Ludek Hromadko1
Jan M. Macak- 1Center of Materials and Nanotechnologies, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Pardubice, Czechia
- 2Central European Institute of Technology, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czechia
This perspective article focuses on polymeric and inorganic nanofibers and their synthesis. The reason for this material to be put in perspective is–with all the respect to those, who contributed to its development–it has not made it as far as people thought in past that it would and could. This article aims to put in perspective a summary and outlook, what remaining steps need to be done and overcome, so that these nanofibers become industrially viable and feasible to produce, and that end users can finally profit from their utilization in various applications.
General economic aspects and considerations about nanomaterials
Synthetic chemistry, chemical engineering (incl. catalysis) and materials sciences have been experiencing a huge growth over past few decades. Many different kinds of materials, including nanomaterials, in form of nanosheets (Wang et al., 2025), nanopowders (Talapin and Shevchenko, 2016), nanotubes (Lee et al., 2014), nanofibers (Huang et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2018), etc. and various other complex shapes (including 3D printed ones), have been scientifically explored over these years for various applications, but mainly on the laboratory scale. Without any link to the industry and industrial scale!
In fact, thousands of scientific publications have been published on these materials, providing some good or less good glimpse on what the materials can do or could do. However, only a small portion of these materials made it to real products, as a whole, or as a part. The reasons for that are complex, but most likely, the commercial production and application any material can be only realized, if at least two of the following three conditions become fulfilled:
1. The materials can be made reproducibly on an industrial scale,
2. The material costs are significantly cheaper and/or balanced with current costs but compensated by improved performance compared to the currently used material (so-call benchmark),
3. The material is much more stable and thus it can provide higher performance and/or offer an extended function, or significantly increase the material lifetime, ensure multiple turnovers, cycles, etc.
Different types of materials (and synthetic technologies behind them) typically face difficulty with one or another conditions. However, in this perspective article, I want to focus solely on nanofibers, as they have a prospect to fulfil all three criteria, at least in some cases and some applications. They represent one-dimensional (1D) nanostructure, whose diameter is significantly short than their length. Figure 1 shows illustrative images of polymeric and inorganic nanofibers. It is generally accepted that even fibers with a diameter in the range of more than 100 nm up to 1 mm are entitled as nanofibers (Ramakrishna et al., 2005; Tan et al., 2005).
Figure 1. SEM images of (a) centrifugal spun polyvinylalcohol and (b) electrospun TiO2 nanofibers. An average fiber diameter (and standard deviation) of these fibers is 9252 ± 310 nm and 292 ± 40 nm, respectively. Images taken with MIRA3 XMU TESCAN scanning electron microscope.
The reasons why we want to focus on nanofibers is that–in contrast to many other materials (that seemed even more interesting and many research groups rushed to get involved) – nanofibers really made it quite far in terms of their development, technologies behind to make them, and, finally, successful demonstration of excellent performance in various applications. But not far enough. For example, in cosmetics and filtration, the technology readiness level reached is already on the pilot scale demonstration. In other applications, the level has not reached this stage yet. However, the development needs to progress and this is the goal of this perspective.
The case of nanofibers
About 25 years ago, a massive wave of research in the synthesis and applications of nanofibers begun due to significant advancements and pushes in the electrospinning technology (Author Anonymous, 2027). Different groups around the globe advanced the electrospinning technology–in particular in terms of design of the spinneret, fiber collectors, fiber orientation, etc. (Ramakrishna et al., 2005; Tan et al., 2005; Barhate and Ramakrishna, 2007; Cengiz and Jirsak, 2009; Reneker and Yarin, 2008). Other groups focused on the development of polymers (incl. various copolymers) and search for their suitable solvents (Hiwrale et al., 2023; Mahalingam et al., 2015; Mit-Uppatham et al., 2004; Homaeigohar et al., 2012; Badrossamay et al., 2014; Wendorff et al., 2012; Agarwal et al., 2010).
Other groups focus on the process upscale and optimization and also on the fundamental understanding of the fiber formation process (Cengiz and Jirsak, 2009; Sivan et al., 2022; Pokorny et al., 2014; Guex et al., 2017). All these efforts have been valuable–they led to an extensive publicly available knowledge. But what is more, they led some pilot scale quantity of nanofibers that could be tested at that scale, which is a key condition for any company to be fulfilled before they can go on the market. The testing results - in particular in filtration and tissue engineering - turned out very positive. They underlined the expectations and that nanofibers do have really tremendous potential to be the materials of choice for these applications and no other material can beat them. But still, the move from “potential impact” to “groundbreaking and proven application” and “industrial production” has not happen yet. Some recent advancements, like alternating current (AC) electrospinning has expanded the technological options during the nanofiber synthesis, but the yield remains still rather low (Sivan et al., 2022; Pokorny et al., 2014; Al Saif and Cselkó, 2025).
In early 2010′s, intense efforts begun in a complimentary (and to a certain extent also competing) technology entitled centrifugal spinning (Sarkar et al., 2010; Vazquez et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2014). In that process, nanofibers are formed due to a high centrifugal force applied on the polymeric solution in the rotating spinneret, which has numerous nozzles with a certain diameter (typically a few hundreds of μm). Once the equilibrium between the surface tension of solution and the centrifugal force (which is significantly high for spinneret rotations of generally several thousands of rpm) is disrupted, the solution is expelled out from the nozzles of the spinneret in the form of many jets of fibers (Sarkar et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2015). Due to evaporation and strong air flow in the spinning chamber and the subsequent evaporation of the solvent, the newly born fibers reach the fiber collector and stay there for further collection (Sarkar et al., 2010; Vazquez et al., 2012). Theoretically, the fiber yield should be mainly affected by the speed of a spinneret, the distance of the collector and diameter of the spinneret nozzle (Naseri Joda et al., 2024). On the other hand, the fiber morphology and dimensions should depend primarily on the viscosity of solution, the rotational speed of the spinneret and the evaporation rate (Golecki et al., 2014). Depending on the process parameters and spinning solution, fiber with the diameter in the range of few hundreds of nm to few μm can be made (Sarkar et al., 2010; Rihova et al., 2021a). Depending on the design of the spinnerete, the entire solution can be spent into fibers, which has a positive cost figure for the process efficiency. Figure 2 provides an Illustrative comparison of electrospinning and centrifugal spinning technologies.
