Search

Grease-resistant paper has been produced by coating paper with isolated soy protein (ISP). Tensile strength (TS) of ISP-coated paper is 28–30 MPa (between the TS of paper and of ISP film). TS of the ISP-coated paper (2.3 kg/ream) was highest (36.0 MPa) among other ISP-coated papers, but elongation (E) of the papers seemed to decrease (though not statistically significantly) as the thickness of the ISP coating increased. ISP-coated papers were highly impermeable to grease penetration for the first 2 h of the test. The percent stained area of two commercially used polyethylene-laminated papers was higher than those of ISP-coated papers. As the amount of plasticizer (a mixture of glycerol and polyethylene glycol) was increased in ISP-coated paper, the TS decreased and the E increased. When tested, the percent stained areas of the paper containing 0.6 and 1.0 g plasticizer/g protein were lower for the first 2 h than those of the papers containing 0.0 and 0.2 g plasticizer/g protein. Also, percent stained area increased with time. Grease resistance of papers coated with ISP at levels higher than 2.0 kg/ream was equal to or lower than that of polyethylene laminates used for quick-service restaurant sandwich packaging.

In our February 2008 issue, we published the paper ‘‘Kinetic Studies on Oxirane Cleavage of Epoxidized Soybean Oil by Methanol and Characterization of Polyols’’ by Bo Lin, Liting Yang, Honghai Dai, and Aihua Yi in the Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society (2008) 85:113–117 (doi:10.1007/s11746-007-1187-5). Consequently, we received a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Zoran Petrovic and Yijin Xu addressing concerns about the results in this article. Petrovic and Xu went so far as to conduct additional experiments in an attempt to verify the results of the original work, but were unsuccessful. In response, the authors also conducted additional experiments and came to the same conclusions as Petrovic and Xu. Published below is the critique of Petrovic and Xu as well as the authors’ response so that our readers can evaluate the science for themselves. Based on the additional data, we at JAOCS conclude that the results would not have justified publication of the original paper. We at JAOCS express our appreciation to Dr. Petrovic and Yijin Xu for bringing their criticisms forward and to the authors for acknowledging their error. The quality of JAOCS and, more appropriately all peerreviewed scientific publications, relies on the collective responsibility and contributions of authors, readers, reviewers and editors alike. This process works well in the great majority of cases; it is unfortunate, however, that in this case, an error such as this was allowed to pass through. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused our readers.