Advertisement

Biomaterials Research

, 23:10 | Cite as

A new prototype melt-electrospinning device for the production of biobased thermoplastic sub-microfibers and nanofibers

  • Kylie KoenigEmail author
  • Konrad Beukenberg
  • Fabian Langensiepen
  • Gunnar Seide
Open Access
Short Report
  • 277 Downloads

Abstract

Sub-microfibers and nanofibers have a high surface-to-volume ratio, which makes them suitable for diverse applications including environmental remediation and filtration, energy production and storage, electronic and optical sensors, tissue engineering, and drug delivery. However, the use of such materials is limited by the low throughput of established manufacturing technologies. This short report provides an overview of current production methods for sub-microfibers and nanofibers and then introduces a new melt-electrospinning prototype based on a spinneret with 600 nozzles, thereby providing an important step towards larger-scale production. The prototype features an innovative collector that achieves the optimal spreading of the fiber due to its uneven surface, as well as a polymer inlet that ensures even polymer distribution to all nozzles. We prepared a first generation of biobased fibers with diameters ranging from 1.000 to 7.000 μm using polylactic acid and 6% (w/w) sodium stearate, but finer fibers could be produced in the future by optimizing the prototype and the composition of the raw materials. Melt electrospinning using the new prototype is a promising method for the production of high-quality sub-microfibers and nanofibers.

Keywords

Fiber spinning Nanotechnology Polylactic acid Nanofiber nonwoven Eco-friendly production Melt spinning Fiber production Electrospinning Process development 

Abbreviations

AMIBM

Aachen-Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials

DIN

Deutsches Institut für Normung

MFR

Melt flow rate

PCL

Polycaprolactone

PLA

Polylactic acid

PLGA

Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid

PP

Polypropylene

PU

Polyurethane

Introduction

Nanotechnology can be generally defined as the development, handling and control of structures or materials with at least one dimension within the size range 1–100 nm, and the advent of precision tools for nanoscale engineering has promoted great interest in this emerging field over the last 30 years [1, 2]. Nanotechnology exploits the properties of materials that depend on size or structure, particularly properties that differ from the behavior of individual atoms/molecules or larger masses of the same material [2]. The term “nanofiber” is frequently used in the literature to describe very thin fibers without a specified size limit, but a stricter definition as used by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) standard among others is a structure with two external nanoscale dimensions and a third external dimension that is considerably larger than the nanoscale [3]. However, a comparison of many studies shows that the same term is often used as soon as the fiber diameter falls below 1 μm [4]. Although such fibers are not nanofibers according to the DIN standard, the designation has become established and consolidated in recent years. With respect to the DIN standard, another term used to describe fibers with a diameter in the hundreds of nanometers range is “sub-microfiber”.

The small diameter of sub-microfibers and nanofibers provides a high surface-to-volume ratio while maintaining or even improving flexibility compared to conventional fibers. Additionally, many production methods yield porous fibers thus increasing the surface area even further [5]. These properties make such fibers extremely versatile. Their diverse applications include air and water filtration [6, 7], the separation of water/oil and air/oil mixtures [4, 8], technical uses such as the development of lithium-air batteries [9, 10, 11, 12], optical sensors [13] and textiles [5, 14], and medical applications such as tissue engineering [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23], drug delivery [18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36], and the diagnosis and treatment of cancer [27, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40] (Fig. 1) [41]. The applications of sub-microfibers and nanofibers depend on their physical and mechanical properties, which in turn depend on the manufacturing process. This short report provides an overview of current production methods before describing a novel and scalable melt-electrospinning prototype device and its deployment for the processing of biobased materials into fibers.
Fig. 1

Applications of sub-microfibers and nanofibers

Current manufacturing processes for sub-microfibers and nanofibers

Sub-microfibers and nanofibers can be produced from a range of biomaterials, such as polysaccharides (e.g. chitosan, cellulose, or alginate) and proteins (e.g. gelatin, keratin, or collagen), as well as synthetic polymers, such as polycaprolactone (PCL), polyurethane (PU), polylactic acid (PLA), and poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA). Figure 2 provides an overview of current major nanofiber production technologies and the fiber diameters that have typically been achieved using those methods. Only the most common processes are mentioned and there are many variants of these methods that we do not discuss in detail [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50].
Fig. 2

Nanofiber production technologies and the corresponding fiber diameter range: melt blowing [4], nanoval [42, 43], Laval [42], centrifugal spinning [44], electroblowing [45], drawing [46], island-in-the-sea [47], electrospinning [4], solution electrospinning [4], melt electrospinning [4], self-assembly [48, 49], template synthesis [50]