Figure 2. Schemes of (a) nozzle-less electrospinning and (b) centrifugal spinning technologies for nanofiber synthesis.
In recent literature, one can find experimental comparative studies between electrospinning and centrifugal spinning (Rihova et al., 2021a; Krifa and Yuan, 2016; Rogalski et al., 2018). The somewhat surprising outcome of these comparisons is that both technologies can be used to make to make high quality nanofibers from a whole range of polymers with relatively good control of nanofiber diameters. This is something that the electrospinning researchers probably would never trust that centrifugal spinning can do. The somewhat unsurprising outcome, and also verified from feedbacks from industries testing both technologies, is that centrifugal spinning, if done well and optimized, can have significantly higher yield of nanofibers per unit of time. And also that both techniques show significant sensitivity on atmospheric conditions, so they should be operated in some controlled atmospheres (hence the air outlets and inlets in Figure 2) (Rihova et al., 2021a).
While there are recent excellent academic reviews available, in particular for electrospinning (Xue et al., 2019), to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that directly and comprehensively compare electrospinning and centrifugal spinning techniques in terms of the production rates versus the energy consumption versus the cost per gram in a comprehensive manner. Such comparison is challenging, as these parameters are highly system-dependent and vary significantly with the design of spinning heads, number of nozzles, collectors, and processing conditions. Such data set undoubtedly exist, but they represent companies´ secrets that are not to be shared.
Nevertheless, Table 1 below provides an illustrative summary, based on the extraction of publicly available data, comparing the yield, benefits, pros and cons for different technological configurations of both spinning systems. From this table, one can see that there are non-negligible differences in the production parameters among both techniques, in addition to other differences, such as in the quality and dimensions of the fibers.
Table 1. Comparative table of important parameters and features of electrospinning versus centrifugal spinning processes.
It is also noteworthy to recognize “electro-centrifugal” spinning, a recently developed hybrid technique that merges electrospinning and centrifugal spinning in terms of integrating a high-voltage electrostatic field into a classical centrifugal spinning system, subjecting the ejected polymer jet to both centrifugal and electrostatic forces simultaneously (Khamforoush and Asgari, 2015; Xu et al., 2023). The addition of the electric field provides a very welcome stabilizing effect on the liquid jet, that leads to comparably lower number of defects (such as beads and droplets), hence offering promising improvements in the fiber fabrication efficiency. However, this technique still suffers from technical limitations, particularly the difficulty of ensuring a stable high-voltage supply to the rotating spinning head. But it can be expected that further research will lead to improvements.
Costs of nanofiber production go hand in hand with the costs of the chemical (raw materials) that are used to produce them. For the nanofiber synthesis, whether by electrospinning or centrifugal spinning, the major cost item has always been and will probably always be the cost of solvent, followed by the polymers itself. Many polymers are water insoluble, thus, one has to use alcoholic or other types of solvents that are costly, frequently also toxic (various types) and flammable. There was also a time, where researchers and industry thought that the melt spinning could do the job (Zander et al., 2017; O’Haire et al., 2016; Zander, 2015; Guo et al., 2025). However, after all trials and tests–it did not. Issues with limited polymer stability at elevated temperatures, their degradation and also clogging of parts of the spinning tools, rendered this approach also not very viable. In addition, the viscosity of polymer melts is much higher than that of polymer solutions, thus imposing challenges to draw the melted material into very fine fibers. Furthermore, for inorganic nanofibers, even though they possess great properties and potential (e.g., in catalysis) a significant cost items is also the calcination of raw precursor nanofibers into fully inorganic nanofibers, which is done usually in a batch reaction way, rather than in continuous operation (H et al., 2017; Hromádko et al., 2021).
Without a big thinking, there are some applications, where nanofibers are really handy and can provide unique solutions that no other material from can offer.
In fact, so some applications, nanofibers and microfibers have already become an integral part of modern life. One of their most widespread and well-established applications is in filtration technologies, where nanofiber membranes are routinely employed in both liquid and air filtration units (Zhang et al., 2016; Hutten, 2025; Fahimirad et al., 2021; Yang, 2012). Aided with more than three thousand scientific publications on the research and development of fiber filters, numerous fiber-manufacturing now produce nanofiber filters on an industrial scale, owing to own development and efforts and also supported by extensive intellectual property portfolio. The filtration sector can be broadly classified into liquid filtration, primarily applied in water and wastewater treatment, and air filtration, which encompasses cleanroom filters, HVAC systems, and personal protective equipment. These materials represent one of the most advanced and mature stages of fiber commercialization, effectively reaching the highest Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of 7–9.
For sorbents based on nanofibers, although their assemblies are similar to those of filtration units, there is quite some development too, however, they are not yet as far, having the TRL level on some 2-5 points (Zhang et al., 2016; Yasin et al., 2015).
Another industrially emerging segment involves cosmetic applications of fibers (Rihova et al., 2022; Rihova et al., 2025). Fiber-based facial masks have recently become available on the market, designed to deliver active compounds for skin nourishment and to prevent dermatological disorders. Although commercialized, there remains strong potential for further development through the incorporation of bioactive additives or controlled-release systems. While these materials demonstrate significant technological progress, their readiness level indeed remains somewhat lower (on the scale of 5–8) than that of filtration products, which are already fully industrialized.
In other biomedical applications, such as wound healing or drug delivery systems (Vocetkova et al., 2017; Dubský et al., 2012; Zajicova et al., 2010), the situation is more complex. Despite the existence of numerous scientific studies, industrial implementation is more challenging than in cosmetics, mainly because these products must undergo in vivo testing and extensive clinical validation. Such processes are time-consuming and typically take several years before market approval can be achieved. Consequently, although these materials are technologically promising, their readiness level remains lower compared to cosmetic or filtration applications. This reflects the additional regulatory and clinical hurdles required for biomedical commercialization. Overall, in this segment ´s TRL is on the scale to 3-6.
Finally, inorganic nanofibers have found applications in catalysis (Yasin et al., 2015; Ternero-Hidalgo et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2011; Sopha et al., 2021), energy storage, and high-temperature filtration. Although promising, their large-scale utilization remains limited due to higher production costs and the need for tailored annealing treatments that might be costly. As a result, their overall Technology Readiness Level is currently lower compared to polymer-based fibers. TRL in this segment is on the scale of 2-5.
