Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry:
With the exception of a few attempts to determine the cellu
lose content of lignified materials by dissolving and reprecipitat- ing the cellulose, it has been the object of all quantitative cellu
lose determinations to isolate the cellulose by dissolving out the noncellulose compounds. A complete removal of these com
pounds from a highly lignified substance, such as wood, without
attacking the cellulose proper has never been accomplished.
But it is possible by careful manipulation to remove completely some of the noncellulose substances, such as rosin, lignin, and lower carbohydrates, from finely disintegrated wood; and to ob
tain a residue which does not contain decomposition products of the cellulose originally present as such in the wood. This residue, however, differs chemically from normal cellulose as represented by purified cotton, in th a t it yields an appreciable quantity of furfural on distillation with hydrochloric acid, proba
bly owing to the presence of highly resistant pentosans.
Of the many methods th a t have been suggested for the quan
titative determination of cellulose in wood, none have been more widely accepted than Cross and Bevan’s1 method, which is based upon the removal of the lignin" by chlorination. The method was originally applied to ju te fiber and included boiling of the fiber for one-half hour in a 1 per cent sodium hydroxide solution, treatment with chlorine gas for 30 to 60 min., and dissolving of the lignin chloride in a 2 per cent solution of sodium sulfite a t boiling temperature. After washing, the fibers were finally bleached with potassium permanganate.
In applying the method to wood fibers, several investigators found th a t it was not possible to remove the lignin completely with one single chlorination, b u t th a t if the fibers were subjected to alternating treatm ents with chlorine gas and sodium sulfite, a complete removal of the lignin compound could be effected.
Renker2 obtained from wood a residue which did not give any of the lignin reactions, by repeating the treatm ent six times with a total time of exposure to the gas of 2.75 hrs. He also modified the original method by omitting the treatm ent with sodium hydroxide previous to chlorination, stating th a t he thereby obtained a considerably higher cellulose value with equal purity of residue. I t is of importance for the following discussion to point out a t this place th a t Renker based this statem ent upon the fact th at the residue did not give the qualitative lignin reactions, while he did not analyze the residue with regard to furfural yield.
According to Renker the tim e of exposure to the chlorine gas should be as short as possible, since the cellulose itself is attacked by prolonged exposure to the gas, and he was supported by Heuser and Sieber,3 who found th a t under the action of chlorine gas a layer of lignin chloride is rapidly formed on the surface of the fiber, preventing further penetration of the gas. I t is therefore necessary to dissolve this layer before the chlorination is con
tinued, and in doing so it is possible to remove the lignin com
pletely without injury to the cellulose. Sieber and W alter4 found th at four chlorinations with a total exposure to the gas of 1 hr . were sufficient for the complete removal of the lignin in wood.
They also allowed the fibers to remain in the same Gooch crucible with a stationary calico pad throughout the entire process of purification, thereby eliminating mechanical losses, which might occur when using Renker’s method. Their method of manipula
tion has been adopted by recent investigators with the exception of Schorger, who used practically the same method as Renker.
The chlorination method has the advantage above other methods of cellulose determination of being a well-studied re
action, simple in operation and quick, and giving a residue free from lignin and without decomposition products of the original cellulose. B ut it was severely criticized by Konig and Huhn5 on account of the high furfural yield of the residue. These investi
gators proved th a t the furfural-yielding substances could be practically completely removed from the wood fiber by hydrol
ysis, but their method of accomplishing this, as well as the method proposed by Tollens and Dmochowsky,* both of which methods include a hydrolysis with inorganic acids and both of which yield
1 "C ellulose,” London, 1918, 94.
1 "B cstim m ung sm ethod en d e r C ellulose,” B erlin, 1910.
* Z . angav. Chem., 26 (1913), SOI.
1 P a p i e r - F a b r 1 1 (1913), 1179.
1 "B estiram u n g der Cellulose- in H olzartcn u n d G esp in n stfasern ,”
Berlin, 1912.
a product free from lignin and practically free from furfural- yielding substances, cannot be recommended for quantitative estimation of cellulose, because, as I have shown, the cellulose itself is attacked and partly dissolved in the process of purifica
tion. I t is a fact th a t the furfural-yielding compounds of the wood are subject to hydrolysis, b u t it is equally true th a t even very dilute inorganic acids attack normal cellulose.
Apparently the cellulose is much more resistant towards the action of organic acids. In fact Schwalbe and Johnsen1 found th a t cellulose heated with a mixture of glycerol and acetic acid a t 135° C. for several hours did not show any sign of attack as indicated by reducing power, and a method of estimating the cellulose content of commercial wood pulps which included this treatm ent was developed by them. Later, Johnsen and Hovey3 suggested a method of cellulose determination in wood consisting of a 4-hr. hydrolysis with glycerol and acetic acid a t 135° C., with a subsequent chlorination according to Sieber and W alter, and found th a t by employing this method a residue of higher purity could be obtained from wood fibers.
