Cell growth on electrospun nanofiber mats from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blends

Daria Wehlage; Hannah Blattner; Al Mamun; Ines Kutzli; Elise Diestelhorst; Anke Rattenholl; Frank Gudermann; Dirk Lütkemeyer; Andrea Ehrmann; Daria Wehlage; Hannah Blattner; Al Mamun; Ines Kutzli; Elise Diestelhorst; Anke Rattenholl; Frank Gudermann; Dirk Lütkemeyer; Andrea Ehrmann

doi:10.3934/bioeng.2020004

AIMS Bioengineering

2020, Volume 7, Issue 1: 43-54. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020004

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Cell growth on electrospun nanofiber mats from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blends

1.
Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics, Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences, Bielefeld, Germany
2.
Institute of Food Science and Biotechnology, Department of Food Physics and Meat Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

Received: 14 January 2020 Accepted: 12 March 2020 Published: 16 March 2020

Nanofiber mats can be produced by electrospinning from diverse polymers and polymer blends as well as with embedded ceramics, metals, etc. The large surface-to-volume ratio makes such nanofiber mats a well-suited substrate for tissue engineering and other cell growth experiments. Cell growth, however, is not only influenced by the substrate morphology, but also by the sterilization process applied before the experiment as well as by the chemical composition of the fibers. A former study showed that cell growth and adhesion are supported by polyacrylonitrile/gelatin nanofiber mats, while both factors are strongly reduced on pure polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers. Here we report on the influence of different PAN blends on cell growth and adhesion. Our study shows that adding ZnO to the PAN spinning solution impedes cell growth, while addition of maltodextrin/pea protein or casein/gelatin supports cell growth and adhesion.

Keywords:

Citation: Daria Wehlage, Hannah Blattner, Al Mamun, Ines Kutzli, Elise Diestelhorst, Anke Rattenholl, Frank Gudermann, Dirk Lütkemeyer, Andrea Ehrmann. Cell growth on electrospun nanofiber mats from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blends[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(1): 43-54. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020004

Related Papers:

[1]	Ruizhi Yang, Dan Jin . Dynamics in a predator-prey model with memory effect in predator and fear effect in prey. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(4): 1322-1339. doi: 10.3934/era.2022069
[2]	Miao Peng, Rui Lin, Zhengdi Zhang, Lei Huang . The dynamics of a delayed predator-prey model with square root functional response and stage structure. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3275-3298. doi: 10.3934/era.2024150
[3]	Wenbin Zhong, Yuting Ding . Spatiotemporal dynamics of a predator-prey model with a gestation delay and nonlocal competition. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(4): 2601-2617. doi: 10.3934/era.2025116
[4]	Xiaowen Zhang, Wufei Huang, Jiaxin Ma, Ruizhi Yang . Hopf bifurcation analysis in a delayed diffusive predator-prey system with nonlocal competition and schooling behavior. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2510-2523. doi: 10.3934/era.2022128
[5]	Yujia Xiang, Yuqi Jiao, Xin Wang, Ruizhi Yang . Dynamics of a delayed diffusive predator-prey model with Allee effect and nonlocal competition in prey and hunting cooperation in predator. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(4): 2120-2138. doi: 10.3934/era.2023109
[6]	Fengrong Zhang, Ruining Chen . Spatiotemporal patterns of a delayed diffusive prey-predator model with prey-taxis. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(7): 4723-4740. doi: 10.3934/era.2024215
[7]	Jiani Jin, Haokun Qi, Bing Liu . Hopf bifurcation induced by fear: A Leslie-Gower reaction-diffusion predator-prey model. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(12): 6503-6534. doi: 10.3934/era.2024304
[8]	San-Xing Wu, Xin-You Meng . Hopf bifurcation analysis of a multiple delays stage-structure predator-prey model with refuge and cooperation. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 995-1036. doi: 10.3934/era.2025045
[9]	Jiange Dong, Xianyi Li . Bifurcation of a discrete predator-prey model with increasing functional response and constant-yield prey harvesting. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3930-3948. doi: 10.3934/era.2022200
[10]	Chen Wang, Ruizhi Yang . Hopf bifurcation analysis of a pine wilt disease model with both time delay and an alternative food source. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(5): 2815-2839. doi: 10.3934/era.2025124

Abstract

1. Introduction

Recently, using Solodov and Svaiter's projection technique ^[1], several conjugate gradient methods for solving large-scale unconstrained optimization problems have been extended to solve nonlinear equations with convex constraints (see, ^{[2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]} and the references therein). Due to its simplicity, low storage requirement, and applications, the method has been of interest to various research communities ^{[10,11,12,13,14]}. As known, the Fletcher-Reeves (FR) ^[15], Conjugate Descent (CD) ^[16] and Dai-Yuan (DY) ^[17] conjugate gradient methods have strong convergence properties, but due to jamming, they do not do well in practice. Having said that, the Hestenes-Stiefel (HS) ^[18], Polak-Ribiére-Polyak (PRP) ^[19,20], and Liu-Storey (LS) ^[21] conjugate gradient methods do not necessarily converge, but they often work better than FR, CD and DY. In ^[22], in order to combine the numerical efficiency of the LS method and the strong convergence of the FR method, Djordjević proposed a hybrid LS-FR conjugate gradient method for solving the unconstrained optimization problem. In her work, the conjugate gradient parameter was computed as a convex combination of the LS and FR conjugate gradient parameter. The hybridization parameter for the convex combination was obtained in such a way that the direction of the proposed method satisfies the condition of the Newton direction but also at the same time, it satisfies the famous Dai-Liao conjugacy condition.

In an attempt to extend the LS-FR method of Djordjević to solve monotone nonlinear equations with convex constraints, Ibrahim et al. ^[23] proposed a derivative-free hybrid LS-FR conjugate gradient method with a conjugate gradient parameter computed as a convex combination of derivative-free LS and FR conjugate gradient parameter. The hybridization parameter of the convex combination in their work was obtained to satisfy the famous conjugacy condition. Numerical results show that the method is efficient for solving nonlinear monotone equations with convex constraints. It is noteworthy to state that, several conditions were imposed on the hybridization parameter used in ^[23] in order for the hybridization parameter to take values within the interval $(0, 1).$

Our motivation is the following: Can we extend the LS-FR method proposed by Djordjević to construct an efficient hybrid gradient-free projection algorithm where the hybridization parameter has no condition imposed on it and the hybridization parameter will always take values in the interval $[0, 1])$ ? In this paper, we give a positive answer to this question. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the algorithm and some properties. In Section 3, we analyze the global convergence of the method. Numerical example and application are presented in Section 4 and 5 respectively.

2. Algorithms

Consider the following unconstrained optimization problem

$\begin{equation} minimize \; g(z), \; z\in \mathbb{R}^n, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

where $g:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuously differentiable function whose gradient at $z_k$ is denoted by $f(z_k): = \nabla(z_k)$ . Given any starting point $z_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$ , the algorithm in ^[22] is to generate a sequence of approximation $\{z_k\}$ to the minimum $z^*$ of $g$ , in which

$\begin{equation} z_{k+1} = z_k + t_k j_k, \quad k\geq 0, \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $t_k > 0$ is the steplength which is computed by a certain line search and $j_k$ is the search direction defined by

$\begin{equation} j_k = \begin{cases} -f(z_k) + \beta_k j_{k-1} & \text{if $k \gt 0, $} \\ -f(z_k) & \text{if $k = 0, $} \\ \end{cases} \end{equation}$

(2.3)

with $\beta_k$ defined by

$\begin{equation} \beta_k = (1-\theta_k)\frac{f(z_k)^Ty_{k-1}}{-f(z_{k-1})^T{j_{k-1}} } + \theta_k \frac{\|f(z_k)\|^2}{\|f(z_{k-1})\|^2}, \; y_{k-1} = f(z_k) -f(z_{k-1}). \end{equation}$

(2.4)

where $\theta_k$ is a hybridization parameter chosen to satisfy the Dai-Liao's condition, that is, {for $t > 0,$ }

$\begin{equation*} {j_k^T y_{k-1} = -t s_{k-1}^T f(z_k), } \end{equation*}$

where ${s_{k-1} = z_{k+1} -z_k}$ .