Electrospinning is the most common production method for sub-microfibers and nanofibers, and two fundamental techniques can be distinguished: solution electrospinning and melt electrospinning. Electrospinning combines a strong electrostatic field with the principle of Taylor cone formation. When a droplet of a liquid becomes charged in a field of sufficient strength, the electrostatic repulsion is strong enough to overcome the surface tension and the droplet is stretched. If the charge reaches a certain threshold, a jet erupts from the liquid droplet and this is known as a Taylor cone [51, 52, 53]. If the liquid is viscous and cohesive, the jet does not break up into droplets (the principle of electro-spraying) but forms an electrically charged laminar jet, which elongates due to electrostatic repulsion. The jet dries (in the case of solution electrospinning) or cools sufficiently to become solid (in the case of melt electrospinning) and a nanoscale fiber is produced [54]. The basic setup for electrospinning is shown in Fig. 3. Solution electrospinning is used more frequently than melt electrospinning for the production of nanofibers because a smaller fiber diameter can be achieved (high hundreds of nanometers), and the equipment has a simpler design and higher productivity compared to current melt electrospinning devices [55]. The finest fiber produced by melt electrospinning thus far was 80 nm in diameter [56], although this in not yet routine and typically the fiber diameter is > 2 μm [45]. The major advantage of melt electrospinning is that it does not require a solvent, avoiding any risk of toxic solvents being carried over into the mature fiber [57]. Electrospinning is compatible with many different polymers and multiple applications (Table 1).
Fig. 3

Basic setup of the electrospinning production method

Table 1

Overview of electrospinning methods, typical fiber diameters and applications

Publication

Production method

Polymer

Fiber diameter [nm]

Application

Wang 2002 [12]

Solution

Poly(acrylic acid) − poly(pyrene methanol)

100–300

Optical sensors

Li 2012 [87]

Melt (laser melt)

Poly(L-lactic acid)

2000–7000

Biomedical

Dalton 2006 [89]

Melt

Poly(ethylene glycol) and poly(epsilon-caprolactone)

  

Yoon 2013 [90]

Melt and S/M-hybrid

Silk fibroin and poly(L-lactic acid)

PLA: 8900

SF: 820

Biomedical (scaffolding)

Zhou 2006 [91]

Melt

Poly(L-lactic acid)

 

Filtration

Kim 2010

S/M hybrid

Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)

2800 (S)

530 (M)

Biomedical (scaffolding)

Scholten 2011 [7]

Solution

Polyurethane

Low 1000s

Air filtration (removal of volatile organic compounds

Another common method for nanofiber production is fiber drawing. Here, a solid tip is placed in contact with a liquid polymer and then drawn away, leaving behind a string of polymer liquid that solidifies into a fiber (Fig. 4). Like electrospinning, this method is compatible with polymer melts [58] and polymer solutions [46]. One of the main advantages of this method is that it allows the evaluation of single fibers [59]. Drawing typically produces narrower fibers than electrospinning, with diameters of tens of nanometers (Table 2).
Fig. 4

Basic setup of the fiber-drawing production method

Table 2

Overview of non-electrospinning methods, typical fiber diameters and applications

Publication

Production method

Polymer

Fiber diameter [nm]

Application

Xing 2008 [58]

Drawing

Poly(trimethylene terephthalate)

60

Optical fibers

Ma 2016 [46]

Drawing

Polyethylene

40

 

Nakata 2007 [61]

Island in the sea

Polyamide 6/poly(ethylene terephthalate)

39

 

Uppal 2012 [63]

Melt-blown

 

290

Filtration

Luo [97]

Template synthesis

Silver/cross-linked poly(vinyl alcohol)

Sub-micro

Various

Wang 2010 [98]

Template synthesis

Carbon

20

Various

Rolandi 2014 [99]

Self-assembly

Chitin

various

Various

Xu 2017 [100]

Self-assembly

Polypeptide

 

Drug delivery

Hammami 2014 [74]

Centrifugal

Polyamide 6

200–800

Various

The island-in-the-sea method (Fig. 5) is a subtype of conventional melt spinning, but two different polymers are involved. One of them (the sea polymer) is spun into a thick fiber within which multiple thinner fibers of the other (the island polymer) are suspended. Following primary extrusion, the sea polymer is removed to leave the nanoscale island-polymer fibers behind [60]. This method has been used to create polyamide 6/polyethylene terephthalate nanofibers with a consistent diameter of 39 nm [61].
Fig. 5