The subject of cellulose determination was recently discussed by Dore,* who arrived a t the conclusion th at "all processes in
volving preliminary hydrolysis result in a diminished yield of cellulose as well as total cellulose and are therefore inacceptable as accurate cellulose processes.” P artly on the basis of this statement, partly on his own observations, Mahood* in a more recent contribution to the subject states th a t "T he modification of the Cross and Bevan method proposed by Johnsen and Hovey appears to be of doubtful value since the cellulose, as well as the hemicelluloses and furfural-yielding constituents, are attacked.”
In view of th e importance of the subject under discussion, it would seem advisable to prove such statem ents by convincing experimental data. B ut Dore, as well as Maliood, has failed to do so, and I hope to be able to show in this article th a t the conclusions arrived a t by the two investigators are based upon insufficient analytical data and upon statem ents which are mis
leading and partly incorrect.
In order to facilitate the discussion of some of the experimental results, tw’o tables taken from Dore’s publication are copied below:
Ta b l e I I —Co m p a r i s o n o f Me t h o d s o f Pr e l i m i n a r y Hy d r o l y s i s a s Ap p l i e d t o Wo o d s
R esu lts in percen tag es of a ir-d ry w ood (11.62 p er c e n t m oisture) R atio
To t a l Ce l l u l o s e « - Ce l l u l o s e
In d iv id u a l A v. In d iv id u a l Av.
(1) R e n k e r’s m odification of 4 7 .9 3 Cross an d B ev a n ’s m ethod N o hy d ro ly sis
(2) Original Cross a n d B evan 4 5 .8 6 m eth o d . 1 h r. w ith 1 p e r 4 6 .2 8 c en t sodium h y droxide a t 4 5 .8 5 boiling te m p e ra tu re
(3) Jo h n se n a n d H ovey m e th o d ...
4 hrs. w ith acetic acid and 44.1 1 glycerol a t 135° C.
4 7 .9 3 3 6 .0 4
4 8 .4 6 3 6 .0 2
48 .9 7 36 .7 1
4 8 .7 7 3 6 .8 4
48 .9 1 3 7 .0 9
4 8 .2 7 3 6 .7 6
4 8 .2 4 48 .5 1 3 6 .9 9 .3 6 .6 4
4 5 .8 6 3 5 .3 8
4 6 .2 8 3 5 .4 9
4 5 .8 5 3 5 .2 5
4 5 .0 7 3 5 .0 3
4 5 .6 4 3 5 .7 6
46 .2 9 4 5 .8 3 3 5 .5 5 35.41 44 .0 4 ■ ' 3 4 .6 0
44 .1 1 3 4 .7 3
4 4 .3 7 3 4 .7 0
4 4 .4 9 4 4 .2 5 3 4 .5 3 34 .6 4
»-Cel
lulose:
T o ta l C el
lulose
0 .7 5
0 .7 7
0 .7 8 Ta b l e I I I —Fu r f u r a l Yi e l d o f Pr o d u c t s
In p ercen tag es of air-d ried m a te ria l (11.62 p e r c e n t m oisture) Fr o m To t a l Fr o m a
-Ck l l u l o s e Ce l l u l o s e
In d iv id u a l A v. In d iv id u al A v.
(1) R e n k e r’s process. N o h ydrol- 2 .6 6 0 .5 2
ysis 2 .3 6 . . . .
2 .6 9 0 .4 8
2 .3 S 2 .5 2 0 .5 1 0 .5 0 (2) C ross a n d B e v a n ’s process. Al- 2 .6 7 0.3 1
k alin e hy d ro ly sis 2 .6 3 2 ,6 5 0 .2 4 0 .2 7
(3) Jo h n se n a n d H o v e y ’s process. 2 .1 8 0 .2 5
Acid hy d ro ly sis 2 .2 0 2 .1 9 0 .2 7 0 .2 6
« P u lp Paper M ag. C an., 13 (1915), 600.
* J . Soc. Chem. In d ., 37 (1918), 132.
* T h i s Jo u r n a l, 12 (1920), 264.
« Ib id ., 12 (1920), 873.
360 T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y Vol. 13, N o. 4 The determination of a-cellulose gives, of course, an excellent
indication of the purity of the residues, provided the a-cellulose is a well-defined substance. Table II, however, shows that this is not so, since the furfural yield of the a-cellulose obtained from Renker’s process is considerably higher than of that obtained with Johnsen and H ovey’s method. The a-cellulose from the latter process yields 0.26 per cent furfural, which is very close to the yield from purest cotton cellulose, 1 e. g., 0.24 per cent.
With regard to furfural yield and a-cellulose content of the resi
dues, it will also be seen from the two tables that the cellulose resulting from Johnsen and H ovey’s method is of a higher purity than that from Renker's method (no hydrolysis), which latter accordingly must give a higher yield. Assuming that the fur
fural originates with highly resistant pentosans (which has never been disproved), the difference in yield of pentosan-free a-cellulose with the two processes was only 1.58 per cent, while the difference in total cellulose in the two processes was 4.26 per cent, which shows that Dore’s statement that the total cellulose and the a-cellulose "are destroyed in the same proportion” is incorrect.
The difference of 1.58 per cent in the yield of a-cellulose docs not necessarily mean that the normal cellulose is attacked in the hydrolytic treatment. The possibility naturally exists that a cellulose which has been exposed to acid hydrolysis is more easily attacked by strong alkali than a cellulose which has not received this treatment. B u t it is more probable that the difference in yield is caused by the removal of carbohydrates other than pentosans and less resistant than ccllulose. Apparently Dore.
as well as Mahood, is inclined to consider as cellulose all sub
stances in the cellulose residue which do not give furfural reac
tion. This can hardly be accepted as correct since we must assume the presence of hexosans of less resistance than cellulose, and which therefore can be separated from the cellulose proper by hydrolysis, but by a more effective hydrolysis than that ob
tained with sodium sulfite at 100° C.
This would explain the considerably lower yield of cellulose in the commercial wood pulp processes than the yield indicated by the cellulose determination, since the commercial processes in
clude hydrolysis a t high temperature and pressure. It would also explain why the yield obtained with Johnsen and H ovey’s method is lower than that of Renker’s method, because the former includes an acid hydrolysis with acetic acid in glycerol at 135° C.
Since this process removes the more resistant furfural-yielding substances and hexosans to a larger extent than Renker’s method, the residue is more identical with the pulps obtainable in the commercial processes. Johnsen and H ovey therefore considered their method "very useful in the valuation of the various woods for the commercial paper pulp processes.”
Dore concludes that “ the hydrolytic processes do not remove any appreciable amount of the furfural-yielding complexes from the product.” But there are no experimental data in Dore’s article to prove this conclusion, while Johnsen and H ovey’s publication shows that with their method over 10 per cent more of the total furfural-yielding substance is removed, or that be
tween 22 and 25 per cent of these substances still remaining in the residue from Renker’s method are removed with their method.
In discussing the removal of these substances by acetic acid hydrolysis, Mahood states that "approximately the same result could be attained by a further chlorination of the sample than usual.” But this is not so, since apparently the furfural-yielding constituents, while being comparatively easily hydrolyzed, are very resistant to chlorination or oxidation. Furthermore, it must be remembered that it is not permissible in a quantitative method to continue the chlorination after the total lignin has been removed, since this would result in an oxidation of the cellulose proper.
Mahood’s strong criticism of the Johnsen and H ovey method is based to a very great extent upon Dore’s experiments, according
‘ Z . a a te v . Chem., M arch 5 a n d 12 (1918); Paper, 23 (1918), 277.
to w’hich the normal cellulose is destroyed by hydrolysis with acetic acid in glycerol a t 135° C. For these experiments Dore selected as normal cellulose "a piece of cotton sheeting which had been repeatedly laundered and might therefore be considered a residue consisting of highly resistant cellulose, mostly of the normal type.” This is fundamentally incorrect, since it is well known that the resistance of cotton cellulose is considerably reduced by laundering. On the other hand, Schwalbe and John
sen have found that the hydrolysis with acetic acid in glycerol does not attack the cellulose. Purest cotton cellulose hydrolyzed with this mixture and subsequently treated with nitrous gases lost only 0.12 per cent of its weight. Unfortunately this work has not yet been published in detail, but it has been referred to in recent publications by Johnsen1 and by Schwalbe.1
In conclusion, the writer wishes to refer to two statements in Mahood’s article, because they are in disagreement with the results obtained by other investigators, and should therefore be more thoroughly investigated. Mahood found that there was an appreciable loss in weight of the fibrous filter pad used in the Gooch crucible, owing to the action of chlorine. When using un- purificd calico Sieber and Walter recorded a loss of 0.001 g. A purified calico pad gained 0.0002 g. in the treatment. Sieber and Walter also found that cooling did not have any influence upon the yield, while Mahood believes that the lower yield of cellulose which he experiences wdth Sieber and Walter’s modi
fication of the method as compared with the original method is due to the higher temperature.
Sieber and W alter’s modification of Renker’s method repre
sents a decided improvement in the process in mechanical manip
ulation, in that it eliminates mechanical losses of fiber, and the method has therefore been adopted by most of the recent in
vestigators and by commercial laboratories. I t should therefore be carefully investigated whether the lower yield with this pro
cess as recorded by Mahood is due to destruction of ccllulose substance on account of excessive chlorine treatment, or whether it is due to a less complete purification with Schorger’s equip
ment.
HAMMKRMit.1. Pa p e r Co m pa n y Bj a rN’IvJOH N SEN
E r i k , Pe n n s y l v a n ia N o v em b er 5, 1920
Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry:
Johnsen contends that my conclusions "are based upon insuffi
cient analytical data and upon statements that are misleading and partly incorrect.” I t is to be regretted that Johnsen offers no new experimental data in support of this rather sweeping statement.
The first point at issue concerns the definition of cellulose, and it is stated that I (in common with Dore) am "inclined to regard as cellulose all substances in the cellulose residue which do not give furfural reaction.” This statement is indeed misleading, for, in regard to the cellulose obtained in the investigation under discussion, I say that "the cellulose obtained in each case was treated with chlorine and sodium sulfite to the point where no color was obtained.” This defines wood cellulose as well as our present knowledge of its chemistry will permit. The residue thus obtained is made up apparently of hexosans, pentosans, and possibly furfural-yielding constituents other than pentosans.
Johnsen’s original paper on the subject, as well as his more recent discussion of it, is open to the criticism that he does not define what he means by cellulose. Apparently he considers that there is but one cellulose, and that normal or cotton cellulose. As pointed out by Schorger, it is no more reasonable to expect cot
ton to be the only cellulose in nature than glucose to be the only sugar. I t is probable that wood celluloses should be looked upon as definite compounds of hexosans with varying amounts of pentosans.
1 Loc. cit.
Wc are not obliged to assume, as Johnsen contends, "th e pres
ence in wood of hexosans of less resistance than cellulose and which can therefore be separated from cellulose by hydrolysis, but by a more effective hydrolysis than th a t obtained by sodium sulfite at 100° C.” This assumption is very convenient for the purpose of correlating Johnsen and Hovey's method of cellulosc determination with the wood pidping processes, but it ought to have some experimental basis which as yet is entirely lacking.
Commercial processes are as a rule poor criteria by which to judge analytical methods. I t is generally considered th a t the differ
ence between the yield of cellulose obtained from wood by the laboratory method and th a t obtained by the pulping processes is due to the more drastic treatm ent in the latter which destroys some of the cellulose. Since Johnsen and Hovey’s method gives a "residue more identical with the pulps obtainable in the com
mercial processes” it may be assumed, in the absence of experi
mental data to the contrary, th a t it, too, destroys some of the cellulose.
Johnsen objects to my statem ent th a t "approximately the same result could be attained by a further chlorination of the sample than usual” in reference to the residues obtained by his method. Approximately 50 per cent of the furfural-yielding constituents of woods are removed by the chlorination process.
It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, th a t a further loss of these constituents would result on continued chlorination (John
sen says "this is not so,” but gives nothing to show th a t it is not).
Since it is not permissible, as Johnsen points out, to continue chlorination after the total lignin has been removed, as this would result in oxidation of the cellulose, further chlorination of the sample than usual would have the effect of reducing both the pentosan and the pentosan-free cellulose content, and this is the apparent effect of the digestion with glycerol and acetic acid.
Johnsen’s statem ent th a t my criticism of his method is based
"to a very considerable extent on Dore’s experiments” seems to be an attem pt a t subterfuge. M y data show th a t the yield of pentosan-free cellulose as well as the pentosan content of the cellu
lose is reduced by preliminary treatm ent of the wood sample with the acetic acid-glycerol mixture. Johnsen explains this lowering of the pentosan-free cellulose by assuming th a t the loss is due to hexosans less resistant than cellulose, but there is nothing in Johnsen’s paper to w arrant this assumption. On the other hand, Dore’s data corroborate mine, and although it is true th a t laun
dering, beyond a certain point, reduces the resistance of cellulose, the data still hold for the comparative purpose for w’hich they were intended.
Johnsen’s observation th a t “ two statem ents” in my article are in disagreement with the results of other investigators”
should be modified to include only two other investigators, i. e., Sieber and Walter working jointly, and it should be noted th at my statement in regard to the effect of temperature is supported by Cross and Bevan and by the work of Renker.
The fact th a t my data are not in accord with those of Sieber and Walter on the loss in weight of the fibrous pad emphasizes this potential source of error in the procedure. I used the best calico obtainable and subjected it to treatm ent with chlorine and sodium sulfite prior to making the test runs. The loss entailed will be determined largely by the previous history of the calico, and since this cannot usually be determined it cannot be assumed
The fact th a t my data are not in accord with those of Sieber and Walter on the loss in weight of the fibrous pad emphasizes this potential source of error in the procedure. I used the best calico obtainable and subjected it to treatm ent with chlorine and sodium sulfite prior to making the test runs. The loss entailed will be determined largely by the previous history of the calico, and since this cannot usually be determined it cannot be assumed