Journal of Polymer Research (2020) 27:205

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-020-02173-7

REVIEW PAPER

The main blow spun polymer systems: processing

conditions and applications
Fernanda Trindade Gonzalez Dias 1,2 & Silvana Pereira Rempel 1 & Lucas Dall Agnol 1 & Otávio Bianchi 1,3

Received: 2 March 2020 / Accepted: 30 June 2020

# The Polymer Society, Taipei 2020

Abstract
This review aims at providing an examination of the central polymeric systems that have been tested by the Solution Blow
Spinning Technique (SBS). The SBS is an on-demand micro/nanofibrous material forming technique that uses simple instru-
mentation, thus making its research substantial. Although other studies had already presented the SBS parameters and their
correlations with fiber morphology, it’s still unclear for polymeric researchers which systems have already been tested, therefore
some questions remain unanswered, such as: “which polymers have been used most in the art?”, “which solvents have promoted
the fiber formation?”, “which additives or particles were tested for composite polymer fibers?”, “for which applications have the
fibers been targeted?”, “what adaptations have been investigated to overcome the challenges of the process?”. Seventy-nine
articles related to polymeric fibers produced by SBS, reported from January 2010 to May 2019, were chosen among four
databases, using precise keywords. The principal findings of these articles were presented and reviewed, using additional
references as support. From this study, polymeric researchers will have access to the current SBS state-of-the-art, being able
to try new polymer-solvents combinations, as well as to solve the existing process inconveniences.

Keywords Solution blow spinning . Micro/nanofibers . Polymeric systems . Literature review

Introduction
The micro/nanofibers represent a relevant class of materials
with a vast possibility of applications due to their unique
properties, such as the large specific surface area, selective
permeability, surface adsorption properties, and tailorable sur-
face functionalization [1]. Besides, their easily controllable
architecture (porosity, diameter, etc.) considerably improves
the materials properties. Great examples of materials could be
medical consumables, high technology applications for the
aerospace industry, transistors, textiles, air and water filters,
sensors, wound dressings, drug delivery systems, energy
* Otávio Bianchi
otavio.bianchi@gmail.com
1
Materials Science Postgraduate Program, University of Caxias do Sul
(UCS), Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil
2
Postgraduate Program in Technology and Materials Engineering
(PPG-TEM), Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS),
Feliz, RS, Brazil
3
Department of Materials Engineering (DEMAT), Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
storage, among others [2–5]. The global market for these
micro/nanofibers reached a staggering US$384 million dollars
in 2015, and it is projected to approach US$2 billion dollars by
2020 [6].
A simplified Solution Blow Spinning (SBS) technique set-
up consists of a syringe pump, a customized nozzle, a high-
velocity gas source (typically air), and a collector [7]. A ho-
mogeneous polymer solution in a volatile solvent is also nec-
essary [8]. The nozzle generally consists of an inner nozzle,
through which the polymer solution is pumped, and a concen-
tric outer nozzle that supplies the pressurized gas. The pres-
surized gas produces a conduction force, and when it exceeds
the surface tension of the solution, the polymeric drop at the
tip of the nozzle is stretched into an ultrathin jet and solidified
into micro/nanofibers in a collector, as shown in Fig. 1 [2,
9–12]. As this jet travels through the surrounding atmosphere,
the solvent evaporates, resulting in a nonwoven structure [9,
13–15]. The nozzle geometry creates a region of low pressure
around the inner nozzle, which helps draw the polymer solu-
tion into a cone comparable to Taylor’s cone, formed by the
electrospinning process. The outer concentric nozzle makes
use of Bernoulli’s principle, in which changes in pressure
are converted into kinetic energy [13, 16–18]. The increasing
 205 Page 2 of 23
Fig. 1 Conventional apparatus
for the solution blow spinning
(SBS) system [9]. Reproduced
with permission from Ref. 9,
Medeiros ES, et al. (2009) J Appl
Polym Sci 113:2322–2330.
Copyright © 2009 by John Wiley
Sons, Inc.
velocity of the air leaving the outer nozzle (Fig. 2, P1) causes
an air pressure drop at the center of the jet (Fig. 2, Patm), thus
creating a driving force that is responsible for the acceleration
of the polymer solution [9, 19]. The polymer solution and the
gas jet are brought together via independent delivery mecha-
nisms. This approach helps avoid clogging, and the uncontrol-
lable increase of the pressure, which are known to occur in
other devices of nanofiber formation [20].
Medeiros et al. [9] initially reported the solution blow spin-
ning technique (SBS) when obtaining polymeric fibers with a
higher production rate compared to other spinning methods,
such as electrospinning [3, 8]. Although electrospinning has
been thoroughly researched, the low solution feeding rate per
orifice of this technique limits its scale-up and, therefore, its
industrial efficiency [21, 22]. While electrospun fibers are
generated ex-situ using specialized equipment, high voltages,
and electrically conductive targets, blow spun fibers can be
produced on any surface in situ, using only a commercial
airbrush and compressed gas [23, 24]. Certainly, an automated
SBS with a built nozzle coupled to a syringe pump would
ensure a better feed rate control and reproducibility, but the
advantage of a commercial airbrush is that the equipment is
cost-effective and readily available [25].
Fig. 2 A nozzle geometry used in
SBS [9]. Reproduced with
permission from Ref. 9, Medeiros
ES, et al. (2009) J Appl Polym Sci
113:2322–2330. Copyright ©
2009 by John Wiley Sons, Inc.
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
The differences in the driving force types between
electrospinning and blow spinning, bring several advantages
to SBS, such as (i) a higher fiber production rate, since it is
possible to apply higher feed rates [21, 26, 27]; (ii) versatility
on choosing the solvent, as it is no longer conditioned by the
dielectric constant [8, 27–30]; (iii) the deposition of fibers
directly onto a broad range of collectors and surfaces
[31–33], including living organs in situ [25]; (iv) the feasibil-
ity of producing multicomponent fibers, or fibers containing
additives, particles, and/or fillers [20, 22, 34–36]; and (v) the
simultaneous use of multiple nozzles [7, 8, 10, 12, 30, 37, 38]
or air-jet spinning devices [39].
The different driving forces involved in the electrospinning
and SBS processes result in chain orientation and crystallinity
variations, which ultimately impact on both the degradation
rate and mechanical properties of the mats [40]. The locally-
oriented fibers, using SBS, increase the mechanical strength of
the fibrous scaffold, in contrast with the randomly-oriented
electrospun mats [19]. Specific bulk material properties and
scaffold morphology, including Young’s modulus, network
pore size, and porosity, were reported to be different between
electrospun and airbrushed scaffolds [41]. One limitation of
the SBS process, however, is the possibility of the formation
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
of bundled fibers due to the influence of a poorly controlled
gas flow. These bundles may result in a non-homogeneous
fiber distribution, thus yielding poor performances in several
fields [4].
In SBS, fiber morphologies and properties are controlled
by (i) solution variables (polymer concentration and molar
mass, viscosity, surface tension, solvent type, presence of an-
other phase, particle or additives), (ii) processing parameters
(solution feed-rate, gas pressure, nozzle-collector distance),
(iii) system configuration (nozzle diameter, nozzle geometry,
polymer feed mode), and (iv) ambient parameters (tempera-
ture, humidity, atmospheric pressure) [11, 13, 16, 28, 32,
42–44]. Controlling these parameters is the way of optimizing
the SBS process to obtain morphologically tailored micro/
nanofibers for any soluble polymeric system.
Since SBS is a much newer technique than electro-spin-
ning, there is still a considerable lack of knowledge in
predicting and controlling the fiber diameter through this pro-
cess, and the experimental results are partially contradictory
[38]. A better understanding of fiber formation may optimize
the spinning parameters for a more uniform fiber morphology,
thus creating tools to predict the optimal spinning conditions
[45, 46]. Some studies have already reported the general
mechanisms responsible for fiber formation, as well as the
effect of some processing parameters on fiber morphology
[47–49], but none of them have been concerned with exam-
ining the central polymer systems already tested by SBS
technique.
In this review, we systematically analyzed the critical spin-
ning conditions of fiber-production for the principle blown
spun polymer systems reported in the literature, from
January 2010 to May 2019. Here, articles found in at least
four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and
Google Scholar) using particular keywords, were analyzed
and described. The present report will guide new researches
in optimizing the main operational parameters for each
polymer-solvent system to provide the most suitable fibers
for the application of choice.
Review methodology
The publications were searched using the Scopus (https://
www.scopus.com), Web of Science (https://www.
webofknowledge.com), Science Direct (https://www.
sciencedirect.com), and Google Scholar (https://scholar.
google.com.br/) online databases. The keywords used were
([solution blow spinning or blow spinning or SBS or
airbrush or air-jet spinning or air jet], and [polymer or poly]
and [fiber or nanofiber or microfiber] and ([concentration or
viscosity or surface tension or viscoelasticity or molecular
weight] or [pressure or distance or diameter or feed rate or
nozzle])). The search was limited to English language articles
Page 3 of 23 205
published from January 2000 to May 2019. The articles found
were analyzed, and those that were duplicated, or already re-
visions, or not polymeric systems, were excluded from the
results. Considering these criteria, a total of seventy-nine
(79) relevant articles were found in the databases search,
which is presented in Table 1 and mandatorily cited in this
review text. The variables analyzed in the eligible articles
were: polymer, solvent system, particle/additive, solution con-
centration, critical concentration, gas type/pressure,
temperature/relative humidity, needle-collector distance, col-
lector type, feed rate, nozzle diameter, mean fiber diameter,
and application. The other bibliographic references mentioned
here were used as support for the discussion of the results.
Results and discussion
The systematic articles search identified a total of ninety-
seven (97) distinct articles. From those, eighteen (18) articles
were discarded because they did not meet the eligibility
criteria, that is, either they were review articles or did not
use polymeric systems. A total of seventy-nine (79) articles
were included in this study that evaluated the reports from the
last nineteen years. This shows how recent the SBS technique
is for the production of polymeric micro/nanofibers. Table 1
summarizes the central polymeric systems whose blow spin-
ning was reported in the period from January 2000 to
May 2019, and their particular processing variables.
Regarding the polymers selected in the studies, we noticed
the extensive choice for blown spun biodegradable polymers.
From the 79 results, 22 used poly(lactic acid) (PLA) for blow
spinning [3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 44, 57,
66–72]. Poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) was the second most
chosen polymer, represented by twelve studies [25, 29, 31,
32, 39, 41, 57–61, 87], followed by poly(L-lactic acid)
(PDLLA) (six studies) [25, 41, 62–64, 87].
This search for biodegradable polymers is directly related
to the intended application, with tissue engineering (bone tis-
sue, surgical implants, vascular prostheses, wound dressings,
etc.) being the dominant choice. Biodegradable polymers play
an external matrix role in bioengineering, offering physical
support for cellular events, and enabling the replacement of
injured tissue by regenerated tissue. The property of fiber deg-
radation or consumption throughout the application also al-
lows it to be used as a controlled release vehicle, whether of
drugs, natural compounds, antimicrobials, or, pheromones for
agriculture, etc.
The use of non-biodegradable synthetic polymers in SBS
was also observed. Some of these were polystyrene (PS) (sev-
en studies) [9, 25, 30, 37, 58, 59, 74], poly(ethylene oxide)
(PEO) (eight studies) [7, 20, 28, 46, 52, 57, 65, 87],
polyamide-6 or nylon-6 (PA6) (five studies) [17, 39, 42, 47,
56], poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) (five studies) [52,
Table 1 Processing conditions and applications of the blow-spun polymeric systems selected in the databases search
205

Polymer Solvent system Particle/Additive Solution concentration Critical Gas type/Pressure Temperature/ Needle-collector
concentration Relative distance
humidity
Page 4 of 23

EVA Chloroform [50]; xylene/chloroform Synthetic sex pheromones 0.5–15 wt.% 5 wt.% [51] Air (0.05–0.5 MPa) 45 °C 15–25 cm
(146 kg/mol) (96:4) [51] or (25 wt.% related to EVA) [51]
chloroform/dimethylcloride (5:5)
[52]
PAA DMF – 6–8 wt.% – Nitrogen (0.06–0.12 MPa) 60 °C 10–25 cm
(molar mass not
specified)
PAN DMAc [45] or DMF [53–55] TCF-H 5–20 wt.% – Air (0.05–0.30 MPa) – 45–80 cm
(70–120 kg/mol) (0.1–5 wt.%) [53]
PA6 (11,46 [42] Formic acid [47, 56] or formic – 5–22 wt.% – Air (0.08–0.5 MPa) 25 °C; 25–60 cm
kg/mol) acid/acetic acid (80:20)[23,39,42] 38–45% Rh
[17, 39, 42]
PCL DCM [31, 39, 57, 58] or HFP [59] or Zr-ACP 2–9 wt.% [25, 29, 31, – Air (0.03–0.45 MPa) [29, 25 °C; 10–70 cm
(50–90 kg/mol) chloroform [25, 29, 32, 41, 60, 61] (5–20 wt.%) [41] 32, 39, 41, 57, 58] or 31, 32, 39, 41, 57, 58, 60, 40% Rh [39]
or acetone [29] or chloroform 2–12% w/v [59–61] 61] or nitrogen
/methanol (85:15) [29] or acetic (0.01–0.24 MPa) [25, 59]
acid/ water (80:20) [29]
PDLLA Acetone [41, 62] or DMC [63] or nBG (5–10 wt.%) [63] or Zr-ACP 5–12 wt.% [25, 41, 62, 10% w/v [63] Air (0.1–0.3 MPa) or 25 °C [64] 15–30 cm
(25–200 kg/mol) chloroform/acetone (3:1 v/v) [64] or (5–20 wt.%) [41] 64] or 4–20% w/v nitrogen
chloroform/methanol (85:15 wt.%) [63] (241 kPa) [25]
[25]
pDTEc Dioxane – 15 wt.% – Nitrogen – 20 cm
(183 kg/mol) (241 kPa)
PEO DCM [57] or chloroform [28] or – 1–10 wt.% – Air (0.01–0.6 MPa) – 10–15 cm [28, 52,
(100–300 ethanol [7] or water [46] or 57] or 50 cm
[16,26,29,51,67] or acetone/chloroform (5:5) [52] or [46, 65] or
1000–2000 kg/mol water/ ethanol (2:1–1:2 v/v [65] or 1–1.8 [16,26]
[20, 46, 65]) 1:10 v/v [20])
PHBV (molar mass not HFIP Diclofenac sodium 8 wt.% – Air – 12 cm
specified) (5–20 wt.%) (0.4 MPa)
PLA TFE [9, 66] or Linalool (10–20 wt.%) [15]; BCNW 4–12% w/v [3, 9, 11, 69] 2.5% w/v [57] Air (0.2–0.6 MPa) or – 10–20 cm
(66–75 kg/mol) chloroform/acetone (3:1, v/v) [3, 5, 11, (5–30 wt.%); carvacrol (12 wt.%); or 4–10 wt.% [15, nitrogen (276 kPa [9])
19, 44, 66–68] or HFIP [15, 27] or TCH (2–20 wt.%) [27, 66]; gelatin 19, 27, 28, 44,
chloroform [28, 69] or DCM or (30 wt.%) [27]; PVP (0–20 wt.%) 66–68]
dichloroethane [69] [3, 11]; copaiba oil (20%, w/v) [3,
J Polym Res

11]; MWCNT
(0–3 wt.%) [5, 67]; progesterone
(0–8 wt.%) [68]; TiO2
(0–17 wt.%) [44]
PLA DMC [13, 16, 33] or HFP [13] or nHA 1–15% w/v [13, 16, 33, 4–7% w/v Air (0.2–10 MPa) [13, 16, 21–25 °C; 5–110 cm
(100–200 kg/mol) chloroform [13, 70] or DCM [31, (0.1–0.3 g) [34] or CNCs 70, 71] or 2–10 wt.% [16, 70] or 31, 33, 34, 70] or argon 35–55% Rh
34] or (0.1–3% w/v) [33] [31, 34, 72] 2.5 wt.% (0.2–0.25 MPa) [71, 72] [16, 31, 33,
(2020) 27:205

chloroform/ethanol (3:1 v/v) [71, 72] [31] 34]

PLLA Chloroform [40] or chloroform – 4–8 wt.% [21] or 4–7% – Air (0.05–1.5 MPa) 25 °C 20 cm
(100–200 kg/mol) /acetone (3:1 v/v) [21] w/v [40] 45–50% Rh
Table 1 (continued)
PLGA (molar mass not Acetone [23] or chloroform [73] – 6–10% w/v – CO2 [23] or air (207 kPa) – 10–23 cm
specified) [73]
J Polym Res

PMMA Chloroform [9] or acetone [41] Zr-ACP 10% w/v [9] – Nitrogen (276 kPa) [9] or – 20 cm
(120–500 kg/mol) (5–20 wt.%) [41] or 10 wt.% [41] air (0.2–0.27 MPa) [41]
PS DMF [25, 59]; DCM [37, 58]; toluene; MOF 8–30 wt.% [25, 30, 37, – Air (140 kPa) [74] or 25 °C [74] 10–35 cm
(80–350 kg/mol) orange oil [9, 74] or ethyl acetate (10–50 wt.%) [30] 74] or nitrogen
[30] 10–30% w/v [9, 59] (68–300 kPa) [9, 25, 30, 37,
58, 59]
PSF (molar mass not Chloroform /acetone TiO2 10% w/v – Air – 4–5 cm
(2020) 27:205

specified) (8:2 v/v) (0–10 wt.%) (0.4 MPa)

PU THF [64]; DMF [43, 76] or DMF/THF MWCNT 5–20 wt.% – Air (0.1–0.6 MPa) 20–65 °C [64, 15–50 cm
(107–150 kg/mol) (10:0–3:7) [1] (0.5–5 wt.%) [1] 76]
PVAc DCM [18, 31, 36] TiO2 [36] or HA [18] 1.7–6 wt.% – Air (275–420 kPa) 25 °C; 5–110 cm [18, 31,
(500 kg/mol) or ethyl acetate [7] (5–10 wt.% on solution basis) 40–45% Rh 36] or 1.8 m [7]
[18, 31, 36]
PVDF DMF [77, 78]; DMAC/acetone TiO2 10–30% w/v [78, 80] or – Air (0.1–0.7 MPa) 45 °C [79] 5–60 cm
(10–27 [70] or (8:2 v/v) [79] (0–10 wt.%) [80] or Ni-NPs (0.1 g) 11–22 wt.% [52, 77,
100–275 kg/mol or acetone/ DMF (9:1 v/v) [52, 80] [77] 79]
[52, 77, 78])
PVP Isopropyl alcohol/water (50:50 v/v%) – 2–10 wt.% – Air (68–275 kPa) – 1.8 m [7]
(360 [27] or 1300 [7] [26] or ethanol [7]
kg/mol)
SIS (molar mass not THF – 20% w/v – Air – –
specified) (0.34 MPa)
VDF-TeFE (molar Acetone [8] or MEK/DMF (1:2 v/v) – 3–11 wt.% – Air (0.35–0.4 MPa) – 30–40 cm
mass not specified) [12]
WPS (molar mass not Ethyl acetate – 4–14 wt.% – Nitrogen (0.29–0.68 MPa) 25 °C; 5–20 cm
specified) 40% Rh
Zein (molar mass not Acetic acid – 20–40 wt.% – Air (0.28–0.62 MPa) 21 °C 60 cm
specified)
PA6/PCL Formic acid/acetic acid 4:1 wt.% – 22 wt.% (PA6) and – Air 25 °C; 30 cm
11,46/80 kg/mol (PA6) and THF (PCL) 7 wt.% (PCL) (0.5 MPa) 38% Rh
(100:0–10:90 weight
ratios)
PCL/PS DCM – 7 wt.% – Nitrogen – 18 cm
(90/248 kg/mol) (1:1–1:4) (0.3 MPa)
PG/ HMWFG (10–20/ Acetic acid – 10–25% w/v – Air (0.27–0.48 MPa) – 50 cm
10–25% w/v) 20% (v/v)
PLA/Pani HFP – 10% w/v – Nitrogen (276 kPa) – 20 cm
(molar mass not (PLA/Pani
specified) 96:4 wt.%)
PLA/PEG Chloroform/acetone (3:1 v/v); 40% w/v terpinen-4-ol or 0.12% w/v 10% w/v PLA and – Air (2.4 and 344 kPa) 21 °C; 18–20 cm
(76–125/8 kg/mol) (99:1–80:20 wt.%) [85] chlorhexidine gluconate [86] 10–30% w/v PEG 35% Rh [85]
related to PLA [86]
or 12 wt.% [85]
PLA/PEO Chloroform – 6 wt.% – Air – 12 cm
(75/100 kg/mol) (0.4 MPa)
PLGA/PPy (molar Chloroform – 6% w/v (PLGA) and – Air – 17 cm
mass not specified) 3% w/v (PPy) (152 kPa)
Page 5 of 23 205

(90/10 wt.%)
Table 1 (continued)
205

PVAc/PVP (50/1300 Chlorobenzene/methanol for bi-lobal MWCNT 3:3 wt.% [35] – Air (0.14 MPa) for primary 20–25 °C 1–1.98 m
[20] 500/1300 [35] [35] and chlorobenzene/1-butanol 1.5 wt.% (1 wt.% related to polymers) or 1:1 wt.% (3 wt.%) jet and nitrogen 19–25% Rh
kg/mol) for IPN [35] or isopropanol/ethyl [20] [20] (0.14–0.2 MPa) for
acetate (1:1 wt.%) [20] secondary jet [20, 35]
PCL/PEO/ PDLLA Dichloromethane or – PCL (0.5–14% w/v); – CO2 (0.05–0.3 MPa) – 10–25 cm
Page 6 of 23

(80/600/50–80 kg/- chloroform/methanol (7:3 v/v) PDLLA (4–12%

mol) w/v); PEO (5–2%
w/v)

Polymer Collector type Feed rate Nozzle diameter Mean fiber diameter Applicattion Ref.

EVA Rotating 0.2–6 mL/min 0.2–0.5 mm (inner); 0.7 mm (outer); 2 mm 95–426 nm [51]; Biological [50] and [50–52]
(146 kg/mol) (270 rpm) [50]; cylindrical [52] or flat protrusion; concentric nozzle 2.19–3.41 μm [52] and [67,79]pheromone release [51]
[51] films [50]
PAA Rotating 0.8–3.2 mL/h 0.3–0.6 mm; 4.5 mm protrusion; concentric 178 nm Not specified [10]
(molar mass not (150 rpm) nozzles
specified)
PAN Flat (stainless) [45] 0.025–0.34 0.38–0.91 mm (inner); 1.25–2.5 mm (outer); 178 nm − 1.4 μm Colorimetric sensor [53]; [45, 53–55]
(70–120 kg/mol) mL/min −2–4 mm protrusion; concentric nozzle adsorbents for Cr(VI) [54] and
filtration [55]
PA6 (11,46 [42] Rotating 5–19 mL/h [47, 56] 0.25–1 mm 90–750 nm Air filtration [47, 56] and vascular [17, 39, 42,
kg/mol) (1000 rpm) [39] or flat (PP) [17, 56] tissue [17, 39, 42] 47, 56]
PCL Rotating (0–300–1000 [31, 39, 60]) or 10–800 μL/min 0.2–0.8 mm[15,30 39,41,59,60] concentric 100–1.38 μm or fibers not Tissue engineering, regenerative [25, 29, 31,
(50–90 kg/mol) flat [61] (aluminum foil[15,30,32,]; [57, 59, 61] or nozzle [57] or 1–2 mm protrusion, nozzle obtained [58] using medicine [25, 29, 31, 32, 39, 32, 39, 41,
PS discs [41]; glass or water bath 0.9–50 mL/h area (polymer): 0.2 mm2 acetone and acetic 41, 57, 59–61] and oil recover 57–61]
[31]) [25, 31, 32] nozzle area (air): 0.5/12.56 mm2 [32] acid/water) [29] [58]
PDLLA Rotating (600 [64] or 11,000 [65] rpm) 120 μL/min [63] or 0.2–0.3 mm [25, 41] or 1–2 mm protrusion, 99–412 nm Tissue engineering [25, 41,
(25–200 kg/mol) or flat (aluminum foil [25], PS discs 0.16–1.15 mL/- 0.5 (ratio in/out nozzle), (concentric 62–64]
[41], fiberglass or teflon mesh [62]) min [25, 62, 64] nozzle) [62–64]
pDTEc Flat (aluminum foil) 0.31 mL/min 0.2 mm 677 nm Biomedical [25]
(183 kg/mol)
PEO Rotating (1800 rpm [65]) or flat 6–120 μL/min 0.2–1.22 mm [7, 20, 28, 46, 52, 65]; 242–642 nm [7, 28, 52, 57] Tissue engineering [65], electric [7, 20, 28, 46,
(100–300 (copper [46] or glass plate covered concentric nozzle [28, 57]; 2–4 mm or 134 nm − 2.5 μm [20, and biomedical [52] 52, 57, 65]
[16,26,29,51,67] or with aluminum foil [52]) protruded [28, 46, 52] 46, 65]
1000–2000 kg/mol
[20, 46, 65])
PHBV (molar mass not – 7.2 μL/min 2 mm protrusion, concentric nozzles of 263–320 nm Drug release [2]
specified) 0.5 mm
PLA Rotating 0.66–120 μL/min 0.2–0.5 mm [3, 9, 11] or 2 mm protrusion, 34 nm–1.25 μm Wound dressing [3, 11, 66], drug [3, 5, 9, 11,
J Polym Res

(66–75 kg/mol) (180–800 rpm) or flat (glass plates concentric nozzles of 0.5 mm release [15, 27, 68] and sensors 15, 19, 27,
with indium oxide and tin) or biosensors [5, 67] 28, 44, 57,
66–69]
PLA Rotating (180–500 rpm) [13, 16, 31]) 0.02–15 mL/min 0.3 mm [71, 72]; 2 mm protrusion, 60 nm–0.97 μm Tissue engineering [31, 34, [13, 16, 31,
(100–200 kg/mol) or flat (PET films [34, 70], glass and concentric nozzles [13, 16, 33]; 70–72], membranes and 33, 34,
water bath [31]) 0.1–0.6 mm (needle) [70] or 250 μm [34] adsorbents [33] 70–72]
PLLA Rotating [21] (200 rpm) 10–45 mL/h – 35–678 nm Biomedical [21] and vascular [21, 40]
(2020) 27:205

(100–200 kg/mol) or flat [40] prostheses [40]

PLGA (molar mass not Flat (glass) [23] or cylinder wrapped 95 μL/min [73] 0.2 mm [23] or 0.9 mm [73] 377 nm Tissue engineering [23, 73]
specified) with aluminum foil) [73]
Table 1 (continued)
PMMA Rotating 20 μL/min [9] 0.2 mm protrusion [9]; 0.3 mm [41] 0.79–7.8 μm Bone tissue [41] [9, 41]
(120–500 kg/mol) (800 rpm) [9] or flat (PS) [41]
J Polym Res

PS Rotating (400–800 rpm [9, 74]) or flat 20–75 μL/min [9, 0.2–0.5 mm [25, 37, 58]; 0.2 mm protrusion 144 nm–5 μm Biomedical [25, 59]; oil recovery [9, 25, 30, 37,
(80–350 kg/mol) (aluminum foil [25, 30] or plastic 59] or [9, 74] or 0.84 mm (needle); 2.0 mm [37, 58]; active food packaging 58, 59, 74]
[37]) 7–120 mL/h (nozzle); 1 mm protrusion; concentric [74] and separation– catalysis
[25, 30, 74] nozzles [30] [30]
PSF (molar mass not Flat – 0.5 mm 50–200 nm Biomedical [75]
specified) (glass)
PU Rotating 20–25 μL/min [1] 2 mm protrusion; concentric nozzle (0.5 100–670 nm Biomedical [64] and reinforcing [1, 43, 64, 76]
(2020) 27:205

(107–150 kg/mol) (180–11,000 [6,65] rpm) or flat [43] or 1–50 mL/h ratio) [43, 64] or 0.7 mm [1] agent for composites [1]
[43, 64]
PVAc Rotating 0.8 [16] or 15 0.25–1.22 mm 117 nm–1.19 μm Biological [18, 31], filter and [7, 18, 31, 36]
(500 kg/mol) (500 rpm) [31] or flat [5,24,36] photocatalyst [36]
(Ti [18]; glass, water bath [31]) mL/min
PVDF Rotating 0.075–0.5 mL/min 0.2–0.7 mm; 2 mm protrusion 60–633 nm and film [80] Biological [52, 80], [52, 77–80]
(10–27 [70] or (400 rpm) [77]; cylindrical [52] or flat [52, 77] or formation electric/magnetic fibers [77]
100–275 kg/mol (porous [79], glass [80] 16 mL/h [79] and microfiltration membrane
[52, 77, 78]) [79]
PVP Rotating 0.06–0.8 mL/min 0.3–1.22 mm (inner diameter) [7] 186 nm–1.3 μm Not specified [7, 26]
(360 [27] or 1300 [7] (150–350 rpm) [26]
kg/mol)
SIS (molar mass not Flat 10 mL/h 1.02 mm 1.66 μm Elastic conductors [81]
specified) (metal mesh)
VDF-TeFE (molar Flat [8] 25 μL/min [8] or 0.35–0.6 mm (inner nozzle) and Microfibers (0.53–2.81 μm Biomedical [8, 12]
mass not specified) 50 mL/h [12] 0.53–0.9 mm (outer nozzle) [12]) and nanofibers
(170 nm) [8]
WPS (molar mass not – – 0.5 mm 329–536 nm Oil recovery and wastewater [82]
specified) treatment
Zein (molar mass not Static aluminum plate 0.02–0.1 mL/min 2 mm protrusion, concentric nozzles 174 nm–9.59 μm Not specified [83]
specified)
PA6/PCL Flat – 0.3 mm 275 nm–4.77 μm Tissue scaffolds [42]
11,46/80 kg/mol
PCL/PS Flat – 0.5 mm 1.05–1.51 μm Oil recover [58]
(90/248 kg/mol) (PP mat)
PG/ HMWFG (10–20/ Aluminum plate 0.04–0.06 mL/min 0.69–1.48 mm (inner); 1.07–3.11 mm 39–188 nm Not specified [84]
10–25% w/v) (outer); 2 mm protrusion, concentric
nozzles
PLA/Pani Rotating 20 μL/min 0.2 mm protrusion 140–590 nm Not specified [9]
(molar mass not (800 rpm)
specified)
PLA/PEG Rotating 7.2 [82] or 100 [81] 0.5–2 mm protrusion; 0.5 mm (inner) [85]; 100 nm–1.41 μm Drug release [86] and tissue [85, 86]
(76–125/8 kg/mol) (180 or μL/min concentric nozzle engineering [85]
600 rpm)
PLA/PEO Rotating 120 μL/min 2 mm protrusion, concentric nozzles, 0.5 mm 681 nm −0.85 μm Not specified [28]
(75/100 kg/mol) distance between nozzles
PLGA/PPy (molar Cylinder 159 μL/min 0.9 mm – Not specified [73]
mass not specified)
PVAc/PVP (50/1300 – 0.5 mL/min 0.83 mm [20] 248 nm (primary gas jet) to Not specified [20, 35]
[20] 500/1300 [35] 89 nm (secondary jet)
Page 7 of 23 205

kg/mol)
 205 Page 8 of 23 J Polym Res (2020) 27:205

hydroxybutyrate-co-3- hydroxyvalerate); PLA: poly(lactic acid); PLGA: poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PLLA: poly(L-lactic acid); PMMA: poly(methyl methacrylate); PP: polypropylene; PPy: polypyr-
role; PS: polystyrene; PSF: Polysulfone; PU: polyurethane; PURAC: polylactic acid; PVA: poly(vinyl alcohol); PVAc: poly(vinyl acetate); PVDF: poly(vinylidene fluoride); PVP: poly(vinyl pyrrolidone);
gelatin; HPMC: hydroxypropyl methylcellulose; IPN: interpenetrateng networks; MEK: methylethylketone; MOF: metal-organic frameworks; MWCNT: multi-walled carbon nanotubes; nBG: nano-

SIS: poly(styreneblock-isoprene-block-styrene); TCF-H: tricyanofuran-hydrazone; TFE: 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol; TCH: tetracycline hydrochloride; THF: tetrahydrofuran; TiO2: titanium dioxide anatase;
bioactive glass; Ni-NPs: nickel nanoparticles; PAA: polyamic acid; PA-6: polyamide-6; PAN: polyacrylonitrile; PAni: polyaniline; PCL: poly(ε-caprolactone); PDLLA: poly(D,L-lactide); pDTEc:
poly(desaminotyrosyl-tyrosine ethyl ester carbonate); PEG: poly(ethylene glycol); PEO: poly(ethylene oxide); PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PG: type A pork skin gelatin; PHBV: poly(3-
BCNW: bacterial cellulose nanowhiskers; CA: cellulose acetate; CNCs: cellulose nanocrystals; DCM: dichloromethane; DMAC: N,N-dimethylacetamide; DMC: dimethyl carbonate; DMF: N,N-
dimethylformamide; EVA: Poly (ethylene-co-vinyl acetate); HA: hydroxyapatite; HFIP: hexafluoroisopropanol; HFP: 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-propanol; HMWFG: high molecular weight fish skin
77–80], polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (four studies) [45, 53–55],
polyurethane (PU) (four studies) [1, 43, 64, 76], poly(vinyl
[87] acetate) (PVAc) (four studies) [7, 18, 31, 36], poly (ethylene-
co-vinyl acetate) (EVA) (three studies) [50–52], as well as a
mixture of two or more polymers [9, 20, 28, 35, 42, 58, 73,
84–87]. Other polymers were also solution blown spun, but in
smaller amounts [2, 7–10, 12, 21, 23, 25, 26, 40, 41, 73, 75,
81–83]. Besides tissue engineering, blown spun fibers have
also been applied as adsorbents, sensors, biosensors, filtering
Drug release

VDF-TeFE: tetrafluoroethylene copolymer with vinylidene fluoride; WPS: waste expanded polystyrene; Zr-ACP: zirconium-modified amorphous calcium phosphate
membranes, or air filtration devices.
Regarding the polymer solution parameters, it was ob-
served that: (i) polymer concentrations generally varied from
5 to 15% (up to 40%), (ii) the organic solvents dichlorometh-
ane (DCM), ethyl acetate, acetone, methanol, N,N-
or 101 nm–1 μm

dimethylformamide (DMF), and formic acid were the most

502 nm–1.59 μm

used ones, mainly due to the volatility of these compounds,

and (iii) solvent mixtures, such as formic acid/ acetic acid,
xylene/chloroform or chloroform/dimethylchloride, and chlo-
[20]
[35]

robenzene/methanol, also were used.

Concerning the SBS processing variables, it was observed
that the works that used water as a polymer-solvent required a
thermal blower attached to the process to help evaporation.
Most studies used air at room temperature as a gas flow, al-
though others nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide (CO2), with
outlet pressures ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 MPa. Most of the
feeding rates employed by the systems reported in Table 1
ranged from 10 to 30 μL/min [18, 31, 36]. Regarding the
micro/nanofibers collector type, the studies used rotary or
fixed flat surfaces, with average needle-collector distances of
10–30 cm, with the longest up to 1.8 m. Concerning the fiber’s
average diameter, a high variability of values was observed,
–

from nanometric fibers of 100–600 nm up to micrometric

0.025–2.5 mL/-

sizes of 5 μm. The priority that determines the average diam-

0.02–2 mL/min

min (shell)

eter of the produced fibers is the same as considering the effect

(core) and

of the presence, or absence, of beads on the scaffolds, i.e. the

fiber’s application. The discussion of the main findings re-
garding the blow spun polymer systems described in
Table 1, mainly concerning the solution parameters, process-
Flat (polymer mesh under vacuum)

ing variables, and applications of fibrous materials can be

found here.

Polymer solution

The ability of SBS to form stable and continuous jets of poly-

mer solutions is dictated by the polymer solution properties,
such as polymer concentration and molar mass, viscosity, and
surface tension [7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 72]. Among these prop-
Table 1 (continued)

erties, polymer solution concentration was deemed as the most

(80/600/50–80 kg/-
PCL/PEO/ PDLLA

significant variable to control fiber diameter [1, 18, 21, 70,

72]. The formation of well-defined fibers is directly propor-
tional to the polymer concentration and occurs with increasing
mol)

solution concentration [17]. By changing polymer solution

concentration, it is possible to tailor the blown spun scaffold
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
Fig. 3 SEM micrographs of solution blown spun fibers of poly (vinyl
alcohol) (PVA) (Mw 49,000 g.mol−1; degree of hydrolysis 98–99%) at
different polymer concentrations in water: 12%w/v (2,500x; inset
topography, and therefore its surface properties [8, 34, 50].
Low polymer concentrations produce highly fused morphol-
ogies with a random microporous structure on the surface. As
the polymer concentration increases, a bead morphology is
observed with a few distinct fibers. With further increases in
the polymer concentration, a particular fiber morphology
without beads, is obtained (Fig. 3) [19, 30, 88]. At this con-
centration, fibrous scaffolds may exhibit highly localized
alignment or multiple fiber strands or bundles, which are very
difficult to achieve via electrospinning [8, 12, 19]. In general,
lower polymer concentrations produce a narrower fiber diam-
eter distribution compared to higher polymer concentrations.
The higher standard deviation, associated with higher polymer
concentration, may be directly related to the increase in
Fig. 4 (a) Estimated concentration of semi-diluted overlap (c*) for
PMMA solution in hydrofluorocarbon as a function of molar mass
(Mw) (dotted line); (b) SEM image of the blow-spun fibers from the
PMMA solution with concentration of c = 6 mg/ml (c/c * = 0.7) and
Page 9 of 23 205
10,000x) (a), and 20%w/v (2,500x; inset 10,000x) (b) [88]. Adapted
with permission from Ref. 88, Santos AMC, et al. (2016) Mater Lett
176:122–126. Copyright © 2016 by Elsevier Inc.
surface tension and changes in the viscoelastic properties of
the solutions [13, 16, 66].
Solutions with a high polymer concentration exhibit a
higher level of polymer chain entanglement and require a high
driving force to overcome the upper surface tension and vis-
cosity of the solution [16]. The chain entanglement is defined
by the critical overlapping concentration (c*), above which,
satisfactory chain overlapping occurs [62, 82, 88]. Continuous
fibers are produced above the critical overlapping concentra-
tion (c > c*), while beaded structures and corpuscular mor-
phologies are generated for solutions with c < c* [4, 13, 17,
23, 31, 32, 51, 81, 88]. The parameter c*, and hence the chain
entanglement, is favored by increasing the polymer concen-
tration as well as the polymer molar mass [43, 76, 84, 89]. The
molar mass of Mw = 2,276,000 g/mol [24]. Reproduced with permission
from Ref. 24, Srinivasan S, et al. (2011) Polymer 52:3209–3218.
Copyright © 2011 by Elsevier Inc.
 205 Page 10 of 23
overlapping concentration (c*) is adequately estimated for the
semi-diluted environment in a system with interaction param-
eters favorable to solubilization by Eq. 1 [49]:
63=2 M w
c* ¼
3=2 ð1Þ
8N A R2
where: c* = critical concentration, Mw = mean molar mass,
NA = Avogadro’s Number, and 〈R2〉 = mean square distance
between terminals.
An approximation of the mean square distance between
terminals 〈R2〉 for the polymer-solvent system is necessary
to calculate the critical concentration required to form fibers:
hR2i ¼ α2C ∞ ð2M w =M 0 Þl2 ð2Þ
This value can be found at the Flory expansion factor
α, the characteristic ratio C∞, and the bond length l
which are used to represent deviations from the ideality
of the polymer chain dimensions. The mean molar mass
(Mw) of the polymer of interest and Avogadro’s number
(NA) are also necessary. If the temperature is increased
for the same polymer, the polymeric coil expands,
thereby increasing the mean square distance between
terminals, due to the mobility of the chains.
At a constant solution concentration, an increased polymer
molar mass causes the system viscosity to grow and thus, there
is an increase of the blow-spun fiber diameter [20, 88, 90].
Different morphologies can be observed when a polymer so-
lution is blow-spun at various molar masses (Mw), and in this
case, an estimated concentration can be set for the semi-
diluted overlap (c*) as a function of Mw (dotted line in
Fig. 4a). Circles represent the morphology observed when
spinning neat PMMA in hydrofluorocarbon, at a specific con-
centration and molar mass. For a moderate molar mass
(<106 g/mol), there is a transition from corpuscular morphol-
ogies into fibers structures at c/c* ≈ 1, confirming the essential
role of chain overlap in the stabilization of fiber formation. At
a high molar mass (Mw = 2,276,000 g/mol), the extensional
viscosity of a diluted solution (c/c* < 1) is sufficiently large
to stabilize the formation of submicron fibers for long periods,
allowing the solvent to evaporate and the POSS/PMMA to
solidify, as shown in Fig. 4b [24]. Hence, the fiber morphol-
ogy is systematically altered by increasing the polymeric con-
centration in solution, and thus the molecular weight, but the
specific morphological details, such as the presence and frac-
tion of beads will depend on the molecular weight distribution
particularities [24]. Figure 4 shows that a dilute solution, but
with a high molecular weight, is capable of producing fibers
by blow-spinning. This means that it is not the overlapping
concentration (c*) that governs fiber formation, but the in-
crease of the diluted solution’s elongated viscosity in high
molecular weights which suppresses the jet break during the
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
Fig. 5 Dependence of polymer solution viscosity (μ) and surface tension
(γ) on polymer concentration ratio (C/C*). Some images of fibers
obtained at various Ca numbers are also presented [7]. Reproduced with
permission from Ref. 7, Benavides RE, et al. (2012) ACS Macro Lett
1:1032–1036. Copyright © 2012 by American Chemical Society
spinning process. Yu et al. [91] showed by extensional rheol-
ogy measurements that the solution elasticity, or its extension-
al viscosity, is not necessarily related to the polymer entangle-
ments in solution. According to them, uniform fibers can be
obtained by any suitably strong elastic solution’s response,
even with dilute polymer solutions. Other authors have also
stated the same [19, 27]. The presence of entanglements net-
work is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the poly-
mer solution to demonstrate strong elastic beahavior. The
pseudo-elastic response can also be achieved at lower polymer
concentration if the relaxation time of the fluid is longer than
the time of extensional deformation. This kind of elastic be-
havior is typical of Boger fluids that show high elasticity at
concentrations well below c* [92]. The Rayleigh instability
can be slowed down or suppressed by the viscoelastic behav-
ior of the fluid jet [91]. For fluids that have relaxation time
much greater than the instability growth time (i.e., large
Deborah numbers, De > > 1), the formation of uniform fibers
is favored over the ‘beads-on-string’ morphology.
Morphological transitions from smooth fiber, to non-uniform
fiber, to ‘beads-on-string’, and finally to droplets are not only
observed by variations in polymer’s concentration but also as
a result of changes in solution elasticity [93].
Fibers with regular cross-sections can be obtained by the
balance between the viscosity and the shear forces imposed by
the compressed gas jet that drops out of the nozzle [19, 28, 31,
35, 57]. As long as the viscosity increases, fiber elongation is
hampered, and as a consequence, fibers with thicker diameters
are formed [3, 19, 46, 56, 57]. Large dispersion of the blow-
spun fiber sizes is also observed in situations of high solution
viscosity values [16, 33, 50, 83].
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
Fig. 6 Different rheological
regimes (shear rate 1 s−1, 25 °C)
for EVA solutions in
xylene:chloroform (96.4 wt%/
wt%), and schematic
morphologies of the polymer
chains: (1) diluted (0.5–5 wt%
EVA), (2) semi-diluted (5–
10 wt% EVA) and (3)
concentrated (15 wt% EVA) [51].
Adapted with permission from
Ref. 51, Rempel SP, et al. (2019)
J Appl Polym Sci 136 (24)47647
Copyright © 2019 by John Wiley
Sons, Inc.
The quality of the SBS micro/nanofibers can also be
assessed by the Capillary Number (Ca) (Eq. 3), which relates
to the dependence between polymer solution viscosity (μ) and
surface tension (γ) [7]. For systems with a low Ca (in this
case, the surface tension dominating the process), the liquid
jet undergoes early break-up, due to Rayleigh instability,
which often leads to the production of beaded fibers.
Smooth fibers are produced at moderate values of Ca,
achieved by increasing the polymer solution viscosity or the
velocity of the liquid jet. At very high values of Ca, the fibers
show defects induced by the turbulent nature of the gas flow
(Fig. 5).
μV
Ca ¼ ð3Þ
γ Figure 6 shows the rheological behavior of PLA solutions in
where μ, V, and γ are the viscosity, velocity of the liquid jet,
and surface tension of the polymer solution, respectively.
The increase in fiber diameter also leads to an increase in
average pore size and, therefore, an increase in air permeabil-
ity. Thus, the mean pore size can be engineered by altering the
polymer concentration which will enable the control of the
mat’s barrier properties [21, 43, 84]. Polymer concentration
also affects the fiber adherence to the collector surface. Lower
polymer concentrations produce fibers that do not stick well
due to their smaller diameters and quantity. These tinier fibers
tend to be blown off the collector before accumulating to form
a cohesive layer. Higher concentrations produce larger fibers
that attach to the collector and can be removed as a single
sheet [30]. Sabbatier et al. [70] were the first to report the
formation of puddles in a fiber spinning process. Unlike bead
formation, these features occur due to instabilities at high
polymer solution concentrations. These viscous solutions
Page 11 of 23 205
cannot be stretched by high-speed airflow, thereby preventing
efficient solvent evaporation so leading to puddle formation.
Increased gas pressure may eventually cause fiber failure. The
puddles are likely to contain residual solvent. Puddles are
macroscopic elements inside the scaffold that are easily visible
to the naked eye. While beads are formed at concentrations
below the fiber-forming domain, puddles are produced at con-
centrations above the fiber-forming domain.
Understanding the solution’s rheological behavior is essen-
tial to know the continuous flow of the fluid under external
shear stress, as well as the degree of polymer chain entangle-
ment in the solution [26]. Four regimes describe chain overlap
and entanglements in a polymer solution: dilute, semidilute-
unentangled, semidilute-entangled, and concentrated [70, 84].
dimethyl carbonate (DMC) at 25 °C [16, 94]. For this system,
the onset of PLA chain entanglement occurred at a 7% w/v
concentration at the transition from the diluted to the semi-
diluted zone. The transition from the semi-diluted to the con-
centrated zone occurred at approximately 10% w/v of PLA in
DMC, representing the region of most significant polymeric
entanglement. In the concentrated zone, higher viscosities are
perceived for small increases in PLA concentration [16]. The
formation of bead fibers occurs when the polymer solution
approaches the diluted solution circumstances [19].
High viscoelasticity enables a polymer solution to be
stretched and drawn down in diameter as it travels to the
collector [69]. Viscoelastic solutions produce fibers with a
narrower diameter distribution and no beads [33]. If the ex-
tensional viscosity is not sufficiently raised along the jet
length, the viscoelastic jet will split into single beads [19,
82, 95].
 205 Page 12 of 23
The solution’s elastic response can exceed the effects of
Rayleigh instability, allowing the formation of uniform diam-
eter fibers [19]. However, extremely high viscoelastic solu-
tions can lead to fibers with varying diameters since two ad-
jacent fibers may join to form a chord-type structure. After
spinning, the aligned polymer chains tend to relax to recover
their original entangled and unaligned conformation, and this
effect is more pronounced for highly viscoelastic solutions. If
the timescale is favorable, the elastic recovery may counteract
fiber-forming tendencies giving rise to fibers with a broad
range of diameters. Polymer chains with less mobility i. e.,
at higher polymer concentrations or higher polymer molar
mass, should lead to larger fiber diameters. The mobility is
scaled by the longest relaxation time (λ) (Eq. 4) of the poly-
mers in solution [20]. The longest Rouse relaxation time can
also be determined by the dynamic modulus [96]. Using this
correlation, one can attribute larger diameter fibers at higher
polymer molar mass to higher solution viscosities and longer
relaxation times [9, 30].
6ηs ½ηM w
λ≈ ð4Þ
π2 RT
Where ηs is the solvent viscosity, [η] is the Mark–Houwink
intrinsic viscosity (dependent on the particular polymer-
solvent system), R is the universal gas constant, and T is the
temperature.
The relationship between chain entanglement and diameter
distribution of fibers has been proposed for the electrospinning
process [97]. Such an approach is also applicable to SBS, due
to the similarity of the dynamics of liquid jet stretching, and is
based on the concept of solution entanglement number (Ne)s.
The parameter (Ne)s is defined as the ratio of the polymer
molecular weight (Mw) to its solution entanglement molecular
weight (Me)s (Eq. 5). Although the importance of entangle-
ment for the SBS process is recognized, it is not known pre-
cisely how many entanglements are required to affect/stabilize
fiber formation. Using the solution entanglement number
(Ne)s, the required polymer concentration for fiber formation
may be determined a priori, eliminating the trial-and-error
methodology typically employed to produce spun fibers. The
entanglement number eventually determines whether a spray, a
spindle-knotted fiber or a uniform fiber is obtained [38]. Thus,
embryonic fiber formation is correctly predicted for a variety of
polymer/solvent systems at one entanglement per chain. For
the electrospinning process, stable fiber formation occurred at
≥2.5 entanglements per chain.
Mw
ðN e Þs ¼ ð5Þ
ðM e Þs
Besides polymer structure and its molar mass, polymer-
solvent interactions are also responsible for variations in the
solution viscosity and surface tension [20, 33, 69, 83, 98]. The
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
proper solvent selection for the polymer dissolution is neces-
sary since solvent molecules interact differently with poly-
mers chains [34, 69]. Certain solvents can completely dissolve
a polymer while others only partially dissolve or swell it. To
understand and predict the effect of polymer-solvent miscibil-
ity on the morphology of blow-spun fibers, Oliveira et al. [69]
used the Hansen parameters. The Hansen parameters split the
total cohesive energy into three components, polar interac-
tions (δp), hydrogen bonding (δh), and van der Waals disper-
sion or interactions (δd). These parameters are based on the
concept that “similar dissolves similar” and that materials with
equivalent values of δd, δp, and δh will be more miscible [69,
99]. Oliveira et al. [69] investigated the viscosity differences
for polylactic acid (PLA) solutions prepared in chloroform,
and dichloroethane. Although chloroform and dichloroethane
present a very similar sum of all three Hansen’s parameters
(Table 2), significant differences in PLA solution viscosities
were observed for these solvents. PLA solutions of 8 wt%
showed viscosities of approximately 107 mPa.s and 72 mPa.
s when prepared in chloroform and dichloroethane, respec-
tively. This was explained by an individual aspect of the
Hansen’s parameters. Chloroform showed higher δh and δd
values, suggesting a higher degree of hydrogen bonding and
dispersive or Van der Waals interactions with PLA, as com-
pared to dichloroethane. The high viscosity of PLA/
dichloromethane solutions at low shear rates can be explained
by the high solubility of the polymer since this solvent was the
one that presented the closest Hansen’s parameters to the
PLA. Thus, even if several solvents can solubilize PLA, they
interact with the polymer in different ways, producing solu-
tions with unique properties capable of affecting the spinning
process and, consequently, the fiber morphology [69].
Another remarkable property of the solvent is its boiling
point, which will directly influence its evaporation rate [23,
73]. Most of the published work on solution blow spinning
comprises the use of highly volatile organic solvents or sol-
vent mixtures [100]. Solvents with high boiling points pro-
duce spun fibers with non-uniform morphologies because of
improper volatilization [1, 29, 34]. At insufficient solvent
evaporation, fiber welding occurs, and a wet, film-like mem-
brane is observed [88, 101]. The welding process proceeds by
solvent-based re-dissolution, and subsequent solidification,
and occurs when the fibers containing some un-evaporated
solvent come in contact with each other [82]. Polymer solu-
tions produced from solvents with slow evaporation rates need
Table 2 Hansen’s
parameters for PLA and System δp Δh δd
solvents in (J/cm3)1/2.
Poly(lactic acid) 9.9 6.0 18.6
Chloroform 3.1 5.7 17.8
Dichloromethane 6.3 6.1 18.2
Dichloroethane 7.8 3.0 16.5
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
a longer working distance to ensure that the fibers are suffi-
ciently dry before they reach the collector. Miranda et al. [74]
observed that the mean diameters of blow-spun polystyrene
(PS) fibers were more dependent on the solvent evaporation
rate than on the rheological behavior of the starting solutions.
Spinning from low volatile solvents like water is challenging
since the fibers do not get fully dry before reaching the col-
lector, causing the fibrillar morphology to be destroyed by the
coiling of the polymer molecules [88]. Difficulties in spinning
high molecular weight PVA aqueous solutions have been
overcome by introducing hot air at the point of fiber formation
to force solvent evaporation [88]. For thermoplastic polyure-
thane (TPU)-dimethylformamide (DMF) systems, the alterna-
tive for increasing the evaporation rate of DMF (high boiling
point, 135 °C) and solving the residual solvent problem was
the addition of small amounts of tetrahydrofuran (THF) (boil-
ing temperature of 65 °C). A series of DMF/THF solvent
mixtures at the proportions of 7:3, 5:5, and 3:7 (w/w) were
tested in the preparation of TPU solutions. The solvent mix-
ture was shown to be an excellent option for obtaining more
homogeneous fibers. Interestingly, the higher the proportion
of THF in the DMF/THF mixture, the higher the TPU solu-
bility and the larger the diameter of the fibers [1].
During spinning, the concentration and viscosity of the
solution filaments keep changing due to the gradual solvent
evaporation, which directly impacts the distribution of fibers
reaching the collector [55]. A conical dispersion of filaments
is observed in the lower segment of the spray plume. The
radially symmetric spray pattern on the target shows two dis-
tinct fiber distribution zones: a dense zone with high fiber
density and a dispersed zone with spatially distributed fibers.
While the fibers are randomly oriented at the center of the
dense zone, radially oriented elongated streaks of segregated
fibers are observed emerging from the dense zone towards the
dispersed zone. The radially outward gas flow, after impacting
the target, is responsible for the radially oriented elongated
streaks of segregated fibers [82]. The evaporation rate of the
solvent depends directly on the polymer concentration since in
concentrated solutions, and therefore with less solvent, the
segregation of polymer molecules is prevented, and entangle-
ment is favored [4, 19]. Due to the high surface area and the
exposure to accelerated air flows, the solvent evaporation rates
in blow-spun fibers are usually higher.
It should also be taken into account that a suitable solvent
tends to further expand the polymeric coil due to the effect of
excluded volume [102]. A clad/core structure is formed during
fibers formation due to the rapid solvent evaporation on the jet
stream’s surface. During this short period, the diameter of the
germinal fiber is still decreased. Furthermore, the evaporation
of the solvent entrapped at the inner region of the core gener-
ates a vapor pressure which is relieved by the formation of
small pores developed directly through the shell structure.
This means that the evaporation kinetics affects fiber porosity
Page 13 of 23 205
in SBS [8, 16, 30, 69]. This process is sensitive to relative
humidity higher than 30%. During fiber formation, solvents
with low vapor pressures generate inferior internal pressures
and can diffuse through the clad structure without leaving any
visible pores [69].
Besides affecting porosity, the solvent evaporation rate also
impacts the crystal structure of the resultant polymer mat [17,
69]. At higher solvent vapor concentrations in the surround-
ings, the polymer chains are likely to have more time to pack
into a thermodynamically stable form, inducing an increase in
crystallinity. In contrast, a rapid solidification rate does not
provide enough time for the polymeric chains to organize
themselves into entirely regular structures. This condition
mainly influences the flexible polymers with a lower glass
transition temperature (Tg) since they have greater mobility at
their process temperatures and crystallize in a shorter time than
a rigid polymer with high Tg. For example, poly (lactic acid)
(PLA), poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), and polycaprolactone
(PCL), have Tg values of 60, −11 and − 72 °C, respectively;
thus, the crystallization of PEO and PCL can be favored by the
chain elongation during fiber formation. Spun fibers of PEO
and PCL showed a higher degree of crystallinity compared to
PLA fibers, which was interpreted by the differences in glass
transition temperatures of these polymers [57].
Furthermore, the incorporation of any particle, biomole-
cule, or agent, into the solution will influence the solubility
parameters of the polymer, being fundamental to the investi-
gation of the best polymer-solvent combination [51, 68]. The
presence of TiO2 in nanofibrous polysulfone/TiO 2 and
PVDF/TiO2 nanocomposites had a direct effect on the solvent
evaporation rate [75, 80]. An increase of polymer-particles
interactions seemed to reduce the solvent-polymer and
solvent-particles interactions, leading to greater freedom for
solvent molecules, and favoring their evaporation.
Spinning parameters
While the solution properties dictate the microscopic features,
such as beads or fiber formation, the operating parameters
govern the macroscopic characteristics (like film or fibrous
texture, crystalline structure, and physicochemical properties)
[12, 82].
Pressure and gas type
In solution blow-spinning, the driving forces involved are the
pressure and shear differences at the solution/gas interface
[90], the latter being responsible for the deformation of the
polymeric solution from the internal nozzle to a conical shape
[9]. In this technique, the high-pressure gas must exceed the
surface tension of the polymeric solution and, therefore,
stretch the solution into ultrafine fibers [8, 103, 104].
Simultaneously, due to the high speed and low pressure, the
 205 Page 14 of 23
air jet vaporizes the solvent of the produced nanofibers [9, 31].
Different high-pressure gas sources can be used, including
pressurized air, hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide
[1]. The “blowing medium” refers to any source of air or gas
capable of stretching polymer solution, but most of the sys-
tems described make use of compressed air or nitrogen [9, 30,
57, 64]. In the case of fibers exposed to compressed air con-
taining moisture, their morphology will be as much influenced
the higher the affinity between the solvent and water. Behrens
et al. [23] used CO2 in their experiments because of its capac-
ity for in situ deposition, especially for avoiding the risk of air
embolism due to its solubility in blood. Khayet et al. [105]
studied the effects of the gas type (namely, air, oxygen, nitro-
gen, carbon dioxide, and argon) on the morphological proper-
ties and performance of polyethersulfone (PES) spun fibers
using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and solute transport
analysis. The diameter, surface roughness, and porosity of
the polymer fibers were significantly affected by the type of
gas used. The studied PES fibers could be divided into two
groups: those prepared under gases with higher molecular
mass and lower thermal conductivity (like carbon dioxide
and argon) and those prepared under the other gases (air, ox-
ygen and nitrogen) having lower molecular mass and higher
thermal conductivity. The PES fibers having the smallest di-
ameters were those prepared using gases with high molecular
mass. The fiber diameters increased following the order: Ar <
CO2 < N2 < O2 < air. The average surface roughness values
decrease following the order: Ar > CO2 > N2 > air > O2.
Moreover, the pore sizes were found to be more significant
for the PES fibers prepared under Ar and CO2 compared to
those produced under N2, O2, and air. A plausible explanation
for these behaviors is based on the thermal conductivity of the
different gases used, which will directly influence the solvent
evaporation rate. The evaporation in high thermal conductiv-
ity media (i.e. air, O2 and N2) will be faster than in low thermal
conductivity media (i.e. Ar and CO2). When the thermal con-
ductivity of the gas media is high, more heat is supplied from
the gas media towards the external fiber surface and, conse-
quently, more evaporation of solvent takes place as its vapor
pressure is higher at higher temperature [106]. In addition to
the thermal conductivity of gases, other explanations should
not be discarded, like the gas/polymer interactions and the gas
solubility through the polymeric fiber. Unfortunately, because
the SBS technique is relatively recent, sufficient information
regarding the influence of the carrier gas type on fiber quality
is not yet reported in the literature [105].
During fiber formation in SBS, a jet of the polymer solution
is subject to aerodynamic drag. Throughout the air jet dis-
placement by the environment, the solvent evaporates, giving
rise to ultrafine semi-dry polymeric fibers that can be collected
on practically any substrate [17]. The conditions of fiber elon-
gation and diameter distribution are consequences of the shear
forces acting on the polymer solutions [2]. The gas that leaves
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
the nozzle shapes the solution’s surface into a cone [17]. A
critical parameter in an airbrush spinning technique is the
velocity at which the polymer jet reaches the collecting sur-
face. This process uses the energy stored in the high pressure
compressed gas to elongate the polymer into thin fibers at very
high speeds [34]. When there is no gas flowing through the
outer nozzle, a convex drop of the polymer solution is formed
in the inner nozzle. While the gas flow is directed to the outer
nozzle, a low-pressure region near the orifice of the inner
nozzle develops. The convex drop of the polymer solution
will be drawn into a cone shape in the same proportion as
the gas flow increases through the outer nozzle (Fig. 7(A)).
The photomicrographs demonstrate the solution jet flow from
the cone to the collector. This is due to the combination of the
low-pressure zone and shear at the solution/gas interface, as
shown in Fig. 7(B-D) [9].
The spinning pressure also interferes directly with the qual-
ity of the microstructures formed during the process [8, 34]. In
a study using PLA in DMC, it was observed that pressures
below 30 psi did not provide an appropriate driving force to
overcome the surface tension of the solution, and thus did not
form fibers. In contrast, for pressures greater than 90 psi, the
fiber jets were delivered too fast to the collector, not giving
sufficient time for adequate evaporation of the solvent [16].
This behavior was also observed by other authors [10, 16, 19,
37, 45, 52, 78, 82, 107]. The low gas velocity does not form a
suitable cone for fiber production, while the high gas velocity
forms an unstable cone, in which the cone/fibers dry out in
Fig. 7 Micrographs of blow-spun fibers taken by a high-speed camera.
The low-pressure region at the end of the inner nozzle converted the
polymer solution into a cone (A). The dotted region in (A) was
magnified and shown in (B-D) [9]. Reproduced with permission from
Ref. 9, Medeiros ES, et al. (2009) J Appl Polym Sci 113:2322–2330.
Copyright © 2009 by John Wiley Sons, Inc.
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
random directions [59]. The increase of air velocity pro-
motes an air pressure drop at the center of the jet,
creating a driving force responsible for the polymer so-
lution acceleration [16]. Fiber diameters and fiber size
distributions decrease and become more uniform as the
gas pressure increases; however, the fibers may acquire
a curled and/or twisted morphology at turbulent gas
pressures [9, 10, 45, 56, 57, 59, 65, 104]. Inconsistent
jets produce thicker fibers with a broader mean diameter
distribution, in addition to being superficially porous,
due to deficient solvent evaporation. Not only pressure
interferes with the fiber diameter, but also the solvent
type and the polymer solution concentration, as
discussed before. When PLA was spun in chloroform
or HFP, an increase in pressure resulted in a decrease
in the fiber diameter. When DMC was tested as the
solvent, however, only the polymer concentration was
shown to influence the fiber diameter, without any air
pressure effect in this case [13].
Studies report a parabolic dependence between fiber diam-
eter and pressure for low air pressures, and a linear relation-
ship for higher air pressures [19]. This condition occurs be-
cause the surrounding gas flow on the jet surface that leaves
the nozzle does not allow the accumulation of solvent mole-
cules immediately above the jet surface, so causing a high rate
of evaporation. This happens because the boundary lay-
er on the evaporation surface decreases with the flow
velocity, reducing the diffusion of the solvent from the stag-
nant layer [4, 43]. Thus, at high gas pressures, the solvent
evaporation rate increases, which reduces the fiber diameter.
The increasing gas pressure has a more noticeable effect on
fiber morphology for more concentrated polymer solutions
(~10% wt.) [46]. The reduction in gas pressure increases the
fiber diameter and its distribution, negatively affecting the
spinning process. At low pressures, there is not enough elon-
gation and, consequently, thicker fibers are formed and, when
the pressure is overly high, other effects occur such as jet
instability caused by turbulence at the nozzle outlet [19].
Rajgarhia et al. [35] proved that by adding a secondary gas
jet to the original turbulent gas jet, it is possible to obtain fibers
with even smaller diameters.
The results showed an almost 100% reduction in nanofiber
diameter of bilobal, and interpenetrating network type, nano-
fibers by placing this secondary gas jet at the solution delivery
nozzle. The substantial reduction in fiber diameter occurred by
taking advantage of the synergy of stretching by the two gas
jets and the bending instability caused by the first gas jet. As in
electrospinning, there is a suitable balance between gas pres-
sure and solution feed rate for successful solution blow-spin-
ning. Keeping the gas pressure constant and adjusting the
solution feed rate, these two parameters equilibrate and coop-
erate for the formation of uniform and bead-free fibers [9, 46,
84].
Page 15 of 23 205
Feed rate
By maintaining the polymeric solution jet at constant pressure,
the feed rate of the solution can be adjusted to control the
quality of the fibers being produced [18, 90]. The solution
can be fed into the system by gravity, as in commercial air-
brushes, or through a syringe pump, in which flow control is
more accurate. A low feed rate does not release enough solu-
tion to form continuous fibers and typically results in obstruc-
tion at the needle tip. A high feed rate supplies too much of the
polymer solution at the needle tip and results in the formation
of beads since the pressurized air cannot wholly remove the
solvent [16, 43, 52, 107].
Regarding the effect of feed rate on fiber morphology,
studies have shown that an increase in solution feed rate
causes an increase of fiber diameter and its distribution, main-
ly because the fibers do not dry properly and begin to fuse on
the collector surface [10, 19, 65, 103, 104]. This effect may
become parabolic at lower concentrations [10, 30, 35]. At an
optimal feed rate, a reduction in fiber diameter is expected
because when the feed rate is equivalent to the solution jet
output rate, the conical shape at the nozzle remains stable,
which is the opposite of the nozzle locking case (high feed
rate) or jet instability (low feed rate) [19, 21, 65]. High feed
rates can cause nozzle blockage due to the formation of a drop
that accumulates and solidifies at the tip. Jet instability occurs
when the solution is drawn into the collector faster than the
feed rate. Higher feed rates would naturally increase fiber
productivity, at least in cases where nozzle obstruction would
occur. The optimal value of this parameter is considerably
affected by the viscosity of the solution, which depends on
the molecular weight and the concentration of polymer [19].
Medeiros et al. [9] tested a feed rate of 200 μl/min in a solution
blow-spinning system, a rate well above the commonly
adopted 20 μl/min, and found that it is possible to feed poly-
mer solutions at a higher rate, as long as a specific balance
between the feed rate and the gas pressure is respected.
Variations in any operational parameter affect the morphology
and quality of spun fibers, regardless of the direct influence of
the feed rate on their mean diameter. Besides fiber diameter,
polymer chains orientation, porosity, and crystallinity are also
affected by the feed rate [2, 8, 16, 84]. This parameter might
be the most important process variable of the fiber morpholo-
gy homogeneity.
SBS collector type
The collector used to gather the spun fibers need not necessarily
be solid; it may be a liquid, in which the specific physicochem-
ical reaction will occur. Abdal-Hay et al. [31] did not observe
any differences in the average diameter of fibers collected in a
glass or a water bath. Both collector phases produced nanofi-
bers with proper morphology. This significantly impacts the
 205 Page 16 of 23 J Polym Res (2020) 27:205

Fig. 8 Effect of the distance between the spinning device and the collector on the morphology of PAA nanofibers [10]. Reproduced with permission
from Ref. 10, Li J, et al. (2017) Nanomaterials 7(11):395. Copyright © 2017 by Creative Commons
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
application potential of the technique. The authors also ana-
lyzed the influence of drum velocity on the morphology of
PCL nanofibers through a rotary collector. Due to the high
production rate of the utilized technique, no significant effect
was observed between PCL nanofibers obtained on the static
drum (speed = 0 rpm) and the rotating drum at 500 rpm [31].
Fiber diameter distribution is not affected by collector rotation.
Sometimes, the nature of the collector is more responsible
for performing specific chemical/physical reactions in the fi-
bers than the rotation used. Although it does not cause signif-
icant changes in the diameter of the fibers, the type of SBS
collector may influence the alignment of the micro/nanofibers
structure [67]. Generally, the use of a static collector provides
randomly and nonaligned deposited fibers [60]. Fiber align-
ment can be achieved by the deposition of fibers onto a high-
speed rotating collector, although only partial alignment has
been reported so far for the SBS process [64, 67]. Fiber align-
ment directly affects mechanical behavior in the perpendicular
direction of the aligned mats. Aligned mats are anisotropic,
while nonaligned mats have isotropic behavior. The shape of
the collector, such as opening radius and height, can affect the
porosity of the 3D fibrous structures. For blown spun
polyethyleneoxide (PEO) scaffolds, their porosities when
shaped by a square collector, a hemispherical collector, and
a conical collector were 84.4%, 85%, and 86.9%, respectively
[65].
Nozzle-collector x distance
The distance between the spinning device and the collector is
a processing variable that influences spinnability, but it has
little effect on fiber diameter and its distribution [9, 16, 78].
The effective nozzle-to-collector distance range extends from
the minimum distance required for the fibers to dry before
collection to a maximum distance that avoids the excessive
loss of the jettisoned fibers [10, 16]. The optimum working
distance will increase productivity and the formation of fibers
with the smallest mean diameter [10, 16, 43, 82]. For small
Fig. 9 Schematic representation
of the solution blow spinning
apparatus used fiber preparation
[19]. Reproduced with permission
from Ref. 19, Oliveira JE, et al.
(2011) J Appl Polym Sci
122:3396–3405.Copyright ©
2011 by John Wiley Sons, Inc.
Page 17 of 23 205
distances, semi-solidified fibrous structures are agglomerated
at the collector, and thick micro/nanofibers with many beads
are produced [9]. Some changes in morphology, such as
beads, flat film-like fibers, agglomerations at fiber junction
points, and large interconnected fibers, are characteristic of
the deposition of still wet fibers on the collector or substrate
[18]. At longer distances, the solvent evaporates, and beaded-
free solid fibers are gathered in the collector. Figure 8 shows
the polyamic acid (PAA) nanofibers (8 wt.%) produced from
different spinning device-collector distances [10].
Nozzle diameter and configuration
The relation between nozzle diameter and fiber diameter is
dependent on the polymer solution concentration which af-
fects the surface tension of the drop at the needle tip. Thus,
surface tension directly controls the drop size and the quantity
of solution that is instantly stretched [70]. Enlarging the noz-
zle diameter reduces the friction force per unit volume be-
tween the inner wall of the nozzle and the polymer solution,
which provides multi-jet ejection because of the higher solu-
tion flow volume and the larger pendant droplet. As a conse-
quence, the fiber becomes thinner with increasing the nozzle
size. However, some studies have indicated that a needle with
a smaller diameter is the one that leads to fiber-free granules
and no clogging at the needle tip [49, 103]. Keeping the solu-
tion feed rate constant, the larger the nozzle diameter, the
thicker the extrudate flow and the larger the mean diameter
of the fibers produced [10]. The best nozzle configuration is
one that reduces fluctuations and turbulence intensity, so
preventing instabilities in the fiber formation [45]. The dis-
tance (d) the inner nozzle protrudes beyond the plane of the
outer nozzle had little effect on fiber diameter (Fig. 9).
However, processing was affected by d; when d was zero or
greater than 3 mm, residue from the polymer solution formed
around the nozzle opening or on the inner nozzle itself [9].
Multi-orifice dies for solution blowing were designed
to diminish the propensity for clogging [63, 79].
 205 Page 18 of 23
Kolbasov et al. [89] blow-spun soy protein-poly(ethylene
oxide) nanofibrous nonwovens using industrial multi-
orifice concentric air nozzles (41 nozzles per row and 8
rows). Supplying air concentrically to the central soy pro-
tein jet ensured that the solvent evaporated uniformly,
thereby eliminating the chances of uneven drying.
Zhuang et al. [79] used a 20-orifice die to produce
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mats and observed that
the fibers were three-dimensional curly due to the effect
of the turbulent flow in the gas flow field. This character-
istic increased the porosity and enhanced the transport
properties of the nanofibrous materials. Hofmann et al.
[38] presented a microfluidic nozzle device for the pro-
duction of perfluorinated copolymers and polycaprolactone
(PCL) ultrafine fibers.
In contrast to SBS with a concentric nozzle, the inner noz-
zle of the microfluidic device did not protrude beyond the
outlet of the compressed air. Within the microfluidic nozzle,
the air stream approached perpendicularly from the sides.
Uniform fibers with virtually endless length and narrow size
distribution were produced in a continuous process while hav-
ing an accurate control over the fiber diam eter.
Hydrodynamics and mass balance quantitatively predicted
the fiber diameter, which was only a function of feed rate
and air pressure, with a small correction accounting for any
viscous dissipation during jet formation. Hell et al. [61] devel-
oped a semi-automated SBS nozzle for the production of PCL
mats and compared the results to those found for airbrushing,
using the same set of parameters. Although the fibers pro-
duced by both methods exhibited equivalent diameters, the
mats presented different microstructural characteristics.
Airbrushing seemed to generate more beads and fiber bundles
than the semi-automated process. This difference is neither
good nor bad, considering that there is a suitable morphology
for each application, but it will influence the scaffold’s
properties.
The optimum spinning conditions are dependent on many
parameters, whether related to the polymer solution or to the
operational variables. Through statistical and experimental
analysis, it is possible to establish the optimal spinning con-
dition for a specific polymer system. For each polymer-
solvent system, there will be ‘fiber spinnability limits’ capable
of maximizing fiber formation and producing materials with-
out any undesirable structural features [16, 82]. So, rather than
analyzing the effect of the isolated processing parameters, it is
imperative to evaluate their combined effect since interactions
between experimental variables always exist [9, 13, 16, 26,
70]. Once the processing window for the blow-spinning of a
particular solution system is achieved, no significant changes
in fiber formation or fiber diameter can be observed by vary-
ing the spinning parameters [26]. The reproducibility of the
SBS method depends mostly on controlling the standard de-
viation of the fiber diameter [13, 16, 66].
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
Other variables that affect the SBS process
Spinning temperature
In the SBS process, the temperature will affect the volatiliza-
tion speed of the organic solvent. When the temperature is
low, the solvent volatilization is slow, and beaded micro/
nanofibers are produced. However, if the temperature is too
high, the solvent volatilization becomes very fast, which dis-
turbs solution spinning, and produces non-uniform fibers.
Moreover, fiber trickle would tangle in spinneret easily and
plug it [76].
Relative environment humidity
The relative humidity of the surrounding environment can
also affect the porosity and the fine topographic structure of
the fibrous mats [13, 17, 18, 24]. Controlling the relative hu-
midity of the environment is essential for the production of
bead-free smooth fibers [18]. The presence of micropores on
the surface of the fibers has been related to high relative hu-
midity (Rh > 30%) operations [13, 34, 82]. Analogous to the
electrospinning process, the pore formation in SBS is also
expected to arise from the complex polymer-solvent interac-
tion with the moisture in the air. Fibrous mat thickness (fiber
mass) is another variable that affects the pore diameter of the
final mat network. By increasing the mat thickness, and thus
the scaffold layers, fiber entanglement also increases, which in
turn rapidly decreases the pore size [25, 39, 42, 64].
Particle, additive or polymer phaseadditions
The SBS process has been proven to be an efficient technique
to produce hybrid fibers containing reinforcing and/or biolog-
ical agents. In this case, the viscosity and surface tension of the
solutions increase with a higher solid content and a higher
nanofiller concentration, which will have an effect on the
morphology of the spun fibers [27, 67]. Depending on the
type and intensity of the interactions between the solids/filler
and the polymer, the viscosity and surface tension of the so-
lutions will change, resulting in polymer structural rearrange-
ments, thus altering the spun fiber’s morphology [27, 68]. The
mean diameter of polyurethane (PU) nanofibers increased
slightly when multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)
were incorporated into the polymeric solution [1, 20].
Considering scaffolds made from polymeric blends,
transmission electron microscopy (TEM) provided evidence
that fibers were comprised of core/sheath structures with one
polymer in the core and the other in the sheath. Core/sheath
structures are formed due to differences in the surface tension,
and polymer-solvent, and polymer-polymer interactions [28].
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
Applications of SBS-spun fibers
Many applications can benefit from using the SBS process for
preparing fibrous materials. This technique also allows tailor-
ing of the topography of the mat’s surface, further enhancing
its applicability [75]. The mats can be built with as many
layers as desired, achieving satisfactory structural integrity
[60]. Moreover, two air-jet spinning (AJS) devices can be
used simultaneously to produce dual-polymer hybrid fibrous
scaffolds deposited layer by layer with a variable pore struc-
ture, and tunable mechanical properties [39]. Compared to
electrospinning, airbrushed network scaffolds have greater
pore size and higher porosity, which favors cell infiltration
and justifies their use in biomaterials [12, 39, 41, 71, 85].
This specific microrelief in SBS nonwoven materials facili-
tates the migration and adhesion of cells into the bulk of the
mat and creates favorable conditions for the receipt of nutri-
ents and the removal of cell’s by-products [108]. SBS-
produced fibers can be used as cardiac engineered scaffolds
[64], controlled-release fiber systems of active agents [3, 85,
86], and biomedical applications [73, 87], among others.
Researchers have discussed direct nanofiber deposition, using
an airbrush technique, onto different targets and living organ-
isms for surgical hemostatics surgical sealants, or tissue
reconstruction/regeneration [29, 72, 87].
SBS-spun materials can show magnetic properties when
produced with nickel nanoparticles, so finding applications
as sensors and impurities removers from oil, water, and blood
[77]. Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blow spun nanofibers acted as a
proper support to immobilize tricyanofuran-hydrazone (TCF-
H) multi-stimuli responsive molecular in the development of a
solid-state colorimetric sensor [53]. Polyaniline (PANI)/poly-
acrylonitrile (PAN) core/shell composites nanofibers have po-
tential applications in batteries, electromagnetic shielding, an-
tistatic material, adsorption of heavy metal ions (like Cr(VI)),
and other fields [54]. Polystyrene-based membranes prepared
through SBS have been used for oil adsorption in oil spills
cleanup and wastewater process [37, 58]. Metal-Organic
Framework (MOF)-polymer fibers produced by SBS provide
an exciting platform for applications in separation and cataly-
sis, as adsorbents, and as particulate filters [30]. Zirconia
(ZrO2) ceramic fibers, prepared by as-spun PVP/zirconium
oxychloride (ZrOCl3) composite precursor, have been applied
as supports for catalysis, and filtration at high temperature
[109]. The SBS process has also been chosen as a route to
industrialize other ceramic fiber mats, such as TiO2, SnO2,
SiO2, Al2O3, and Y-Ba-Cu-O (YBCO) [80, 103, 109–111].
A compromise of properties limits the use of these mate-
rials. For example, a scaffold’s porosity may improve cell
adhesion, but it may also interfere with its mechanical prop-
erties [12]. The presence of a few PCL in PA6/PCL 90/10
composite scaffolds increased the porosity, the tensile
strength, and the elongation at break [42]. Another factor that
Page 19 of 23 205
affects the mechanical properties is the presence of beads in
the polymer scaffold. Beads are generally considered as de-
merits in a spun fibrous material as they provide additional
stress points [42]. The presence of beads may create local
traction stress concentration and ultimately lead to early fail-
ure [70]. The load distribution in a fiber is usually uniform if
its diameter is uniform [1]. Overall, the number of polymer
beads within the scaffold structure should be minimized and
not occupy a surface area of more than 3% of the fiber assem-
bly. Rempel et al. [51], however, reported a beneficial aspect
of the presence of beads in ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) scaf-
folds, used as vehicles for the controlled release of phero-
mones. According to the authors, the beads functioned as a
reservoir of actives agents, contributing to the incorporation
and long release period of the active agent.
Future perspectives
The SBS process has great potential to be explored because of
its several advantages over other micro-nano fiber production
techniques. Compared to electrospinning, the SBS method
solves the drawback of fiber production under high electrical
conditions, allowing in situ targeting. The technique is adapt-
able for a range of solvents with limited toxicity, and different
types of polymers, particles, fillers, and composite precursor
mixtures, hence expanding the manufacture of highly func-
tional nonwoven micro and nano textiles [34–36]. Requiring
only a commercial airbrush, a concentrated polymeric solu-
tion, and a compressed gas source, the SBS can be used for the
deposition of fiber mats on non-conductive coverages, and in
several applications on health care and agriculture [10].
Because they can be deposited on-demand, SBS can easily
create conformal textiles, and materials with custom geome-
tries from a scalable self-contained process [49]. The simple
apparatus required for SBS will motivate researchers to inves-
tigate unconventional applications for fibrous materials, such
as wearable electronics, energy storage batteries (ion separa-
tor), biomaterials, virus barrier, and environmental monitoring
sensors [112–115]. Direct deposition of cell-containing fibers
onto living targets enables the production of biological scaf-
folds and biomimetic materials [116]. Moreover, the fibrous
materials developed by SBS are more commercially scalable,
which is crucial for their applicability. The portability of the
technique also speeds production and reduces process ex-
penses. Several researchers have improved SBS with multiple
nozzles and grids to increase the production scale, therefore
obtaining distinctive materials [89]. Since SBS is a newer and
less reported technique, it is still necessary to establish a sub-
stantiated relation between processing variables and fiber
morphology for the method to be controllable and reproduc-
ible. Most of the current applications of SBS fibrous materials
are on the early proof-of-concept stage, and most
 205 Page 20 of 23
characterizations are still conducted only in vitro, which con-
firms the urgency of further investigation.
This literature review had the purpose of enlightening the
academic community about the polymer systems already test-
ed by SBS, thus facilitating our choice for a more suitable
system in a distinct application. It is now clearer which sys-
tems have been used most in the art and which challenges are
most faced by scientists. From the studies reported in Table 1
of this paper, researchers will be able to find new applications
for the polymer systems which have already been tested. It
will also be possible to optimize the reported limitations faced
by other authors and having insights for new kinds of mate-
rials as well.
Conclusion
This review article aimed at analyzing the central polymeric
systems that had been processed by the solution blow-
spinning technique (SBS). A literature review was conducted
in four databases using specific keywords, which disclosed a
total of seventy-nine relevant articles published in the last
nineteen years. The number of publications found already
denotes the early stage of the technique, which still has much
to be investigated. Even though other reviews have already
reported the fundamental principles of the technique, none of
them summarized the central polymeric systems that have
been studied, the adaptation strategies that have been tested,
and the application fields to which research has been pointing
out. This paper will help polymeric researchers who use SBS
to have an understanding of the current scenario and being
able to explore new combinations of polymer-solvent systems
not accessible to other spinning techniques. New fibrous ma-
terials may conveniently be produced and scalable from the
knowledge compiled in this paper, given the potential of the
SBS.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge financial support from the
Brazilian Agency Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior (CAPES) through the scholarships to Silvana Pereira Rempel
and Lucas Dall Agnol, and a post-doctoral fellowship to Fernanda Dias.
Author’s contributions S.P.R. and O.B. had the idea to organize this
review to support S.P.R.’s master’s dissertation. F.T.G.D. and L.D. de-
signed the databases search for articles and built Table 1. S.P.R. was
responsible for obtaining the copyrights of the Figs. L.D. was responsible
for formatting the text and references. F.T.G.D. and O.B. made a critical
correction of the document. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest regarding the publication of this article.
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
References
1. Kuk E, Ha Y-M, Yu J, Im I-T, Kim Y, Jung YC (2016) Robust
and flexible polyurethane composite Nanofibers incorporating
multi-walled carbon nanotubes produced by solution blow spin-
ning. Macromol Mater Eng 301(4):364–370
2. Souza MA, Sakamoto KY, Mattoso LHC (2014) Release of the
Diclofenac sodium by Nanofibers of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-
3-hydroxyvalerate) obtained from electrospinning and solution
blow spinning. J Nanomater 2014:129035
3. Bonan RF, Bonan PR, Batista AU, Sampaio FC, Albuquerque AJ,
Moraes MC, Mattoso LH, Glenn GM, Medeiros ES, Oliveira JE
(2015) In vitro antimicrobial activity of solution blow spun
poly(lactic acid)/polyvinylpyrrolidone nanofibers loaded with co-
paiba (Copaifera sp.) oil. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 48:
372–377
4. Tang D, Zhuang X, Zhang C, Cheng B, Li X (2015) Generation of
nanofibers via electrostatic-induction-assisted solution blow spin-
ning. J Appl Polym Sci 132(31):42326
5. Oliveira JE, Mattoso LH, Medeiros ES, Zucolotto V (2012)
Poly(lactic acid)/carbon nanotube fibers as novel platforms for
glucose biosensors. Biosensors (Basel) 2(1):70–82
6. Ahmed J, Matharu RK, Shams T, Illangakoon UE, Edirisinghe M
(2018) A comparison of electric-field-driven and pressure-driven
Fiber generation methods for drug delivery. Macromol Mater Eng
303(5):1700577
7. Benavides RE, Jana SC, Reneker DH (2012) Nanofibers from
scalable gas jet process. ACS Macro Lett 1(8):1032–1036
8. Bolbasov EN, Anissimov YG, Pustovoytov AV, Khlusov IA,
Zaitsev AA, Zaitsev KV, Lapin IN, Tverdokhlebov SI (2014)
Ferroelectric polymer scaffolds based on a copolymer of tetraflu-
oroethylene with vinylidene fluoride: fabrication and properties.
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 40:32–41
9. Medeiros ES, Glenn GM, Klamczynski AP, Orts WJ, Mattoso
LHC (2009) Solution blow spinning: a new method to produce
micro- and nanofibers from polymer solutions. J Appl Polym Sci
113(4):2322–2330
10. Li J, Song G, Yu J, Wang Y, Zhu J, Hu Z (2017) Preparation of
solution blown Polyamic acid Nanofibers and their Imidization
into polyimide Nanofiber Mats. Nanomaterials (Basel) 7(11):395
11. Bonan RF, Bonan PRF, Batista AUD, Perez DEC, Castellano
LRC, Oliveira JE, Medeiros ES (2017) Poly(lactic acid)/poly(vi-
nyl pyrrolidone) membranes produced by solution blow spinning:
structure, thermal, spectroscopic, and microbial barrier properties.
J Appl Polym Sci 134(19):44802
12. Bolbasov EN, Stankevich KS, Sudarev EA, Bouznik VM,
Kudryavtseva VL, Antonova LV, Matveeva VG, Anissimov
YG, Tverdokhlebov SI (2016) The investigation of the production
method influence on the structure and properties of the ferroelec-
tric nonwoven materials based on vinylidene fluoride – tetraflu-
oroethylene copolymer. Mater Chem Phys 182:338–346
13. da Silva Parize DD, de Oliveira JE, Foschini MM, Marconcini JM,
Mattoso LHC (2016) Poly(lactic acid) fibers obtained by solution
blow spinning: effect of a greener solvent on the fiber diameter. J
Appl Polym Sci 133(18):43379
14. RMDC F, Menezes RR, Oliveira JE, de Medeiros ES (2015)
Production of submicrometric fibers of mullite by solution blow
spinning (SBS). Mater Lett 149:47–49
15. Souza MA, Oliveira JE, Medeiros ES, Glenn GM, Mattoso LH
(2015) Controlled release of linalool using Nanofibrous mem-
branes of poly(lactic acid) obtained by electrospinning and solu-
tion blow spinning: a comparative study. J Nanosci Nanotechnol
15(8):5628–5636
16. da Silva Parize DD, Foschini MM, de Oliveira JE, Klamczynski
AP, Glenn GM, Marconcini JM, Mattoso LHC (2016) Solution
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
blow spinning: parameters optimization and effects on the proper-
ties of nanofibers from poly(lactic acid)/dimethyl carbonate solu-
tions. J Mater Sci 51(9):4627–4638
17. Abdal-Hay A, Oh YS, Yousef A, Pant HR, Vanegas P, Lim JK
(2014) In vitro deposition of Ca-P nanoparticles on air jet spinning
nylon 6 Nanofibers scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Appl Surf
Sci 307:69–76
18. Abdal-Hay A, Hamdy AS, Khalil KA, Lim JH (2015) A novel
simple one-step air jet spinning approach for deposition of poly(-
vinyl acetate)/hydroxyapatite composite nanofibers on Ti im-
plants. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 49:681–690
19. Oliveira JE, Moraes EA, Costa RGF, Afonso AS, Mattoso LHC,
Orts WJ, Medeiros ES (2011) Nano and submicrometric fibers of
poly(D,L-lactide) obtained by solution blow spinning: Process
and solution variables. J Appl Polym Sci 122(5):3396–3405
20. Shang JH, Benavides RE, Jana SC (2014) Effects of polymer
viscosity and Nanofillers on morphology of Nanofibers obtained
by a gas jet method. Int Polym Process 29(1):103–111
21. Wojasiński M, Pilarek M, Ciach T (2014) Comparative studies of
electrospinning and solution blow spinning processes for the pro-
duction of Nanofibrous poly(L-lactic acid) materials for biomedi-
cal engineering. Pol J Chem Technol 16(2):43–50
22. Magaz A, Roberts AD, Faraji S, Nascimento TRL, Medeiros ES,
Zhang W, Greenhalgh RD, Mautner A, Li X, Blaker JJ (2018)
Porous, aligned, and biomimetic fibers of regenerated silk fibroin
produced by solution blow spinning. Biomacromolecules 19(12):
4542–4553
23. Behrens AM, Casey BJ, Sikorski MJ, Wu KL, Tutak W, Sandler
AD, Kofinas P (2014) In situ deposition of PLGA Nanofibers via
solution blow spinning. ACS Macro Lett 3(3):249–254
24. Srinivasan S, Chhatre SS, Mabry JM, Cohen RE, McKinley GH
(2011) Solution spraying of poly(methyl methacrylate) blends to
fabricate microtextured, superoleophobic surfaces. Polymer
52(14):3209–3218
25. Tutak W, Sarkar S, Lin-Gibson S, Farooque TM, Jyotsnendu G,
Wang D, Kohn J, Bolikal D, Simon Jr CG (2013) The support of
bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber
scaffolds. Biomaterials 34(10):2389–2398
26. Cena CR, Silva MJ, Malmonge LF, Malmonge JA (2018)
Poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) sub-microfibers produced by solution
blow spinning. J Polym Res 25(11):238
27. Martinez-Sanz M, Bilbao-Sainz C, Du WX, Chiou BS, Williams
TG, Wood DF, Imam SH, Orts WJ, Lopez-Rubio A, Lagaron JM
(2015) Antimicrobial poly(lactic acid)-based Nanofibres devel-
oped by solution blow spinning. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 15(1):
616–627
28. Oliveira JE, Moraes EA, Marconcini JM, LHC M, Glenn GM,
Medeiros ES (2013) Properties of poly(lactic acid) and poly(eth-
ylene oxide) solvent polymer mixtures and nanofibers made by
solution blow spinning. J Appl Polym Sci 129(6):3672–3681
29. Bedeloğlu AC, Bhullar SK, Borazan I, Cin ZI, Demir A (2017)
Manufacturing and morphology of poly(−caprolactone) based
microfibre webs for biomedical applications through airbrush
technique. Indian J Fibre Text Res 42(1):38–42
30. Deneff JI, Walton KS (2019) Production of metal-organic frame-
work-bearing polystyrene fibers by solution blow spinning. Chem
Eng Sci 203:220–227
31. Abdal-Hay A, Barakat NM, Lim JK (2012) Novel technique for
polymeric Nanofibers preparation: air jet spinning. Sci Adv Mater
4(12):1268–1275
32. Tutak W, Gelven G, Markle C, Palmer X-L (2015) Rapid polymer
fiber airbrushing: impact of a device design on the fiber fabrication
and matrix quality. J Appl Polym Sci 132(47):42813
33. DDDS P, Oliveira JE, Williams T, Wood D, Avena-Bustillos RJ,
Klamczynski AP, Glenn GM, Marconcini JM, LHC M (2017)
Solution blow spun nanocomposites of poly(lactic acid)/cellulose
Page 21 of 23 205
nanocrystals from Eucalyptus Kraft pulp. Carbohydr Polym 174:
923–932
34. Abdal-hay A, Sheikh FA, Lim JK (2013) Air jet spinning of hy-
droxyapatite/poly(lactic acid) hybrid nanocomposite membrane
mats for bone tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces
102:635–643
35. Rajgarhia S, Jana SC (2017) Influence of secondary stretching on
diameter and morphology of bicomponent polymer nanofibers
produced by gas jet fiber process. Polymer 123:219–231
36. Abdal-hay A, Makhlouf AS, Khalil KA (2015) Novel, facile,
single-step technique of polymer/TiO(2) Nanofiber composites
membrane for Photodegradation of methylene blue. ACS Appl
Mater Interfaces 7(24):13329–13341
37. Zhang X, Lv J, Yin X, Li Z, Lin Q, Zhu L (2018) Nanofibrous
polystyrene membranes prepared through solution blow spinning
with an airbrush and the facile application in oil recovery. Appl
Phys A Mater Sci Process 124(5):362
38. Hofmann E, Kruger K, Haynl C, Scheibel T, Trebbin M, Forster S
(2018) Microfluidic nozzle device for ultrafine fiber solution blow
spinning with precise diameter control. Lab Chip 18(15):2225–
2234
39. Abdal-hay A, Memic A, Hussein KH, Oh YS, Fouad M, Al-Jassir
FF, Woo H-M, Morsi Y, Mo X, Ivanovski S (2017) Rapid fabri-
cation of highly porous and biocompatible composite textile tubu-
lar scaffold for vascular tissue engineering. Eur Polym J 96:27–43
40. Francois S, Sarra-Bournet C, Jaffre A, Chakfe N, Durand B,
Laroche G (2010) Characterization of an air-spun poly(L-lactic
acid) nanofiber mesh. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
93(2):531–543
41. Hoffman K, Skrtic D, Sun J, Tutak W (2015) Airbrushed com-
posite polymer Zr-ACP nanofiber scaffolds with improved cell
penetration for bone tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Part C
Methods 21(3):284–291
42. Abdal-Hay A, Abdelrazek Khalil K, Al-Jassir FF, Gamal-Eldeen
AM (2017) Biocompatibility properties of polyamide 6/PCL
blends composite textile scaffold using EA.hy926 human endo-
thelial cells. Biomed Mater 12(3):035002
43. Polat Y, Pampal ES, Stojanovska E, Simsek R, Hassanin A, Kilic
A, Demir A, Yilmaz S (2016) Solution blowing of thermoplastic
polyurethane nanofibers: a facile method to produce flexible po-
rous materials. J Appl Polym Sci 133(9):43025
44. Costa RGF, Brichi GS, Ribeiro C, Mattoso LHC (2016)
Nanocomposite fibers of poly(lactic acid)/titanium dioxide pre-
pared by solution blow spinning. Polym Bull 73(11):2973–2985
45. Lou H, Han W, Wang X (2014) Numerical study on the solution