The use of nanofibers in these lower TRL segments could generate billion USD annually, in addition to already very profitable filtration markets. However, the chemistry and the production scale do not allow that yet.
So what is next? What has to happen so that nanofibers can be produced at low price at a great scale, with great reproducibility and compositional and pore size and fiber layer thickness variability?
Challenges to overcome/outlook
Polymer vs. solvent interplay
The biggest challenge without any doubt. Traditional polymers, like polyamide 6, or polyacrylonitrile are not soluble in water, instead, they need toxic and costly solvent [dimethylformamide, formic acid, etc. (Mit-Uppatham et al., 2004; Rogalski et al., 2018; Dotto et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2015)]. Water soluble polymers are available and usually are significantly cheaper, however, problem is that they are not stable in aqueous environment. So for any application, where the stability of nanofibers in waters is required, this is no option, see also other point (Xu et al., 2014; Le et al., 2025; Hou et al., 2017; Theron et al., 2004). Even though the development of new polymers may be rather tedious and costly, is still going on, in particular towards biodegradable polymers (Bezrouk et al., 2020), conjugated polymers (Miranda et al., 2020), smart polymers (Zhang et al., 2025), etc. However, high molecular weight polymers, particularly natural polymers with branched structures, are often difficult to be processed by electrospinning, as the electrostatic force alone is insufficient to effectively stretch the fibers.
Another important role plays the choice of solvent, which allows the adjustment of polymer concentration and other solution properties (Tan et al., 2005; Mahalingam et al., 2015; Golecki et al., 2014; Zander, 2015). In terms of the management and recovery of solvents, there is probably the largest room for improvement on the spinning technology side. During the spinning (regardless technology), solutions are evaporated and not used further, in fact they are wasted without further use. In can easily be that for production of 1 kg of fibers, one needs 10 kg of solution with 10 wt% of polymer, for which the remaining 9 kg of solvent are wasted and represent a significant cost item. As already mentioned, melt spinning is currently not viable for reasons of either polymeric instability, when melted, and/or too large diameters. As it is hardly imaginable to develop entirely new class of solvents (which would be costly at the low scale production anyway), the only room on the solvent side is thus their recovery during processing. This could be achieved, for example, by a closed-loop spinning systems that could effectively capture and recover solvents for reuse, thereby minimizing both environmental emissions and operational costs. For a small scale production, the solvent adsorption on carbonaceous materials, followed by desorption, could be used (Bai et al., 2013). For a large scale production, the solvent condensation could be used by colling the exhausts below the dew point of the solvent vapour. Nevertheless, in most of cases nobody does that (typically because of even higher costs than in the case of wasted solvent) and it would be a significant step forward and would comply with circular economy principles. Therefore, the industry particularly aims to use the highest polymer concentration that is still spinnable, in order to minimize solvent waste.
Even though it can be energetically demanding, the ever increasing availability of green energy (e.g., from photovoltaic panels), in combination with smart capture protocols at the end of the spinning process (extraction, absorption, etc.) could be used to recover at least part of the solvents to further use (Singhal et al., 2019).
Stability of nanofibers in different environments
In relation to stability of polymers, there are also issues with stability of polymer-derived nanofibers. However, the concerns about stability depend on the final application and also on angle of view. For highly demanding, e.g., filtration applications, the nanofiber layers (typically placed on a non-woven substrate) should be stable enough, i.e., should not dissolve or disintegrate in time. But that means that they cannot be easily disposed, unless they are burnt. Fortunately, there are also applications, where their instability would not matter so much or not at all. These includes biomedical applications [e.g., tissue engineering (Mohanto et al., 2023; Flores-Rojas et al., 2023), or wound healing (Rihova et al., 2022; Dubský et al., 2012; Zajicova et al., 2010)] which are in essence bioresorbable applications. One could also think about employment of these nanofibers in a single-use respirators, which would still have the necessary filtration function during a limited period of time and then would degrade (depending on the disposal conditions). There is a large room for exploiting such nanofibers, and this is yet to be exploited.
There is also large room for post-modification of water-soluble nanofibers to make them less soluble, but still keep them somehow biodegradable. At first glance, various cross-linking approaches can be used (Xu et al., 2014; Mohanto et al., 2023), but also various other post-treatments, such as physico-chemical methods [e.g., plasma modification (Miroshnichenko et al., 2019; Manakhov et al., 2017), deposition of protecting overlayers (Kernell et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2010)]. There are pioneering efforts in the literature to infiltrate surface of polymeric nanofibers with various species–for example, inorganic oxides–to improve mechanical properties and chemical stability of nanofibers (Sureshkumar et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2009). Namely, researcher have introduced ultrathin coatings on the nanofibers´ surface to get them protected or stabilized (Kernell et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2007), or prepare nanotubes by subsequent removal of templating nanofibers (Peng et al., 2007; Rihova et al., 2021b; Kim et al., 2014). Moreover, metal oxide-infiltrated nanofibers may exhibit antibacterial effects and enable controlled drug release (Rihova et al., 2022; Rihova et al., 2025; Cheng et al., 2018). The primary technique of choice for these modifications include Atomic Layer Deposition, Vapour Phase Infiltration or plasma spray Physical Vapour Deposition. All in all, there is a large room for the synthesis of new types of polymeric and inorganic nanofibers with interesting surface properties. Last, but not least, recent trend is also to produce biodegradable nanofibers and nanofibers composites, whose limited stability is not an issue and is essentially welcome for various purposes, such as for the wound healing, cosmetic purposes, etc. (Zhou et al., 2024; Li et al., 2025). It can be expected that this trend will be even accelerated in soon future.
