Volume 2 (2018)

João Conde1,2*
Proceedings of the Nature Research Society, 2018, 2, 02001
Published Online: 01 January 2018 (Commentary)
DOI: 10.11605/j.pnrs.201802001

pdf icon PDF   icon html Full Text Html   icon cit Download Citation

Figures

Figure 1. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery using systemic or local treatments to tumors from studies published in 2000-2016 and procedure used for the literature survey. (a) Diagram showing the distribution of time points comparing systemic and local therapies for more than 2.500 publications that were identified by the survey. (b) A pie chart comparing the frequencies of local and systemic therapies during the last 15 years is also depicted. Diagrams for (c) therapy efficacy (%) and (d) biodistribution (nanoparticles accumulation at the tumor site and major organs). Statistical analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance, **, P<0.01). Figure 2. Characterization of the nanotherapies applied systemically or locally. (a) Frequency (%) of reported studies using systemic and local treatments by cancer type. (b) Data set for systemic and local therapies for each of the therapeutic modalities reported: drug, gene, photo and immuno-therapies, along with combination treatment. (c) Analysis of frequency (%) of studies reporting systemic and local therapies by cell type. (d) Lifetime scores in days for systemic and local therapies. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance, **, P<0.01). Figure 3. Smart biomaterials for medical applications are in need of patient-by-patient personalization that matches the application and the target site. Versatile biomaterial design can be achieved by addition of tunable building blocks for sensing, repairing, treating, targeting and strengthening. This will allow to better treat and profile the tumor microenvironment, which has a huge influence in therapy response.

Canghai Ma, Jeffrey J. Urban*
Proceedings of the Nature Research Society, 2018, 2, 02002
Published Online: 22 January 2018 (Review)
DOI: 10.11605/j.pnrs.201802002

pdf icon PDF   icon html Full Text Html   icon cit Download Citation

Figures

Figure 1. Repeat unit of PIM-1 [4]. Figure 2. Schematic showing microstructural differences between (a) miscible and (b) immiscible polymer blend. Wiggly lines represent two polymers (red line for polymer 1 and grey line for polymer 2). The two polymers of a miscible polymer blend (a) are completely interpenetrated with each other. An immiscible blend (b) has minor interpenetration of polymer chains in the interphase. Figure 3. Schematic describing three gas diffusion processes through (a) polymer membrane, (b) polymer blend membrane, and (c) mixed matrix membrane. Feed gas example: CO2/CH4 pair. Wiggly lines represent polymer chains (the grey color refers polymer 1 and the red refers polymer 2). Red dashed lines depict gas flow direction. Figure 4. Chemical structure of typical SBI units with benzene rings attached by five-carbon rings connected by a spiro carbon center, where the rings do not possess rotation freedom and form a rigid structure. Figure 5. Chemical structures of (a) Monomer A: 5, 5, 6, 6-tetrahydroxy-3, 3, 3, 3-tetramethylspirobisindane and (b) Monomer B: 2, 3, 5, 6-tetrafluoroterephthalonitrile of PIM-1 [4]. Figure 6. Structures of SBI-centered PIMs: (a) PIM-7, (b) PIM-SBI and (c) PIM-TMN-SBF for gas separations with gas separation performance shown in Table 2 [21, 22]. Note that those PIMs contain SBI units and rings are fused together, prohibiting the rotation of polymer chains. Figure 7. Chemical structures of two TB-based PIMs membranes (a) TB-PIM and (b) 1, 5-diaminonaphathelen (DAN)/4, 4-(Hexafluoroisopropylidene) dianiline (HFD) PIM [26, 29]. Some of other TB-based PIMs, including PIM-EA-TB, PIM-SBI-TB, PIM-Trip-TB, and PIM-2,2-bis (3-methyl-4-aminophenyl) adamantine (Ad-Me) are shown in Table 1. Figure 8. (a) O2/N2 and (b) CO2/CH4 separation performance of PIMs membranes with current upper bound of polymers. Conventional polymeric membranes, polysulfone and Matrimid® membranes, are plotted for comparison. Figure 9. Schematic showing the structure of a hollow fiber membrane consisting of a selective skin layer in the outermost layer of the fiber and an open porous substructure underneath the skin [113]. Figure 10. Time dependence of  (a) O2 permeability of and (b) O2/N2 selectivity of PIM-1 film [101]. Figure 11. Penetrant permeability of PIM-1 as a function of pressure at 25 oC [105].

Xin Wu,1* Fengwen Mu,2 Haiyan Zhao3
Proceedings of the Nature Research Society, 2018, 2, 02003
Published Online: 05 February 2018 (Review)
DOI:10.11605/j.pnrs.201802003

