### Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks Spreadsheet – for the 2014 docket update

Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401 1-Jul-14 

### This spreadsheetshows the calculations used to adjust cellulosic contentof differentfeedstocks starting with the numbers reportedin theliterature and ending with the values used by EPA.These adjustments are described in more detail in the memoto the docket ("Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks

-2014Update").

### This is an update to the spreadsheet "Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks Spreadsheet

-for the docket.xlsx" on Air and Radiation Docket EPA

-HQ

-OAR

-2012

-0401.Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics

(Ash) Adjusted

Cellulosic ContentSource

Black Locust 88% 8% 3% 92% DOE Database Eucalyptus 94% 3% 1% 97% DOE Database Eucalyptus 83% n.d. 0% 83% Wang et al. (2011) Hybrid Poplar 89% 4% 1% 96% DOE Database American Sycamore 87% 4% 1% 96% DOE Database Eastern Cottonwood 88% 3% 1% 97% DOE Database Yellow Poplar 89% 3% 2% 97% DOE Database Red Oak 84% n.d. 0% 84% Wang et al. (2011) Monterey Pine 91% 3% 0% 97% DOE Database Radiata Pine 88% n.d. 1% 89% Wang et al. (2011) Spruce 90% n.d. 2% 91% Wang et al. (2011) Branches 86% n.d. 3% 89% Eleazer et al. (1997) Branches 70% n.d. 18% 86% Komilis and Ham (2003) **87% 4%**  **3% 92%**  Leaves 70% n.d. 10% 77% Eleazer et al. (1997) Leaves 47% n.d. 37% 74% Komilis and Ham (2003) **Leaves Average 58%**  **n.d. 23%**  **75% Wood, Tree Branches & Leaves** 

**Wood & Branches Average** Reported CompositionCellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics

(Ash) Adjusted

Cellulosic ContentSource **Crop Residue** Corn Stover 80% 10% 12% 89% DOE Database

71% 19% 6% 79% Templeton et al. (2009) 72% 20% 5% 78% Templeton et al. (2010) 83% 11% 6% 88% Lee et al. (2007) 86% n.d. 7% 92% Lopez et al. (2005) 78% n.d. 6% 83% Yalchi and Hajieghrari (2011) **Corn Stover Average 78%**  **15% 7%**  **85%** Wheat Straw 74% 17% 10% 81% DOE Database

83% 7% 9% 92% NREL data 82% 12% 6% 87% Lee et al. (2007) 85% n.d. 7% 91% Stanton and LeValley (2010) 75% n.d. 5% 79% Lopez et al. (2005) 72% n.d. 2% 73% Adapa et al. (2007) 78% n.d. 13% 90% Yalchi and Hajieghrari (2011) **Wheat Straw Average 79%**  **12% 8%**  **85%**

Barley Straw 91%* -2%* 11% 102%*Lee et al. (2007)

82% n.d. 7% 88% Stanton and LeValley (2010) 72% n.d. 6% 76% Lopez et al. (2005) 71% n.d. 2% 72% Adapa et al. (2007) **Barley Straw Average 75%**  **n.d. 7%**  **79%**

Rye Straw 65%* 29%* 6% 69%* Lee et al. (2007)

71% n.d. 6% 76% Stanton et al. (2010) 84% n.d. 4% 88% Lopez et al. (2005) 75% 19% 6% 80% Sun and Cheng (2005) **Rye Straw Average 77%**  **19% 6%**  **81%** Soybean Straw 65%* 29%* 6% 69%* Lee et al. (2007)

70% n.d. 6% 74% Stanton and LeValley (2010) 81% n.d. 3% 83% Maheri-Sis et al. (2011) 73% n.d. 9% 80% Yalchi and Hajieghrari (2011) **Soybean Straw Average 75%**  **n.d. 6%**  **79%**

Oat Straw 70% n.d. 8% 76% Stanton and LeValley (2010)

80% n.d. 5% 84% Lopez et al. (2005) 74% n.d. 2% 75% Adapa et al. (2007) **Oat Straw Average 75%**  **n.d. 5%**  **78%** Rice Straw 74% n.d. 15% 86% Guo et al. (2009)

