1050
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 14, No. 11
Chemistry of Wood'2z V-R,esults
of Analysis of Some American Woods By G . J. Rittera and L. C. Fleck4
FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MADISON,WISCONSIN
The analyses of some American woods, as set forth in the following article, give the following results: Hardwoods show a higher acetic acid content than softwoods by the acid hydrolysis process. Hardwoods average about 100 per cent higher in pentosan content than softwoods. Softwoods have a higher methyl pentosan content than hardwoods. The methoxy content of softwoods is approximately 85 per cent of that found in hardwoods. The cellulose isolated from the different species oaries in furfuralproducing substances. Softwood cellulose retains from 38 to 56 per cent of the furfural-yielding bodies in the original wood, and hardwood cellulose retains from 57 to 66 per cent of the furfuralyielding bodies. Beta-cellulose content is higher in softwoods than in hardwoods. Apparently the acetic acid content obtained by acid hydrolysis is lower than that obtained by destructive distillation. The analyses of eight species of woods not previously determined are gioen.
MERICAN forests are rapidly becoming depleted of certain species of woods. The industries using these particular species are turning with increased interest to the use of other woods with similar physical and chemical properties. Where such similar essential characteristics occur in two or more woods, it is possible in many cases to substitute one for the other. In considering different woods for the same use, certain properties might be classified as primary and others as secondary. If the primary properties are satisfactory and the secondary are not, it may be possible by various treatments to render the woods suitable for the required purpose. This is strikingly illustrated in the paper industry, in which some woods are given the soda treatment, some the sulfate treatment, and still others the sulfite process treatment, in order to obtain pulp for paper. If data were available on the chemical composition of more of the important American woods, it is believed that the wood-using industries could in some cases use woods in new processes, and in other instances utilise woods now considered of little value. With this in mind further work was done a t the Forest Products Laboratory on the study of the chemical composition of some American woods, a project which was begun by A. W. Schorger5and continued by S. A. hlahood and D. E. Cable.6 In selecting the woods for this comparative analysis, an attempt was made to take some of the more useful woods which would confirm or disprove the general helief (1) that there is a relation between the density and the chemical composition of wood, and ( 2 ) that there is a relation between the susceptibility to decay and the cellulose content of different species. With these two seemingly possible conditions in mind, woods with extremely high densities, such as hickory, others with extremely low densities, as balsa, and some with
A
.
1 Presented before Section of Cellulose Chemistry a t the 63rd Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Birmingham, Ala., April 3 to 7, 1922. 2 Published by permission of the Department of Agriculture 8 Chemist in Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. 4 Assistant Chemist in Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. THIS JOURNAL, 9 (1917), 556. e I b i d , 12 (1920), 873; 14 (1922), 933.
intermediate specific gravity were selected. These woods are as follows: SPECIES Western yellow pine (Pinus fionderosa) Yellow cedar (Chamaecypouis noolkatensis) Incense cedar (Libocedrus decurrens) Tanbark oak (Quercus densiflora) Redwood (heartwood) (Sequoia semperuivens) Mesquite (Prosoais julzflora) Balsa (Ochroma lagopus) Shellbark hickory (Hicovia ovate)
WHEREOBTAINED Coconino Co., Arizona Snohomish Co., Washington Fresno Co., California Trinity Co., California Shipment from Pacific Lumber Co., California Shipment from Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, Division of Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii Shipment from American Balsa Co., New York Harrisonburg Co., Virginia
The results obtained from the analysis of the eight woods are given in Table I. In the analytical work, which followed the methods described by the former investigators, all samples except incense cedar and mesquite were run in duplicate. The results tabulated are the average of the two determinations. The data relative to redwood are not exactly comparable with the results obtained on the other species shown in Table I, as the sapwood showed decay, and the heartwood only could be analyzed.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ASH COXTENT-The ash in the hardwoods runs considerably higher than in the conifers. Balsa, which weighs about 7 Ibs. per cu. ft., has an unusually high ash content as compared with the other species listed in the table. Estimated on a ton basis, balsa would be a good source of potash, provided its ash is high in potassium. Measured on a cord basis, however, the yield of potash is lower than in other hardwoods. COLD WATERSOLUBLECoisTENT-The outstanding features of the cold water solubility determinations are shown in connection with mesquite and balsa. The former has an exceptionally high cold water-soluble content, owing to the mesquite gum. The latter has a low cold water-soluble content because it contains very little tannin or gum. The redwood runs fairly high in water-soluble material, undoubtcdly because of the large amount of tannin. HOT WATER-SOLUBLE CoNTENT-The hot water-soluble content is from 1 to 2.5 per cent higher than the cold watersoluble content. The hot water-soluble material of redwood is 9.86 per cent. This is considerably less than the tannin content of the same wood reported by Scalione.' ETHER-SOLUBLECONTENT-The general idea prevails that the ether-soluble content is higher in conifers than in the hardwoods. Exceptions, however, are redwood among the conifers, and mesquite and balsa among the hardwoods. As would be expected, western yellow pine has the highest ether extract in this series of woods.
