Abstract
This paper focused on using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) to analyze production rate of electrospun nanofibers. The three important electrospinning factors were studied including polymer concentration (wt %), applied voltage (kV) and the nozzle-collector distance (cm). The predicted production rates were in agreement with the experimental results in both ANN and RSM techniques. High regression coefficient between the variables and the response (R 2=0.975) indicates excellent evaluation of experimental data by second-order polynomial regression model. The regression coefficient was 0.988, which indicates that the ANN model was shows good fitting with experimental data. The obtained results indicate that the performance of ANN was better than RSM. It was concluded that applied voltage plays an important role (relative importance of 42.8 %) against production rate of electrospun nanofibers. The RSM model predicted the 2802.3 m/min value of the highest production rate at conditions of 15 wt % polymer concentration, 16 kV of the applied voltage, and 15 cm of nozzle-collector distance. The predicted value showed only 4.4 % difference with experimental results in which 2931.0 m/min at the same setting was observed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. Ramakrishna, K. Fujihara, W. E. Teo, T. C. Lim, and Z. Ma, “An Introduction to Electrospinning and Nanofibers”, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2005.
J. H. He, Y. Liu, L. F. Mo, Y. Q. Wan, and L. Xu, “Electrospun Nanofibres and Their Applications”, pp.6–10, Smithers Rapra Technology, United Kingdom, 2008.
A. L. Andrady, “Science and Technology of Polymer Nanofibers”, Wiley, New Jersey, 2008.
M. Abdouss, A. M. Shoushtari, A. Haji, and B. Moshref, Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q., 18, 27 (2012).
N. Sabetzadeh, H. Bahrambeygi, A. Rabbi, and K. Nasouri, Micro. Nano. Lett., 7, 662 (2012).
T. Ondarçuhu and C. Joachim, Europhys. Lett., 42, 215 (1998).
L. Feng, S. Li, Y. Li, H. Li, L. Zhang, J. Zhai, Y. Song, B. Liu, L. Jiang, and D. Zhu, Adv. Mater., 14, 1221 (2002).
P. X. Ma and R. Zhang, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 46, 60 (1999).
G. Liu, J. Ding, L. Qiao, A. Guo, B. P. Dymov, J. T. Gleeson, T. Hashimoto, and K. Saijo, Chem. A Eur. J., 5, 2740 (1999).
J. Doshi and D. H. Reneker, J. Electrostat., 35, 151 (1995).
K. Nasouri, A. M. Shoushtari, and A. Kaflou, Micro. Nano. Lett., 7, 423 (2012).
D. C. Montgomery, “Design and Analysis of Experiments”, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2008.
R. H. Myers, D. C. Montgomery, and C. M. Anderson-Cook, “Response Surface Methodology”, Allyn and Bacon Boston, New York, 1971.
T. L. Fine, “Feedforward Neural Network Methodology”, Springer, New York, 1999.
A. I. Galushkin, “Neural Networks Theory”, Springer, New York, 2007.
R. Chattopadhyay and A. Guha, Text. Prog., 35, 1 (2004).
M. Khamforoush, F. Dabirian, and S. Majedi, Iran. J. Polym. Sci. Technol., 23, 233 (2009).
M. Khamforoush and M. Mahjob, Mater. Lett., 65, 453 (2011).
K. Nasouri, H. Bahrambeygi, A. Rabbi, A. M. Shoushtari, and A. Kaflou, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 126, 127 (2012).
A. Rabbi, K. Nasouri, H. Bahrambeygi, A. M. Shoushtari, and M. R. Babaei, Fiber. Polym., 13, 1007 (2012).
B. K. Korbahti and M. A. Rauf, Chem. Eng. J., 136, 25 (2008).
M. Kasiri, H. Aleboyeh, and A. Aleboyeh, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7970 (2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nasouri, K., Shoushtari, A.M. & Khamforoush, M. Comparison between artificial neural network and response surface methodology in the prediction of the production rate of polyacrylonitrile electrospun nanofibers. Fibers Polym 14, 1849–1856 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12221-013-1849-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12221-013-1849-x