Motivated by (2.3) and (2.4), we propose a gradient free projection algorithm for solving the following nonlinear equation with convex constraints:

$\begin{equation} \rho(z) = 0, \; z\in \Omega \end{equation}$

(2.5)

where $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is a nonempty closed convex set, and $\rho: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is a continuous mapping. Our propose gradient-free projection iterative method first generates a trial point say $\{c_k\}$ using the relation:

$\begin{equation} c_k = z_k + t_k j_k, \; t_k \gt 0, \end{equation}$

(2.6)

the search direction $j_k$ is computed by

$\begin{equation} j_k = \begin{cases} -\rho(z_k) & \text{if $k = 0, $} \\ -\pi_k \rho(z_k) + \beta_k w_{k-1} & \text{if $k \gt 0, $} \\ \end{cases} \end{equation}$

(2.7)

where $\beta_k$ is computed

$\begin{align*} \beta_k &: = (1-\theta_k)\frac{\rho(z_k)^Ty_{k-1}}{-\rho(z_{k-1})^Tj_{k-1}} + \theta_k \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2}, \; \; \theta_k: = \frac{\|y_{k-1}\|^2}{y_{k-1}^Tw_{k-1}^*}, \\ &w_{k-1}^* : = w_{k-1} + \left( \max \left\{0, \frac{-w_{k-1}^Ty_{k-1}}{\|y_{k-1}\|^2} \right\}+1 \right)y_{k-1}, \\ & y_{k-1}: = \rho(z_k) -\rho(z_{k-1}), \; w_{k-1}: = c_{k-1} - z_{k-1}, \end{align*}$

and $\pi_k$ is obtained to satisfy the descent condition, that is, for $\alpha > 0$ ,

$\begin{equation} j_k^T\rho(z_k) \leq -\alpha \|\rho(z_k) \|^2. \end{equation}$

(2.8)

For $k = 0$ , (2.8) obviously holds. For $k\in \mathbb{N},$ we have

$\begin{equation} \rho(z_k)^T j_k \leq -\left( \pi_k -\beta_k\frac{\rho(z_k)^Tw_{k-1}}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)\|\rho(z_k)\|^2. \end{equation}$

(2.9)

To satisfy (2.8), we only need that

$\begin{equation} \pi_k \geq l + \beta_k\frac{\rho(z_k)^Tw_{k-1}}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2}, \; {l \gt 0.} \end{equation}$

(2.10)

In this paper, we choose $\pi_k$ as

$\begin{equation} \pi_k = l + \beta_k\frac{\rho(z_k)^Tw_{k-1}}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2}. \end{equation}$

(2.11)

It is important to note that, $\theta_k$ has the following property:

$\begin{equation*} y_{k-1}^Tw_{k-1}^* \geq \max\{ y_{k-1}^T w_{k-1}, \|y_{k-1}\|^2 \}\geq \|y_{k-1}\|^2 \gt 0. \end{equation*}$

Thus,

$\theta_k = \frac{\|y_{k-1}\|^2}{y_{k-1}^T w_{k-1}^*} \in (0, 1), \quad \forall k.$

The definition of $w_{k-1}^*$ is from the ideas of Li and Fukushima ^[24,25]. The definition of $\theta_k$ was originally proposed by Birgin and Martinez ^[26] and similar idea can be found in ^[27,28] and other optimization literature. The proposed algorithm is described immediately after recalling the definition of the projection operator.

Definition 2.1. Let $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be a nonempty closed convex set. Then for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ , its projection onto $\Omega$ , denoted by $P_\Omega[x]$ , is defined by

$P_\Omega[x]: = \arg \min \{\|x - y\|\ : y\in \Omega\}.$

The projection operator $P_\Omega$ has a well-known property, that is, for any $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ the following nonexpansive property hold

$\begin{equation} \|P_\Omega(x) -P_\Omega(y)\| \leq \|x - y\|, \forall x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n. \end{equation}$

(2.12)

Algorithm 1:
Input. Choose an initial point $z_0 \in \Omega$ , Initialize the variables: $\tau\in (0, 1), \quad \eta \in (0, 2)$ $Tol > 0,$ $\kappa > 0, \; l > 0$ . Set $k = 0.$
Step 0. Compute $\rho(z_k).$ If $\\|\rho(z_k)\\| \leq Tol,$ stop. Otherwise, compute $j_k$ by (2.7)
Step 1. Determine the steplength $t_k = \max \{ {\tau^m \| m = }0, 1, 2, \cdots \}$ such that
$\begin{equation} - \rho(z_k +\tau^m j_k)^T j_k \rangle \geq \kappa\tau^m \\|j_k\\|^2.~~~~(2.13) \end{equation}$
Step 2. Compute the trial point $c_k = z_k +t_k j_k.$
Step 3. If $c_k \in \Omega$ and $\\|\rho(c_k)\\|\leq Tol,$ stop. Otherwise, compute
$\begin{equation} z_{k+1} = P_{\Omega}\left[z_k-\eta \mu_k \rho(c_k)\right] \quad ~~(2.14) \end{equation}$
where
$\mu_k = \frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k - c_k)}{\\|\rho(c_k)\\|^2}{.}$
Step 4. Set $k := k+1$ and go to step 1.

3. Convergence analysis

In what follows, we assume that $\rho$ satisfies the following assumptions.

Assumption 1. The solution set $\Omega^*$ is nonempty.

Assumption 2. The mapping $\rho$ is Lipschitz continuous on $\mathbb{R}^n$ . That is,

$\begin{equation*} \|\rho(x) -\rho(y)\| \leq L\|x - y\|, \; \forall x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n. \end{equation*}$

Assumption 3. For any $y \in \Omega^*$ and $x \in \mathbb{R}^n,$ it holds that

$\begin{equation} \rho(x)^T(x - y) \geq 0. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Lemma 3.1. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds. Then there exists a step-size $t_k$ satisfying the line search (2.13) for $k\geq 0.$

Proof. Assume there exist $k_0 \geq 0$ such that (2.13) fails to hold for any $i\geq 0$ , that is

$\begin{equation*} -\langle \rho(z_{k_0} + \tau^i j_{k_0}), j_{k_0} \rangle \lt \kappa\tau^i \|j_{k_0}\|^2, \forall i \geq 1. \end{equation*}$

Applying the continuity property of $\rho$ and letting $i \rightarrow \infty$ yields

$\begin{equation*} -\rho(z_{k_0})^T j_{k_0} \leq 0, \end{equation*}$

which negates (2.8). Hence proved.

Lemma 3.2. Suppose Assumption 1-3 is satisfied and the sequences $\{z_k, c_k, t_k, j_k\}$ are generated by Algorithm 1. Then

$\begin{equation*} t_k \geq \min\bigg\{1, \frac{\tau}{(L+\kappa)}\frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|j_k\|^2} \bigg\}{.} \end{equation*}$

Proof. Note that from (2.13), if $t_k \neq 1,$ then ${\bar t_k} = \tau^{-1}t_k$ does not satisfy $(2.13),$ that is,

$\begin{equation} -\rho(z_k +\tau^{-1}t_k j_k)^Tj_k \lt \kappa\tau^{-1}t_k\|j_k\|^2. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Combining the above inequality with the descent condition (2.8), we have

$\begin{align} \|\rho(z_k)\|^2 & = -\rho(z_k)^Tj_k \\ & = (\rho(z_k +\tau^{-1}t_k) -\rho(z_k))^Tj_k - \rho(z_k +\tau^{-1}t_k)^Tj_k \\ &\leq \tau^{-1}t_kL\|j_k\|^2 +\tau^{-1}t_k\kappa\|j_k\|^2 \\ & = \tau^{-1}t_k(L+\kappa)\|j_k\|^2. \end{align}$

(3.3)

Since $\rho$ satisfies Assumption 2 then, (3.3) holds. Thus, from $(3.3),$

$\begin{equation} t_k \geq \min\bigg\{1, \frac{\tau}{(L+\kappa)}\frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|j_k\|^2} \bigg\}{.} \end{equation}$

(3.4)

This proves Lemma $3.2.$

Lemma 3.3. Suppose that Assumptions 1-3 hold and let $\{z_k\}$ and $\{c_k\}$ be the sequences generated by Algorithm 1. Then, $\rho(c_k)$ is an ascent direction of the function $\|z-z^*\|^2$ at the point $z_k,$ where $z_* \in \Omega^*$ .

Proof. At $z_k$ , the function $\frac{1}{2}\|x - z_*\|^2$ has a gradient of $z_k -z_*.$ By the weakly monotonicity property (3.1), it can be seen that

$\begin{align} \rho(c_k)^T(z_k - z_*) & = \rho(c_k)^T(z_k +c_k -c_k -z_*) \\ & = \rho(c_k)^T(c_k -z_*) + \rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)\\ & = \rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)\\ &\geq \kappa t_k^2 \|j_k\|^2\\ & = \kappa \|z_k -c_k\|^2 \gt 0. \end{align}$

(3.5)

The inequality above, i.e., (3.5) points out that $-\rho(c_k)$ is a descent direction of the function $\|z -z_*\|$ at the iteration point $z_k.$

Lemma 3.4. Let Assumption 1-3 hold and the sequence $\{z_k\}$ be generated by Algorithm 1. Suppose that $z_*$ is a solution of problem (2.5) with $\rho(z_*) = 0.$ Then there exists a positive $\delta > 0$ such that

$\begin{equation} \|\rho(z_k)\| \leq \delta. \end{equation}$

(3.6)

Proof. Remember, by using the well-known property of $P_\Omega,$ we can deduce that for any $z_* \in \Omega^*,$