.
Nov., 1922
T H E JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
MorsSPECIES SAMPLE TURE Western yellow pine 141 5.32 (Pinus ponderosa) 142 8 . 2 8 143 6 . 8 9 144 5.19 MEAN 6 . 4 2 Yellow cedar 161 3 . 5 4 (Chamaecy@avis 162 5 . 1 9 nootkalensis) 163 4 . 8 7 164 5 . 9 1 MEAN 4 . 8 9 Incense cedar 165 5 . 3 2 (Lihocedvus 166 4 . 6 3 decurrens) 167 5 . 4 2 MEAN 5 . 1 2 Redwood (heartwood) 168 9 . 6 4 (Sequoia semper168 9 . 7 1 vzrens) MEAN 9.68 Tanbark oak (Qumcus densifiova)
Mesquite ‘ (Prosogis juZi$ova)
Balsa (Ochronan lagohus) Hickory (shellbark) (Hicoria ooola) 1
151 4 . 1 0 152 3 . 9 5 153 3.26 154 3 . 3 6 MEAN 3.66 171 4.53 172 6 . 1 0 173 6 . 1 5 174 5 . 2 0 MEAN 5 49 175 6 . 5 0 175 6 . 4 4 MEAN 6 . 4 7 177 9.60 178 7.39 M R ~ N 8.49
ASA 0.43 0.42 0.55 0.44 0.46 0.33 0.35 0.62
.
,
0.43 0.38 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.57 0.58 0.49 0.50 0 54 2.15 2.09 2.12 0.65 0.74 0.69
TABLEI-ANALYSES OF WOODS (Results in percentage of oven-dry (105’ C.) samples) ---SOLUBII,ITY IN----1 Per METHYL Cold Hot cent ACETICMETH- PEN- PEN- CELLU- LICWater Water Ether NaOH ACID OXY TOSAN TOSAN LOSE NIN 5 . 5 8 5.67 9 . 6 3 22.08 0.92 4 . 5 5 8 . 0 6 1 . 6 8 56.22 26.75 9.96 1 . 2 4 57.72 25.85 2 . 9 7 3 . 4 0 6 . 5 2 16.58 1 . 2 4 4 . 0 2 5.88 1.81 58.88 26.29 4 . 6 2 6 . 3 3 9 . 4 5 23.16 1 . 0 3 4 . 5 1 5.52 1 . 7 7 56.82 27.72 3 . 1 7 4.89 6.48 19.37 1.18 4 . 8 7 4 . 0 9 5 . 0 5 8 . 5 2 20.30 1 . 0 9 4 . 4 9 7 . 3 5 1 . 6 2 57.41 26.65 8 . 8 6 3 . 9 7 51.45 33.21 1 . 6 6 2 . 8 9 2 . 6 7 13.50 1.66 5 . 4 2 8 . 5 2 3 . 5 7 54.04 31.27 3 . 0 3 3.46 3.34 14.49 1.62 5 . 6 0 2 . 4 7 2 . 8 6 2 . 0 5 12.69 1 . 5 5 5 . 0 5 6 . 7 2 2 . 9 7 54.78 30.43 2 . 7 4 3 . 2 3 2.11 12.67 1.54 4 . 9 2 7 . 3 7 3 . 1 7 55.17 30.27 2 47 3 11 2 5: 13 41 1.59 5 25 7 87 3 42 53 86 31.32 3 . 0 9 4 . 8 7 3.33 17.37 0.96 6.34 11.07 1 . 2 0 39.94 38.14 9 . 9 9 1 . 6 0 44.10 37.73 2 . 5 3 3 . 6 2 4.69 13.81 1.04 6 . 2 9 5 . 3 1 7.64 4 . 9 0 21.89 0 . 7 3 6 . 0 9 1 0 . 7 0 1 . 2 6 40.76 37.17 3 . 6 4 5 . 8 8 4 . 3 1 17.69 0 . 9 1 6.24 10.65 1 . 3 5 41.60 37.68 7 . 9 3 2 . 7 7 48.67 34.18 7 . 3 1 9 . 7 7 1.00 20.06 1 . 0 3 5 . 2 7 7 . 6 7 2 . 7 4 4 8 . 2 3 34.25 7.40 9 . 9 4 1 . 1 4 19.94 1.13 5 . 1 6 7 . 8 0 2 . 7 5 48.45 34.21 7.36 9 . 8 6 1 . 0 7 20.00 1 . 0 5 5 . 2 1 4 . 1 4 5 . 2 5 0 . 7 4 22.59 5 . 7 0 5 , 3 4 20.02 None 59.40 23.29 4.32 6 . 1 5 0 . 7 3 25.33 5 . 7 0 6 . 1 9 20.00 None 66.50 26.07 4 . 2 2 5 . 9 2 0.80 23.91 4 . 4 0 5 . 3 5 19.13 None 57.27 25.20 3.~ . 7 2 5 . 0 8 0 . 9 8 22.93 5 . 1 3 6 . 0 9 19.22 None 58.95 24.86 4 . 1 0 5 . 6 0 0 . 5 0 23.96 5 . 2 3 8 . 7 4 19.59 None 58.03 24.85 12.55 15.27 2 . 2 0 28.72 1 . 5 3 5 . 6 8 14.04 0 . 5 9 44.79 30.27 13.50 15.77 3 0 . 0 8 1 . 7 0 5 . 6 9 13.99 0.69 45.28 30.13 1 2 . 6 8 15.56 2 : 3 3 29.60 2 . 5 3 5 . 2 9 13.86 1 . 1 8 45.87 31.28 11.74 13.77 2.37 25.69 2.37 5 . 6 6 13.95 0 . 3 4 45.97 30.22 12.62 15.09 2.30 25.52 2 . 0 3 5.55 13.96 0 . 7 0 45.48 30.47 1 . 8 5 2.84 1 . 2 7 20.37 5.75 5 . 7 1 17.51 0 . 8 8 54.04 26.52 1 . 6 8 2 . 7 4 1 . 1 9 20.36 5 . 8 5 5.65 17.79 0 . 8 3 54.24 26.47 1 . 7 7 2 79 1 . 2 3 20.37 5.80 5.68 17.65 0 . 8 6 54.15 26.50 4 . 7 1 5 . 4 1 0 . 6 5 18.65 2 . 6 0 5 . 6 1 18.58 0.92 55.60 23.83 4 . 8 6 5 . 7 3 0 . 6 2 19.44 2.42 5 . 6 5 19.06 0 . 6 7 56.85 23.04 4 . 7 8 5 . 5 7 0 . 6 3 19.04 2 . 5 1 5 . 6 3 15.82 0 . 8 0 56.22 23.44