76% n.d. 11% 85% Agbagla et al. (2001) 69% n.d. 11% 77% Jin and Chen (2007) **Rice Straw Average 73%**  **n.d. 12%**  **83% Corn Kernel Fiber**  **87% 13%**  **1% 87%**  Yoshida et al. (2012) **Kernel Fiber Average 87%**  **13% 1%**  **87%** Sugarcane Bagasse 90% n.d. 8% 98% Guo et al. (2009) 92% 6% 4% 94% Templeton et al. (2010) **Bagasse Average 91%**  **6% 6%**  **96% Crop Residue Average**  **79% 13%**  **6% 84%**  Reported Composition*Acid detergent lignin was adjusted to an estimated value for total lignin by multiplying by 1.3 for soybeans (a legume) or by 3 for rye and barley (types of grass) using the factors established in Lee et al. (2007).*Acid detergent lignin was adjusted to an estimated value for total lignin by multiplying by 1.3 for soybeans (a legume) or by 3 for rye and barley (types of grass) using the factors established in Lee et al. (2007).Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics

(Ash) Adjusted

Cellulosic ContentSource **Grasses**Switchgrass 79% 17% 5% 82%DOE Database 75% 15% 6% 83%NREL data 71% 13% 7% 85%Dien et al. (2006) 85% 9% 6% 90%Lee et al. (2007) 70% 12% 7% 86%Vogel et al. (2011) 71% 13% 9% 84%Vogel et al. (2013) **75% 13%**  **7% 85%**  Miscanthus 85% n.d. 4% 89%Guo et al. (2009)

86% 12% 2% 88%Lee et al. (2007) 77% n.d. 1% 78%Villaverde et al. (2010) 79% 14% n.d. 85%Fedenko et al. (2013) **82% 13%**  **2% 85%**  Energy cane unspecified cultivar75% 20% 5% 79%BP Biofuels L 79-100273% 23% n.d. 76%Fedenko et al. (2013) L 79-1002(26%)^ (10%)^ n.d. 73%Bischoff et al. (2008) L 79-1002(27%)^ (9%)^ n.d. 75%Hale (2010) Ho 02-113(26%)^ (10%)^ n.d. 71%Hale (2010) Ho 00-961(16%)^ (18%)^ n.d. 47%Tew et al. (2007a) HoCP 91-552(15%)^ (17%)^ n.d. 48%Tew et al. (2007b) **Energy Cane Average 73%**  **23% n.d.**  **75% 74%**  **21% 5%**  **67%** Napier grass 83% 13% 4% 86%BP data

74% n.d. 6% 79%Ansah et al. (2010) 59% n.d. 14% 68%Grant et al. (1975) 76% 19% n.d. 80%Fedenko et al. (2013) **73% 13%**  **8% 78%**  Arundo donax 84% n.d. 4% 87%Scordia et al. (2011)

78% n.d. 6% 83%Scordia et al. (2012) 73% 21% n.d. 78%Fedenko et al. (2013) **78% 21%**  **5% 83%**  Other grasses Reed Canarygrass58% 21% 11% 73%Dien et al. (2006) Reed Canarygrass66%* 26%* 8% 72%*Lee et al. (2007) Big Bluestem83% 11% 6% 88%Lee et al. (2007) Tall Fescue64% 25% 11% 72%Lee et al. (2007)

Reported Composition

**Switchgrass Average**

**Miscanthus Average**

**(L 79-1002)**

**Napier grass Average**

**Arundo Donax Average Energy Cane Average (all)** Indiangrass86%* 6%* 8% 93%*Lee et al. (2007) Little Bluestem(66%)† (27%)† 7% (71%)†Lee et al. (2007) Prairie Cordgrass92%* 2%* 6% 98%*Lee et al. (2007)

82%* 12%* 6% 87%*Lee et al. (2007) Smooth Bromegrass86%* 6%* 8% 93%*Lee et al. (2007)

Timothy73%* 21%* 6% 78%*Lee et al. (2007)

**68% 19%**  **8% 78%**  *Acid detergent lignin (ADL) was adjusted to an estimated value for total lignin by multiplying by 3. Total lignin for grasses is generally 2-4 times ADL, so we used an average value for this estimate. These values were not used in calculating the average. **†**Lignin was not measured for this sample, so these values are much lower than the true value. This sample was not used in calculating the average for grasses. ^Fiber and Brix were reported as a percentage of whole cane, including water. This sample was not used in calculating the "cellulosic content" or "other organics" average Intermediate Wheatgrass

**Other Grasses Average***Acid detergent lignin (ADL) was adjusted to an estimated value for total lignin by multiplying by 3. Total lignin for grasses is generally 2-4 times ADL, so we used an average value for this estimate. These values were not used in calculating the average. Lignin was not measured for this sample, so these values are much lower than the true value. This sample was not used in calculating the average for grasses. ^Fiber and Brix were reported as a percentage of whole cane, including water. This sample was not used in calculating the "cellulosic content" or "other organics" average*Acid detergent lignin (ADL) was adjusted to an estimated value for total lignin by multiplying by 3. Total lignin for grasses is generally 2-4 times ADL, so we used an average value for this estimate. These values were not used in calculating the average.**Corn Stover - Data from Templeton et al. (2009)**
**Reference:**Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS, David W. Templeton, Amie D. Sluiter, Tammy K. Hayward, Bonnie R. Hames, Steven R. Thomas, Cellulose 2009 16:621-639 **Samples:**collected from 47 sites in 8 corn belt states after the 2001, 2002, and 2003 harvests