Island-in-the-sea nanofiber production method

Melt-blown fibers are produced by extruding a polymer melt through small nozzles surrounded by high-speed flowing gas, typically resulting in microfibers approximately 2 μm in diameter (Fig. 6). However, individual sub-microfibers/nanofibers with diameters of ~ 100 nm have been produced using an ideal setup comprising an annual air die, Finaplas polypropylene (PP) with a melt flow rate (MFR) of 35 as the polymer, a polymer temperature of 290 °C, a gas temperature of 400 °C and a feed rate of 4.11·10− 6 kg/s [62]. Like electrospinning, which can be scaled up by multiplying the number of jets, melt-blowing can be scaled up by multiplying the number of nozzles to reduce costs [63]. However, unlike electrospinning, which can produce aligned fibers, melt-blown fibers are deposited randomly into non-woven sheets. These are particularly suitable for filtration applications, but melt blowing cannot be used for applications that require oriented fiber sheets.
Fig. 6

Basic setup of the melt-blowing production method

A derivative of the melt-blowing technique is the Laval spinning method, which also uses an airstream to draw the fiber from the nozzle [64]. However, the shape of the longitudinal Laval nozzle accelerates the air, making the process more efficient than conventional melt-blowing. Furthermore, a cold airstream is used rather than the hot airstream of the conventional method (Fig. 7). The laminar airstream enters the nozzle from the back. The nozzle narrows just beyond the entrance channel for the polymer, which accelerates the air stream and the fiber to supersonic velocity. The main advantage compared to conventional melt-blowing is that the nozzle diameter can be much larger, allowing spinning with a high mass throughput per nozzle [64]. The proprietary Nanoval process is similar to the Laval method but it produces a multitude of smaller-diameter fibers that erupt from the original drawn string when the steadily increasing laminar airflow reaches a particular threshold [65].
Fig. 7

Airflow through the Laval longitudinal nozzle

Electroblowing is essentially a hybrid of electrospinning and blowing [64, 66]. The voltage at the spinning nozzle is sufficient to allow Taylor cone formation. The fiber is then caught by a low-velocity airstream that carries it away from the spinneret in a manner similar to conventional melt blowing. However, in contrast to conventional melt blowing, electrostatic repulsion is the main force that pulls the fiber from the nozzle and the purpose of the airflow is to reduce interference from the electric field of adjacent nozzles, making the process easier to scale up [64]. Like electrospinning, electroblowing has two variants: solution electroblowing and melt electroblowing, the latter illustrated in Fig. 8. In both cases, the airstream also cools down the liquid fiber to solidify it (melt electroblowing) or to dry it and remove the solvent (solution electroblowing).
Fig. 8

Basic setup of the hybrid melt-electroblowing production method

Flash spinning is a special form of solution spinning, in which the solvent is a hydrocarbon such as butane or isobutene, which would exist as gas under normal atmospheric pressure at room temperature. The spinning solution is maintained under very high pressure at temperatures of 130–500 °C. When the spinning solution is ejected into an environment with a much lower pressure and temperature, the fiber dries immediately [67, 68].

Other, lesser-used production methods include template synthesis and self-assembly. Template synthesis is suitable for the production of both fibers and tubules [50, 69]. It uses the pores of a host material as a template to control the growth of new materials [57]. For example, polymers can be produced electrochemically by applying a metal layer to a membrane with pores within which the polymers are synthesized [57]. Figure 9 demonstrates the procedure and shows how the fiber diameter and length are controlled by the pore dimensions. [70] Self-assembly is used for the production of nanofibers comprising polypeptides with an intrinsic capacity for self-assembly [71]. The method is based on the spontaneous organization of individual macromolecules into an ordered and stable nanoscale structure [41]. A solution is necessary to create the appropriate environment for the formation of these structures, which have a potential minimum diameter of 3 nm [72]. Although very small diameters can be achieved, this technology is complex and has a low throughput, making it difficult to scale up and thus unsuitable for industrial applications [41].
Fig. 9

Overview of template synthesis

Whereas melt blowing and its variations are easy to scale up, these methods cannot produce oriented fibers. In contrast, the other methods can produce oriented fibers but are hampered by their low throughput. Centrifugal spinning can overcome this challenge by mounting the spinneret on a centrifuge with the nozzles facing outward [73, 74]. When the centrifugal force (dependent on the rotor diameter and angular velocity) is sufficient to overcome the drag caused by the viscosity of the polymer solution or melt, a steady polymer jet streams from the nozzle to the collector [73, 74]. The centrifugal spinning method is shown in Fig. 10. A derivative of this method is split-fiber production, where the nozzle is split into several smaller nozzles to produce narrower fibers or flat bands [75]. The throughput is up to 500-fold higher than conventional solution electrospinning [76]. However, the use of solvents and the strong dependence on the elasticity of the polymer solution and the evaporation rate of the solvents make this process difficult to control [77].
Fig. 10

Basic setup of the centrifugal spinning production method

Development of a new melt-electrospinning prototype for sub-microfibers and nanofibers