1051
.OSE--------, INCELLUI Methyl a8yPento- Cellu- Cellu- Cellusan lose lose lose 2.13 69.18 ... 30.82 1 . 9 7 66.17 5 . 5 2 28.31 6 . 5 4 35.80 1 . 9 0 57.65 1 . 9 0 55.40 19.02 2 5 . 5 8 1 . 9 8 62.10 10.56 30.13 2 . 0 3 62.88 11.10 26.02 1 . 9 1 62.96 10.99 26.05 1.65 59.37 11.64 28.97 1 . 5 4 65.52 10.51 23.97 1.78 62.68 11.06 26.25 2.13 48.47 15.42 36.11 1 . 7 1 $1.42 12.77 45.81 2 . 1 3 00.90 6.82 42.28 1 . 9 9 46.92 11.67 4 1 . 0 6 2.09 78.81 2.95 18.24 ,. . . ., ... ... 2.09 78.81 2.95 1 8 . 2 4 None 55.50 18.811 25.64 None 55.91 2 . 9 5 41.14 None 58.15 22.621 19.23 None 57.82 18.271 24.21 None 56.77 19.92 2 3 . 0 3 1.07 76.00 1 . 7 3 22.27 1.21 76.71 2 . 5 6 20.73 76.40 2 . 0 6 21.54 0:96 76.83 3.04 20.13 0 . 8 1 76.48 2 . 3 5 21.27 1.35 75.64 0 . 2 7 24.08
7 - p
Pentosan 9.50 8.97 4.20 4.63 6.82 8.60 8.09 6.65 6.86 7.30 9.53 7.90 9.83 9.08 7.40
...
7.40 23.22 25.46 20.30 22.32 22.82 17.99 17.99 17.57 17.44 17.75 19.99
...
19.99 21.33 22.45 21.89
...
.. .
...
...
1.35 1.64 1.19 1.41
75.64 75.27 77.38 76.32
0.27 2.64 3.01 2.82
24.08 22.09 18.61 20.35,
Trouble filtering
ONE FER CENT SaOH-SOLUBLE Co”rExUT-The alkalisoluble extract consists primarily of tannins, resin acids, and carbohydrates, with slight traces of cellulose and lignin. The alkali-soluble material in western yellow pine and redwood averages above that of the other conifers. This is due to the high resin content of the former and the large percentage of tannin of the latter. Tanbark oak and mesquite among the hardwoods show a high percentage of alkalisoluble material. METHOXY CoNTENb-It will be noted that on the average the softwoods run slightly lower in methoxy content than the hardwoods. The one exception is incense cedar, which, on account of its exceedingly high methoxy content, might be expected to compare favorably with hardwoods for the production of methanol by destructive distillation. It has been found, however, that the conifers as a rule produce scarcely 30 per cent as much methanol as the hardwoods, even though their methoxy content is about 85 per cent of that in the broad-leaved species. Consequently, a very poor yield of methanol from incense cedar is not surprising. The above chemical constants are discussed more fully in connection with acetic acid content, as shown in Table 11. TABLE II--PERCENTAGESOF ACETIC ACID, METHOXY,A N D METHANOL IN VARIOUS WOODS -METHOXY A N D METHANOL----ACETIC ACID---Zeisel Destructive Acid Destructive Method for Distillation SPECIES Hydrolysis Distillation Methoxy for Methanol Birch 4.30 6.801 6.07 1.54’ 4.46 Maple 5.261 7.25 1.76’ Tanbark oak 5.23 6.89’ 5.74 1.721 Hickory 2.51 5.052 5.63 2.082 Redwood 1.0s 5.21 Incense cedar 0.91 6.24 1 U. S. Dept. Agr., Bull. 608. 2 Ibid., 129.