pdf icon PDF   icon html Full Text Html   icon cit Download Citation

Figures

Figure 1. Main top-down approaches for NPG synthesis. (a) Electron beam irradiation [33]. (b) Block copolymer lithography [18]. (c) Nanosphere lithography [43]. (d) Nanoimprint lithography [45]. Figure 2. Synthesis of NPG by BG-CVD method. (a) Schematic description of the BG-CVD process. (b) SEM of aluminum oxide nanodot array on Cu. (c) As-synthesized NPG on Cu [52].  Figure 3. Typical experiment [19] and MD simulation [77] setup and results for the DNA sequencing by graphene nanopore. (a) and (e) are schematic descriptions of the experimental setup and simulation model. (b) TEM image of the graphene nanopore. (c) Time trace of events for nanopore device. (d) Histogram of blocked currents during the translocation of DNA. (f) Ionic currents for poly(A-T)20 and poly(G-C)20 duplex measured at different bias voltages. Figure 4. Simulation [100] and experimental [105] studies of gas separation by NPGs. (a) Simulation model for the CO2/N2 separation. (b) Gas permeation through the NPG at an initial pressure of 10 atm. (c) Permeate flux of CO2 and N2 as a function of feed pressure. (d-g) Measurement system of gas separation by NPG membrane, where the H2 is represented as red circles, air molecules are denoted as green circles. Figure 5. Water desalination by NPGs [24]. (a) Hydrogenated and (b) hydroxylated graphene pores, and (c) side view of MD model. (d) Comparison of the performance of salt rejection and water permeability for functionalized NPG with existing technologies. Figure 6. Applications of NPGs in LIBs batteries [114] and supercapacitors [125]. (a) Schematic structure of a functionalized graphene with (b) an ideal bimodal porous structure. (c) The discharge curve of a Li-O2 cell. (d) Illustration of the process for prepartation of NPG-PANI composites. (e) Galvanostatic charge-discharge curves and (f) Ragone plot for NPGs–PANI based supercapacitor.

Khan Mamun Reza, Sally Mabrouk, Qiquan Qiao*
Proceedings of the Nature Research Society, 2018, 2, 02004
Published Online: 30 March 2018 (Review)
DOI:10.11605/j.pnrs.201802004

pdf icon PDF   icon html Full Text Html   icon cit Download Citation

Figures

Figure 1. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) topography images of: (a) pristine, (b) DMF-treated, (c) MeOH-treated, and (d) EG-treated PEDOT:PSS. The RMS roughness values are 1.98, 0.76, 1.32 and 2.53 nm, respectively. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [29] Figure 3 . a) Contact angle of pristine PEDOT:PSS, GO-PEDOT, G-PEDOT, and GGO-PEDOT on ITO, b) contact angle of perovskite precursor drops on nanocomposite substrates, and c) SEM of PSK layer deposited on different nanocomposite substrates. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [48] Figure 4 . Roughness, thickness and sheet resistance of AgOTf-doped GO layers as a function of doping concentration. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [55] Figure 5 . SEM images of (a) PEDOT:PSS film, (b) PEDOT:PSS-GeO 2  (4:1) film, crystalline PSK films deposited on (c) PEDOT:PSS, and (d) PEDOT:PSS-GeO 2 , XRD patters of crystalline PSK films deposited on (e) PEDOT:PSS and (f) PEDOT:PSS-GeO 2 . Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [57] Figure 6 . AFM topography images of PEDOT:PSS films doped at different concentrations of PEO. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [59] Figure 7 . (a) Electrical conductivities of the PEO-doped PEDOT:PSS layer and PCEs of PSCs versus doping concentrations of PEO in the layer; (b) J-V characteristics of PSCs incorporated with the pristine and PEO-doped PEDOT:PSS HTL at different thickness. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [59] Figure 8. SEM images of PSK films deposited on (a) pristine and (b) 20% NPs doped PEDOT:PSS layers, and (c, d) their corresponding AFM images. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [63] Figure 9 . Energy level diagram of the cell with (a) F4-TCNQ doped, (b) DA, and (c) SOHEL doped PEDOT:PSS HTLs. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 64 ,  65 ,  32 ] Figure 10 . (a)  Molecular structure of HSL1 and HSL2, (b) energy level diagrams of PSCs using HSL1 and HSL2 as HTLs, isopropanol contact angle measurements of (c) PEDOT:PSS, (d) HSL1, (e) HSL2, and (f) PSK film. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [16] Figure 11 . SEM images of PSK films on (a) PEDOT:PSS, (b) PEDOT:PSS-GO, (c) PEDOT:PSS-GO:NH 3  and (d) UV-vis absorption spectra of PSK films on three different substrates. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [70] Figure 12 . SEM images of perylene films deposited on PEDOT:PSS from varied concentrations of (a) 2 mg/mL, (b) 3 mg/mL, (c) 4 mg/ mL, and (d) 5 mg/mL in chloroform; (e-h) SEM images of PSK films deposited on the perylene under layers corresponding to (a-d). Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [71] Figure 13 . Incident light power dependent photocurrent of the perovskite solar cells with (a) PEDOT-L and (b) PEDOT-H at two different effective applied voltages. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [76] Figure 14 . TPV measurements for PSCs using PEDOT:PSS (pristine), HSL1 and HSL2 HTLs; (b) J-V curve of PSCs using different polymer interlayers; (c) schematic illustration of the energy levels of CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3  perovskite, PC 60 BM ‘electron affinity’ and ionization potential of different polymer interlayers. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 16 ,  67 ] Figure 15 . SEM images of perovskite films coated on top of (a) Glass/ITO; (b) PEDOT:PSS; PEDOT:PSS processed with (c) 5% v/v DMSO, (d) 0.7% v/v Zonyl FS-300, (e) 0.7% v/v Zonyl, FS-300 and 2.5% v/v DMSO, (f) 0.7% v/v Zonyl and 5% v/v DMSO. Reproduced with permission from Ref.  [82]