508 commercial hybrid corn stover samples **Analytical Method:**

Near-infrared spectroscopy/partial least squares multivariate modeling, calibrated with standard NREL Laboratory Analytical Prodedures (LAPs) **Use in Memo to demonstrate variability and EPA approach**

**Cellulose Hemicellulose**  **Lignin Reported:** **Used: Reported:**  **Used: Reported:** **Used:**

Glucan **Total**

**Cellulose** Xylan GalactanArabinanMannanAcetyl**Total Hemi cellulose**  Lignin **Total Lignin**  Average 31.9 **31.9** 18.9 1.5 2.8 0.3 2.2 **25.7** 13.3 **13.3** Std. Dev. 2.0 **2.0** 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 **1.4** 1.1 **1.1** Range 26.5-37.6 14.8-22.70.8-1.91.6-3.60.0-0.70.9-2.9 11.2-17.8

**Extractives Other**  **Percent Recovery Reported:**  **Used: Reported:** **Used: Used:**  **Reported: Used:** 

Ethanol solublesSucrose Waterextractible (other) **Total**

**extrac tives**  **(organic)**Protein**Protein**Extract-ible inorganics (soil) Structural

inorganics (ash) **Total**

**inorganics Compone** 

**nt Closure % Recovery**  Average 3.3 3.6 8.6 **15.5** 3.7 **3.7** 2.5 3.9 **6.4 96.4**  **96.4** Std. Dev. 0.4 2.1 2.3 **3.1** 0.8 **0.8** 0.5 0.9 **1.0 1.6**  **1.6** Range 1.7-4.1-1.0-10.01.4-15.7 1.1-5.4 0.0-4.8 0.8-6.6

**Cellulosic Content**

**Cellulosic Content** **Other**

**Organics Inorganics** 

**(Ash) Adjusted** 

**Cellulosic Content**  Average **70.9 19.2**  **6.4 78.6**  Std. Dev. **2.7 3.2**  **1.0 3.3**  AverageStd. Dev.Range Propogation of errors was used to calculate standard deviation for hemicellulose, extractives, total inorganics, and adjusted cellulosics **Cellulose** Reported:Glucan 31.9 2.0 26.5-37.6 Used: **Total Cellulose 31.9**  **2.0 Hemicellulose**  Reported:Xylan 18.9 1.3 14.8-22.7

Galactan 1.5 0.2 0.8-1.9 Arabinan 2.8 0.3 1.6-3.6 Mannan 0.3 0.1 0.0-0.7 Acetyl 2.2 0.3 0.9-2.9 Used: **Total Hemicellulose 25.7**  **1.4 Lignin** Reported:Lignin 13.3 1.1 11.2-17.8 Used: **Total Lignin 13.3**  **1.1 Extractives**  Reported:Ethanol solubles 3.3 0.4 1.7-4.1

Sucrose 3.6 2.1 -1.0-10.0 Water-extractible (other) 8.6 2.3 1.4-15.7 Used: **Total extractives (organic) 15.5**  **3.1 Protein** Reported:Protein 3.7 0.8 1.1-5.4 Used: **Protein 3.7**  **0.8 Inorganics/Ash**  Extractible inorganics (soil) 2.5 0.5 0.0-4.8

Structural inorganics (ash) 3.9 0.9 0.8-6.6 Used: **Total inorganics 6.4**  **1.0 Percent Recovery**  Reported:Component closure 96.4 1.6 Used: **% Recovery 96.4**  **1.6 Cellulosic Content** **Cellulosic Content 70.9**  **2.7**

**Other Organics 19.2**  **3.2 Inorganics (Ash)**  **6.4 1.0**  **Adjusted Cellulosic Content 78.6**  **3.3**

## Barley straw, canola straw, oat straw, and wheat straw - Data from Adapa et al. (2009)

**Reference:** Adapa, P., L. Tabil, and G. Schoenau (2009) Compaction characteristics of barley, canola, oat and wheat straw. Biosystems Engineering, 104(3):335-344 **Samples:** from Saskatchewan, Canada
**Analytical Method:**Detergent fiber analysis, using AOAC methods 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

