Table Of ContentWood
and
Agricultural Residues
Research on Use for Feed,
Fuels, and Chemicals
Edited by
Ed J. Soltes
Department of Forest Science
Forest Science Laboratory
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
ACADEMIC PRESS
A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
New York London
Paris San Diego San Francisco Säo Paulo Sydney Tokyo Toronto
COPYRIGHT © 1983, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY
INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Ill Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Wood and agricultural residues.
1. Wood waste-Congresses. 2. Agricultural wastes-
Congresses. I. Soltes, Ed J.
TP996.W6W65 1983 674\84 83-10007
ISBN 0-12-654560-X
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
83 84 85 86 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contributors
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin.
Danny E. Akin (33, 167), Plant Structure and Composition Research Unit, USD A
ARS, Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30613
Rajai H. Atalla (59), Chemical Sciences Division, The Institute of Paper Chemistry,
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Jon F. Bartholic (529), Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Franklin E. Barton II (33, 167), Plant Structure and Composition Research Unit,
USDA ARS, Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens,
Georgia 30613
K. J. Bevernitz (303), Biomass Research Center, University of Arkansas, Fayette-
ville, Arkansas 72701
D. I. Blumenthal (271), Department of Chemical Engineering, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
Gerald Carson (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142
J. M. Carter (271), Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
E. A. Catalano (217), Food and Feed Safety Research, USDA ARS, Southern
Regional Research Center, New Orleans, Louisiana 70179
Philbert Chen (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142
A. Ciegler (217), Food and Feed Safety Research, USDA ARS, Southern Regional
Research Center, New Orleans, Louisiana 70179
Bruce E. Cutter (467, 591), School of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211
Kevin W. Downey (529), Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
D. F. Durso (79), Johnson & Johnson, East Windsor, New Jersey 08520
Thomas J. Elder (467), Department of Forestry, Auburn University, Auburn, Ala-
bama 36849
G. H. Emert (303), Department of Biochemistry and Biomass Research Center,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
ix
X CONTRIBUTORS
G. S. Faass (351), School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
L. T. Fan (253, 369, 439), Department of Chemical Engineering, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506
J. D. Ferchak (271), Biological Energy Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104
Betsy Ferguson (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142
C. A. Fieber (351), Western Electric Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105
R. E. Fredrickson (303), Raphael Katzen Associates International, Inc., Cincin-
nati, Ohio 45208
J. L. Gendler (391), Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrenceville, New Jersey
08648
M. M. Gharpuray (369), Department of Chemical Engineering, Kansas State Uni-
versity, Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Wolfgang G. Glasser (149), Department of Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Irving S. Goldstein (315), School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
Karel Grohmann (239), Biotechnology Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute,
Golden, Colorado 80401
Youn W. Han (121, 217), Food and Feed Safety Research, USDA ARS, Southern
Regional Research Center, New Orleans, Louisiana 70179
James Hanover (529), Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824
A. Hargreaves (203), Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Martin C. Hawley (329, 529), Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
D. S. Himmelsbach (167), Plant Structure and Composition Research Unit, USDA
ARS, Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30613
B. Hong (253), Food Science Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas 66506
J. T. Huber (203), Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824
D. T. A. Huibers*(39l), Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrenceville, New Jersey
08648
Arthur E. Humphrey (503), Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
T. Ishimi (439), Environmental Plant Research and Development Department,
Kubota Ltd., Naniwa-ku, Osaka, Japan
C.O.L.E. Johnson (203), Department of Animal Science, Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
A. Y. Jones (401), Xerox Research Centre of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Can-
ada L5L 1J9
♦Present address: Intercon, Post Office Box 162, Pennington, New Jersey 08534
CONTRIBUTORS XI
K. F. Kaupisch (303), Raphael Katzen Associates International, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio 45208
William S. Kelley (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts 02142
W. H. Klausmeier (567), Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Arg önne
National Laboratory, Ar gönne, Illinois 60439
Herman Koenig (529), Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Derek T. A. Lamport (329), MSU/DOE Plant Research Laboratory, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Stanley M. Lastick (239), Biotechnology Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute,
Golden, Colorado 80401
Yong-Hyun Lee (369), Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Water-
loo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
Edward S. Lipinsky (489), Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio 43201
E. Allen McGinnes, Jr. (591), School of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211
Paula McGray (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142
S. L. Malhotra (401), Xerox Research Centre of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada L5L 1J9
T. M. Mann (351), School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
R. H. Marchessault (401), Xerox Research Centre of Canada, Mississauga, On-
tario, Canada L5L 1J9
B. S. Montenecourt (271), Biotechnology Research Center, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
J. D. Muzzy (351), School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Jeffrey G. Ostmeyer (591), School of Forestry, Clemson University, Clemson, South
Carolina 29631
H. J. Parkhurst, Jr.1'(391),Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrenceville, New Jersey
08648
A. Perovic (401), Xerox Research Centre of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Can-
ada L5L 1J9
Janice A. Phillips (271, 503), Biotechnology Research Center, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
R. J. Pizziketti (271), Biological Energy Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104
E. K. Pye (271), Biological Energy Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104
R. S. Roberts (351), School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Johan-F. Selin (149), Department of Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
tPresent address: 4309 Hunters Glen, Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536
Xll CONTRIBUTORS
Susan M. Selke (329), Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State Uni-
versity, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Fred Shafizadeh (415), Wood Chemistry Laboratory, University of Montana, Mis-
soula, Montana 59812
A. Shanan (203), Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824
J. H. Shieh (439), Mass Transfer Operations, Glitsch, Inc., Dallas, Texas 75266
K. C. Shin (253), Chong Kun Dang Corporation, Seoul, Korea
Ed J. Soltes (477), Forest Science Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas 77843
Diane D. Spindler (239), Biotechnology Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute,
Golden, Colorado 80401
John C.-T Tang (287), Biogen Research Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142
R. J. Thomas (1), Department of Wood and Paper Science, School of Forest
Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
Norman S. Thompson (101), Chemical Sciences Division, The Institute of Paper
Chemistry, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Larry Tombaugh (529), Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824
Albin F. Turbak (87), School of Textile Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
W. R. Windham (167), Plant Structure and Composition Research Unit, USDA
ARS, Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30613
Leo C.-F. Wu (149), Department of Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Preface
It was not long after coming to Texas A&M University that I gained insight into
various agricultural practices. In 1979,1 was asked to give a presentation on chem-
ical and physical factors affecting digestibility for the Animal Science Department
graduate seminar. I surprised a few faculty members with the same questions that
were haunting me since a conference on September 9, 1975.
J. H. Sloneker spoke at that conference on agricultural residues, including feedlot
wastes.* He was then with the Northern Regional Research Laboratory in Peoría,
and he was asked to give an assessment of the agricultural residue resource. To
quote Dr. Sloneker:
"Converting residues into a highly digestible ruminant feed would greatly in-
crease our human food supply. For example, increasing the digestibility of these
fibers to 80% would provide enough feed to double our present cattle population
and subsequently release enough grain to feed 700 million more people (based on
2400 kcal per person per day)."
It became clear that scientists involved in animal nutrition and those in biomass
conversion did not talk to each other, despite the suggestions that they were working
on common problems in increasing the digestibility of lignocellulosics. It was time
to bring a few people together, and the result was a four-day, forty-paper conference
entitled Feed, Fuels, and Chemicals from Wood and Agricultural Residues that I
organized for the Cellulose, Paper, and Textile Division of the American Chemical
Society for its National Meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, in the fall of 1982. This
volume is, in one sense, a symposium proceedings volume in that it contains 31
papers given at that conference, although I worked with various authors until the
manuscripts were rewritten to effect something more like a textbook on biomass
utilization.
Thanks are due to all the authors who contributed presentations at the symposium
and who responded quickly to the call for final manuscripts and to the Cellulose,
Paper, and Textile Division for sponsoring this conference.
*J. H. Sloneker (1976). Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp. No. 6, 235-50.
xiii
WOOD ANATOMY AND PERMEABILITY
R.J. Thomas
Department of Wood and Paper Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
I. INTRODUCTION
Wood permeability, i.e. the flow of liquid through the
porous structure of wood, plays an important role in many
existing wood processes such as drying, preservative and fire
retardant treatments, pulping and hydrolysis. The efficiency of
these processes, which in turn controls cost, is largely
dependent upon certain anatomical features of wood.
The movement of liquids through wood during processing
occurs as a result of two phenomena, liquid flow and
diffusion. The term permeability, which indicates the relative
ease or difficulty of moving liquids through wood, applies only
to free liquid flow. With the exception of wood drying, the
above noted wood processes are concerned with liquid flow
only. Wood drying utilizes both liquid flow and diffusion in
both vapor and bound water forms. Vapor diffusion occurs across
cell lumens, either empty or partly empty of water, whereas
bound water diffusion takes place through cell walls.
Although permeable materials are generally porous, i.e.
contain a large amount of void space, porosity does not always
indicate high permeability. Good permeability exists in a
porous material only if liquid flow pathways interconnect the
void volume portions of the material. In spite of the fact that
wood is considered porous, it is not always permeable and
reveals great variation in permeability both within and among
species. The variation in permeability is due to changes which
modify liquid flow passageways connecting void volumes. These
changes occur not only in the living tree but also due to the
death of the tree resulting from harvesting and from the drying
Copyright © 1983 by Academic Press, Inc.
WOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES 1 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN 0-12-654560-X
2 R. J. THOMAS
of the wood. A study of wood anatomy will reveal the
specialized wood structures which control wood permeability and
assist in a full understanding and appreciation of wood
permeability and associated problems.
In the living tree wood performs the functions of conduction
(movement of water from roots to leaves), support (holds the
stem erect) and storage (food storage in specialized cells).
The conduction role implies a high permeability for wood. The
cells performing conduction or support, or both constitute 60%
to 90% of the wood volume. These cells are dead, that is, they
lack a cytoplasm and consist of a hollow cell with rigid
walls. The only cells living in the wood portion of the tree
are food storing cells. An awareness of the functions wood
performs in the living tree simplifies the study of wood anatomy
as form and function are intimately related.
FIGURE 1. End view of a tree stem showing bark (B) and wood
(H and S). The central darker colored portion is called
heartwood (H) and the outer light-color wood termed sapwood
(S). Growth rings, which represent the amount of wood formed in
one growing season are represented by concentric rings. (From
R.J. Thomas, 1980, Journal of Educational Modules for Materials
Science and Engineering. 1:53).
WOOD ANATOMY AND PERMEABILITY 3
11. MACRO- FEATURES
The end view of a log or stump (cross-sectional view)
exposes both wood and bark (Figure 1). Each year, a
meristematic tissue called the cambium located between the wood
and bark inserts a new layer of wood to the outside of existing
wood and new bark cells to the inside of existing bark. Wood
occupies the largest volume of the stem since more wood than
bark cells are produced and because wood cells are retained and
accumulated, whereas bark cells are continually lost from the
exterior of the tree.
Sapwood - Heartwood
The innermost portion of the stem, darker in color than the
area next to the bark, is called heartwood and the outer part
sapwood. The heartwood coloration is due to the production and
secretion of materials (termed extractives) which are by-
products of the death of the food storing cells. As new sapwood
is formed to the outside, additional interior sapwood is
converted to heartwood. In some species, the extractives
secreted by dying food storing cells do not change the color of
the wood; thus, heartwood cannot always be identified by a color
difference.
So f twood s-Har dwood s
Trees, and the wood formed by trees, are classified into two
major groups called softwoods (Gymnosperms) and hardwoods
(Angiosperme). The botanical classificaiton is based on the
production of naked seeds by softwoods and covered seeds by
hardwoods. A more familiar classification, based on the
retention of leaves by softwoods and an annual shedding of
leaves by hardwoods, designates softwoods evergreen and
hardwoods deciduous. With regard to wood anatomy a major
difference is the presence of vessels or pores in hardwoods.
Vessels are structures created for the primary function of water
conduction. Softwoods lack vessels but possess cells termed
longitudinal tracheids which perform the dual roles of
conduction and support (Compare Figures 2 and 3 with Figures 4
and 5).
Growth Rings
Growth rings, which indicate the amount of wood formed
during one growing season can be seen in Figure 1. Viewed at a
higher magnification, differences in cells produced early in the
growing season (earlywood) and those produced late (latewood)