$\begin{align} \|z_{k+1} -z_*\|^2 & = \|P_\Omega[z_k -\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k)] - z_*\|^2\\ & \leq \|z_k -\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k) -z_*\|^2\\ & = \|z_k -z_*\| -2\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k)^T(z_k -z_*) + \eta^2\mu_k^2 \|\rho(c_k)\|^2\\ & = \|z_k -z_*\| -2\eta \frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)}{\|\rho(c_k)\|^2}\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -z_*) + \eta^2\left(\frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)}{\|\rho(c_k)\|}\right)^2\\ &\leq \|z_k -z_*\| -2\eta\frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)}{\|\rho(c_k)\|^2}\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k) + \eta^2\left(\frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)}{\|\rho(c_k)\|}\right)^2\\ & = \|z_k -z_*\|^2 -\eta(2-\eta)\left(\frac{\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)}{\|\rho(c_k)\|}\right)^2 \end{align}$

(3.7)

$\begin{align} &\leq\|z_k -z_*\|^2. \end{align}$

(3.8)

From inequality (3.8) we see that $\lbrace \|z_k -z_*\| \rbrace$ is a decreasing sequence and hence $\{z_k\}$ is bounded. That is,

$\begin{equation} \|z_k\| \leq a_0, \; a_0 \gt 0. \end{equation}$

(3.9)

Furthermore, we obtain

$\begin{equation} \|z_{k+1} -z_*\| \leq \|z_k - z_*\| \leq \|z_{k-1} -z_*\| \leq \cdots \|z_0 -z_*\|. \end{equation}$

(3.10)

Using the Lipchitz continuity of $\rho$ , we have

$\begin{equation} \|\rho(z_k)\| = \|\rho(z_k) - \rho(z_*)\| \leq L\|z_k -z_*\| \leq L\|z_0 -z_*\|. \end{equation}$

(3.11)

Setting $\delta = L\|z_0 -z_*\|$ proves Lemma 3.4.

Lemma 3.5. Suppose Assumption 1-3 hold and the sequence $\{z_k\}$ and $\{c_k\}$ are generated by Algorithm 1. Then,

(a) $\{c_k\}$ is bounded

(b) $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \|z_k -c_k \| = 0$

(c) $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \|z_k -z_{k+1} \| = 0$ .

Proof. (a) From $(3.10)$ , we know that the sequence $\lbrace z_k \rbrace$ is bounded. So by $(3.5)$ , we have

$\begin{equation} \rho(c_k)^ T (z_k -c_k) \geq \kappa\|z_k -c_k\|^2. \end{equation}$

(3.12)

By $(3.1)$ and $(3.6)$ we have

$\begin{align*} \rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k) & = (\rho(c_k) -\rho(z_k))^T(z_k -c_k) + \rho(z_k)^T(z_k -c_k)\\ & \leq \|\rho(z_k)\| \|z_k -c_k\|\\ & \leq \delta\|z_k -c_k\|. \end{align*}$

Combined with $(3.12)$ , it is easy to deduce that

$\begin{equation*} \|z_k -c_k\| \leq \frac{\delta}{\kappa}. \end{equation*}$

Then, we obtain,

$\begin{equation*} \|c_k\| \leq \frac{\delta}{\kappa} + \|z_k\| \end{equation*}$

Thus $\lbrace c_k\rbrace$ is bounded due to $\lbrace z_k \rbrace$ boundedness.

(b) From inequality $(3.7)$ , we get

$\begin{align*} \|z_{k+1} -z_*\| & \leq \|z_k -z_*\|^2 - \eta(2-\eta)\frac{[\rho(c_k)^T(z_k -c_k)]^2}{\|\rho(c_k)\|^2}\\ &\leq \|z_k -z_*\|^2 - \eta(2-\eta)\frac{\kappa^2\|z_k -c_k\|^4}{\|\rho(c_k)\|^2}, \end{align*}$

which means

$\begin{equation*} \eta(2-\eta)\|z_k -c_k\|^4 \leq \frac{\|\rho(c_k)\|^2}{\kappa^2}\left(\|z_k -z_*\|^2 - \|z_{k+1} -z_*\|^2 \right). \end{equation*}$

Since the mapping $\rho$ is continuous, and the $\{c_k\}$ is bounded, we know that $\{ \|\rho(c_k)\|\}$ is bounded. Therefore a positive $\delta_1 > 0$ exists, such that $\|\rho(c_k)\| \leq \delta_1$ and moreover

$\begin{align*} \eta(2-\eta)\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\|z_k-c_k\|^4 &\leq \frac{\delta_1^2}{\kappa^2}\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\left(\|z_k -z_*\|^2 -\|z_k -z_*\|^2 \right)\\ & = \frac{\delta_1^2}{\kappa^2}\|z_0 -z_*\|^2 \lt +\infty. \end{align*}$

Hence,

$\begin{equation} \lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty}t_k\|j_k\| = \lim\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty}\|z_k -c_k\| = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.13)

Using the property of the projection operator, i.e., (2.12), we have

$\begin{align*} \|z_k -z_{k+1}\| & = \|z_k - P_\Omega[z_k -\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k)]\|\\ &\leq \|z_k -(z_k -\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k))\|\\ & = \|\eta\mu_k \rho(c_k)\|\\ &\leq \eta\|z_k -c_k\|. \end{align*}$

The global convergence result for Algorithm 1 is established via the following theorem.

Theorem 3.6. Suppose Assumption 1-3 is satisfied and the sequences $\{z_k\}$ are generated by the Algorithm 1. Then we

$\begin{equation} \liminf\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty}\|\rho(z_k)\| = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.14)

Proof. Suppose $(3.14)$ does not hold, meaning there exist a constant $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such that

$\begin{equation} \|\rho(z_k)\| \geq \varepsilon_0 \quad k\geq 0. \end{equation}$

(3.15)

By $(2.8)$ , we know

$\begin{align*} \|\rho(z_k)\| \; \|j_k\| \geq -\rho(z_k)^Tj_k \geq \alpha\|\rho(z_k)\|^2, \end{align*}$

which implies

$\begin{equation} \|j_k\| \geq \alpha\|\rho(z_k)\| \geq \varepsilon_0, \quad \forall k\geq 0. \end{equation}$

(3.16)

By $(2.3)$ , we have

$\begin{align*} \|j_k\| & = \|-\pi_k \rho(z_k) + \beta_k w_{k-1}\|\\ & = \left \|-\left(c + \beta_k\frac{\rho(z_k)^Tw_{k-1}}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)\rho(z_k) + \left( (1-\theta_k)\frac{\rho(z_k)^Ty_{k-1}}{-\rho(z_{k-1})^Tj_{k-1}} + \theta_k \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)w_{k-1} \right\|\\ & \leq l\|\rho(z_k)\| + |\beta_k|\|w_{k-1}\| + \left( \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|}{|\rho(z_{k-1})^T j_{k-1}|}\|y_{k-1}\| + \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)\|w_{k-1}\|\\ &\leq l\|\rho(z_k)\| + 2\left( \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|}{|\rho(z_{k-1})^T j_{k-1}|}\|y_{k-1}\| + \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)\|w_{k-1}\|\\ &\leq l\|\rho(z_k)\| + 2\left( \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|}{\alpha\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} t_{k-1}\|j_{k-1}\| + \frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|\rho(z_{k-1})\|^2} \right)t_{k-1}\|j_{k-1}\|\\ &\leq l\delta + 2\frac{\delta}{\varepsilon_0^2}(t_{k-1}\|j_{k-1}\|)^2 + 2\frac{\delta^2}{\varepsilon_0^2}t_{k-1}\|j_{k-1}\|\\ \end{align*}$

for all $k \in \mathbb{N}.$ Since $(3.13)$ holds, it follows that for every $\varepsilon_1 > 0$ there exist $k_0$ such that $t_{k-1} \| j_{k-1} \| < \varepsilon_1$ for every $k > k_0.$ Choosing $\varepsilon_1 = \varepsilon_0$ and $\ell_0 = \max \{ \|j_0\|, \|j_1\|, \cdots, \|j_{k_0}\|, \ell_{0_1} \}$ where $\ell_{0_1} = \delta(c + 2 +2\delta/\varepsilon_0)$ , it holds that

$\begin{equation} \|j_k\|\leq \ell_0 \end{equation}$

(3.17)

for every $k\in \mathbb{N}.$ Integrating with $(3.4), (3.15), (3.16)$ and $(3.17)$ , we know that for any $k$ sufficiently large

$\begin{align*} t_k\|j_k\| &\geq \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{\tau}{(L+\kappa)}\frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|j_k\|^2} \right\rbrace\|j_k\|\\ & = \min \left\lbrace \|j_k\|, \frac{\tau}{(L+\kappa)}\frac{\|\rho(z_k)\|^2}{\|j_k\|} \right\rbrace\\ & \geq \min \left\lbrace \varepsilon_0, \frac{\tau\varepsilon_0^2}{(L+\kappa)\ell_0} \right\rbrace \end{align*}$

The last inequality yields a contradiction with $(b)$ in Lemma 3.5. Consequently, (3.14) holds. The proof is completed.

4. Numerical section

The Dolan and Moré performance profile ^[29] is used in this section to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm on a set of test problems with varying dimensions and initial points. Comparison is made with algorithm of the same class proposed in ^[30]. All codes were written in MATLAB environment and compiled on a HP laptop (CPU Corei3-2.5 GHz, RAM 8 GB) with Windows 10 operating system.

● Algo.1: The new method (Algorithm 1).

