Researches on Cellulose | Page 3

and the anatomical relationships supply a certain basis of classification. Next, it is known to us and is defined by the negative characteristics of resistance to hydrolytic actions and oxidations. These are dealt with in the order of their intensity. Next we have the more positive definition by ultimate products of hydrolysis, so far as they are known, which discloses more particularly the presence of a greater or less proportion of furfural-yielding groups. Putting all these together as criteria of function and composition we find they supply common or general dividing lines, within which groups of these products are contained. The classification is natural, and in that sense inevitable; and it not only groups the physiological and chemical facts, but the industrial also. We do not propose to argue the question whether the latter adds any cogency to a scientific scheme. We are satisfied that it does, and we do not find any necessity to exclude a particular set of phenomena from consideration, because they involve 'commercial' factors. We have dealt with this classification in the original work (p. 78), and we discuss its essential basis in the present volume (p. 28) in connection with the definition of a 'normal' cellulose. But the 'normal' cellulose is not the only cellulose, any more than a primary alcohol or an aliphatic alcohol are the only alcohols. This point is confused or ignored in several of the recent contributions of investigators. It will suffice to cite one of these in illustration. On p. 16 we give an account of an investigation of the several methods of estimating cellulose, which is full of valuable and interesting matter. The purpose of the author's elaborate comparative study is to decide which has the strongest claims to be regarded as the 'standard' method. They appear to have a preference for the method of Lange--viz. that of heating at high temperatures (180°) with alkaline hydrates, but the investigation shows that (as we had definitely stated in our original work, p. 214) this is subject to large and variable errors. The adverse judgment of the authors, we may point out, is entirely determined on the question of aggregate weight or yield, and without reference to the ultimate composition or constitution of the final product. None of the available criteria are applied to the product to determine whether it is a cellulose (anhydride) or a hydrate or a hydrolysed product. After these alkali-fusion processes the method of chlorination is experimentally reviewed and dismissed for the reason that the product retains furfural-yielding groups, which is, from our point of view, a particular recommendation, i.e. is evidence of the selective action of the chlorine and subsequent hydrolysis upon the lignone group. As a matter of fact it is the only method yet available for isolating the cellulose from a lignocellulose by a treatment which is quantitatively to be accounted for in every detail of the reactions. It does not yield a 'normal' cellulose, and this is the expression which, in our opinion, the authors should have used. It should have been pointed out, moreover, that, as the cellulose is separated from actual condensed combination with the lignone groups, it may be expected to be obtained in a hydrated form, and also not as a homogeneous substance like the normal cotton cellulose. The product is a cellulose of the second group of the classification. Another point in this investigation which we must criticise is the ultimate selection of the Schulze method of prolonged maceration with nitric acid and a chlorate, followed by suitable hydrolysis of the non-cellulose derivatives to soluble products. Apart from its exceptional inconvenience, rendering it quite impracticable in laboratories which are concerned with the valuation of cellulosic raw materials for industrial purposes, the attack of the reagent is complex and ill-defined. This criticism we would make general by pointing out that such processes quite ignore the specific characteristics of the non-cellulose components of the compound celluloses. The second division of the plan of our work was to define these constituents by bringing together all that had been established concerning them. These groups are widely divergent in chemical character, as are the compound celluloses in function in the plant. Consequently there is for each a special method of attack, and it is a reversion to pure empiricism to expect any one treatment to act equally on the pectocelluloses, lignocelluloses, and cutocelluloses. Processes of isolating cellulose are really more strictly defined as methods of selective and regulated attack of the groups with which they occur, combined or mixed. A chemist familiar with such types as rhea or ramie (pectocellulose), jute (lignocellulose), and raffia (cutocellulose) knows exactly the specific treatment to apply to each for isolating the cellulose, and must view with some surprise the appearance at this date of such 'universal prescriptions'