Nanocellulose Reinforced Polyurethane Obtained from Hydroxylated Soybean Oil

Polyurethane (PU) has become one of the most widely used plastics for various applications such as thermal insulation, automotive parts and seating materials. Polyols for PU production are derived mostly from petrochemical products but can be replaced by renewable materials. The use of renewable resources in materials has attracted great interest in both industrial and academic fields because of their environmental aspect and sustainability [1]. Nanocellulose is often being regarded as the next generation renewable reinforcement for the production of high performance bcomposites. Cellulose nanowhiskers have been widely investigated as reinforcement in PUs. Therefore cellulose nanorystals could be candidate for reinforcing PU composites [1-2]. In this research, the cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) were successfully obtained from microcrystalline cellulose and dispersed in a PU matrix. PU matrix was prepared from hydroxylated soybean oil Agrol (OH=120.8 mg KOH/g), tertiary amine catalyst and polymeric diphenyl diisocyanate. Nanocomposites containing 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 wt% CNC were prepared. Thermal properties and tensile strength of the resulting films were evaluated. Also, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), Fourier transform infra-red tests and X-ray diffraction tests were carried out

Is Microarray Analysis Really Useful and Sufficient to Diagnose Nut Allergy in the Mediterranean Area?

Background: Component-based diagnosis on multiplex platforms is widely used in food allergy but its clinical performance has not been evaluated in nut allergy. Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of a commercial protein microarray in the determination of specific IgE (sIgE) in peanut, hazelnut, and walnut allergy. Methods: sIgE was measured in 36 peanut-allergic, 36 hazelnut-allergic, and 44 walnut-allergic patients by ISAC 112, and subsequently, sIgE against available components was determined by ImmunoCAP in patients with negative ISAC results. ImmunoCAP was also used to measure sIgE to Ara h 9, Cor a 8, and Jug r 3 in a subgroup of lipid transfer protein (LTP)-sensitized nut-allergic patients (positive skin prick test to LTP-enriched extract). sIgE levels by ImmunoCAP were compared with ISAC ranges. Results: Most peanut-, hazelnut-, and walnut-allergic patients were sensitized to the corresponding nut LTP (Ara h 9, 66.7%; Cor a 8, 80.5%; Jug r 3, 84% respectively). However, ISAC did not detect sIgE in 33.3% of peanut-allergic patients, 13.9% of hazelnut-allergic patients, or 13.6% of walnut-allergic patients. sIgE determination by ImmunoCAP detected sensitization to Ara h 9, Cor a 8, and Jug r 3 in, respectively, 61.5% of peanut-allergic patients, 60% of hazelnut-allergic patients, and 88.3% of walnut-allergic patients with negative ISAC results. In the subgroup of peach LTP–sensitized patients, Ara h 9 sIgE was detected in more cases by ImmunoCAP than by ISAC (94.4% vs 72.2%, P<.05). Similar rates of Cor a 8 and Jug r 3 sensitization were detected by both techniques. Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of ISAC was adequate for hazelnut and walnut allergy but not for peanut allergy. sIgE sensitivity against Ara h 9 in ISAC needs to be improved.Introducción: La utilidad clínica del diagnóstico por componentes no ha sido evaluada en el estudio de la alergia a frutos secos (FS). Objetivo: Evaluar la capacidad diagnóstica de una micromatriz comercial de proteínas alergénicas en la alergia a cacahuete, avellana y nuez. Métodos: Se determinó la sIgE en pacientes alérgicos a FS mediante la micromatriz ISAC 112, e ImmunoCAP en los pacientes con sIgE negativa frente a los componentes de ISAC. Además, se realizó ImmunoCAP frente a Ara h 9, Cor a 8 y Jug r 3 en un subgrupo de pacientes sensibilizados a LTP. La sIgE detectada por ImmunoCAP fue comparada con los rangos de ISAC. Resultados: La mayoría de los alérgicos a cacahuete (66,7%), avellana (80,5%) y nuez (84%) estaba sensibilizados a su LTP. Sin embargo, no se detectó sIgE frente a los componentes de ISAC en el 33,3% de alérgicos a cacahuete, 13,9% de alérgicos a avellana y 13,6% de los alérgicos a nuez. El ImmunoCAP permitió detectar sIgE a Ara h 9 en 61,5%, Cor a 8 en 60% y Jug r 3 en 83,3% de los ISAC negativo. En el subgrupo LTP, ImmunoCAP (94,4%) fue superior a ISAC (72,2%) en la detección de sIgE a Ara h 9 (p<0,05). La sIgE frente a Cor a 8 y Jug r 3 fue detectada de forma similar por ambas técnicas. Conclusiones: La micromatriz ISAC es adecuada para el diagnóstico de alergia a avellana y nuez. La sensibilidad del componente Ara h 9 de ISAC debe ser mejorada