A comparison of high throughput core–shell 2D electrospinning and 3D centrifugal spinning techniques to produce platelet lyophilisate-loaded fibrous scaffolds and their effects on skin cells

Abstract

Nanofibres enriched with bioactive molecules, as actively acting scaffolds, play an important role in tissue engineering.

Functional Nanofibrous Biomaterials of Tailored Structures for Drug Delivery—A Critical Review

“…Morphology and structure of nanofibrous biomaterials also significantly influence the function and effectiveness of drug delivery [16]. The morphology and structure involve fiber diameter, fiber cross-section shape, directionality, porosity and dimensionality of scaffold.…”

Water‐born 3D nanofiber mats using cost‐effective centrifugal spinning: comparison with electrospinning process: A complex study

“…There are only three reports that directly compare the spinability, morphology and process conditions of some polymers for both attractive spinning techniqueselectrospinning and centrifugal spinning-and that discuss the relation of these parameters in terms of the process. [34][35][36] Namely, Krifa et al 34 and Rogalski et al 35 examined these spinning methods for the synthesis of polyamide 6 (PA6) fibers, using formic acid as a solvent. Vocetkova et al 36 synthesized fibers from polycaprolactone-based materials dissolved in chloroform and ethanol mixtures.…”

“…[34][35][36] Namely, Krifa et al 34 and Rogalski et al 35 examined these spinning methods for the synthesis of polyamide 6 (PA6) fibers, using formic acid as a solvent. Vocetkova et al 36 synthesized fibers from polycaprolactone-based materials dissolved in chloroform and ethanol mixtures. The common feature of all these three reports is that they used the same laboratory scale centrifugal spinning tool (Cyclon L-1000, FibeRio), with a spinneret consisting of two symmetric needles (with a diameter of 160 μm).…”

“…Only in report by Vocetkova et al 36 a rather fair comparison was made, because the used electrospining tool was commercial (Nanospider NS 500, Elmarco, Czech Republic), allowing somewhat more balanced comparison between the scale of the tools used. 36 Remaining two reports employed a home-made electrospinning tools, rendering the technology transfer rather difficult. [34][35] In addition, in all reports toxic solvents were used and none of them specified or even varied relative humidity or temperature during the process.…”

“…[34][35] In addition, in all reports toxic solvents were used and none of them specified or even varied relative humidity or temperature during the process. Last, but no least, Krifa et al 34 used only two PA6 concentrations, and Krifa et al 34 and Vocetkova et al 36 used only one fixed rotational speed. Thus, it is clear, that these reports, beside they are very pioneering in terms of the comparison of both spinning techniques, do not answer all questions that the researchers might have.…”