● Algo.2: MFRM method proposed in ^[30].

The parameters for Algo.1 are chosen as: $\tau = 0.9, \; \kappa = 10^{-4}, \; \eta = 1.2$ . While parameters for Algo.2 are set as reported in ^[30]. All iterative procedure are terminated whenever $\|\rho(z_k)\| < 10^{-6}.$ The experiment is carried out on nine different problems with dimensions ranging from $n = 1000, 5000, 10, 000, 50, 000, 100, 000$ using seven different initial points: $z_1 = (0.1, \cdots, 0.1)^T, \; z_2 = (0.2, \cdots, 0.2)^T, \; z_3 = (0.5, \cdots, 0.5)^T, \; z_4 = (1.2, \cdots, 1.2)^T, z_5 = (1.5, \cdots, 1.5)^T, \; z_6 = (2, \cdots, 2)^T$ and $z_7 = rand(n, 1).$ The test problems considered are listed the below where the mapping $\rho(z) = (\rho_1(z), \rho_2(z), \cdots, \rho_n(z))^T$

Problem 1 ^[31] Exponential Function.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_1(z)& = e^{z_1}-1, \\ \rho_i(z)& = e^{z_i}+z_i-1, \; \text{for }i = 2, 3, ..., n, \\ \text{and } &\Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 2 ^[31] Modified Logarithmic Function.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_i(z)& = \ln(z_i+1)-\frac{z_i}{n}, \; \text{for }i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n, \\ \text{and } &\Omega = \left\{z\in \mathbb{R}^n: \sum _{i = 1}^{n}z_i\le n, z_i \gt -1, i = 1, 2, \cdots , n\right\}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 3 ^[32]

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_i(z) = \min\left(\min(|z_i|, z_{i}^2), \max(|z_i|, z_{i}^3)\right) \; \text{for }i = 2, 3, ..., n, \\ \text{and } &\Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 4 ^[31] Strictly Convex Function I.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_i(z)& = e^{z_i}-1, \; \text{for }i = 1, 2, ..., n, \\ \text{and } &\Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 5 ^[31] Strictly Convex Function II.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_i(z)& = \frac{i}{n}e^{z_i}-1, \; \text{for }i = 1, 2, ..., n, \\ \text{and } &\Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 6 ^[33] Tridiagonal Exponential Function.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_1(z)& = z_1-e^{\cos ( h(z_1+z_2))}, \\ \rho_i(z)& = z_i-e^{ \cos (h(z_{i-1}+z_i+z_{i+1}))}, \; \text{for }i = 2, ..., n-1, \\ \rho_n(z)& = z_n-e^{\cos (h(z_{n-1}+z_n))}, \\ h& = \frac{1}{n+1} \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 7 ^[34] Nonsmooth Function.

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \rho_i(z)& = z_i-\sin |z_i-1|, \; i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n, \\ \text{and } \Omega & = \left\{z\in \mathbb{R}^n: \sum _{i = 1}^{n}z_i\le n, z_i \ge -1, i = 1, 2, \cdots , n\right\}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 8 ^[31] The Trig exp function

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} & \rho_1(z) = 3z_{1}^3+2z_2-5+\sin(z_1-z_2)\sin(z_1+z_2)\\ & \rho_i(z) = 3z_{i}^3+2z_{i+1}-5+\sin(z_i-z_{i+1})\sin(z_i+z_{i+1})+4z_i-z_{i-1}e^{z_{i-1}-z_i}-3 \quad \text{for} \quad i = 2, 3, ..., n-1\\ & \rho_n(z) = z_{n-1}e^{z_{n-1}-z_n}-4z_n-3, \quad \text{where h} = \frac{1}{m+1} \; \text{ and }~ \Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n.. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Problem 9 ^[35]

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} & t_i = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^n z_{i}^2, \; \; c = 10^{-5}\\ & \rho_i(z) = 2c(z_i-1) + 4(t_i-0.25)z_i, \; i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n. \text{and } &\Omega = \mathbb{R}_{+}^n. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Figures 1-3 presents the results of the comparisons of the mentioned methods. Figure 1 shows the graph of the two methods where the performance measure is the total number of iterations. In the figure, we see that the Algo.1 obtain the most wins with the probability around 78 % and the Algo.2 method is in the second place. Figure 2 shows the performance of the considered methods relative to the total number of function evaluation. Graph of this measure shows that Algo.1 has better performance in comparison with Algo.2. In Figure 3 the performance measure is the CPU running time. The CPU running time figure also indicates that Algo.1 outperforms Algo.2. From the presented figures, it is clear that Algo.1 is the most efficient in solving the considered test problems. A detailed result of the numerical experiment for the test problems is reported in Table 2-10 in the appendix section.

Figure 1. Performance profiles for the number of iterations.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 2. Performance profiles for the number of function evaluations.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 3. Performance profiles for the CPU time.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

5. Application to image restoration

The restoration of images is a process in which a distorted or damaged image is restored to its original form. Having an algorithm that can perform such function with high restoration efficiency is of importance. We consider the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and the structural similarity index (SSIM) as a metric for measuring the restoration efficiency. SNR, PSNR and SSIM's larger values reflect better quality of the restored images and indicate that the restored images are closer to the original. Consider the following disturbed or incomplete observation

$\begin{equation} b = \rho z +\omega, \end{equation}$

(5.1)

where $z\in \mathbb{R}^n, \; b\in \mathbb{R}^k$ is the observation data, $\rho \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times n}(k < < n)$ is a linear operator and $\omega \in \mathbb{R}^k$ is an error term. Our goal in this section is to recover the unknown vector $z.$ A well-known approach for obtaining $z$ is by solving the following $\ell_1$ -regularization problem

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{z\in \mathbb{R}^n} \bigg\{ \sigma\|z\|_1 + \frac{1}{2}\|\rho z-b\|^2_2 \bigg\} \end{equation}$

(5.2)

where the regularization term $\sigma$ is positive, $\|\cdot \|_1,$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are the $\ell_1$ -norm and $\ell_2$ -norm respectively. See (Refs. ^{[36,37,38,39,40]}) for various algorithms for solving (5.2). For a comprehensive procedure on how to use our proposed algorithm to solve (5.2), see ^[41,42].

To assess the efficiency of Algo.1 in restoring the images degraded using a Gaussian blur kernel of standard deviation 0.1, we compare its performance with the modified Fletcher-Reeves conjugate Gradient method proposed in ^[30]. The algorithm is referred to as Algo.2. Four test images with different sizes are considered in this experiment. The images are labelled as A, B, C and D. The algorithms are implemented based on the following

● All codes were written and implemented in Matlab environment.

● Same starting point and stopping condition (with $Tol = 10^{-5}$ ) for all the algorithms.

● Parameters for Algo.1, are chosen as $\eta = 1, \; \tau = 0.55, \; \kappa = 10^{-4}.$ Parameters for Algo.2 are chosen as reported in the application section of ^[30].

● The linear operator $\rho$ in the experiment is choosen as the Gaussian matrix generated by the command $rand(k, n)$ in MATLAB.

● The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is defined as

$SNR : = 20 \times \log_{10}\left( \frac{\|z\|}{\|\tilde z - z \|}\right),$

where $\tilde z$ is recovered vector. The definition of the peak-to-signal and the structural similarity index (SSIM) ratio (PSNR) can be found in ^[43] and ^[44], respectively.

Table 1. The numerical results obtained by Algo.1 and Algo.2 methods in restoring the blurred and noisy images.

	Algo.1			Algo.2
Test Image	SNR	PSNR	SSIM	SNR	PSNR	SSIM
A	16.74	19.03	0.765	16.66	18.95	0.760
B	16.65	21.98	0.911	16.59	21.93	0.910
C	20.93	22.76	0.913	20.87	22.70	0.912
D	18.80	21.71	0.931	18.68	21.58	0.929

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 4 has four columns labelled ORI, BNI, RA1 and RA2. Images on the column labelled ORI are the original images, images on the column labelled BNI are the blurred and noisy images. RA1 are the images restored by Algo.1 and RA2 are images restored by Algo.2. Table 1 provides the SNR, PSNR and SSIM values for Algo.1 and Algo.2. It can be seen that Algo.1 has the highest SNR, PSNR and SSIM in all the images used for the experiment. This indicates that Algo.1 is more effective than Algo.2 in restoring blurred and noisy images.

Figure 4. From the left: The original, blurred and noisy images, restored images by Algo.1 and 2.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Acknowledgments

"The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Theoretical and Computational Science (TaCS) Center under Computational and Applied Science for Smart research Innovation Cluster (CLASSIC), Faculty of Science, KMUTT. The first author was supported by the Petchra Pra Jom Klao Doctoral Scholarship, Academic for Ph.D. Program at KMUTT (Grant No.16/2561)."

