Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36145868›Full record

ReviewPolymers2022

Electrospinning of Biomedical Nanofibers/Nanomembranes: Effects of Process Parameters.

Balaji Ayyanar Chinnappan, Marimuthu Krishnaswamy, Huaizhong Xu, Md Enamul Hoque

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Myricetin Nanofibers as Amorphous Delivery System.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Adoption of polyvinyl alcohol electrospinning materials for skin wound dressing.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Balaji Ayyanar ChinnappanDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology Coimbatore, Tamilnadu 641014, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2044-4683
Marimuthu KrishnaswamyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology Coimbatore, Tamilnadu 641014, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9791-1238
Huaizhong XuDepartment of Biobased Materials Science, Kyoto Institute of Technology (KIT), Matsugasaki Hashikamicho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8585, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7291-1936
Md Enamul HoqueDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0003-0393-6771

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology has attracted great attention from researchers in modern science because nanomaterials have innovative and superior physical, chemical, and biological properties, and they can be altered and modified accordingly. As particles get smaller, their surface area increases compared to their volume. Electrospinning is one of the advanced techniques to produce ultrathin nanofibers and membranes, and it is one of the best ways to create continuous nanomaterials with variable biological, chemical, and physical properties. The produced fibers can be utilized in various domains such as wound dressing, drug release, enzyme immobilization, etc. This review examines the biomedical nanofibers/membranes produced by electrospinning techniques to investigate the effects of process parameters (e.g., solution characteristics, applied voltage, and ambient conditions) on nanofiber characteristics (physical, chemical, and mechanical properties). The solution parameters like (i) optimum concentration, (ii) higher molecular weight, and (iii) higher conductivity produce uniform nanofibers, smoother nanofibers, and a smaller and more uniform fiber diameter, respectively. In addition, process parameters such as (i) higher voltage and (ii) slower flow rate produce more polymer ejection from the nozzle and enhance the smoother fiber production, respectively. The optimum tip-to-collector distance is considered to be 13-15 cm. The ambient conditions such as (i) higher humidity and (ii) higher temperature produce thicker and thinner nanofibers, respectively. The controlled parameters through optimization process determine the size and quality of the fibers. The effects of each parameter are discussed in this review. The applications of nanofibers are also discussed.

Indexed as

electrospinningnanofiberpolymerprocess parametertissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID36145868
PMCPMC9504486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.