Work leading up to the prototype – state of the art

Electrospinning methods allow the production of single or multiple nanofibers (depending on the number of jets) using a simple apparatus with relatively low setup and operating costs, so electrospinning can be an economically competitive production method [78]. The presence of solvent in the solution electrospinning process adds an expensive recovery step to the overall manufacturing process, and the potential carryover of toxic solvents or solvents with undesirable optical activity makes solution electrospinning unsuitable for medical and filtration applications or the production of optical sensors. Although the high temperature, high viscosity and low conductivity of the molten polymer is a challenge that must be addressed during melt electrospinning [79, 80], the absence of solvent ensures stable jet formation, allowing the direct deposition of micrometer to sub-micrometer range fibers and the reproduction of three-dimensional structures [81, 82, 83, 84, 85]. Melt electrospinning is not compatible with non-thermoplastic materials, including biological polymers such as collagen, but is ideal for sparingly-soluble polymers such as PP and polyethylene. Other commonly used polymers include PCL, PU, PLA, and PLGA. [86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92].

In order to produce nanoscale fibers, the polymer delivery rate during melt electrospinning must be significantly lower than during solution electrospinning, which explains the absence of melt electrospinning as an industrial manufacturing method for nanofibers [4]. However, only 2–10% of the liquid processed during solution electrospinning is the polymer (the rest is solvent that evaporates) whereas 100% of the processed liquid solidifies into fibers during melt electrospinning, indicating that the industrial use of this method could be achieved by scaling the process up [4]. Accordingly, recent device innovations, such as multiple-needle and needleless configurations, have demonstrated a roadmap to overcome the low throughput of melt electrospinning, typically in the μg/h range [4]. Prototypes with umbellate nozzles containing 60 spinnerets can achieve maximum product deposition rates of ~ 36 g/h [93, 94]. The largest multi-nozzle spinning device described in the literature thus far features 64 nozzles [95].

Prototype for the scaled-up melt electrospinning of sub-microfibers and nanofibers

The Aachen-Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials (AMIBM) at Maastricht University has cooperated with Fourné Maschinenbau GmbH (Alfter-Impekoven, Germany) and Pötter-Klima Gesellschaft für Nanoheiztechnik mbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) to develop a functional prototype of a melt-electrospinning device featuring a spinneret with 600 nozzles, which vastly exceeds the capabilities of any state-of-the-art technologies. The nozzle plate of this device is shown in Fig. 11. Each nozzle has a diameter of 0.3 mm and the nozzles are spaced 8 mm apart.
Fig. 11

The 600-nozzle melt-electrospinning prototype developed at the AMIBM

One of the major challenges when scaling up a melt-electrospinning device from a smaller number to a larger number of spinnerets is the uniform distribution of the melt to all nozzles. The low-volume flow of the polymer melt during melt electrospinning may lead to incomplete nozzle filling, resulting in sporadic and unpredictable pressure losses within each nozzle. Inside the prototype nozzle, melt flow has been improved by taking this design consideration into account and introducing a three-plate construction and two symmetrically designed polymer inlets. A distributor plate combined with a finely porous sintered plate ensures the optimum melt distribution and a uniform pressure build-up over the entire nozzle cross-section. A relatively high specific contact load at the sealing line as well as the use of aluminum flanges guarantees the sealing of the nozzle plates. The constant supply of polymer melt is ensured by a speed-adjustable single-screw extruder and spinning pump.

Another challenge addressed by the new prototype is the tendency for solidified polymer to block the capillaries. The integration of heating elements around the spinneret achieves a uniform polymer melt flow from the nozzles to prevent this common problem during fiber production. A collector with an uneven surface is used instead of a conventional plate collector to facilitate the optimal spreading of the collected fibers (Fig. 12). With the nozzle/collector pairing installed in the prototype, nonwovens can be produced continuously over a width of 340 mm. The collector is connected to an Eltex KNH65 source supplying a positive high voltage (1–60 kV) while simultaneously grounding the spinneret.
Fig. 12

Comparison of (a) a conventional collector and (b) the novel collector designed for the 600-nozzle AMIBM melt-electrospinning prototype

Initially, the device was used to produce PP fibers containing conductive additives, and the finest fiber had a diameter of 6.64 μm. This was produced using high-flow PP HL508FB (Borealis AG, Vienna, Austria) containing 2% (w/w) sodium stearate (Alfa Aesar, Karlsruhe, Germany). The distance between the collector and the nozzle plate was 11 cm, a positive voltage of 60 kV was applied to the collector, the nozzle was heated to 210 °C and the polymer flow rate was defined by a spinning pump speed of 16 rpm [96]. Having verified the function of the device, we then attempted the production of biobased fibers using Ingeo Biopolymer 6201D, a commercial spinning-grade PLA (NatureWorks LLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA) containing 6% (w/w) sodium stearate. We maintained the distance between the collector and nozzle plate at 11 cm but reduced the nozzle temperature to 190 °C and the spinning pump speed to 2 rpm, yielding fibers ranging from 1.000 to 7.000 μm in diameter (Fig. 13).
Fig. 13