Spinning process engineering
Electrospinning and centrifugal spinning lead to nanofibers with still relatively high dispersion of nanofiber diameters. This is for some applications highly undesired–such as for the filtration, where a precise control of the pore diameter is required for classification of filter efficiencies and particles classes (Barhate and Ramakrishna, 2007). Nanofibers also usually possess mean diameters close to 1 mm, which is also a subject of improvement (lowering). In addition, there are also some defects among nanofibers, such as beads or droplets, which have negative impact on the nanofiber homogeneity (Teyeb et al., 2025; Morina et al., 2023). To achieve a more consistent nanofiber diameters (and pores) and homogeneity there is still large room in the control and optimization of the processes, in particular on the side of spinnerets, nozzles and for electrospinning also the control of the electrostatic field of related aspects. Modern tools, such as high-speed cameras for operando process´ monitoring (Uematsu et al., 2018; Valipouri et al., 2015), different types of sensors and also machine-learning and AI protocols could be put together, to obtain a precise control of the process and their standardization and optimization to the particular needs of the final nanofiber-based product. Some pioneering repots on machine-learning electrospinning processes recently appeared in the literature that show a promise (Shabani et al., 2025; Subeshan et al., 2024; López-Flores et al., 2024; Javier et al., 2024).
Overall, there is a large room for exploiting such technologies and there is a very high likelihood that these challenges could be overcome, which would be very beneficial for the society that needs nanofibers in different forms. Last, but not least, a very promising alternative seems to be also the electro-centrifugal spinning, which combines benefits of both techniques, as described above (Khamforoush and Asgari, 2015; Xu et al., 2023).
Production rates
The production rates of both spinning techniques are also not yet at the satisfactory level, even though for the centrifugal spinning, as tabulated in Table 1, relatively high production rates were reported in the batch processing (Xu et al., 2023; Erickson et al., 2015). Unfortunately, the room for improvement in this particular aspect is somewhat limited. To maintain a process in a continuous operation (24/7) or at least semi-continuous operation is still rather a dream for the nanofiber producers, but it could at least partially compensate the lower production rates. Most processes, that are operated by companies making nanofibers, still work in a batch regime, and would need to move forward. However, the interplay between solution preparation and dosing, spinning, nanofiber collection and quality control needs to be set and modern tools (again machine learning, AI) could be certainly helpful in that.
Moreover, water-based processes tend to have rather lower production rate, compared to organic-solvent driven processes. The water vapour pressure is significantly lower compared to readily evaporating organic solvents during the process, and also some remaining humidity can be kept in the nanofibers which would need post-drying (Mahalingam et al., 2015; Mit-Uppatham et al., 2004; Golecki et al., 2014; Szewczyk and Stachewicz, 2020).
Design of spinnerets vs. rheological properties of the spinning solutions need to be in the best possible interplay, which can be difficult to find purely experimentally, as there is a large number of variables. However, all necessary details and aspects on the nanofiber formation, in particular in the very early stages of their spinning, are still not known and could be further investigated by high-tech sensors and cameras.
Also the optimization of air flow needs to be optimized and in a quite narrow range of conditions–too fast flow means losses in spinning chambers (due to turbulences) and low rates mean that nanofibers do not arrive in given spot completely dried (Naseri Joda et al., 2024).
One possible approach to tackle lower production rates would be to involve complex spinning configurations using multiple nozzles or spinnerets, which would significantly aid the pilot to industrial upscale of the spinning technologies (Valipouri, 2017; Luo et al., 2012).
To solve all these challenges is a complex task, that requires expertise in process modelling, computational models, air flow dynamics, etc. Companies usually do not have resource and time to do this. So it would be really great, if academia can help with these challenging tasks. To gain insights into these issues would be very big thing and a big move for the whole nanofiber industry.
Conservativeness and skepticism in the use of nanofibers
Safety concerns in past (given the asbestos fibers) and also the general attitude of companies not to change things, unless necessary, puts also some barrier in the implementation of nanofibers. While some groups and individuals are highly optimistic about nanofibers, some are pessimistic–primarily because they are not convinced about the nanofiber potential and are worried about the safety concerns.
Recent toxicological studies show that inorganic nanofibers are not in any aspect “worse” or more “dangerous” than nanoparticles of the same chemical compounds (Bacova et al., 2022; Smela et al., 2022). The lower risk associated with nanofibers is mainly due to their larger size, compared to nanoparticles, which makes nanoparticles potentially more hazardous. In fact, in many ways, nanofibers are less problematic, as they cannot penetrate the skin and get into our respiratory system with large difficulties or not at all. Another potential problem is inhalation. Research shows that ceramic fibers are generally no more harmful to lung cells than nanoparticles of the same material (Bacova et al., 2022). Therefore, any handling and applications of nanofibers appear to be safer than those of nanoparticles.
Although biopolymeric nanomaterials appear safe because they can degrade and do not accumulate in the body, their breakdown into monomers and subsequent interactions with the human organism are still poorly understood. This represents a significant challenge for future research.
Last, but not least, the skepticism of nanofiber use in products could be dispersed or at least significantly lowered by champion performance of fibers in specific application. The already achieved performances in filtration are of the champion class, but more such cases in other applications would be welcome.
Table 2 below provides an executive summary of the main limitations and challenges in various aspects of fibers synthesis, upscale and applications. It also summarizes and proposes relevant steps to be undertaken to address these limitations and challenges.
Table 2. Executive summary of main limitations and challenges in various aspects of fibers and solutions to tackle them.
Conclusion
This article demonstrates that there are numerous remaining challenges in the nanofiber production and exploitation, which need to be overcome toward further improvements and industrial exploitability of these materials and their producibility at reasonable costs. These challenges need to be addressed, and they can only be addressed if the academia and industry talk together and work together on these topics and prioritize them.
Necessary improvements include increasing overall productivity of the spinning processes, optimization of polymer/solvent systems, through recovery of solvents, all bearing potential to reduce nanofibers production costs. A large room is also in the post-modification of nanofibers, which could further expand and justify their subsequent use in various application.
Researchers should not fear to push boundaries, as this is essential for advancing knowledge and achieving improvements. Nanofibers still have much to offer and they remain one of the most essential nanomaterials available.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
LH: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review and editing. MR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. JM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Author JM declared that they were a Specialty Chief Editor of Frontiers in Nanotechnology, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Agarwal, S., Wendorff, J. H., and Greiner, A. (2010). Chemistry on electrospun polymeric nanofibers: merely routine chemistry or a real challenge? Macromol. Rapid Commun. 31, 1317–1331. doi:10.1002/marc.201000021
Al Saif, Y., and Cselkó, R. (2025). Revolutionizing electrospinning: a review of alternating current and pulsed voltage techniques for nanofiber production. Processes 13, 2048. doi:10.3390/pr13072048
Author Anonymous Polymer nanofiber market size, share, growth report (2027). Available online at: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/polymer-nanofiber-market-4416?utm_term=&utm_campaign=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=2893753364&hsa_cam=20373674291&hsa_grp=150985931723&hsa_ad=665909881832&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=dsa-2089395941704&hsa_kw (Accessed 10 September 2025).