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Table 2. Numerical result for Problem 1.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	3	11	0.020026	0	32	128	0.15285	5.77E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.022233	0	23	92	0.046757	1.03E-07
	$z_3$	3	11	0.028924	0.00E+00	43	172	0.085067	3.24E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.01272	0.00E+00	28	112	0.042162	8.50E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.012594	0	38	152	0.082875	7.44E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.006795	0.00E+00	34	136	0.061034	4.36E-07
	$z_7$	29	116	0.098046	3.71E-08	62	248	0.1162	3.84E-07
5000	$z_1$	2	7	0.1681	0	16	64	0.097823	4.98E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.07673	0	27	108	0.16998	5.89E-08
	$z_3$	2	7	0.019262	0.00E+00	34	136	0.43167	8.96E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.041163	0.00E+00	43	172	0.24401	4.77E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.035437	0.00E+00	36	144	0.28409	4.72E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.031377	0	25	100	0.1577	8.50E-07
	$z_7$	68	272	1.5225	2.22E-08	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
10000	$z_1$	2	7	0.067548	0	7	28	0.080462	7.04E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.02502	0	24	96	0.9236	2.84E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.037267	0.00E+00	21	84	0.82591	6.94E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.027143	0	38	152	0.97602	5.16E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.070627	0	28	112	0.46927	8.68E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.052355	0	25	100	0.28425	8.52E-07
	$z_7$	107	428	9.536	3.42E-08	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
50000	$z_1$	2	7	0.35904	0	7	28	0.29707	2.32E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.24819	0	15	60	1.212	2.10E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.21212	0.00E+00	7	28	0.33872	7.76E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.265	0.00E+00	24	96	1.2315	7.36E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.22679	0.00E+00	21	84	0.98662	9.19E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.46048	0.00E+00	8	32	0.44742	4.62E-07
	$z_7$	353	1412	85.8011	1.12E-11	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
100000	$z_1$	2	7	0.26127	0	7	28	0.66487	2.45E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.42916	0	14	56	1.9555	4.72E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.29924	0.00E+00	7	28	0.65463	8.36E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.47753	0	28	112	4.5812	5.94E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.28228	0.00E+00	17	68	2.0596	5.23E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.45284	0.00E+00	8	32	1.4187	3.26E-07
	$z_7$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 3. Numerical result for Problem 2.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	7	22	0.047242	1.58E-09	4	12	0.075993	5.17E-07
	$z_2$	7	22	0.011612	2.12E-09	5	15	0.01685	6.04E-09
	$z_3$	6	19	0.008748	7.52E-09	5	15	0.009081	4.37E-07
	$z_4$	8	25	0.008643	1.95E-09	6	18	0.009114	1.52E-07
	$z_5$	6	19	0.010119	8.43E-09	7	21	0.013185	1.10E-09
	$z_6$	9	28	0.009592	1.04E-09	7	21	0.014685	1.74E-08
	$z_7$	44	169	0.043234	9.47E-07	69	261	0.22456	6.30E-07
5000	$z_1$	6	20	0.062266	2.97E-07	4	12	0.012773	1.75E-07
	$z_2$	6	20	0.031005	4.05E-07	5	15	0.019072	6.27E-10
	$z_3$	6	19	0.022469	9.12E-10	5	15	0.03412	1.42E-07
	$z_4$	7	23	0.048441	3.74E-07	6	18	0.040398	3.94E-08
	$z_5$	6	19	0.032782	1.42E-09	6	18	0.030696	4.05E-07
	$z_6$	7	22	0.038421	7.12E-09	7	21	0.02232	2.36E-09
	$z_7$	45	169	0.32315	1.74E-07	75	290	0.68505	9.20E-07
10000	$z_1$	5	16	0.065175	9.23E-09	4	12	0.05281	1.21E-07
	$z_2$	6	21	0.072794	3.06E-07	5	15	0.055137	2.79E-10
	$z_3$	6	19	0.036537	4.32E-10	5	15	0.038347	9.73E-08
	$z_4$	7	24	0.054625	2.82E-07	6	18	0.057504	2.56E-08
	$z_5$	6	20	0.09281	7.38E-10	6	18	0.053546	2.93E-07
	$z_6$	7	22	0.098951	4.21E-09	7	21	0.05207	1.24E-09
	$z_7$	34	133	0.35652	8.45E-07	75	286	1.1715	8.81E-07
50000	$z_1$	7	26	1.0892	1.84E-07	4	12	0.072347	6.32E-08
	$z_2$	9	34	0.57121	3.87E-07	5	16	0.17135	6.75E-11
	$z_3$	6	21	0.17777	5.88E-07	5	15	0.30908	4.87E-08
	$z_4$	10	37	0.79714	3.60E-07	6	18	0.30538	1.11E-08
	$z_5$	7	25	0.14544	1.16E-07	6	18	0.17986	1.84E-07
	$z_6$	8	28	0.24313	7.93E-07	7	21	0.11731	4.01E-10
	$z_7$	36	141	1.1389	1.07E-07	87	326	3.3093	3.83E-07
100000	$z_1$	7	26	0.35609	2.56E-07	4	12	0.23409	5.40E-08
	$z_2$	9	34	0.43666	5.47E-07	5	16	0.3152	4.27E-11
	$z_3$	6	21	0.31721	7.65E-07	5	15	0.28597	4.05E-08
	$z_4$	10	37	0.53074	5.09E-07	6	18	0.23003	8.15E-09
	$z_5$	7	25	0.27827	1.55E-07	6	18	0.45582	1.80E-07
	$z_6$	9	32	0.5333	1.09E-07	7	22	0.2709	2.71E-10
	$z_7$	31	121	1.7511	5.10E-07	81	306	6.1345	9.16E-07

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 4. Numerical result for Problem 3.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	2	6	0.007199	0	2	6	0.026849	0
	$z_2$	2	6	0.00552	0	2	6	0.003173	0
	$z_3$	2	6	0.006377	0	2	6	0.006714	0
	$z_4$	3	11	0.017561	0.00E+00	2	6	0.005403	0
	$z_5$	3	11	0.007556	0.00E+00	2	6	0.009761	0
	$z_6$	3	11	0.008376	0	2	6	0.003285	0
	$z_7$	16	49	0.043387	2.91E-07	2	6	0.005238	0
5000	$z_1$	2	6	0.024798	0	2	6	0.037672	0
	$z_2$	2	6	0.017882	0	2	6	0.016857	0
	$z_3$	2	6	0.014761	0	2	6	0.016971	0
	$z_4$	3	11	0.021926	0.00E+00	2	6	0.024599	0
	$z_5$	3	11	0.019501	0.00E+00	2	6	0.12878	0
	$z_6$	3	11	0.099645	0	2	6	0.016172	0
	$z_7$	21	65	0.26663	8.91E-07	2	6	0.068901	0
10000	$z_1$	2	6	0.053329	0	2	6	0.039629	0
	$z_2$	2	6	0.036889	0	2	6	0.029941	0
	$z_3$	2	6	0.02419	0	2	6	0.022097	0
	$z_4$	3	11	0.046062	0.00E+00	2	6	0.015668	0
	$z_5$	3	11	0.17699	0.00E+00	2	6	0.1442	0
	$z_6$	3	11	0.056058	0	2	6	0.080865	0
	$z_7$	19	58	0.42057	1.22E-07	2	6	0.052839	0
50000	$z_1$	2	6	0.11901	0	2	6	0.27419	0
	$z_2$	2	6	0.10804	0	2	6	0.228	0
	$z_3$	2	6	0.15799	0	2	6	0.083129	0
	$z_4$	3	11	0.27797	0.00E+00	2	6	0.09131	0
	$z_5$	3	11	0.21594	0.00E+00	2	6	0.047357	0
	$z_6$	3	11	0.16137	0	2	6	0.049002	0
	$z_7$	21	64	1.156	3.21E-07	2	6	0.12806	0
100000	$z_1$	2	6	0.21976	0	2	6	0.15418	0
	$z_2$	2	6	0.19397	0	2	6	0.44568	0
	$z_3$	2	6	0.17969	0	2	6	0.79033	0
	$z_4$	3	11	0.30701	0.00E+00	2	6	0.20222	0
	$z_5$	3	11	0.72994	0.00E+00	2	6	0.20959	0
	$z_6$	3	11	0.36806	0	2	6	0.26684	0
	$z_7$	22	67	1.8809	2.86E-07	2	6	0.23472	0

