Effect of storage on the biochemical and processing quality of Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis)

Storage of adzuki beans and other pulse grains causes biochemical and physical changes that affect the hydration properties of the beans. This affects the quality of products made from the beans such as the Japanese bean paste “ann.” Storage, particularly under unfavourable conditions, leads to the “hard shell” phenomenon, where beans fail to imbibe water when soaked and remain hard, and the “hard-to-cook” phenomenon where the seeds hydrate normally, but the cotyledon fails to hydrate and soften during cooking. The hard shell phenomenon is attributable to impermeability of the seed coat to water, which is due to biochemical changes in the seed coat, such as the formation of protein-tannin complexes, and biophysical changes such as reduction in size or closure of the straphiole aperture in the hilum area—the main area for water entry into the adzuki bean. The hard-to-cook phenomenon is due to changes in the cotyledon tissue, which include formation of insoluble pectinates, lignification of the cell wall and middle lamella, interaction of condensed tannins with proteins and starch, and changes to the structure and functionality of the cellular proteins and starch.

Characterization of a proton conductor based on silicotungstic acid

It was found in this work that silicotungstic acid hydrate could be mixed with phosphoric acid (H₃PO₄, 85%) to make a viscous paste material with high conductivity (10⁻² S/cm at room temperature). The STA/H₃PO₄ paste samples were stable at 80°C in the atmosphere, and at 100°C under constant humidity over 10 days. The conductivity behavior of the paste samples has been investigated under various conditions, and it was found to be dependent on temperature, paste composition, and environment humidity.

Water-soluble acrylamide sulfonate copolymer for inhibiting shale hydration

Here we report a water-soluble acrylamide sulfonate copolymer for inhibiting shale hydrate formation. The copolymer, denoted as PANAA, was synthesized via copolymerization of acrylamide (AM), N,N-diallylbenzylamine (NAPA), acrylic acid (AA), and 2-(acrylamide)-2-methylpropane-1-sulfonic acid (AMPS). The performance of this new water-soluble copolymer for inhibiting shale hydration was investigated for the first time. The retention ratio of apparent viscosity of 2 wt % PANAA solution can reach 61.6% at 130 C and further up to 72.2% with 12 000 mg/L NaCl brine. The X-ray diffraction studies show that the addition of copolymer PANAA (5000 mg/L), in combination with a low loading of KCl (3 wt %), remarkably reduces the interlayer spacing of sodium montmorillonite (Na-MMT) in water from 19.04 to 15.65 Å. It has also found that these copolymer solutions, blending with KCl, can improve the retention of indentation hardness from 22% to 74% and increase the antiswelling ratio up to 84%. All results have demonstrated that the PANAA copolymer not only has excellent temperature-resistance and salt-tolerance but also exhibits a significant effect on inhibiting the hydration of clays and shale. © 2014 American Chemical Society.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.