A higher yield of acetic acid is obtained in all cases by destructive distillation than by acid hydrolysis. The reverse is true in regard to methoxy and methanol.
PENTOSAN CONTENT-AS in acetic acid content there is also a marked difference in the percentage of pentosans, presumably xylan and araban, in the softwoods and hardwoods. The analyses of the eight species examined show that the pentosan content of coniferous woods is about 50 per cent of that found in broad-leaved species. The average for the former is 8.4 per cent, for the latter 17.5 per cent, ETHYL PENTOSAN CONTENT-The percentage of methyl pentosans is considerably higher in softwoods than in hardwoods. Tanbark oak is the only one of all the species which contains no methyl pentosans. The quantity of pentosans and methyl pentosans obtained confirms the conclusions of Schorgers and of Mahood and Cableeg CELLULOSE CONTEXT-NOmarked difference in the cellulose content of hardwoods and softwoods appears to exist in the eight species analyzed. Of the hardwoods mesquite is low in cellulose, and of the softwoods, incense cedar and redwood have a low percentage of cellulose when compared with western yellow pine and yellow cedar. Cellulose was prepared according to the directions outlined by Schorger,s and is the residue left after the alternate chlorination and sodium sulfite extraction had been carried out until the sodium sulfite filtrate remained colorless. That the cellulose thus obtained differs in individual species is apparent from the pentosan content of the cellt~lose from the various woods. Calculated on the oven-dry weight of the wood, the cellulose isolated from the softwoods is from 4.5 to 5.0 per cent higher than the pentosan-free cellulose; in the hardwoods it is from 8.5 to 13.3 per cent higher. This is considering the pentosans and methyl pentosans collectively. If it were possible to extract the pentosans and nothing more from cellulose of various woods obtained by the Cross and Revan method, one might argue that the residual material should. ~ T H I SJOURNAI,, 9 (1917), 563. 0 Ibid., 14 (1922), 933.
TABLE111-DISTRIBUTIONOB PENTOSANS (Results in percentages of oven-dry weight of wood) Cellulose Pentosan Free Cellulose Pentosans Cellulose in in Wood in Wood Wood SPECIES (1) (2) (3) 52.35 W. y. pine.. 57.41 5.06 4.34 55.37 W. w.pine., 59.71 48.97 Yellow cedar.. 4.89 53 86 4.60 37.00 Incense cedar.. 41.60 43.85 4.60 Redwood., 48.45 44.79 Tanbark o a k . . 58.03 13.24 44.13 13.49 Eucalyptus.. ......... 57.62 37.00 8.48 Mesquite.. 45.48 42.59 11.56 Balsa.. 54.15 43.12 13.10 Hickory.. 56.22 Cotton (purified cellulose), 1.03 per cent pentosan
.......... ......... ....... ....... ..........
~~I
.~,
.
.......
.......... .............. ...........