Bacova, J., Knotek, P., Kopecka, K., Hromadko, L., Capek, J., Nyvltova, P., et al. (2022). Evaluating the use of TiO2 nanoparticles for toxicity testing in pulmonary A549 cells. Int. J. Nanomedicine. 17, 4211–4225. doi:10.2147/IJN.S374955
Badrossamay, M. R., Balachandran, K., Capulli, A. K., Golecki, H. M., Agarwal, A., Goss, J. A., et al. (2014). Engineering hybrid polymer-protein super-aligned nanofibers via rotary jet spinning. Biomaterials 35, 3188–3197. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.072
Bai, Y., Huang, Z. H., Wang, M. X., and Kang, F. (2013). Adsorption of benzene and ethanol on activated carbon nanofibers prepared by electrospinning. Adsorpt 19, 1035–1043. doi:10.1007/s10450-013-9524-5
Barhate, R. S., and Ramakrishna, S. (2007). Nanofibrous filtering media: filtration problems and solutions from tiny materials. J. Membr. Sci. 296, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2007.03.038
Bezrouk, A., Hosszu, T., Hromadko, L., Olmrova Zmrhalova, Z., Kopecek, M., Smutny, M., et al. (2020). Mechanical properties of a biodegradable self-expandable polydioxanone monofilament stent: in vitro force relaxation and its clinical relevance. PLoS One 15, e0235842. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235842
Cengiz, F., and Jirsak, O. (2009). The effect of salt on the roller electrospinning of polyurethane nanofibers. Fibers Polym. 10, 177–184. doi:10.1007/s12221-009-0177-7
Cheng, H., Yang, X., Che, X., Yang, M., and Zhai, G. (2018). Biomedical application and controlled drug release of electrospun fibrous materials. Mater Sci. Eng. C 90, 750–763. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.007
Dotto, G. L., Santos, J. M. N., Tanabe, E. H., Bertuol, D., Foletto, E., Lima, E., et al. (2017). Chitosan/Polyamide nanofibers prepared by forcespinning® technology: a new adsorbent to remove anionic dyes from aqueous solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 144, 120–129. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.004
Dubský, M., Kubinová, Š., Širc, J., Voska, L., Zajíček, R., Zajícová, A., et al. (2012). Nanofibers prepared by needleless electrospinning technology as scaffolds for wound healing. J. Mater Sci. Mater Med. 23, 931–941. doi:10.1007/s10856-012-4577-7
Elmarco Elmarco Ltd (2025). Available online at: https://www.elmarco.com/.
Erickson, A. E., Edmondson, D., Chang, F. C., Wood, D., Gong, A., Levengood, S. L., et al. (2015). High-throughput and high-yield fabrication of uniaxially-aligned chitosan-based nanofibers by centrifugal electrospinning. Carbohydr. Polym. 134, 467–474. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.07.097
Fahimirad, S., Fahimirad, Z., and Sillanpää, M. (2021). Efficient removal of water bacteria and viruses using electrospun nanofibers. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141673. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141673
Flores-Rojas, G. G., Gómez-Lazaro, B., López-Saucedo, F., Vera-Graziano, R., Bucio, E., and Mendizábal, E. (2023). Electrospun scaffolds for tissue engineering: a review. Macromol 3, 524–553. doi:10.3390/macromol3030031
Golecki, H. M., Yuan, H., Glavin, C., Potter, B., Badrossamay, M. R., Goss, J. A., et al. (2014). Effect of solvent evaporation on fiber morphology in rotary jet spinning. Langmuir 30, 13369–13374. doi:10.1021/la5023104
Guex, A. G., Weidenbacher, L., Maniura-Weber, K., Rossi, R. M., and Fortunato, G. (2017). Hierarchical self-assembly of Poly(Urethane)/Poly(Vinylidene Fluoride-co-Hexafluoropropylene) blends into highly hydrophobic electrospun fibers with reduced protein adsorption profiles. Macromol. Mater Eng. 302, 1700081. doi:10.1002/mame.201700081
Guo, X., Li, C., Xia, S., Chen, T., Zhou, Y., Zhou, F. l., et al. (2025). Environmentally friendly melt-spinning of polyurethane fibers modified with polylactic acid and silicone for healthcare applications. Compos Commun. 57, 102491. doi:10.1016/j.coco.2025.102491
Hromádko, L., Koudelková, E., Bulánek, R., and Macak, J. M. (2017). SiO2 fibers by centrifugal spinning with excellent textural properties and water adsorption performance. ACS Omega 2, 5052–5059. doi:10.1021/acsomega.7b00770
Hiwrale, A., Bharati, S., Pingale, P., and Rajput, A. (2023). Nanofibers: a current era in drug delivery system. Heliyon 9, e18917. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18917
Holopainen, J., Penttinen, T., Santala, E., and Ritala, M. (2015). Needleless electrospinning with twisted wire spinneret. Nanotechnology 26, 025301. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/26/2/025301
Homaeigohar, S., Koll, J., Lilleodden, E. T., and Elbahri, M. (2012). The solvent induced interfiber adhesion and its influence on the mechanical and filtration properties of polyethersulfone electrospun nanofibrous microfiltration membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 98, 456–463. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2012.06.027
Hou, T., Li, X., Lu, Y., and Yang, B. (2017). Highly porous fibers prepared by centrifugal spinning. Mater Des. 114, 303–311. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.11.019
Hromádko, L., Motola, M., Čičmancová, V., Bulánek, R., and Macak, J. M. (2021). Facile synthesis of WO3 fibers via centrifugal spinning as an efficient UV- and VIS-light-driven photocatalyst. Ceram. Int. 47, 35361–35365. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.09.079
Huang, Z. M., Zhang, Y. Z., Kotaki, M., and Ramakrishna, S. (2003). A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites. Compos Sci. Technol. 63, 2223–2253. doi:10.1016/s0266-3538(03)00178-7
Hutten, I. M. (2025). “Properties of nonwoven filter media,” in Handbook of nonwoven filter media. Editors IMBT.-H. of N. F. M. Hutten, and E. Second (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann), 108–157.