PLA microfibers containing 6% (w/w) sodium stearate produced using the 600-nozzle AMIBM melt-electrospinning prototype

Outlook

Several methods can be used to produce nanofibers and sub-microfibers, but melt electrospinning is among the most promising technologies in terms of fiber structure and the breadth of downstream applications due to the absence of solvents in the manufacturing process. The major drawback of melt electrospinning is its low throughput, resulting in the adoption of solution electrospinning as the principal industrial process technology. Although some attempts have been made to scale up the electrospinning method, an industrial process has yet to be established. At the AMIBM, we have developed a promising, scaled-up melt-electrospinning prototype that bridges the gap between laboratory-scale and pilot-scale manufacturing. Thus far, we have produced PLA fibers ~ 1 μm in diameter, but this was achieved without comprehensive optimization of the apparatus, the process parameters or the polymer substrate and additives. There are many opportunities to improve the performance of the device by adding new features such as a controllable climate chamber around the spinneret to improve jet stretching before the collector, delaying the solidification of the melt and thus producing thinner fibers with uniform diameters. In the future, individually controlled collector tips in a multi-nozzle structure with the writing ability of melt electrospinning could lead to the development of truly innovative microfiber and nanofiber products.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of Fourné Maschinenbau GmbH (Alfter-Impekoven, Germany), Pötter-Klima Gesellschaft für Nanoheiztechnik mbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany), Schnick Systemtechnik GmbH & Co KG (Heiligenhaus,Germany), and the Chair of Polymer Materials (LSP) of Erlangen-Nürnberg University (Germany). We also thank our Bachelor’s students Nina Goebel and Jaqueline Ellerkmann for their support with the literature research and preparation of figures, and our hands-on technician Henri Becker.