a-Cellulose in Wood 14) ., 35.65 38.57 33.76 19.52 38.10 32.94 39.66 35.61 40.96 42.92
be the same. How such a separation can be accomplished cannot be answered by consulting our present methods of analysis. Even if a clean-cut separation of the pentosans from the rest of the cellulose were made, the remaining residues from the various woods seem to differ in some respects. This can be illustrated by using some of the data in Table I to obtain a different relationship, as shown in Table 111. Column 2 shows*theper cents of pentosans which resist the treatment for determining cellulose. The hardwood cellulose contains a much higher per cent of pentosans than the softwood cellulose. It was thought that a complete extraction of these bodies from the cellulose could be accomplished by using 17.5 per cent sodium hydroxide, as is done in separating alpha- from beta- and gamma-cellulose. If the figures in Column 4 are subtracted from the corresponding numbers in Column 1, the values of the betaand gamma-cellulose in the various woods are obtained. In other words, the results in Column 5 represent the per cents of material extracted from cellulose with 17.5 per cent NaOH. Now, if the pentosans exist as such in the cellulose, one would expect a complete extraction of such bodies with 17.5 per cent NaOH, especially when it is noted that a large amount of hexosans is also dissolved with the treatment. In Column 6 is found the per cent of hexosans extracted over and above the per cent of pentosans present. On this basis, the per cents of hexosans dissolved in the first four woods agree favorably. I n the tanbark oak also the amount of hexosans extracted is high. In the remaining five species the per cent of extract in excess of the pentosans present is low compared with the species mentioned above. To determine whether all the pentosans are removed from the remaining cellulose by a 17.5 per cent NaOH treatment, samples of alpha-cellulose of western yellow pine, western white pine, tanbark oak, mesquite, balsa, and some purified cotton cellulose were subjected to the regular pentosan determination. The results given in Column 7 were obtained. Calculating these results on the oven-dry basis of the original wood as indicated in Column 8, and comparing those figures with the corresponding ones in Column 2, one may see that a considerable part of the pentosans found in the original wood is still retained in the alpha-cellulose. This is shown on a percentage basis in Column 9 of Table 111. From these figures it is apparent that the alpha-cellulose isolated from the various sources is not the same chemically as is claimed by some investigators who have worked with too limited a number of samples. It is realized that some will argue-that the furfural found by distilling the alpha-cellulose with 12 per cent HC1 might have been due to a breaking down of some hexoses formed by hydrolysis. It is claimedlo that such sugars produce small amounts of furfural under the above conditions. According to the above reference, the per cent of furfural available from such a source is considerably lower than the figures of this table show. 10
Vol. 14, No. 11
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMIXTRY
1052
Browne, “Handbook of Sugar Analysis,” p. 453.
8-
+ y-
Cellulose in Wood (5) ., 21.76 21.14 20.10 22.08 10.35 25.09 17.96 9.87 13.19 13.30
Hexosans in 8yCellulose
+
(61 .,
16.70 16.80
15.21 17.48 5.75 11.85 4.47 1.39 1.63 0.20
Pentosans Pentpsans in a-Cellulose (71 1.82 2.05
Per cent Cellulose a-Cellulose Pentosans Re-. Pentosans in tained in Wood a-Cellulose (81 (XI (9) ltl) ., ., 0.65 12.8 0.79 18.2
.. ..
.. ..
9:51
3:i3
2i:6
3:48 2.63
1124 1.07
14:s
.. ..
..
..
9.2
..
Another source of furfural may be oxycellulose.“ It is possible that some of this form of cellulose may be present when preparing the material according to the Cross and Bevan method. If the furfural found when working with alpha-cellulose in this research came from oxycellulose, then it should be possible to hydrolyze the alpha-cellulose to a hexose quantitatively. If, however, the furfural came from pentosans present in the alpha-cellulose, then it should be possible to identify some pentose derivatives after hydrolyzing the alpha-cellulose with acid. This work will be done later. From the data presented in this paper it appears as though the celluloses prepared from the different sources are not identical. It is, perhaps, possible to reduce two or more of them to the same stable nucleus by alternate alkali and acid treatments. Whether this should be done or not depends upon just how cellulose should be defined. To the writer it seems that such a reduction is carrying the treatment to an extreme. By such a process it is possible to reduce two or more definite individual compounds to the same nucleus. For instance, benzoic acid and phthalic acid on treatment with lime produce benzene. Methyl benzene and ethyl benzene on oxidation give benzoic acid. In like manner it might be possible to change two or more definite kinds of cellulose to the same stable complex. The pentosans which withstand the vigorous treatment to which they are subjected in the Cross and Bevan process must without a doubt be closely bound with the cellulose molecule, if not really incorporated in it. If one refers to the work of Johnsen and Hovey,12 in which they discuss the relative merits of the original and modified methods of Cross and Bevan for preparing cellulose, he will see that their work confirms what has been found by the writer. On page 44 of their report is found the following data: TABLBIV-COMPARISONOF CELLULOSE OBTAINED IN CROSSAND BEVAN’S ORIGINALAND M O D I ~ I EMETHODS D Furfural in Cellulose Cellulose, Per cent Per cent Original Modified Original Modified Method Method SPECIES Method Method Balsam fir 54.45 51.50 5.43 4.39 Aspen 60.95 57.25 11.88 10.16
By recalculation and rearrangement of these data, the following results are obtained: TABLEV-FURFURAL AND PENTOSANS OB ORIGINAL WOOD IN THE CELLULOSE (Percentages are based on weight of the original wood) Loss in Loss in Loss in Loss in Original Modified CelluFurPento- HexoSPECIES Method Method lose fural sans sans 0.98 1.97 Balsam fir 54.45 51.50 2.95 0.63 1.47 1.43 2.23 Aspen 60.95 57.25 3.70
If the furfural in Column 4 comes from pentosans, then the figures in Column 5 indicate the amount of pentosans extracted. By subtracting the data in Column 5 from the 11 13
Browne, “Handbook of Sugar Analysis,” p. 376. Paper, 21 (1917-18), 36.
