• Beet by-product acts as a structural reinforcement in gluten-free dough. • The oval geometry with baker's yeast and beet by-product achieved higher printability. • Beetroot by-product increased hardness and chewiness regardless of leavening agent • Baking powder created large pores; baker's yeast generated dense small pores. Food waste valorization through 3D printing technology represents an innovative approach to sustainable food production. Beetroot by-product (BBP), a fiber-rich source with bioactive compounds, represents a valuable ingredient to enrich gluten-free bread, which often lacks adequate fiber content. This study investigates the feasibility of using 3D printing in the formulation of gluten-free bread enriched with BBP, examining the effects of leavening agent type (baking powder vs. baker's yeast) and geometry (rectangular vs. oval) on printability, dimensional stability, and final product quality. Four formulations were developed with and without 4% BBP addition. Rheological analysis revealed that BBP incorporation significantly increased storage modulus (from 2060 Pa to 5220 Pa) and complex viscosity (from 313 Pa·s to 863 Pa·s), with baking powder formulations showing higher values than baker's yeast formulations. Extrusion tests confirmed increased flow resistance with BBP addition. Baker's yeast formulations with BBP exhibited superior dimensional stability, particularly in oval geometries. It was observed that baking powder systems developed large, sparse pores, while baker's yeast systems generated small, high-density pores. BBP addition enhanced moisture retention in fermented systems and improved textural properties regardless of leavening agent. This research demonstrates the feasibility of valorizing agricultural by-products through 3D food printing to develop customized gluten-free bakery products, representing a viable strategy for nutritional enhancement while simultaneously addressing food waste challenges in the agro-industry.
Montero et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: