Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Valente, Tiago

  • Google
  • 1
  • 3
  • 18

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2019Polymer blending or fiber blending: a comparative study using chitosan and poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun fibers18citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Silva, Jorge Carvalho
1 / 21 shared
Borges, João Paulo Miranda Ribeiro
1 / 32 shared
Henriques, Célia
1 / 8 shared
Chart of publication period
2019

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Silva, Jorge Carvalho
  • Borges, João Paulo Miranda Ribeiro
  • Henriques, Célia
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Polymer blending or fiber blending: a comparative study using chitosan and poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun fibers

  • Silva, Jorge Carvalho
  • Valente, Tiago
  • Borges, João Paulo Miranda Ribeiro
  • Henriques, Célia
Abstract

<p>Nonwoven membranes of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) and chitosan (CS) were produced according to the two methods: by blending the polymers in solution followed by electrospinning – polymer blending method – and by simultaneous deposition of fibers electrospun from separate solutions – fiber blending (FB) method. The two production methods were compared by assessing fiber morphology, mass loss, swelling degree, water contact angle, and mechanical properties of the resulting electrospun membranes. Furthermore, the adhesion, proliferation, and morphology of human dermal fibroblasts on the eight types of scaffold produced were evaluated to assess if the blending method used would influence cell–scaffold interaction. Cell adhesion to the different scaffolds lied in the interval 40–60%, with the CS scaffold presenting the lowest value. Interestingly, cell proliferation was the same when comparing polymer blending and FB scaffolds having 3:1 or 1:3 PCL/CS ratios but very different when the ratio was 1:1 – the FB scaffold sustained a proliferation rate double that of the polymer blending scaffold. This work shows that, when blending polymers to improve the properties of a scaffold for tissue engineering or 3D cell culture, their spatial distribution may considerably affect scaffold's properties and should be considered as another parameter requiring optimization.</p>

Topics
  • Deposition
  • morphology
  • polymer
  • electrospinning