Javier, L., Shetty, S., Das, A., Chethan, K., Keni, L., and Salins, S. (2024). Optimization of electrospinning parameters using an artificial neural network (ANN) model for enhanced nanofiber production. J. Appl. Eng. Sci. 22, 804–809. doi:10.5937/jaes0-53043
Jiang, S., Chen, Y., Duan, G., Mei, C., Greiner, A., and Agarwal, S. (2018). Electrospun nanofiber reinforced composites: a review. Polym. Chem. 9, 2685–2720. doi:10.1039/c8py00378e
Kernell, M., Ritala, M., Leskelä, M., Groenen, R., and Lindfors, S. (2008). Coating of highly porous fiber matrices by atomic layer deposition. Chem. Vap. Depos. 14, 347–352. doi:10.1002/cvde.200800710
Khamforoush, M., and Asgari, T. (2015). A modified electro-centrifugal spinning method to enhance the production rate of highly aligned nanofiber. Nano 10, 1550016. doi:10.1142/S1793292015500162
Kim, G. M., Lee, S. M., Knez, M., and Simon, P. (2014). Single phase ZnO submicrotubes as a replica of electrospun polymer fiber template by atomic layer deposition. Thin Solid Films 562, 291–298. doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2014.04.079
Krifa, M., and Yuan, W. (2016). Morphology and pore size distribution of electrospun and centrifugal forcespun nylon 6 nanofiber membranes. Text. Res. J. 86, 1294–1306. doi:10.1177/0040517515609258
Le, K. M., Vu, T. L., Le, M. A. T., Tran, T. A., Vo, P. P., Nguyen, T. H., et al. (2025). Farbrication and investigation of PLA/chitosan fibers by centrifugal spinning for biomedical applications. IFMBE Proc. 123, 259–266. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90197-3_20
Lee, S. M., Pippel, E., Gösele, U., Dresbach, C., Qin, Y., Chandran, C. V., et al. (2009). Greatly increased toughness of infiltrated spider silk. Sci.324, 488–492. doi:10.1126/science.1168162
Lee, K., Mazare, A., and Schmuki, P. (2014). One-dimensional titanium dioxide nanomaterials: nanotubes. Chem. Rev. 114, 9385–9454. doi:10.1021/cr500061m
Li, Z., Bhaskar, N., Erel-Akbaba, G., Zhu, Y., Ge, G., Park, J., et al. (2025). Current advances of biodegradable and biocompatible nanofiber-based materials for tissue engineering and drug delivery. MRS Commun. 15, 374–390. doi:10.1557/s43579-025-00728-7
López-Flores, F. J., Ornelas-Guillén, J. A., Pérez-Nava, A., González-Campos, J. B., and Ponce-Ortega, J. M. (2024). Data-driven machine learning approach for modeling the production and predicting the characteristics of aligned electrospun nanofibers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 63, 9904–9913. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.4c00075
Lu, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, S., Xu, G., Fu, K., Lee, H., et al. (2013). Parameter study and characterization for polyacrylonitrile nanofibers fabricated via centrifugal spinning process. Eur. Polym. J. 49, 3834–3845. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.09.017
Lu, Y., Fu, K., Zhang, S., Li, Y., Chen, C., Zhu, J., et al. (2015). Centrifugal spinning: a novel approach to fabricate porous carbon fibers as binder-free electrodes for electric double-layer capacitors. J. Power Sources 273, 502–510. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.130
Luo, C. J., Stoyanov, S. D., Stride, E., Pelan, E., and Edirisinghe, M. (2012). Electrospinning versus fibre production methods: from specifics to technological convergence. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 4708–4735. doi:10.1039/c2cs35083a
Mahalingam, S., Raimi-Abraham, B. T., Craig, D. Q. M., and Edirisinghe, M. (2015). Solubility–spinnability map and model for the preparation of fibres of polyethylene (terephthalate) using gyration and pressure. Chem. Eng. J. 280, 344–353. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.114
Manakhov, A., Kedroňová, E., Medalová, J., Černochová, P., Obrusník, A., Michlíček, M., et al. (2017). Carboxyl-anhydride and amine plasma coating of PCL nanofibers to improve their bioactivity. Mater Des. 132, 257–265. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.057
Miranda, D. O., Dorneles, M. F., and Oréfice, R. L. (2020). One-step process for the preparation of fast-response soft actuators based on electrospun hybrid hydrogel nanofibers obtained by reactive electrospinning with in situ synthesis of conjugated polymers. Polym. Guildf. 200, 122590. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2020.122590
Miroshnichenko, S., Timofeeva, V., Permykova, E., Ershov, S., Kiryukhantsev-Korneev, P., Dvořaková, E., et al. (2019). Plasma-coated polycaprolactone nanofibers with covalently bonded platelet-rich plasma enhance adhesion and growth of human fibroblasts. Nanomater 9 (9), 637. doi:10.3390/nano9040637
Mit-Uppatham, C., Nithitanakul, M., and Supaphol, P. (2004). Ultrafine electrospun polyamide-6 fibers: effect of solution conditions on morphology and average fiber diameter. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 205, 2327–2338. doi:10.1002/macp.200400225