Funding

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

KK performed the spinning trials, material development, and wrote the manuscript. KB supported the literature research, the spinning trials and analyzed the fibers. FL and GS helped with the plant design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Back S. The role of nanotechnology in sustainable textiles. BLACKBURN, R. S.: Sustainable Textiles. Woodhead Publishing. , 2009. 978–1–84569-453-1 p. 302–304.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DIN CEN ISO/TS 80004–1: Nanotechnologien – Fachwörterverzeichnis – Teil 1: Kernbegriffe (ISO/TS 80004–1:2015); Deutsche Fassung CEN ISO/TS 80004–1:2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DIN CEN ISO/TS 80004–2: Nanotechnologien – Fachwörterverzeichnis – Teil 2: Nanoobjekte (ISO/TS 80004–2:2015); Deutsche Fassung CEN ISO/TS 80004–2:2017.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown T, Dalton P, Hutmacher DW, et al. Melt electrospinning today: an opportune time for an emerging polymer process. Elsevier. 2016;56:116–66.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhat GS. Advances in polymeric nanofiber manufacturing technologies. J Nanomater Mol Nanotechnol. 2016;5:2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sundarrajan S, Tan KL, Lim SH, et al. Electrospun nanofibers for air filtration applications. Procedia Eng. 2014;75:159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholten E, Bromberg L, Rutledge GC, et al. Electrospun polyurethane fibers for absorption of volatile organic compounds from air. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2011;3:3902–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarbatly R, Krishnaiah D, Kamin Z. A review of polymer nanofibres by electrospinning and their application in oil–water separation for cleaning up marine oil spills. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;106:8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song M, Park S, Alamgir F, et al. Nanostructured electrodes for lithium-ion and lithium-air batteries: the latest developments, challenges, and perspectives. Mater Sci Eng R Reports. 2011;72:203–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang J, Li Y, Sun X. Challenges and opportunities of nanostructured materials for aprotic rechargeable lithium–air batteries. Nano Energy. 2013;2:443–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang G, Zheng J, Liang R, et al. α-MnO2/carbon nanotube/carbon nanofiber composite catalytic air electrodes for rechargeable lithium-air batteries. jes.ecsdl.org 2011; 158: A822.
  12. 12.
    Truong TT, Liu Y, Ren Y, et al. Morphological and crystalline evolution of nanostructured MnO 2 and its application in lithium–air batteries. ACS Nano. 2012;6:8067–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang X, Drew C, Lee S-H, et al. Electrospun Nanofibrous membranes for highly sensitive optical sensors. Nano Lett. 2002;2:1273–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhardwaj N, Kundu SC. Electrospinning: a fascinating fiber fabrication technique. Biotechnol Adv. 2010;28:325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma B, Xie J, Jiang J, et al. Rational design of nanofiber scaffolds for orthopedic tissue repair and regeneration. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2013;8:1459–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin S-H, Purevdorj O, Castano O, et al. A short review: recent advances in electrospinning for bone tissue regeneration. J Tissue Eng. 2012;3:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McClellan P, Landis WJ. Recent applications of coaxial and emulsion electrospinning methods in the field of tissue engineering. Biores Open Access. 2016;5:212–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cui W, Zhou Y, Chang J. Electrospun nanofibrous materials for tissue engineering and drug delivery. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2010;11:014108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sill T, von Recum HA. Electrospinning: applications in drug delivery and tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2008;29(13):1989–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoo H, Kim TG, Park TG. Surface-functionalized electrospun nanofibers for tissue engineering and drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61(12):1033–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khajavi R, Abbasipour M, Bahador A. Electrospun biodegradable nanofibers scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Appl Polym Sci. 2016;133:42883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venugopal J, Low S, Choon AT, et al. Interaction of cells and nanofiber scaffolds in tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2008;84(1):34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vasita R, Katti DS. Nanofibers and their applications in tissue engineering. Int J Nanomedicine. 2006;1:15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chew SY, Wen Y, Dzenis Y, et al. The role of electrospinning in the emerging field of nanomedicine. Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12:4751–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chakraborty S, Liao I-C, Adler A, et al. Electrohydrodynamics: a facile technique to fabricate drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61:1043–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goyal R, Macri LK, Kaplan HM, et al. Nanoparticles and nanofibers for topical drug delivery. J Control Release. 2016;240:77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zamani M, Prabhakaran MP, Ramakrishna S. Advances in drug delivery via electrospun and electrosprayed nanomaterials. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:2997–3017.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weng L, Xie J. Smart electrospun nanofibers for controlled drug release: recent advances and new perspectives. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21:1944–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chou S-F, Carson D, Woodrow KA. Current strategies for sustaining drug release from electrospun nanofibers. J Control Release. 2015;220:584–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zeng J, Xu X, Chen X, et al. Biodegradable electrospun fibers for drug delivery. Elsevier. 2003;92:227–31.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Katti DS, Robinson KW, Ko FK, et al. Bioresorbable nanofiber-based systems for wound healing and drug delivery: optimization of fabrication parameters. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004;70(2):286–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hu X, Liu S, Zhou G, et al. Electrospinning of polymeric nanofibers for drug delivery applications. Elsevier. 2014;185:12–21.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kenawy E, Abdel-Hay, El-Newehy MH, et al. Processing of polymer nanofibers through electrospinning as drug delivery systems. Elsevier. 2009;113:296–302.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shen X, Yu D, Zhu L, et al. Electrospun diclofenac sodium loaded Eudragit® L 100-55 nanofibers for colon-targeted drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 2011;408:200–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pillay V, Dott C, Choonara Y, et al. A review of the effect of processing variables on the fabrication of electrospun nanofibers for drug delivery applications. hindawi.com 2013; 2013: 22.
