Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42653570›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2026

Comparative Study of PBS and PBSA Biodegradable Nanofibers Produced by Electro-Blow Spinning for Sustainable Air Filtration Applications.

Eman Elnabawy, Nagham M Elberishy, Ahmed Backar, Ali Toptas, Ali Kilic, Islam Shyha, Mohamed A Daha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Micromachines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Eman ElnabawySchool of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK.
Nagham M ElberishyDepartment of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Business and Technology, Jeddah 21448, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5267-2955
Ahmed BackarProduction Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-6361-8252
Ali ToptasTEMAG Labs, Faculty of Textile Tech and Design, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34437, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-1176-0844
Ali KilicTEMAG Labs, Faculty of Textile Tech and Design, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34437, Türkiye.
Islam ShyhaSchool of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK.
Mohamed A DahaProduction Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-3443-0514

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poly Butylene Succinate (PBS) and Poly Butylene Succinate-co-Adipate (PBSA) are biodegradable polyesters that have attracted considerable attention for nanofibre fabrication due to their environmentally friendly characteristics and favourable material properties. PBS nanofibres are known by relatively high rigidity, thermal stability and crystallinity, making them suitable for applications that require structural strength. However, the stiffness of PBS may reduce its flexibility and limit its processing performance in some applications. In contrast, PBSA nanofibres incorporate adipic acid into the polymer chain, which results in lower crystallinity, greater flexibility and reduced melting temperature. These characteristics enhance the elasticity and processability of PBSA-based materials. The differences in mechanical and thermal behaviour between PBS and PBSA arise from the modification of the polymer backbone in PBSA, making it more appropriate for applications that demand adaptable and flexible materials, such as tissue engineering and air filtration. Both nanofibre systems show significant potential for sustainable technologies. In this study, a comparative evaluation of PBS and PBSA nanofibres was conducted to investigate their morphology, crystallinity, mechanical behaviour and filtration performance. The results show that PBS nanofibres exhibit a higher crystallinity of approximately 45%. In contrast, PBSA nanofibres demonstrate a significantly higher strain, reaching nearly twice that of PBS nanofibres. Regarding filtration performance, both materials achieved filtration efficiencies of up to 93%, while maintaining relatively low pressure drops of 210 Pa for PBS and 200 Pa for PBSA. Furthermore, corona discharge treatment was applied to enhance electrostatic capture and maintain filtration efficiency during extended operation for up to seven days.

Indexed as

air filtrationbiodegradable polymerselectro-blow spinningnanofibres

Identifiers

PMID42653570
PMCPMC13515606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.