Mohanto, S., Narayana, S., Merai, K. P., Kumar, J. A., Bhunia, A., Hani, U., et al. (2023). Advancements in gelatin-based hydrogel systems for biomedical applications: a state-of-the-art review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 253, 127143. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127143
Morina, E., Dotter, M., Döpke, C., Kola, I., Spahiu, T., and Ehrmann, A. (2023). Homogeneity of needleless electrospun nanofiber mats. Nanomater 13, 2507. doi:10.3390/nano13182507
Naseri Joda, N., Ince, A. E., Rihova, M., Pavlinak, D., and Macak, J. M. (2024). Design of collectors in centrifugal spinning: effect on the fiber yield and morphology. J. Ind. Text. 54, 1–20. doi:10.1177/15280837241298641
O’Haire, T., Russell, S. J., and Carr, C. M. (2016). Centrifugal melt spinning of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/Triacontene copolymer fibres. J. Mater Sci. 51, 7512–7522. doi:10.1007/s10853-016-0030-5
Peng, Q., Sun, X. Y., Spagnola, J. C., Hyde, G. K., Spontak, R. J., and Parsons, G. N. (2007). Atomic layer deposition on electrospun polymer fibers as a direct route to Al2O3 microtubes with precise wall thickness control. Nano Lett. 7, 719–722. doi:10.1021/nl062948i
Pokorny, P., Kostakova, E., Sanetrnik, F., Mikes, P., Chvojka, J., Kalous, T., et al. (2014). Effective AC needleless and collectorless electrospinning for yarn production. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 26816–26822. doi:10.1039/c4cp04346d
Ramakrishna, S., Fujihara, K., Teo, W. E., Lim, T. C., and Ma, Z. (2005). An introduction to electrospinning and nanofibers. World Sci. doi:10.1142/5894
Ren, L., Pandit, V., Elkin, J., Denman, T., Cooper, J. A., and Kotha, S. P. (2013). Large-scale and highly efficient synthesis of micro- and nano-fibers with controlled fiber morphology by centrifugal jet spinning for tissue regeneration. Nanoscale 5, 2337–2345. doi:10.1039/c3nr33423f
Reneker, D. H., and Yarin, A. L. (2008). Electrospinning jets and polymer nanofibers. Polym. Guildf. 49, 2387–2425. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2008.02.002
Rihova, M., Ince, A. E., Cicmancova, V., Hromadko, L., Castkova, K., Pavlinak, D., et al. (2021a). Water-born 3D nanofiber mats using cost-effective centrifugal spinning: comparison with electrospinning process: a complex study. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 138, 49975. doi:10.1002/app.49975
Rihova, M., Yurkevich, O., Motola, M., Hromadko, L., Spotz, Z., Zazpe, R., et al. (2021b). ALD coating of centrifugally spun polymeric fibers and postannealing: case study for nanotubular TiO2photocatalyst. Nanoscale Adv. 3, 4589–4596. doi:10.1039/d1na00288k
Rihova, M., Lepcio, P., Cicmancova, V., Frumarova, B., Hromadko, L., Bureš, F., et al. (2022). The centrifugal spinning of vitamin doped natural gum fibers for skin regeneration. Carbohydr. Polym. 294, 119792. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119792
Rihova, M., Azpeitia, S., Cihalova, K., Michalicka, J., Chennam, P. K., Kolibalova, E., et al. (2025). Centrifugally spun and ZnO-infiltrated PVA fibers with antibacterial activity for treatment of acne vulgaris. J. Control Release 383, 113777. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2025.113777
Rogalski, J. J., Bastiaansen, C. W. M., and Peijs, T. (2018). PA6 nanofibre production: a comparison between rotary jet spinning and electrospinning. Fibers 6, 37. doi:10.3390/fib6020037
Roy, A. K., Baumann, W., König, I., Baumann, G., Schulze, S., Hietschold, M., et al. (2010). Atomic layer deposition (ALD) as a coating tool for reinforcing fibers. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 396, 1913–1919. doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3470-9
Sarkar, K., Gomez, C., Zambrano, S., Ramirez, M., de Hoyos, E., Vasquez, H., et al. (2010). Electrospinning to forcespinning. Mater Today 13, 12–14. doi:10.1016/s1369-7021(10)70199-1
Shabani, A., Al, G. A., Berri, N., Castro-Dominguez, B., Leese, H. S., and Martinez-Hernandez, U. (2025). Electrospinning technology, machine learning, and control approaches: a review. Adv. Eng. Mater 27, 2401353. doi:10.1002/adem.202401353
Singhal, R., Ishita, I., and Sow, P. K. (2019). Integrated polymer dissolution and solution blow spinning coupled with solvent recovery for expanded polystyrene recycling. J. Polym. Environ. 27, 1240–1251. doi:10.1007/s10924-019-01427-w
Sivan, M., Madheswaran, D., Valtera, J., Kostakova, E. K., and Lukas, D. (2022). Alternating current electrospinning: the impacts of various high-voltage signal shapes and frequencies on the spinnability and productivity of polycaprolactone nanofibers. Mater Des. 213, 110308. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110308
SKE (2025). SKE research equipment. Available online at: https://www.ske.it/ (Accessed 24 November 2025).