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 5. Numerical result for Problem 4.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	2	7	0.007686	0	8	31	0.025113	1.65E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.004973	0	7	28	0.007628	2.32E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.004693	0.00E+00	8	32	0.009827	7.42E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.005652	0.00E+00	9	35	0.012267	1.62E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.007206	0.00E+00	7	28	0.012782	3.92E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.005871	0.00E+00	8	32	0.016455	3.68E-07
	$z_7$	22	87	0.030189	0.00E+00	71	284	0.045157	1.91E-07
5000	$z_1$	2	7	0.01789	0	8	31	0.035804	3.68E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.083644	0	7	28	0.056219	5.20E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.019787	0.00E+00	9	36	0.028182	1.66E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.02077	0	9	35	0.028652	3.61E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.023139	0	7	28	0.09901	8.76E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.045152	0	8	32	0.046074	8.22E-07
	$z_7$	77	308	0.88375	2.85E-07	51	204	0.12808	9.55E-07
10000	$z_1$	2	7	0.025792	0	8	32	0.043945	5.20E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.020051	0	7	27	0.050306	7.35E-07
	$z_3$	2	7	0.025936	0.00E+00	9	36	0.039643	2.35E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.03822	0	9	35	0.041378	5.11E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.03849	0	8	32	0.13231	1.24E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.031354	0.00E+00	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	101	404	3.4918	4.06E-09	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
50000	$z_1$	2	7	0.091176	0	9	34	0.23565	0
	$z_2$	2	7	0.090561	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	2	7	0.13857	0.00E+00	9	35	0.12604	5.25E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.10731	0.00E+00	10	38	0.426	0
	$z_5$	2	7	0.14284	0.00E+00	8	31	0.47179	2.77E-07
	$z_6$	2	7	0.29418	0.00E+00	9	35	0.21126	2.60E-07
	$z_7$	110	439	8.6871	0	44	176	1.2526	3.55E-07
100000	$z_1$	2	7	0.20371	0	9	36	0.2659	1.65E-07
	$z_2$	2	7	0.26727	0	8	30	0.48604	0
	$z_3$	2	7	0.1588	0.00E+00	9	35	0.35032	7.42E-07
	$z_4$	2	7	0.20624	0.00E+00	10	39	0.34301	1.62E-07
	$z_5$	2	7	0.19404	0.00E+00	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	2	7	0.21718	0.00E+00	9	35	0.31142	3.68E-07
	$z_7$	111	444	18.0039	6.11E-08	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 6. Numerical result for Problem 5.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	34	127	0.026467	1.62E-07	71	263	0.16103	3.21E-07
	$z_2$	36	140	0.026972	7.43E-07	62	235	0.052281	1.13E-07
	$z_3$	52	205	0.16096	2.58E-07	50	194	0.088863	3.72E-07
	$z_4$	96	378	0.55079	4.35E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	123	492	0.48012	3.96E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	196	784	1.0967	6.21E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	115	459	0.34961	2.89E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
5000	$z_1$	59	232	0.68163	2.32E-07	63	231	0.30231	3.90E-07
	$z_2$	50	188	0.29441	6.42E-07	72	282	0.18091	7.31E-07
	$z_3$	179	709	2.2218	2.91E-07	60	232	0.14861	1.47E-07
	$z_4$	171	684	2.9204	2.99E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	297	1187	5.9983	3.31E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	420	1680	9.6236	1.67E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	187	744	3.4767	8.43E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
10000	$z_1$	77	300	1.3784	1.39E-07	75	283	0.27114	2.35E-07
	$z_2$	74	283	1.5399	1.34E-07	55	208	0.20873	3.12E-07
	$z_3$	214	843	5.0625	9.68E-07	67	259	0.65684	2.52E-07
	$z_4$	253	1012	8.4598	5.48E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	383	1531	15.2491	1.45E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	575	2300	24.956	4.27E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	323	1291	9.6152	2.90E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
50000	$z_1$	135	534	12.3192	9.85E-07	65	253	1.9331	1.74E-07
	$z_2$	342	1357	46.7469	1.53E-07	94	369	4.3154	4.77E-07
	$z_3$	326	1294	39.8986	4.97E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	504	2016	82.9841	3.45E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	602	2403	97.0953	6.65E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
100000	$z_1$	164	645	25.8558	1.87E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	400	1590	126.0758	7.38E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	636	2544	240.5206	3.57E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 7. Numerical result for Problem 6.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	9	36	0.17935	8.25E-07	9	36	0.0153	8.24E-07
	$z_2$	9	36	0.03051	7.93E-07	9	36	0.048509	7.93E-07
	$z_3$	9	36	0.027967	6.99E-07	9	36	0.017521	6.98E-07
	$z_4$	9	36	0.015472	4.79E-07	9	36	0.014811	4.78E-07
	$z_5$	9	36	0.007122	3.84E-07	9	36	0.016431	3.83E-07
	$z_6$	9	36	0.010164	2.27E-07	9	36	0.009737	2.26E-07
	$z_7$	9	36	0.020191	7.23E-07	9	36	0.017515	7.06E-07
5000	$z_1$	10	40	0.048118	1.85E-07	10	40	0.082844	1.85E-07
	$z_2$	10	40	0.097072	1.78E-07	10	40	0.050343	1.78E-07
	$z_3$	10	40	0.032297	1.57E-07	10	40	0.10792	1.57E-07
	$z_4$	10	40	0.043942	1.07E-07	10	40	0.076199	1.07E-07
	$z_5$	9	36	0.043841	8.61E-07	9	36	0.037916	8.61E-07
	$z_6$	9	36	0.033263	5.08E-07	9	36	0.069375	5.08E-07
	$z_7$	10	40	0.037194	1.58E-07	10	40	0.047672	1.58E-07
10000	$z_1$	10	40	0.082406	2.62E-07	10	40	0.076648	2.62E-07
	$z_2$	10	40	0.068947	2.52E-07	10	40	0.15678	2.52E-07
	$z_3$	10	40	0.058721	2.22E-07	10	40	0.13597	2.22E-07
	$z_4$	10	40	0.078257	1.52E-07	10	40	0.08399	1.52E-07
	$z_5$	10	40	0.062069	1.22E-07	10	40	0.07822	1.22E-07
	$z_6$	9	36	0.053275	7.18E-07	9	36	0.1205	7.18E-07
	$z_7$	10	40	0.057688	2.24E-07	10	40	0.080168	2.23E-07
50000	$z_1$	10	40	0.22352	5.85E-07	10	39	0.38243	5.85E-07
	$z_2$	10	40	0.27436	5.63E-07	10	39	0.41361	5.63E-07
	$z_3$	10	40	0.23122	4.96E-07	10	39	0.30721	4.96E-07
	$z_4$	10	40	0.21192	3.40E-07	10	39	0.43086	3.40E-07
	$z_5$	10	40	0.23892	2.72E-07	10	38	0.29829	1.26E-15
	$z_6$	10	40	0.29017	1.61E-07	10	38	0.51415	6.28E-16
	$z_7$	10	40	0.25616	5.01E-07	10	39	0.29756	5.00E-07
100000	$z_1$	10	40	0.82944	8.28E-07	10	39	1.1183	8.28E-07
	$z_2$	10	40	0.47168	7.96E-07	10	38	0.6117	6.28E-16
	$z_3$	10	40	0.49749	7.01E-07	10	38	0.81145	6.28E-16
	$z_4$	10	40	0.52125	4.80E-07	10	38	0.79886	0
	$z_5$	10	40	0.69499	3.85E-07	10	38	0.60219	0
	$z_6$	10	40	0.47656	2.27E-07	10	38	0.72864	0
	$z_7$	10	40	0.49578	7.07E-07	10	39	0.80741	7.07E-07

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 8. Numerical result for Problem 7.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	5	20	0.046544	3.24E-07	5	20	0.008647	3.24E-07
	$z_2$	5	20	0.009418	1.43E-07	5	20	0.013849	1.43E-07
	$z_3$	5	20	0.038932	1.68E-08	4	16	0.015388	5.81E-08
	$z_4$	6	24	0.01166	9.16E-09	6	24	0.010967	3.39E-08
	$z_5$	6	24	0.010929	1.23E-08	6	24	0.0107	4.99E-08
	$z_6$	6	23	0.01937	1.04E-07	6	23	0.014025	6.55E-08
	$z_7$	26	104	0.032336	8.36E-09	36	144	0.12555	5.34E-08
5000	$z_1$	5	20	0.029586	7.25E-07	5	20	0.041107	7.25E-07
	$z_2$	5	20	0.027892	3.20E-07	5	20	0.038182	3.20E-07
	$z_3$	5	20	0.035333	3.75E-08	4	16	0.12123	1.30E-07
	$z_4$	6	24	0.032225	2.05E-08	6	24	0.05211	7.58E-08
	$z_5$	6	24	0.026546	2.75E-08	6	24	0.038675	1.12E-07
	$z_6$	6	23	0.032529	2.32E-07	6	23	0.081384	1.46E-07
	$z_7$	34	136	0.24122	3.59E-08	41	164	0.29917	1.14E-07
10000	$z_1$	6	24	0.043879	5.12E-09	6	24	0.079589	5.12E-09
	$z_2$	5	20	0.036531	4.52E-07	5	20	0.1417	4.52E-07
	$z_3$	5	20	0.050902	5.31E-08	4	16	0.045901	1.84E-07
	$z_4$	6	24	0.054078	2.90E-08	6	24	0.059807	1.07E-07
	$z_5$	6	24	0.052048	3.89E-08	6	24	0.099213	1.58E-07
	$z_6$	6	23	0.04894	3.28E-07	6	23	0.054029	2.07E-07
	$z_7$	41	164	0.30793	3.45E-08	45	180	0.92444	3.64E-07
50000	$z_1$	6	24	0.14	1.15E-08	6	24	0.26027	1.15E-08
	$z_2$	6	24	0.14343	5.06E-09	6	24	0.60276	5.06E-09
	$z_3$	5	20	0.15201	1.19E-07	4	16	0.17247	4.11E-07
	$z_4$	6	24	0.34794	6.48E-08	6	24	0.22999	2.40E-07
	$z_5$	6	24	0.15433	8.70E-08	6	24	0.38048	3.53E-07
	$z_6$	6	23	0.1425	7.35E-07	6	23	0.2271	4.63E-07
	$z_7$	29	116	1.295	9.41E-09	44	176	2.2436	7.06E-07
100000	$z_1$	6	24	0.39791	1.62E-08	6	24	0.94834	1.62E-08
	$z_2$	6	24	0.47548	7.15E-09	6	24	0.43453	7.15E-09
	$z_3$	5	20	0.48174	1.68E-07	4	16	0.29517	5.81E-07
	$z_4$	6	24	0.26721	9.16E-08	6	24	0.55119	3.39E-07
	$z_5$	6	24	0.28512	1.23E-07	6	24	0.61073	4.99E-07
	$z_6$	7	27	0.5385	5.19E-09	6	23	0.42035	6.55E-07
	$z_7$	29	116	1.6021	1.19E-08	41	164	3.9953	9.23E-07

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 9. Numerical result for Problem 8.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	66	264	0.934	3.48E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	101	404	0.99428	4.28E-07	41	164	0.75214	4.29E-07
	$z_3$	40	160	0.40127	3.33E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	39	156	0.5071	5.07E-07	39	156	0.71207	3.83E-07
	$z_5$	36	144	0.61923	4.69E-07	35	140	1.4123	4.07E-07
	$z_6$	4	14	0.071864	NaN	4	14	0.059454	NaN
	$z_7$	23	89	0.48051	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
5000	$z_1$	52	208	2.7649	2.91E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	44	176	2.1027	3.54E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	42	168	2.1325	2.95E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	37	148	2.0738	3.41E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	16	60	0.64982	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	20	76	0.98188	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	301	1202	18.7543	4.37E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
10000	$z_1$	77	303	9.6495	3.64E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	71	284	8.0859	3.74E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	62	248	7.1755	3.27E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	48	192	4.1575	4.42E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	15	55	0.93456	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	123	490	12.4072	3.88E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	307	1226	35.579	3.46E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
50000	$z_1$	24	89	8.5017	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	89	355	45.0395	4.34E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	65	260	28.4752	3.57E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	431	1718	135.7493	3.88E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	6	21	2.1067	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	6	21	1.8349	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	7	24	1.8872	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
100000	$z_1$	34	130	31.5135	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_2$	5	17	1.9076	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_3$	87	332	64.5816	3.00E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_4$	76	303	68.3533	4.49E-07	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_5$	5	17	2.2305	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_6$	5	17	2.5293	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
	$z_7$	6	21	3.1078	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 10. Numerical result for Problem 9.

		Algo.1				Algo.2
dim	inp	nit	nfv	tim	norm	nit	nfv	tim	norm
1000	$z_1$	10	34	0.032445	1.06E-07	10	34	0.005932	1.06E-07
	$z_2$	10	34	0.008239	1.06E-07	10	34	0.010335	1.06E-07
	$z_3$	10	34	0.0073	1.06E-07	10	34	0.008407	1.06E-07
	$z_4$	10	34	0.008495	1.06E-07	10	34	0.010614	1.06E-07
	$z_5$	10	34	0.00772	1.06E-07	10	34	0.00775	1.06E-07
	$z_6$	10	34	0.011383	1.06E-07	10	35	0.009311	1.06E-07
	$z_7$	67	213	0.024778	9.71E-07	10	34	0.008864	1.06E-07
5000	$z_1$	7	25	0.022534	6.89E-08	7	25	0.027033	6.89E-08
	$z_2$	7	25	0.032305	6.89E-08	7	25	0.02838	6.89E-08
	$z_3$	7	25	0.026468	6.89E-08	7	25	0.068469	6.89E-08
	$z_4$	7	25	0.034453	6.89E-08	7	26	0.037886	6.89E-08
	$z_5$	7	25	0.021703	6.89E-08	7	26	0.037186	6.89E-08
	$z_6$	7	25	0.027352	6.89E-08	7	26	0.077955	6.89E-08
	$z_7$	20	66	0.061189	9.72E-07	7	25	0.037992	6.89E-08
10000	$z_1$	6	22	0.07498	8.13E-08	6	22	0.054682	8.13E-08
	$z_2$	6	22	0.047478	8.13E-08	6	22	0.21797	8.13E-08
	$z_3$	6	22	0.052347	8.13E-08	6	22	0.081579	8.13E-08
	$z_4$	6	22	0.047644	8.13E-08	6	23	0.085064	8.13E-08
	$z_5$	6	22	0.068304	8.13E-08	6	23	0.19028	8.13E-08
	$z_6$	6	22	0.042771	8.13E-08	6	23	0.15365	8.13E-08
	$z_7$	12	41	0.074071	9.08E-07	6	22	0.056989	8.13E-08
50000	$z_1$	5	19	0.22112	1.41E-07	5	19	0.60662	1.41E-07
	$z_2$	5	19	0.21638	1.41E-07	5	19	0.33244	1.41E-07
	$z_3$	5	19	0.22186	1.41E-07	5	20	0.8389	1.41E-07
	$z_4$	5	19	0.37207	1.41E-07	5	20	0.63139	1.41E-07
	$z_5$	5	19	0.36107	1.41E-07	5	20	1.046	1.41E-07
	$z_6$	5	19	0.27063	1.41E-07	5	20	1.4673	1.41E-07
	$z_7$	59	235	2.7862	4.11E-07	5	19	0.57234	1.41E-07
100000	$z_1$	6	23	0.93893	2.10E-07	6	23	1.3525	2.10E-07
	$z_2$	6	23	0.60445	2.10E-07	6	24	1.5313	2.10E-07
	$z_3$	6	23	0.71683	2.10E-07	6	24	1.6022	2.10E-07
	$z_4$	6	23	0.57114	2.10E-07	6	24	1.7882	2.10E-07
	$z_5$	6	23	0.57099	2.10E-07	6	24	1.878	2.10E-07
	$z_6$	6	23	0.69104	2.10E-07	6	24	1.9634	2.10E-07
	$z_7$	34	135	4.3899	4.52E-07	6	23	1.4688	2.10E-07

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Acknowledgments

This study was partly funded by the PhD funds and the HiF funds of Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

References

[1]	Dizge N, Shaulsky E, Karanikola V (2019) Electrospun cellulose nanofibers for superhydrophobic and oleophobic membranes. J Membr Sci 590: 117271. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117271
[2]	Pavlova ER, Bagrov DV, Monakhova KZ, et al. (2019) Tuning the properties of electrospun polylactide mats by ethanol treatment. Mater Des 181: 108061. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108061
[3]	Wang JN, Zhao WW, Wang B, et al. (2017) Multilevel-layer-structured polyamide 6/poly(trimethylene terephthalate) nanofibrous membranes for low-pressure air filtration. J Appl Pol Sci 134: 44716.
[4]	Cooper A, Oldinski R, Ma H Y, et al. (2013) Chitosan-based nanofibrous membranes for antibacterial filter applications. Carbohyd Polym 92: 254-259. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.08.114
[5]	Banner J, Dautzenberg M, Feldhans T, et al. (2018) Water resistance and morphology of electrospun gelatine blended with citric acid and coconut oil. Tekstilec 61: 129-135. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2018.61.129-135
[6]	Grimmelsmann N, Homburg SV, Ehrmann A (2017) Electrospinning chitosan blends for nonwovens with morphologies between nanofiber mat and membrane. IOP Conf Series Mater Sci Eng 213: 012007. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/213/1/012007
[7]	Wortmann M, Freese N, Sabantina L, et al. (2019) New polymers for needleless electrospinning from low-toxic solvents. Nanomater 9: 52. doi: 10.3390/nano9010052
[8]	Krasonu I, Tarassova E, Malmberg S, et al. (2019) Preparation of fibrous electrospun membranes with activated carbon filler. IOP Conf Series Mater Sci Eng 500: 012022. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/500/1/012022
[9]	Plamus T, Savest N, Viirsalu M, et al. (2018) The effect of ionic liquids on the mechanical properties of electrospun polyacrylonitrile membranes. Polym Test 71: 335-343. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.09.003
[10]	Sabantina L, Mirasol JR, Cordero T, et al. (2018) Investigation of needleless electrospun PAN nanofiber mats. AIP Conf Proc 1952: 020085. doi: 10.1063/1.5032047
[11]	Wang JH, Cai C, Zhang ZJ, et al. (2020) Electrospun metal-organic frameworks with polyacrylonitrile as precursors to hierarchical porous carbon and composite nanofibers for adsorption and catalysis. Chemosphere 239: 124833. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124833
[12]	de Oliveira JB, Guerrini LM, dos Santos Conejo L, et al. (2019) Viscoelastic evaluation of epoxy nanocomposite based on carbon nanofiber obtained from electrospinning processing. Polym Bull 76: 6063-6076. doi: 10.1007/s00289-019-02707-0
[13]	Trabelsi M, Mamun A, Klöcker M, et al. (2019) Increased mechanical properties of carbon nanofiber mats for possible medical applications. Fibers 7: 98. doi: 10.3390/fib7110098
[14]	Wang L, Zhang C, Gao F, et al. (2016) Needleless electrospinning for scaled-up production of ultrafine chitosan hybrid nanofibers used for air filtration. RSC Adv 6: 105988-105995. doi: 10.1039/C6RA24557A
[15]	Roche R, Yalcinkaya F (2018) Incorporation of PVDF nanofibre multilayers into functional structure for filtration applications. Nanomater 8: 771. doi: 10.3390/nano8100771
[16]	Lv D, Wang RX, Tang GS, et al. (2019) Ecofriendly electrospun membranes loaded with visible-light-responding nanoparticles for multifunctional usages: highly efficient air filtration, dye scavenging, and bactericidal activity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 11: 12880-12889. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b01508
[17]	Fu QS, Lin G, Chen XD, et al. (2018) Mechanically reinforced PVdF/PMMA/SiO₂ composite membrane and its electrochemical properties as a separator in lithium-ion batteries. Energy Technol 6: 144-152. doi: 10.1002/ente.201700347
[18]	Mamun A, Trabelsi M, Klöcker M, et al. (2019) Electrospun nanofiber mats with embedded non-sintered TiO₂ for dye sensitized solar cells (DSSCs). Fibers 7: 60. doi: 10.3390/fib7070060
[19]	Xue YY, Guo X, Zhou HF, et al. (2019) Influence of beads-on-string on Na-Ion storage behavior in electrospun carbon nanofibers. Carbon 154: 219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.08.003
[20]	Mamun A (2019) Review of possible applications of nanofibrous mats for wound dressings. Tekstilec 62: 89-100. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2019.62.89-100
[21]	Gao ST, Tang GS, Hua DW, et al. (2019) Stimuli-responsive bio-based polymeric systems and their applications. J Mater Chem B 7: 709-729. doi: 10.1039/C8TB02491J
[22]	Aljawish A, Muniglia L, Chevalot I (2016) Growth of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on films of enzymatically modified chitosan. Biotechnol Prog 32: 491-500. doi: 10.1002/btpr.2216
[23]	Muzzarelli RAA, EI Mehtedi M, Bottegoni C, et al. (2015) Genipin-crosslinked chitosan gels and scaffolds for tissue engineering and regeneration of cartilage and bone. Mar Drugs 13: 7314-7338. doi: 10.3390/md13127068
[24]	Klinkhammer K, Seiler N, Grafahrend D, et al. (2009) Deposition of electrospun fibers on reactive substrates for in vitro investigations. Tissue Eng Part C 15: 77-85. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2008.0324
[25]	Yoshida H, Klinkhammer K, Matsusaki M, et al. (2009) Disulfide-crosslinked electrospun poly(γ-glutamic acid) nonwovens as reduction-responsive scaffolds. Macromol Biosci 9: 568-574. doi: 10.1002/mabi.200800334
[26]	Chatel A (2019) A brief history of adherent cell culture: where we come from and where we should go. BioProcess Int 17: 44-49.
[27]	Whitford WG, Hardy JC, Cadwell JJS (2014) Single-use, continuous processing of primary stem cells. BioProcess Int 12: 26-32.
[28]	Simon M (2015) Bioreactor design for adherent cell culture. The bolt-on bioreactor project, part 1: volumetric productivity. BioProcess Int 13: 28-33.
[29]	Allan SJ, De Bank PA, Ellis MJ (2019) Bioprocess design considerations for cultured meat production with a focus on the expansion bioreactor. Front Sus Food Syst 3: 44. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00044
[30]	GE Healthcare Life Sciences (2013) Microcarrier Cell Culture, Principles and Methods.Available from: http://www.gelifesciences.co.kr/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/023.8_Microcarrier-Cell-Culture.pdf.
[31]	Lennaertz A, Knowles S, Drugmand JC, et al. (2013) Viral vector production in the integrity iCELLis single-use fixed-bed bioreactor, from bench-scale to industrial scale. BMC Proc 7: P59. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-7-S6-P59
[32]	Dohogne Y, Collignon F, Drugmand JC, et al. (2019) Scale-X bioreactor for viral vector production. Proof of concept for scalable HEK293 cell growth and adenovirus production, Univercell Application note.Available from: https://www.univercells.com/app/uploads/2019/05/scale-X%E2%84%A2-bioreactor-for-viral-production-Adeno_SFM.pdf.
[33]	Drugmand JC, Aghatos S, Schneider YJ, et al. (2007) Growth of mammalian and lepidopteram cells on BioNOC® II disks, a novel macroporous microcarrier. Cell Technology for Cell Products Heidelberg: Springer, 781-784. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5476-1_143
[34]	Wehlage D, Blatter H, Sabantina L, et al. (2019) Sterilization of PAN/gelatin nanofibrous mats for cell growth. Tekstilec 62: 78-88. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2019.62.78-88
[35]	Ghasemi A, Imani R, Yousefzadeh M, et al. (2019) Studying the potential application of electrospun polyethylene terephthalate/graphene oxide nanofibers as electroconductive cardiac patc. Macromol Mater Eng 304: 1900187. doi: 10.1002/mame.201900187
[36]	Nekouian S, Sojoodi M, Nadri S (2019) Fabrication of conductive fibrous scaffold for photoreceptor differentiation of mesenchymal stem cell. J Cell Physiol 234: 15800-15808. doi: 10.1002/jcp.28238
[37]	Rahmani A, Nadri S, Kazemi HS, et al. (2019) Conductive electrospun scaffolds with electrical stimulation for neural differentiation of conjunctiva mesenchymal stem cells. Artif Organs 43: 780-790. doi: 10.1111/aor.13425
[38]	Kutzli I, Beljo D, Gibis M, et al. (2019) Effect of maltodextrin dextrose equivalent on electrospinnability and glycation reaction of blends with pea protein isolate. Food Biophysics .
[39]	Diestelhorst E, Mance F, Mamun A, et al. (2020) Chemical and morphological modification of PAN nanofiber mats by addition of casein after electrospinning, stabilization and carbonization. Tekstilec 63: 38-49. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2020.63.38-49
[40]	Möller J, Korte K, Pörtner R, et al. (2018) Model-based identification of cell-cycle-dependent metabolism and putative autocrine effects in antibody producing CHO cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 115: 2996-3008. doi: 10.1002/bit.26828
[41]	Wippermann A, Rupp O, Brinkrolf K, et al. (2015) The DNA methylation landscape of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) DP-12 cells. J Biotechnol 199: 38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.02.014
[42]	Haredy AM, Nishizawa A, Honda K, et al. (2013) Improved antibody production in Chinese hamster ovary cells by ATF4 overexpression. Cytotechnology 65: 993-1002. doi: 10.1007/s10616-013-9631-x
[43]	Bazrafshan Z, Stylios GK (2018) Custom-built electrostatics and supplementary bonding in the design of reinforced Collagen-g-P (methyl methacrylate-co-ethyl acrylate)/nylon 66 core-shell fibers. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 87: 19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.002
[44]	Storck JL, Grothe T, Mamun A, et al. (2020) Orientation of electrospun magnetic nanofibers near conductive areas. Materials 13: 47. doi: 10.3390/ma13010047
[45]	Richter KN, Revelo NH, Seitz KJ, et al. (2018) Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super-resolution microscopy. EMBO J 37: 139-159. doi: 10.15252/embj.201695709
[46]	Huang LC, Lin W, Yagami M, et al. (2010) Validation of cell density and viability assays using Cedex automated cell counter. Biologicals 38: 393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2010.01.009
[47]	Sabantina L, Rodríguez-Cano MA, Klöcker M, et al. (2018) Fixing PAN nanofiber mats during stabilization for carbonization and creating novel metal/carbon composites. Polymers 10: 735. doi: 10.3390/polym10070735
[48]	Baek M, Kim MK, Cho HJ, et al. (2011) Factors influencing the cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles: particle size and surface charge. J Phys Conf Ser 304: 012044. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012044
[49]	Sing S (2019) Zinc oxide nanoparticles impacts: cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, development toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Toxicol Mech Methods 29: 300-311. doi: 10.1080/15376516.2018.1553221
[50]	Kuebodeaux RE, Bernazzani P, Nguyen TTM (2018) Cytotoxic and membrane cholesterol effects of ultraviolet irradiation and zinc oxide nanoparticles on Chinese hamster ovary cells. Molecules 23: 2979. doi: 10.3390/molecules23112979
[51]	Zukiene R, Snitka V (2015) Zinc oxide nanoparticle and bovine serum albumin interaction andnanoparticles influence on cytotoxicity in vitro. Colloids Surf B 135: 316-323. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.07.054

This article has been cited by:

1.	Xin Du, Quansheng Liu, Yuanhong Bi, Bifurcation analysis of a two–dimensional p53 gene regulatory network without and with time delay, 2023, 32, 2688-1594, 293, 10.3934/era.2024014
2.	Huazhou Mo, Yuanfu Shao, Stability and bifurcation analysis of a delayed stage-structured predator–prey model with fear, additional food, and cooperative behavior in both species, 2025, 2025, 2731-4235, 10.1186/s13662-025-03879-y

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)