Nov., 1922
THE' JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMIXTRY TABLE VI-ANALYSES OF WOODS (Results in percentage of oven-dry (105O C.) samples) --------IN CELLULOSE--SOLUBILITY IN 1 Per ACEMETHYL Methyl aBHot cent TIC METH- PENTO-PEN- CELLU- LIC- Pento- Pento- Cellu- CelluNIN san san lose lose Water Ether NaOH ACID OXY SAN TOSAN LOSE 9.50 2.13 69.18 5.67 9.63 22.08 0.92 4.55 8 . 0 6 1.68 56.22 26.75 ... 8 . 9 7 1.97 66.17 3.40 6.52 16.58 1.24 4.02 9.96 1.24 57.72 25.85 5.52 4.20 1.90 57.65 6.54 6.33 9 . 4 5 23.16 1.03 4.51 5.88 1.81 58.88 26.29 4.63 1.90 55.40 19.02 4.89 6.48 19.37 1.18 4.87 5.52 1.77 56.82 27.72 5.05 8 . 5 2 20.30 1.09 4.49 7.35 1.62 57.41 26.65 6.82 1 . 9 8 62.10 10.56 51.45 33.21 8.60 2.03 62.88 11.10 2.89 2.67 13.80 1.66 5.42 8.86 3.97 8 . 0 9 1.91 62.96 10.99 3.46 3 . 3 4 14.49 1.62 5.60 8 . 5 2 3.57 54.04 31.27 54.78 30.43 6 . 6 5 1.65 59.37 11.64 6.72 2.97 2.86 2.08 12.69 1.55 5.05 55.17 30.27 5.86 1.54 65.52 10.51 3.23 2.11 12.67 1.54 4.92 7.37 3.17 3.11 2.55 13.41 .1.59 5.25 7.87 3.42 53.86 31.32 7.30 1.78 62.68 11.06 4.87 3.33 17.37 0.96 6.34 11.07 1.20 39.94 38.14 9 . 5 3 2.13 48.47 15.42 3.62 4.69 13.81 1.04 6.29 9.99 1.60 44.10 37.73 7.90 1.71 41.42 12.77 7.64 4.90 21.89 0.73 6.09 10.70 1.26 40.76 37.17 9.83 2.13 50.90 6.82 6.24 10.65 1.35 41.60 37.68 9.08 1.99 46.92 11.67 5.38 4.31 17.69 0.91 9.77 1.00 20.06 1.03 5 . 2 7 7.93 2.77 48.67 34.18 7.40 2.09 78.81 2.95 9.94 1.14 10.94 1.13 5.16 7.67 2.74 48.23 34.25 ... ... 9.86 1.07 20.00 1.08 5.21 7 . 8 0 2.75 48.45 34.21 7.40 9.09 78.81 2.95 58.53 27.22 4.47 1.59 70.58 18.16 3.35 4.00 13.97 1.21 4.38 6.75 3.41 62.29 24.15 5 . 6 8 2.97 64.34 10.69 2 . 5 7 4.42 12.70 0.94 4 59 7.19 3.25 59.40 27.55 5.19 1.68 74.29 7 . 2 5 3 . 9 8 15.92 1.37 4.86 6.48 3.33 9.17 58.61 26.82 5.96 1.56 49.27 27.27 4 . 7 8 4.63 16.51 1.09 4.41 7.46 2.90 6.97 3.22 59.71 26.44 5.33 1 . 9 5 64.61 16.32 4.49 4.26 14.78 1.03 4.56 7.33 3.48 55.33 8.38 1.26 ... 8.20 6.70 24.62 0.70 5.00 57.53 . 7.19 1.39 . . 7.52 3.29 6.03 6.70 21.07 0 . 9 3 4.90 61.41 . . . 7.39 1.03 . . . . . . 6.75 2.65 18.89 0.62 5.26 7.57 3.87 59.07 7.00 0.96 ... ... 7 . 5 7 9 . 2 3 24.87 0.79 5.03 7.43 3.67 7.46 3.60 58.45 , 7.71 1.16 .. .. . 7.15 6.32 22.36 0.76 5 . 0 5 6.03 4.24 61.97 , 5.56 1.26 . 6.62 0.94 15.82 0.93 4.81 6.30 4.64 57.00 . . 6.07 1.00 16.76 1.01 5.17 6.36 1.11 15.12 1.13 4.88 6.00 4.38 63.08 ,.. 5.73 4.38 63.82 i:i2 i:ib 1:: 6.96 1.02 16.72 1.07 4.92 6.02 4.41 61.47 5.34 1.20 6.50 1.02 16.11 1.04 4.95 58.25 9.12 1.40 12.57 0.72 22.07 0.61 5.08 11.15 2.47 12.40 0 . 7 4 21.93 0 . 9 1 4.91 11.04 2.83 58.71 8 . 4 1 1.22 60.91 8 . 6 7 1.24 10.08 0.93 19.44 0.76 5.08 10.22 3.14 15.30 0.83 25.11 0.55 5.05 10.75 2.80 53.31 9 . 5 5 0.90 57.80 8.94 1.19 12.59 0.81 22.14 0.71 5.03 10.80 2.81