Smela, D., Chang, C. J., Hromadko, L., Macak, J., Bilkova, Z., and Taniguchi, A. (2022). SiO2 fibers of two lengths and their effect on cellular responses of macrophage-like cells. Molecules 27, 4456. doi:10.3390/molecules27144456
Sopha, H., Kashimbetova, A., Hromadko, L., Saldan, I., Celko, L., Montufar, E. B., et al. (2021). Anodic TiO2Nanotubes on 3D-Printed titanium meshes for photocatalytic applications. Nano Lett. 21, 8701–8706. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c02815
Subeshan, B., Atayo, A., and Asmatulu, E. (2024). Machine learning applications for electrospun nanofibers: a review. J. Mater Sci. 59, 14095–14140. doi:10.1007/s10853-024-09994-7
Sureshkumar, M., Siswanto, D. Y., and Lee, C.-K. (2010). Magnetic antimicrobial nanocomposite based on bacterial cellulose and silver nanoparticles. J. Mater Chem. 20, 6948. doi:10.1039/c0jm00565g
Szewczyk, P. K., and Stachewicz, U. (2020). The impact of relative humidity on electrospun polymer fibers: from structural changes to fiber morphology. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 286, 102315. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2020.102315
Talapin, D. V., and Shevchenko, E. V. (2016). Introduction: nanoparticle chemistry. Chem. Rev. 116, 10343–10345. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00566
Tan, S. H., Inai, R., Kotaki, M., and Ramakrishna, S. (2005). Systematic parameter study for ultra-fine fiber fabrication via electrospinning process. Polym. Guildf. 46, 6128–6134. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2005.05.068
Ternero-Hidalgo, J. J., Guerrero-Pérez, M. O., Rodríguez-Mirasol, J., and Cordero, T. (2019). Electrospun vanadium oxide based submicron diameter fiber catalysts. Part II: effect of chemical formulation and dopants. Catal. Today 325, 144–150. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2018.10.072
Teyeb, C., Grothe, T., Dotter, M., Kola, I., and Ehrmann, A. (2025). Homogeneity of physical properties of electrospun gelatin nanofiber mats. Sustain Green Mater 1, 1–14. doi:10.1080/29965292.2024.2404716
Theron, S. A., Zussman, E., and Yarin, a L. (2004). Experimental investigation of the governing parameters in the electrospinning of polymer solutions. Polym. Guildf. 45, 2017–2030. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2004.01.024
Uematsu, I., Uchida, K., Nakagawa, Y., and Matsumoto, H. (2018). Direct observation and quantitative analysis of the fiber formation process during electrospinning by a high-speed camera. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57, 12122–12126. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.8b02352
Valipouri, A., Ravandi, S. A. H., Pishevar, A., and Pǎrǎu, E. I. (2015). Experimental and numerical study on isolated and non-isolated jet behavior through centrifuge spinning system. Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 69, 93–101. doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2014.10.005
Vazquez, B., Vasquez, H., and Lozano, K. (2012). Preparation and characterization of polyvinylidene fluoride nanofibrous membranes by forcespinningTM. Polym. Eng. Sci. 52, 2260–2265. doi:10.1002/pen.23169
Vocetkova, K., Buzgo, M., Sovkova, V., Rampichova, M., Staffa, A., Filova, E., et al. (2017). 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. RSC Adv. 7, 53706–53719. doi:10.1039/c7ra08728d
Wang, X., Niu, H., Lin, T., and Wang, X. (2009). Needleless electrospinning of nanofibers with a conical wire coil. Polym. Eng. Sci. 49, 1582–1586. doi:10.1002/pen.21377
Wang, P., Yang, C., Yao, J., Li, H., Hu, Z., and Li, Z. (2025). Two-dimensional metal organic framework nanosheets in electrocatalysis. Chem. Sci. 16, 6583–6597. doi:10.1039/d5sc01390a
Wendorff, J. H., Agarwal, S., and Greiner, A. (2012). Electrospinning: materials, processing, and applications. Wiley VCH. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/9783527647705
Xu, F., Weng, B., Materon, L. A., Gilkerson, R., and Lozano, K. (2014). Large-scale production of a ternary composite nanofiber membrane for wound dressing applications. J. Bioact. Compat. Polym. 29, 646–660. doi:10.1177/0883911514556959
Xu, Z., Mahalingam, S., Rohn, J. L., Ren, G., and Edirisinghe, M. (2015). Physio-chemical and antibacterial characteristics of pressure spun nylon nanofibres embedded with functional silver nanoparticles. Mater Sci. Eng. C 56, 195–204. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2015.06.003
Xu, H., Yagi, S., Ashour, S., Du, L., Hoque, M. E., and Tan, L. (2023). A review on current nanofiber technologies: electrospinning, centrifugal spinning, and electro-centrifugal spinning. Macromol. Mater Eng. 308, 2200502. doi:10.1002/mame.202200502
Xue, J., Wu, T., Dai, Y., and Xia, Y. (2019). Electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: methods, materials, and applications. Chem. Rev. 119, 5298–5415. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00593
Yang, C. (2012). Aerosol filtration application using fibrous media - an industrial perspective. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 20, 1–9. doi:10.1016/S1004-9541(12)60356-5
Yasin, A. S., Obaid, M., El-Newehy, M. H., Al-Deyab, S. S., and Barakat, N. A. (2015). Influence of TixZr(1−x)O2 nanofibers composition on the photocatalytic activity toward organic pollutants degradation and water splitting. Ceram. Int. 41, 11876–11885. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.05.156
Yu, X., Xiang, H., Long, Y., Zhao, N., Zhang, X., and Xu, J. (2010). Preparation of porous polyacrylonitrile fibers by electrospinning a ternary system of PAN/DMF/H2O. Mater Lett. 64, 2407–2409. doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2010.08.006
Yu, D., Chen, C., Xie, S., Liu, Y., Park, K., Zhou, X., et al. (2011). Mesoporous vanadium pentoxide nanofibers with significantly enhanced Li-ion storage properties by electrospinning. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 858–861. doi:10.1039/c0ee00313a
Zajicova, A., Pokorna, K., Lencova, A., Krulova, M., Svobodova, E., Kubinova, S., et al. (2010). Treatment of ocular surface injuries by limbal and mesenchymal stem cells growing on nanofiber scaffolds. Cell Transpl. 19, 1281–1290. doi:10.3727/096368910X509040
Zander, N. E. (2015). Formation of melt and solution spun polycaprolactone fibers by centrifugal spinning. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 132, 41269. doi:10.1002/app.41269
Zander, N. E., Gillan, M., and Sweetser, D. (2017). Composite fibers from recycled plastics using melt centrifugal spinning. Mater. (Basel) 10, 1044. doi:10.3390/ma10091044
Zhang, R., Liu, C., Hsu, P. C., Zhang, C., Liu, N., Zhang, J., et al. (2016). Nanofiber air filters with high-temperature stability for efficient PM2.5 removal from the pollution sources. Nano Lett. 16, 3642–3649. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b00771
Zhang, Y., Zhao, X., and Qing, G. (2025). Smart polymers advance analytical chemistry. Trac. Trends Anal. Chem. 187, 118198. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2025.118198
Keywords: nanofibers, polymeric, inorganic, synthesis, electrospinning technology, centrifugal spinning
Citation: Hromadko L, Rihova M and Macak JM (2025) Nanofibers: where they are where we need them to be. Front. Nanotechnol. 7:1706183. doi: 10.3389/fnano.2025.1706183
Received: 15 September 2025; Accepted: 05 December 2025;
Published: 17 December 2025.
Edited by:
Bingqing Wei, University of Delaware, United StatesReviewed by:
Jithendar Reddy Mandhadi, Assam Down Town University, IndiaCopyright © 2025 Hromadko, Rihova and Macak. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jan M. Macak, SmFuLk1hY2FrQHVwY2UuY3o=