blowing annular jet and its correlation with Fiber morphology. Ind
Eng Chem Res 53(7):2830–2838
46. Lou H, Li W, Li C, Wang X (2013) Systematic investigation on
parameters of solution blown micro/nanofibers using response
surface methodology based on box-Behnken design. J Appl
Polym Sci 130(2):1383–1391
47. Sinha-Ray S, Sinha-Ray S, Yarin AL, Pourdeyhimi B (2015)
Theoretical and experimental investigation of physical mecha-
nisms responsible for polymer nanofiber formation in solution
blowing. Polymer 56:452–463
48. Stojanovska E, Canbay E, Pampal ES, Calisir MD, Agma O, Polat
Y, Simsek R, Gundogdu NAS, Akgul Y, Kilic A (2016) A review
on non-electro nanofibre spinning techniques. RSC Adv 6(87):
83783–83801
49. Daristotle JL, Behrens AM, Sandler AD, Kofinas P (2016) A
review of the fundamental principles and applications of solution
blow spinning. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8(51):34951–34963
50. Teno J, González-Gaitano G, González-Benito J (2017) Poly (eth-
ylene-co-vinyl acetate) films prepared by solution blow spinning:
surface characterization and its relation with E. coli adhesion.
Polym Test 60:140–148
205 Page 22 of 23
51. Rempel SP, Engler LG, Soares MRF, Catafesta J, Moura S,
Bianchi O (2019) Nano/microfibers of EVA copolymer obtained
by solution blow spinning: processing, solution properties, and
pheromone release application. J Appl Polym Sci 136(24):47647
52. González Benito FJ, Teno Díaz J, Torres DD, M. (2017) Solution
blow spinning and obtaining submicrometric fibers of different
polymers. Int J Nanoparticles Nanotech 3(1):007
53. Khattab TA, Rehan M, Aly SA, Hamouda T, Haggag KM,
Klapötke TM (2017) Fabrication of PAN-TCF-hydrazone nano-
fibers by solution blowing spinning technique: naked-eye colori-
metric sensor. J Environ Chem Eng 5(3):2515–2523
54. Ren J, Huang X, Wang N, Lu K, Zhang X, Li W, Liu D (2016)
Preparation of polyaniline-coated polyacrylonitrile fiber mats and
their application to Cr(VI) removal. Synth Met 222:255–266
55. Zhuang X, Jia K, Cheng B, Guan K, Kang W, Ren Y (2013)
Preparation of Polyacrylonitrile Nanofibers by solution blowing
process. J Eng Fiber Fabr. https://doi.org/10.1177/
155892501300800111
56. Shi L, Zhuang X, Tao X, Cheng B, Kang W (2013) Solution
blowing nylon 6 nanofiber mats for air filtration. Fibers Polym
14(9):1485–1490
57. Oliveira JE, Mattoso LHC, Orts WJ, Medeiros ES (2013)
Structural and morphological characterization of micro and
Nanofibers produced by electrospinning and solution blow spin-
ning: a comparative study. Adv Mater Sc Eng 2013:409572
58. Lv J, Yin X, Li R, Chen J, Lin Q, Zhu L (2019) Superhydrophobic
PCL/PS composite nanofibrous membranes prepared through so-
lution blow spinning with an airbrush for oil adsorption. Polym
Eng Sci 59(S1):E171–E181
59. Chen C, Townsend AD, Sell SA, Martin RS (2017) Microchip-
based 3D-cell culture using polymer Nanofibers generated by so-
lution blow spinning. Anal Methods 9(22):3274–3283
60. Simbara MMO, Santos Jr AR, Andrade AJP, Malmonge SM
(2019) Comparative study of aligned and nonaligned
poly(epsilon-caprolactone) fibrous scaffolds prepared by solution
blow spinning. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 107(5):
1462–1470
61. Hell AF, Simbara MMO, Rodrigues P, Kakazu DA, Malmonge
SM (2018) Production of fibrous polymer scaffolds for tissue en-
gineering using an automated solution blow spinning system. Res
Biomed Eng 34(3):273–278
62. Behrens AM, Kim J, Hotaling N, Seppala JE, Kofinas P, Tutak W
(2016) Rapid fabrication of poly(DL-lactide) nanofiber scaffolds
with tunable degradation for tissue engineering applications by
air-brushing. Biomed Mater 11(3):035001
63. Medeiros ELG, Braz AL, Porto IJ, Menner A, Bismarck A,
Boccaccini AR, Lepry WC, Nazhat SN, Medeiros ES, Blaker JJ
(2016) Porous bioactive Nanofibers via cryogenic solution blow
spinning and their formation into 3D macroporous scaffolds. ACS
Biomater Sci Eng 2(9):1442–1449
64. Tomecka E, Wojasinski M, Jastrzebska E, Chudy M, Ciach T,
Brzozka Z (2017) Poly(l-lactic acid) and polyurethane nanofibers
fabricated by solution blow spinning as potential substrates for
cardiac cell culture. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 75:305–316
65. Liang F, Fang F, Zeng J, Wang Z, Ou W, Chen X, Wu P, Wang H,
Zhang L (2017) Fabrication of three-dimensional micro-nanofiber
structures by a novel solution blow spinning device. AIP Adv
7(2):025002
66. Bilbao-Sainz C, Chiou B-S, Valenzuela-Medina D, Du W-X,
Gregorski KS, Williams TG, Wood DF, Glenn GM, Orts WJ
(2014) Solution blow spun poly(lactic acid)/hydroxypropyl meth-
ylcellulose nanofibers with antimicrobial properties. Eur Polym J
54:1–10
67. Oliveira JE, Zucolotto V, Mattoso LH, Medeiros ES (2012) Multi-
walled carbon nanotubes and poly(lactic acid) nanocomposite
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
fibrous membranes prepared by solution blow spinning. J
Nanosci Nanotechnol 12(3):2733–2741
68. Oliveira JE, Medeiros ES, Cardozo L, Voll F, Madureira EH,
Mattoso LH, Assis OB (2013) Development of poly(lactic acid)
nanostructured membranes for the controlled delivery of proges-
terone to livestock animals. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl
33(2):844–849
69. Oliveira J, Brichi GS, Marconcini JM, Mattoso LHC, Glenn GM,
Medeiros ES (2014) Effect of solvent on the physical and mor-
phological properties of poly(lactic acid) Nanofibers obtained by
solution blow spinning. J Eng Fiber Fabr 9(4):117–125
70. Sabbatier G, Abadie P, Dieval F, Durand B, Laroche G (2014)
Evaluation of an air spinning process to produce tailored biosyn-
thetic nanofibre scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 35:
347–353
71. Granados-Hernandez MV, Serrano-Bello J, Montesinos JJ,
Alvarez-Gayosso C, Medina-Velazquez LA, Alvarez-Fregoso O,
Alvarez-Perez MA (2018) In vitro and in vivo biological charac-
terization of poly(lactic acid) fiber scaffolds synthesized by air jet
spinning. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106(6):2435–
2446
72. Suarez-Franco JL, Vazquez-Vazquez FC, Pozos-Guillen A,
Montesinos JJ, Alvarez-Fregoso O, Alvarez-Perez MA (2018)
Influence of diameter of fiber membrane scaffolds on the biocom-
patibility of hPDL mesenchymal stromal cells. Dent Mater J
37(3):465–473
73. Cerna Nahuis LE, Alvim Valente C, de Freitas OD, de Souza
Basso NR, Antonio Malmonge J (2019) Preparation and charac-
terization of polymeric microfibers of PLGA and PLGA/PPy
composite fabricated by solution blow spinning. Macromol
Symp 383(1):1800030
74. Miranda KWE, Mattoso LHC, Bresolin JD, Hubinger SZ,
Medeiros ES, de Oliveira JE (2019) Polystyrene bioactive nano-
fibers using orange oil as an ecofriendly solvent. J Appl Polym Sci
136(15):47337
75. Teno J, González-Gaitano G, González-Benito J (2017)
Nanofibrous polysulfone/TiO2 nanocomposites: surface proper-
ties and their relation with E. coliadhesion. J Polym Sci B Polym
Phys 55(21):1575–1584
76. Guan KT, Zhuang XP, Yan GL, Cheng BW (2011) Fabrication
and properties of polyurethane Nanofibers nonwoven by solution
blowing. Adv Mater Res 332-334:1339–1342
77. Dias YJ, Gimenes TC, Torres SAPV, Malmonge JA, Gualdi AJ,
de Paula FR (2017) PVDF/Ni fibers synthesis by solution blow
spinning technique. J Mater Sci Mater Eletron 29(1):514–518
78. Dias GC, Cellet TSP, Santos MC, Sanches AO, Malmonge LF
(2019) PVDF nanofibers obtained by solution blow spinning with
use of a commercial airbrush. J Polym Res 26(4):87
79. Zhuang X, Shi L, Jia K, Cheng B, Kang W (2013) Solution blown
nanofibrous membrane for microfiltration. J Memb Sci 429:66–70
80. González-Benito J, Teno J, González-Gaitano G, Xu S, Chiang
MY (2017) PVDF/TiO2 nanocomposites prepared by solution
blow spinning: surface properties and their relation with S.
Mutans adhesion. Polym Test 58:21–30
81. Vural M, Behrens AM, Ayyub OB, Ayoub JJ, Kofinas P (2015)
Sprayable elastic conductors based on block copolymer silver
nanoparticle composites. ACS Nano 9(1):336–344
82. Sow PK, Ishita SR (2018) Sustainable approach to recycle waste
polystyrene to high-value submicron fibers using solution blow
spinning and application towards oil-water separation. J Environ
Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.11.031
83. Liu F, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Woods R, Chiou BS, Williams TG,
Wood DF, Bilbao-Sainz C, Yokoyama W, Glenn GM, McHugh
TH, Zhong F (2016) Preparation of Zein fibers using solution
blow spinning method. J Food Sci 81(12):N3015–N3025
J Polym Res (2020) 27:205
84. Liu F, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Bilbao-Sainz C, Woods R, Chiou BS,
Wood D, Williams T, Yokoyama W, Glenn GM, McHugh TH,
Zhong F (2017) Solution blow spinning of food-grade gelatin
Nanofibers. J Food Sci 82(6):1402–1411
85. Paschoalin RT, Traldi B, Aydin G, Oliveira JE, Rutten S, Mattoso
LHC, Zenke M, Sechi A (2017) Solution blow spinning fibres:
new immunologically inert substrates for the analysis of cell ad-
hesion and motility. Acta Biomater 51:161–174
86. Nepomuceno NC, Barbosa MA, Bonan RF, Oliveira JE, Sampaio
FC, Medeiros ES (2018) Antimicrobial activity of PLA/PEG
nanofibers containing terpinen-4-ol against Aggregatibacter
actinomycetemcomitans. J Appl Polym Sci 135(6):45782
87. Singh R, Ahmed F, Polley P, Giri J (2018) Fabrication and char-
acterization of Core-Shell Nanofibers using a next-generation air-
brush for biomedical applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces
10(49):41924–41934
88. Santos AMC, Medeiros ELG, Blaker JJ, Medeiros ES (2016)
Aqueous solution blow spinning of poly(vinyl alcohol) micro-
and nanofibers. Mater Lett 176:122–126
89. Kolbasov A, Sinha-Ray S, Joijode A, Hassan MA, Brown D,
Maze B, Pourdeyhimi B, Yarin AL (2015) Industrial-scale solu-
tion blowing of soy protein Nanofibers. Ind Eng Chem Res 55(1):
323–333
90. Abdal-hay A, Hamdy AS, Lim JH (2014) Facile preparation of
titanium dioxide micro/nanofibers and tubular structures by air jet
spinning. Ceram Int 40(10):15403–15409
91. Yu JH, Fridrikh SV, Rutledge GC (2006) The role of elasticity in
the formation of electrospun fibers. Polymer 47(13):4789–4797
92. Boger DV (1977) A highly elastic constant-viscosity fluid. J Non-
newton Fluid Mech 3:87–91
93. Fang Y, Dulaney AD, Gadley J, Maia JM, Ellison CJ (2015)
Manipulating characteristic timescales and fiber morphology in
simultaneous centrifugal spinning and photopolymerization.
Polymer 73:42–51
94. Lopes AR (2016) Caracterização de soluções poliméricas para
aplicação em revestimentos para a conservação de produtos
alimentares. Master's thesis, Universidade D Coimbra
95. Regev O, Vandebril S, Zussman E, Clasen C (2010) The role of
interfacial viscoelasticity in the stabilization of an electrospun jet.
Polymer 51(12):2611–2620
96. Roland CM, Archer LA, Mott PH, Sanchez-Reyes J (2004)
Determining rouse relaxation times from the dynamic modulus
of entangled polymers. J Rheol 48(2):395–403
97. Shenoy SL, Bates WD, Frisch HL, Wnek GE (2005) Role of chain
entanglements on fiber formation during electrospinning of poly-
mer solutions: good solvent, non-specific polymer–polymer inter-
action limit. Polymer 46(10):3372–3384
98. Rajendran M, Bhattacharya AK (2004) Production of rare-earth
orthoferrite ceramic fibres by aqueous sol-gel blow spinning pro-
cess. J Eur Ceram Soc 24(1):111–117
99. Hildebrand JH, Scott RL (1964) The solubility of
nonelectrolytes3d edn. Dover Publications, New York
100. Cena CR, Torsoni GB, Zadorosny L, Malmonge LF, Carvalho
CL, Malmonge JA (2017) BSCCO superconductor micro/
nanofibers produced by solution blow-spinning technique.
Ceram Int 43(10):7663–7667
101. Cena CR, Behera AK, Behera B (2016) Structural, dielectric, and
electrical properties of lithium niobate microfibers. J Adv Ceram
5(1):84–92
Page 23 of 23 205
102. Graessley W (1980) Polymer chain dimensions and the depen-
dence of viscoelastic properties on concentration, molecular
weight and solvent power. Polymer 21(3):258–262
103. Cheng B, Tao X, Shi L, Yan G, Zhuang X (2014) Fabrication of
ZrO2 ceramic fiber mats by solution blowing process. Ceram Int
40(9):15013–15018
104. Zhuang X, Yang X, Shi L, Cheng B, Guan K, Kang W (2012)
Solution blowing of submicron-scale cellulose fibers. Carbohydr
Polym 90(2):982–987
105. Khayet M, García-Payo MC, Qusay FA, Khulbe KC, Feng CY,
Matsuura T (2008) Effects of gas gap type on structural morphol-
ogy and performance of hollow fibers. J Memb Sci J 311(1–2):
259–269
106. Vasireddi R, Kruse J, Vakili M, Kulkarni S, Keller TF, Monteiro
DC, Trebbin M (2019) Solution blow spinning of polymer/
nanocomposite micro−/nanofibers with tunable diameters and
morphologies using a gas dynamic virtual nozzle. Sci Rep 9:
14297
107. Zhang L, Kopperstad P, West M, Hedin N, Fong H (2009)
Generation of polymer ultrafine fibers through solution (air-)
blowing. J Appl Polym Sci 114(6):3479–3486
108. Zhang Y, Ouyang H, Lim CT, Ramakrishna S, Huang ZM (2005)
Electrospinning of gelatin fibers and gelatin/PCL composite fi-
brous scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 72(1):
156–165
109. Rotta M, Zadorosny L, Carvalho CL, Malmonge JA, Malmonge
LF, Zadorosny R (2016) YBCO ceramic nanofibers obtained by
the new technique of solution blow spinning. Ceram Int 42(14):
16230–16234
110. Costa DL, Leite RS, Neves GA, LNDL S, Medeiros ES, Menezes
RR (2016) Synthesis of TiO2 and ZnO nano and submicrometric
fibers by solution blow spinning. Mater Lett 183:109–113
111. Santos AMC, Mota MF, Leite RS, Neves GA, Medeiros ES,
Menezes RR (2018) Solution blow spun titania nanofibers from
solutions of high inorganic/organic precursor ratio. Ceram Int
44(2):1681–1689
112. Barhoum A, Pal K, Rahier H, Uludag H, Kim IS, Bechelany M
(2019) Nanofibers as new-generation materials: from spinning and
nano-spinning fabrication techniques to emerging applications.
Appl Mater Today 17:1–35
113. Pampal ES, Stojanovska E, Simon B, Kilic A (2015) A review of
nanofibrous structures in lithium ion batteries. J Power Sources
300:199–215
114. Tutak W, Kaufman G, Gelven G, Markle C, Maczka C (2016)
Uniform, fast, high concentration delivery of bone marrow stromal
cells and gingival fibroblasts by gas-brushing. Biomed Phys Eng
Express 2(3):035007
115. Molnár K, Mészáros L (2020) Editorial corner – a personal view:
the role of electrospun nanofibers in the fight against the COVID-
19. Express Polym Lett 14(7):605
116. Pehlivaner Kara MO, Ekenseair AK (2016) In situ spray deposi-
tion of cell-loaded, thermally and chemically gelling hydrogel
coatings for tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A 104(10):
2383–2393
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.