The value of these products lies in novel shape formation and they are prepared ready to eat Single component products to be cooked e.g. pasta shapes Multiple component product with single component layers e.g. pizza, ice cream (Vienetta). Products built up in layers. There are a number of existing processes. Industry want finished technologies and ready to go products. Extrusion, fused deposition, micro-deposition Sintering, binder jetting Multi-colour, multi flavour 2.2 Supply Chain The existing supply chain is essentially linear however the workshop participants identified both that the existing paradigms, while reflecting historical associations and the current value chain are not necessarily reflective of the global food system and that changes to the supply chain model might allow for significantly greater inputs by consumers and others at different points in the process.
Additive manufacturing therefore creates new supply chain models and new opportunities. Product Retail Factory Home Consumer
3.0 Potential for Future Technologies It is possible to consider new technologies being developed both from a stand-alone technology/product standpoint and from a threat/opportunity approach. 3.1 AM Future Products Printing of structural components of composite final products Use of new ingredients (low value or not currently in the supply chain) Creation of feedstock blind products by creating a properties toolkit for product formulation. Functional (healthy) ingredients o Loading of ingredients for efficient use i.e. less waste/overage o Controlled release of specific components for efficient delivery to point of action. Inert nutrition. Nutritionally inert materials incorporated (e.g. water, air) to create foods with lower energy density. Demographic driven food foods for specific population groups. Structuring for enhanced palatability Heterogeneous foods with complex, multi-component structures. 3.2 AM Future Technology Smaller resolution technology. De novo processing developments that are translatable to other industries that deal with non-robust products Polymer processing technologies Multi-step processing (intermediate cooking and processing) Use of Grand Challenges to develop technologies.
4.0 Threats and Opportunities for Food Manufacturing 4.1 Threats Market Threats o Consumer education and demand. o Acceptance of novel process o Lack of consumer pull hence late adoption o Affordability and added value o Inconsistency in sensory terminology and communication. o Understanding of food composition and different levers nutrition, energy, indulgence, health, pleasure Political/societal/generic Background Threats o Lack of skilled work force in food science area o Increasing obesity with strain on health of individuals and society o Increased demand for key food ingredients and components from Asia and from currently less technologically advanced countries Materials Threats o Manipulation of materials for printing/processing technology gap (see below) o Phase behaviour and control o Differential heating/processing o Post-printing behaviour of materials stability and shelf life o Powdered ingredients and/or semi dry ingredients Technology Threats o Hardware entry costs and replacement of existing machinery o AD is slow how can it be speeded up or is this not achievable? o Food safety new paradigms and effect of changed process on food poisoning and food quality parameters. o Hacking of equipment o Existing IP and technology blocks o Material/process interactions how to systematise this to speed processing and conceptual design. o Differential heating lack of hardware and underpinning science. 4.2 Opportunities Market o Greater consumer engagement o Bespoke foods for sub-groups o Personalised nutrition o Enhanced digital connectivity. o Enhance stakeholder engagement o New inclusive and responsive supply chain models and joined up pre and post farm gate. o Control of process defined by the end user (consumer) o Selective bioavailability Political/social/generic Background Opportunities
o Greater control of function and properties of food hence better targeting of biological benefits o More resilient and responsive food supply o Additions to existing products as well as completely novel concepts o Technology entry level lowered (no need for extensive infrastructure/buildings) o Better transport and logistics by at place manufacture. Materials Opportunities o Creation of new food structures through disruption of equilibrium o Compartmentalisation of components and use of MOF technology leading to micro heterogeneity and macro homogeneity o Improved use of biological structures and retained functional activity o Reduced waste at time manufacture so no sell by/use by dates Technology Opportunities o Hygienic design removal of hot/cold spots o Optimising communication and programming o Templating and blue prints for manufacture o Pilot scale, pop-up factories, greater targeted localisation o Predictive formation of micro and nano scale o Remote processing of printed product precursors o Printing seeds for processing
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations As a result of the extensive discussions during the workshop, a number of recommendations emerged. Initially there was some attempt to develop 2, 5 and 10 year plans and to try to define what a cost: benefit analysis might be for the development of additive manufacturing in foods. However it quickly became apparent that the technological division was in fact related to what can be done now and what may be potentially be achieved in the future given advances in technology and market drivers. The cost: benefit analysis was abandoned at an early stage since, until the potential products can be better defined, any such analysis will not be possible. 5.1 Fundamental Studies There is a clear need for precompetitive, underpinning science in the following areas Food structure and the relationship between micro heterogeneity and macro homogeneity What material properties are most important for 3D printing of foods? Can predictive models be developed? How to better understand phase behaviour and controlled agglomeration Better understanding of how to create and control multi component and multiprocessing procedures A better understanding of biological systems and how they respond to the additive manufacturing environment compared to metals, plastics etc. 5.2 Medium term studies Can a tool kit be developed based on existing knowledge that would allow the interactions between processing and material compositions to be modelled? What are the material tolerances for manufacturing? What technology exists in sectors that already use 3D printing that could be adapted? A review of such technology is urgently required. 5.3 Short term studies A proof of principle project should be developed that has the advantages of defining the current limits of the systems and provides an added value product. Potential candidate areas include o Hygienic design of food processing equipment to remove potential contamination hot spots and to incorporate hydrophilicity to aid in cleaning, reducing contamination etc. o A potential health benefit could be a suitable Grand Challenge. Within that area reduction of sugar, salt, fat and increase of fibre may lend itself to additive manufacturing technology. Alternatively the development of less energy dense foods with maintained structural integrity may be possible using technology from adjacent areas
Recommendations 1. Research Council and Innovate funding should be made available for studies in the three areas outlined above. In 5.1, 5.2 1nd 5.3. 2. A route map showing which products might be developed as technologies and understanding increases should be developed. 3. The route map should be linked to a timeline of threats (e.g. pressure on production of animal protein) and opportunities (production of more nutritious food) to ensure that the enabling technology is being prioritised. 4. Synergies between food and other areas where additive manufacturing is or could be used should be further developed. This could lead to advances in additive manufacturing of more labile materials, the faster development of rapid prototyping in food and pharma and the identification of technology gaps and barriers.