3D‐morphology reconstruction of nanoscale phase‐separation in polymer memory blends

In many organic electronic devices functionality is achieved by blending two or more materials, typically polymers or molecules, with distinctly different optical or electrical properties in a single film. The local scale morphology of such blends is vital for the device performance. Here, a simple approach to study the full 3D morphology of phase‐separated blends, taking advantage of the possibility to selectively dissolve the different components is introduced. This method is applied in combination with AFM to investigate a blend of a semiconducting and ferroelectric polymer typically used as active layer in organic ferroelectric resistive switches. It is found that the blend consists of a ferroelectric matrix with three types of embedded semiconductor domains and a thin wetting layer at the bottom electrode. Statistical analysis of the obtained images excludes the presence of a fourth type of domains. The criteria for the applicability of the presented technique are discussed. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2015 , 53, 1231–1237     

Characteristics investigation on heat transfer growth of sonochemically synthesized ZnO-DW based nanofluids inside square heat exchanger

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry - In recent decades, the growth of heat transfer using nanomaterials in the conventional base fluid has caught the attention of researchers...     

Effect of cost-free energy storage material and saline water depth on the performance of square pyramid solar still: a mathematical and experimental study

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry - Low productivity of single-slope solar still is the main barrier for its worldwide usability. An attempt has been conducted to enhance the distillate...     

Long-wavelength Ultraviolet A1 and Visible Light Photoprotection: A Multimodality Assessment of Dose and Response

Human skin is exposed to visible light (VL; 400–700 nm) and long-wavelength ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) radiation (370–400 nm) after the application of organic broad-spectrum sunscreens. The biologic effects of these wavelengths have been demonstrated; however, a dose–response has not been investigated. Ten subjects with Fitzpatrick skin phototype IV-VI were enrolled. Subjects were irradiated with 2 light sources (80–480 J cm⁻²): one comprising VL with less than 0.5% UVA1 (VL+UVA1) and the other pure VL. Skin responses were evaluated for 2 weeks using clinical and spectroscopic assessments. 4-mm punch biopsies were obtained from nonirradiated skin and sites irradiated with 480 J cm⁻² of VL+UVA1 and pure VL 24 h after irradiation. Clinical and spectroscopic assessments demonstrated a robust response at VL+UVA1 sites compared with pure VL. Histology findings demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the marker of inflammation (P < 0.05) and proliferation (P < 0.05) at the irradiated sites compared with nonirradiated control. Threshold doses of VL+UVA1 resulting in biologic responses were calculated. Results indicate that approximately 2 h of sun exposure, which equates to VL+UVA1 dose (~400 J cm⁻²), is capable of inducing inflammation, immediate erythema and delayed tanning. These findings reinforce the need of photoprotection beyond the UV range.     

Recent advances and challenges in the recovery and purification of cellular exosomes

Exosomes are nanovesicles secreted by most cellular types that carry important biochemical compounds throughout the body with different purposes, playing a preponderant role in cellular communication. Because of their structure, physicochemical properties and stability, recent studies are focusing in their use as nanocarriers for different therapeutic compounds for the treatment of different diseases ranging from cancer to Parkinson's disease. However, current bioseparation protocols and methodologies are selected based on the final exosome application or intended use and present both advantages and disadvantages when compared among them. In this context, this review aims to present the most important technologies available for exosome isolation while discussing their advantages and disadvantages and the possibilities of being combined with other strategies. This is critical since the development of novel exosome‐based therapeutic strategies will be constrained to the effectiveness and yield of the selected downstream purification methodologies for which a thorough understanding of the available technological resources is needed.