Mors-
SPECIES SAMPLETURE Western yellow pine 141 5.32 (Fe'nrrsfionderosa) 142 8 . 2 8 143 6.89 144 5.19 MEAN 6 . 4 2 Yellow cedar 161 3.54 162 5.19 (Chamwcyparis 163 4.87 noolkolensis) 164 5.91 MEAN 4.89 Inceose cedar 165 5.32 166 4.63 (Libocedrus decurrens) 167 5.42 MEAN 5.12 'Redwood (heart168 9.64 wood) (Sequoia 168 9 . 7 1 sempevoirens) MEAN 9 . 6 8 1 6.18 Western white pitie' 2 7.68 ( P i n u s monticoln) 3 7.00 4 7.15 MBAN 7.00 Zoilgleal pine? 11 (Pinus fioluslvis) 12 . 13 .. 20 .. MBAN . Douglas fir* 1 .. 2 (Pseudolsugu 3 iarifolia) 5 MPAN Westeru larch2 1 .. 2 (Larix occidentaiis) 3 .. 4 MPAN White spruceP 1 ( P i c e o canadensis) 2 3 .. 4 MEAN 151 4.10 'ranbatk oak 152 3.95 (Quenu s d e n y i 153 3.26 $ora) 154 3.36 MEAN 3.66 Mesquite 171 4.53 (Prosopis j u l i 172 6.10 173 6.15 #ovn) 174 5.20 MEAN 5.49 Balsa 175 5.50 ( O c h ~ o f u o l a g o p u s ) 175 6.44 MEAN 6.47 Hickory (shellbark) 177 9.60 (Hicor zn ovata) 178 7.39 MGAN 8.49 Eucalyptus' (Eu1 6.99 calyptus globulus) 2 6.55 3 6.87 4 5.00 MPAN 6.58 Basswood2 (Tilia 1 americnna) 2
ASH 0.43 0.42 0.55 0.44 0.46 0.33 0.35 0.62
...
0.43 0.38 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.40 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.57 0.58 0.49 0.50 0.54 2.15 2.09 2.12 0.65 0.74 0.69 0.23 0.20 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.80 0.74 3 0.96 4 . . 0.94 5 .. 0.85 M P A N .. 0.86 Yellow birch2 1 . . 0.58 (Belula Zut~a) 2 0.57 3 0.54 4 0.37 MEAN 0.52 3 ' ar maple2 1 0.46 ' U?Acev saccharum) 2 , . 0.51 3 , . 0.40 4 . . 0.38 0.44 MPAN 1 T i l l s JOURNAL, 14 (1922), 933. 1 Ibid., 9 (1917), 556 8 Trouble Filtering.
.. .
. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
..
.... .. .. ..
.. ..
..
Cold Water 5.58 2.97 4.62 3.17 4.09 1.66 3.03 2.47 2.74 2.47 3.09 2.53 5.31 3.64 7.31 7.40 7.36 2.60 1.73 3.92 4.40 3.16 7.75 5.60 5.40 6.05 6.20 3.79 3.16 2.94 4.25 3.54 10.45 11.00 8.16 12.83 10.61 1.28 0.92 1.45 0.82 1.12 4.14 4.32 4.22 3.72 4.10 12.55 13.50 12.68 11.74 12.62 1.85 1.68 1.77 4.71 4.86 4.78 2.65 4.93 5.31 5.79 4.67 2.04 1.63 3.14 1.23 2.55 2.12 2.88 2.58 3.15 2.06 2.67 2.60 2.73 2.94 2.33 2.65
1053
--
. ..
.. .
... . .
...
.. . . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
1.88 2.28 2.52 1.88 2.14 5.25 6.15 5.92 5.08 5.60 15.27 15.77 15.56 13.77 15.09 2.84 2.74 2.79 5.41 5.73 5.57 4.41 6.06 8.26 8.27 6.98 3.84 2.94 5.66 3.22 4.67 4.07 4.21 3.87 4.66 3.15 3.97 4.27 4.22 4.78 4.15 4.36
1.95 0.90 0.97 1.63 1.36 0.74 0.73 0.80 0.98 0.80 2.20 2:33 2.37 2.30 1.27 1.19 1.23 0.65 0.62 0.63 0.54 0.52 0.60 0.59 0.56 1.50 1.14 3.59 0.89 2.68 1.96 0.55 0.67 0.54 0.63 0.60 0.29 0.22 0.30 0.20 0.25
11.33 11.58 12.75 10.63 11.57 22.59 25.33 23.91 22.93 23.96 28.72 30 08 29:60 25.69 28.52 20.37 20.36 20.37 18.65 19.44 19.04 16.57 18.42 17.90 21.40 18.57 23.43 21.61 26.93 21.46 25.38 23.76 20.02 20.20 19.51 19.65 19.85 16.98 17.20 18.04 18.35 17.64
1.58 1.57 1.49 1.73 1.59 5.70 5.70 4.40 5.13 5.23 1.53 1.70 2.53 2.37 2.03 5.75 5.85 5.80 2.60 2.42 2.51 2.31 1.97 1.51 1.62 1.85 5.78 6.14 5.46 5.41 6.18 5.79 3.99 4.39 3.81 5.02 4.30 4.26 4.25 4.60 4.74 4.46
corresponding items in Column 3, the substances other than pentosans (hexosans) are indicated. In each case there is a considerable amount of such substances removed from
5.31 5.26 5.29 5.32 5.30 5.34 6.19 5.35 8.09 5.74 5.68 5.69 5.29 5.66 5.55 5.71 5.65 5.68 5.61 5.65 5.63 7.11 6.37 6.87 6.56 6.73 6.23 6.05 6.11 5.91 5.72 6.00 6.12 6.03 6.19 5.92 6.07 7.22 7.23 7.25 7.28 7.25
10.78 10.31 10.04 10.42 10.39 20.02 20.00 19.13 19.22 19.59 14.04 13.99 13.85 13.95 13.96 17.51 17.79 17.65 18.58 19.06 18.82 21.41 20.66 17.90 20.39 20.09 19.82 19.54 20.37 19.14 20.79 19.93 24.26 25.40 23.00 25.86 24.63 21.10 21.90 22.21 21.62 21.71
3.08 3.52 3.95 3.64 3.55
...
... ... ... ... 0.59 0.69 1.18 0.34 0.70 0.88 0.83 0.86 0.92 0.67 0.80 1.97 2.14 2.74 2.48 2.33 3.72 3.85 3.68 4.16 3.23 3.73 3.18 3.12 2.25 2.21 2.69 2.50 2.14 2.05 2.85 2.39
62.61 63.29 60.43 61.09 61.85 59.40 56.50 57.27 58.95 58.03 44.79 45.28 45.87 45.97 45.48 54.04 54.24 54.15 55.60 56.85 66.22 59.67 58.53 56.45 55.83 57.62 62.92 62.41 54.66 63.13 63.08 61.24 60.49 61.08 61.82 61.85 61.31 60.78 61.67 60.20 60.48 60.78
...
.. .. .. ... .. .
.. .
. .
.....
. . . .. . . .
.. .. ..
:::
... . ..
10.26 9.29
0.83 0.68
9:33 O:& 9.63 0.72 23.22 25.46 20.30 22.32 22.82 17.09 1 . 0 7 17 99 1 . 2 1 17157 17.44 0:96 17.75 0.81 19.99 1.35
... ... ... ... ...
1.35 1.64 1.19 1.41 3.92 2.44 2.24 1.26 2.46 1.19 1.46 1.62 1.45 2.00 1.54 1.11 1.32 1.04
25.20 24.48
1.00 0.77 0.96
.. .
...
... ... ... . .. ... ... .. . ... ,. ...
.. ,
...
... ... ...
23.29 26.07 25.20 24.86 24.85 30.27 30.13 31.28 30.22 30.47 26.52 26.47 26.50 19.99 23.83 21.33 23.04 22.45 23.44 21.89 24.04 20.35 25.24 21.62 25.07 20.10 26.74 21.76 25.07 20.96 24.48 ... 23.54 ... 26.61 21.80 24.86 24.28 28.40 29.96 26.55
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...
,
..
:::
:::
Y-
Cellulose 30.82 28.31 35.80 25.58 30.13 26.02 26.05 28.97 23.97 26.25 36.11 45.81 42.28 41.06 18.24
...
18.24 11.26 24.97 16.54 23.46 19.06
... ... ... ...
... ., .,.... ... ., . ...
... ,.. ,..
. .. ... ,.. 1::
.. .
55.50 55.91 58.15 57.82 56.77 76.00 76.71 76.40 76.83 76.48 75.64
18.811 2.95 22.628 is.27a 19.92 1.73 2.56 2.06 3.04 2.35 0.27
25.64 41.14 19.23 24.21 23.03 22.27 20.73 21.54 20.13 21.17 24.08
75.64 75.27 77.38 76.32 67.85 69.75 68.99
0.27 2.64 3.01 2.82 2.11 0.00 0.00
24.08 22.09 18.61 20.35 31.04 31.25 31.01
68.86
0.70
31.10
...
... ...
... ... ... ... .. . ... ... . . . . .. .. .. .. 28.30 1.16 ... 21.08 1.04 . .. 25.82 1 . 0 5 .. . 25.83 ... ...
.. .
..,
...
... ... ... ...
._.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
. . ,
... ... ..... . ... ... ...
... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..,
the cellulose. Until a uniform method of isolating cellulose is decided upon, the material which different investigators prepare from the same source will undoubtedly have varying
,