  36. 36.
    Naves LB, Dhand C, Venugopal JR, et al. Nanotechnology for the treatment of melanoma skin cancer. Prog Biomater. 2017;6:13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen Z, Chen Z, Zhang A, et al. Electrospun nanofibers for cancer diagnosis and therapy. Biomater Sci. 2016;4:922–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim Y-J, Ebara M, Aoyagi T. A smart hyperthermia nanofiber with switchable drug release for inducing Cancer apoptosis. Adv Funct Mater. 2013;23:5753–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shi D, Bedford NM, Cho H-S. Engineered multifunctional Nanocarriers for Cancer diagnosis and therapeutics. Small. 2011;7:2549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang N, Deng Y, Tai Q, et al. Electrospun TiO2 nanofiber-based cell capture assay for detecting circulating tumor cells from colorectal and gastric Cancer patients. Adv Mater. 2012;24:2756–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kwnry, Lim CT: Nanofiber technology: current status and emerging developments. In: Topical Volume on Advanced Polymeric Materials Bd. 2017; 70: 1–17.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blim A, Jarecki L, Blonski S. Modeling of pneumatic melt drawing of polypropylene super-thin fibers in the Laval nozzle. Bull Pol Ac. 2014;62:42–54.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    NANOVAL GMBH & CO KG: Nanoval - Process. https://www.nanoval.de/index.php. Accessed 17 Oct 2018.
  44. 44.
    Badrossamay MR, McIlwee HA, Goss JA, Parker KK. Nanofiber assembly by rotary jet-spinning. Nano Lett. 2010;10(6):2257–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Medeiros ES, Glenn GM, Klamcynski AP, Orts WJ, Mattoso LH. Solution blow spinning: a new method to produce micro- and nanofibers from polymer solutions. J Appl Polym Sci. 2009;113(4):2322–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ma J, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, et al. A rapid and simple method to draw polyethylene nanofibers with enhanced thermal conductivity. Appl Phys Lett. 2016;109:033101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Masuda M, Funakoshi J. Island-in-sea fiber, combined filament yarn and textile product. EP2821533A1 2012.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Biswas A, Bayer IS, Biris AS, Wang T, Dervishi E, et al. Advances in top–down and bottom–up surface nanofabrication: techniques, applications & future prospects. Adv Colloid Interf Sci. 2012;170(1):2–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barnes CP, Sell SA, Boland ED, Simpson DG, Bowlin GL. Nanofiber technology: designing the next generation of tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59(14):1413–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martin CR. Template synthesis of electronically conductive polymer nanostructures. Acc Chem Res. 1995;28:61–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Suvorov VG, Zubarev NM. Formation of the Taylor cone on the surface of liquid metal in the presence of an electric field. J Phys D Appl Phys. 2004;37:289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Suvorov VG, Litvinov EA. Dynamic Taylor cone formation on liquid metal surface: numerical modelling. J Phys D Appl Phys. 2000;33:1245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yarin AL, Koombhongse S, Reneker DH. Taylor cone and jetting from liquid droplets in electrospinning of nanofibers. J Appl Phys. 2001;90:4836–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li D, Xia Y. Electrospinning of nanofibers: reinventing the wheel? Adv Mater. 2004;16:1151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ramakrishna S, Fujihara K, Teo W-E, et al. Electrospun nanofibers: solving global issues. Mater Today. 2006;9:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ahn YC, Park SK, Kim GT, Hwang XY, Lee CG et al. Development of high efficiency nanofilters made of nanofibers. Nano Korea 2004 Symposium on NT Challenge 2006; 6(6): 1030–1035.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hutmacher DW, Dalton PD. Melt electrospinning. Chem - An Asian J. 2011;6:44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Xing X, Wang Y, Li B. Nanofibers drawing and nanodevices assembly in poly(trimethylene terephthalate). Opt Express. 2008;16:10815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bajakova J, Chaloupek J, et al. “Drawing”- The production of individual nanofibers by experimental method. Nanocon. 2011.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ndaro MS, Jin X, Chen T, et al. Splitting of islands-in-the-sea fibers ( PA6/COPET ) during hydroentangling of nonwovens. J Eng Fiber Fabr. 2007;2:1–9.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nakata K, Fujii K, Ohkoshi Y, et al. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) nanofibers made by Sea–Island-type conjugated melt spinning and laser-heated flow drawing. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2007;28:792–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shambaugh RL. A macroscopic view of the melt-blowing process for producing microfibers. Ind Eng Chem Res. 1988;27:2363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Uppal R, Bhat G, Eash C, et al. Meltblown nanofiber media for enhanced quality factor. Fibers Polym. 2013;14:660–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yoon K, Hsiao BS, Chu B. Functional nanofibers for environmental applications. J Mater Chem. 2008;18:5326–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gerkin L. Nanoval process for spunbonds detailed. Int Fiber J. 2005;20:52–6.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kim YM, Ahn KR, Sung YB, et al. Manufacturing device and the method of preparing for the nanofibers viaelectro-blown spining process. US 7,618,579 B2, USPTO, 2011.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Palmer L. Flash spinning. US3565979A, USPTO, 1968.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nayak R, Padhye R, Kyratzis IL, et al. Recent advances in nanofibre fabrication techniques. Text Res J. 2012;82:129–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Martin CR. Nanomaterials: a membrane-based synthetic approach. Science. 1994;266:1961–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Karatas A, Algan AH. KARATAŞ.Template synthesis of tubular nanostructures for loading biologically active molecules. Curr Top Med Chem. 2016;17.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Malkar NB, Lauer-Fields JL, Juska D, et al. Characterization of peptide−Amphiphiles possessing cellular activation sequences. Biomacromolecules. 2003;4:518–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hassanzadeh P, Kharaziha M, Nikkhah M, Shin SR, Jin J, et al. Chitin nanofiber micropatterned flexible substrates for tissue engineering. J Mater Chem. 2013;1(34):4217–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zhang X, Lu Y. Centrifugal spinning: an alternative approach to fabricate nanofibers at high speed and low cost. Polym Rev. 2014;54:677–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hammami MA, Krifa M, Harzallah O. Centrifugal force spinning of PA6 nanofibers - processability and morphology of solution-spun fibers. J Text Inst. 2014;105:637–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Peno E, Lipton R, Kay S. Split fiber producing devices and methods for the production of microfibers and nanofibers. US8778240B2, USPTO, 2012.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ren L, Ozisik R, Kotha SP. Rapid and efficient fabrication of multilevel structured silica micro−/nanofibers by centrifugal jet spinning. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2014;425:136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ren L, Ozisik R, Kotha SP, Underhill P. Highly efficient fabrication of polymer nanofiber assembly by centrifugal jet spinning: process and characterization. Macromolecules. 2015;48(8):2593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Garg K, Bowlin GL. Electrospinning jets and nanofibrous structures. Biomicrofluidics. 2011;5:13403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nayak R. Polypropylene nanofibers: melt electrospinning versus Meltblowing. Engineering Material: Springer International Publishing; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bubakir M, Barhoum A, Li H, Yang W. Handbook of nanofibers (1st edtn), springer nature; 2017.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Willerth SM. Electrospun materials for tissue engineering and biomedical applications: research. Design and Commercialization: Woodhead Publishing; 2017.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wunner FM, Wille ML, Nanoon TG, Bas O, Dalton PD, et al. Melt electrospinning writing of highly ordered large volume scaffold architectures. Adv Mater. 2018;30:1706570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wunner FM, Maartens J, Bas O, Gottschalk K, De-Juan-Pardo E, et al. Electrospinning writing with molten poly (ε-caprolactone) from different directions – examining the effects of gravity. Material Letters. 2018;216:114–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Eichholz KF, Hoey DA. Mediating human stem cell behaviour via defined fibrous architectures by melt electrospinning writing. Acta Biomater. 2018;75:140–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dayan CB, Afghah F, Okan BS, Yıldız M, Menceloglu Y, et al. Modeling 3D melt electrospinning writing by response surface methodology. Mater Des. 2018;148:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zhao F, Liu Y, Yuan H, et al. Orthogonal design study on factors affecting the degradation of polylactic acid fibers of melt electrospinning. J Appl Polym Sci. 2012;125:2652–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Li X, Liu H, Liu J, et al. Preparation and experimental parameters analysis of laser melt electrospun poly(L-lactide) fibers via orthogonal design. Polym Eng Sci. 2012;52:1964–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Larrondo L, St. John Manley R. Electrostatic fiber spinning from polymer melts. I. Experimental observations on fiber formation and properties. J Polym Sci Polym Phys Ed 1981; 19: 909–920.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dalton PD, Lleixà Calvet J, Mourran A, et al. Melt electrospinning of poly-(ethylene glycol-block-ε-caprolactone). Biotechnol J. 2006;1:998–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Yoon Y Il, Park KE, Lee SJ, et al. Fabrication of microfibrous and nano−/microfibrous scaffolds: melt and hybrid electrospinning and surface modification of poly(L-lactic acid) with plasticizer. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013: 309048.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zhou H, Green TB, Joo YL. The thermal effects on electrospinning of polylactic acid melts. Polymer (Guildf). 2006;47:7497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Brown TD, Dalton PD, Hutmacher DW. Direct writing by way of melt electrospinning. Adv Mater. 2011;23:5651–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Li H, Chen H, Zhong X, et al. Interjet distance in needleless melt differential electrospinning with umbellate nozzles. J Appl Polym Sci. 2014;131:40515.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Liu Y, Zhao F, Zhang C, Zhang J, Yang W. Solvent-free preparation of poly(lactic acid) fibers by melt electrospinning using an umbrella-like spray head and alleviation of the problematic thermal degradation. J Serb Chem Soc. 2012;77:1071–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hacker CJP, Seide G, Gries T, Thomas H, Moeller M. (2009) Electrospinning of polymer melt: steps toward an upscaled multi-jet process. In:proc Int confer latest advances in high tech textiles and textile-based materials: 71–76.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Koenig K, Daenicke J, Langensiepen F, Seide G, Schubert DW. From lab to pilot scale: melt electrospun nanofibers of polypropylene with conductive additives. J Nanomater Mol Nanotechnol. 2019;8:1.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Luo L-B, Yu S-H, Qian H-S, et al. Large-scale synthesis of flexible gold/cross-linked-PVA sub-microcables and cross-linked-PVA tubes/fibers by using templating approaches based on silver/cross-linked-PVA sub-microcables. Chemistry. 2006;12:3320–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wang Y, Zheng M, Lu H, et al. Template synthesis of carbon nanofibers containing linear mesocage arrays. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2010;5:913–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Rolandi M, Rolandi R. Self-assembled chitin nanofibers and applications. Adv Colloid Interf Sci. 2014;207:216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Xu D, Samways DSK, Dong H. Fabrication of self-assembling nanofibers with optimal cell uptake and therapeutic delivery efficacy. Bioact Mater. 2017;2:260–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aachen-Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials (AMIBM), Maastricht University, Brightlands Chemelot CampusGeleenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations