Table 2 |
||||
|
CI of celluloses determined by four different methods by the authors. |
||||
|
Cellulose tested |
XRD method |
NMR method |
||
|
|
||||
|
Peak height |
Peak deconvolution |
Amorphous subtraction |
C4 peak separation |
|
|
|
||||
|
BMCC |
95.2 |
73.1 |
82.4 |
73.8 |
|
|
||||
|
Avicel PH-101* |
91.7 ± 1.5 |
60.6 ± 1.0 |
77.7 ± 1.9 |
56.7 ± 2.2 |
|
|
||||
|
SigmaCell 50 |
91.2 |
61.3 |
79.4 |
56.1 |
|
|
||||
|
SigmaCell 20 |
84.8 |
64.2 |
67.0 |
52.6 |
|
|
||||
|
JT Baker cellulose |
85.5 |
61.5 |
69.1 |
49.1 |
|
|
||||
|
Fluka cellulose |
82.9 |
52.9 |
61.6 |
48.6 |
|
|
||||
|
SolkaFloc cellulose |
78.3 |
56.8 |
57.2 |
43.9 |
|
|
||||
|
Sigma α-cellulose |
78.0 |
55.9 |
54.4 |
41.5 |
|
|
||||
|
BMCC, bacterial microcrystalline cellulose. Values are means. * For Avicel PH-101 the standard deviation from three measurements is given. |
||||
|
Park et al. Biotechnology for Biofuels 2010 3:10 doi:10.1186/1754-6834-3-10 |
||||