Cellulose(ADFlignin) **Cellulose Barley straw**  33.25 **33.25 Canola straw**  42.39 **42.39 Oat straw**  37.6 **37.6 Wheat straw**  34.2 **34.2** 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Barley straw 70.74 2.18 72.92 Canola straw 72.95 2.1 75.05 Oat straw 73.79 2.19 75.98 Wheat straw 71.76 2.36 74.12
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Barley straw 72% Canola straw 75% Oat straw 75% Wheat straw 73%

## Barley straw, canola straw, oat straw, and wheat straw - Data from Adapa et al. (2009) Adapa, P., L. Tabil, and G. Schoenau (2009) Compaction characteristics of barley, canola, oat and wheat straw. Biosystems Engineering, 104(3):335-344

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper:**

Hemicellulose (NDFADF) **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** Acidinsoluble lignin **Total**

**Lignin** Inorganics

(ash) ProteinFat 20.36 **20.36** 17.13 **17.13** 2.18 3.62 1.91 16.41 **16.41** 14.15 **14.15** 2.1 6.53 0.69 23.34 **23.34** 12.85 **12.85** 2.19 5.34 1.65 23.68 **23.68** 13.88 **13.88** 2.36 2.33 1.59

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not validStarch0.11

0.34 0.12 2.58

## Rice straw - Data from Agbagla-Dohnani et al. (2001)

**Reference:** Agbagla-Dohnani, A., P. Noziere, G. Clement, and M. Doreau (2001) In sacco degradability, chemical and morphological composition of 15 varieties of European rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 94:15-27 **Samples:** from France, collected after grain harvesting 15 varieties, grown under identical conditions **Analytical Method:**detergent fiber analysis methods, based on Van Soest et al (1991) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

**Cellulose Rice straw**  "Ash free NDF" (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, so this value is used for "cellulosic content." ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Rice straw 75.8 11.2 87

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the other organic values is not accurate

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Rice straw 85%Agbagla-Dohnani, A., P. Noziere, G. Clement, and M. Doreau (2001) In sacco degradability, chemical and morphological composition of 15 varieties of European rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 94:15-27

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper: Total**  **hemicellul**
**ose** Acid

detergent lignin **Lignin** Ash NDF Ash-free NDF 9.3 **9.3** 11.2 79.3 75.8 "Ash free NDF" (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, so this value is used for "cellulosic content." ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the other organic values is not accurateAgbagla-Dohnani, A., P. Noziere, G. Clement, and M. Doreau (2001) In sacco degradability, chemical and morphological composition of 15 varieties of European rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 94:15-27

ADF Ash-free

ADF Crude

protein 48.9 45.7 3.9

## Napier grass - Data from Ansah et al. (2010)

**Reference:** Ansah, T., E. L. K. Osafo, and Hanne H. Hansen (2010) Herbage yield and chemical composition of four varieties of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass harvested at three different days after planting. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 1(5):923-929. **Samples:** 4 replicate plots of each variety
**Analytical Method:**AOAC for protein and ash, Van Soest 1991 detergent fiber methods for cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Total extractives**Total**

**extractives** Cellulose (ADF-ADL)**Cellulose** Hemicellulose (NDFADF) Napier grass Local variety 42.08 42.1 19.55 Variety 16786 37.58 37.6 23.95 Variety 16798 38.23 38.2 25.23 Variety 16840 36.03 36.0 24.52

NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Napier grass Local variety 72.8 6.02 78.83 Variety 16786 74.5 6.92 81.42 Variety 16798 72.4 6.82 79.18 Variety 16840 74.4 6.01 80.38 Average 73.5 6.4 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Napier grass Local variety 77% Variety 16786 80% Variety 16798 78% Variety 16840 79% Average 79%Ansah, T., E. L. K. Osafo, and Hanne H. Hansen (2010) Herbage yield and chemical composition of four varieties of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass harvested at three different days after planting. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 1(5):923-929.

AOAC for protein and ash, Van Soest 1991 detergent fiber methods for cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:** 

**Total hemicellul** 
**ose** Aciddetergent Lignin **Lignin** inorganics (ash) Crude

proteinNDF ADF

**19.6** 11.18 **11.2** 6.02 9.68 72.82 53.27 **24.0** 12.97 **13.0** 6.92 8.54 74.5 50.55 **25.2** 8.9 **8.9** 6.82 9.29 72.37 47.13 **24.5** 13.82 **13.8** 6.01 9.31 74.3 49.85

NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not validAnsah, T., E. L. K. Osafo, and Hanne H. Hansen (2010) Herbage yield and chemical composition of four varieties of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass harvested at three different days after planting. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 1(5):923-929.

## Energy cane - Data from Bischoff et al. (2008)

**Reference:** Bischoff, K. P., K. A. Gravois, T. E. Reagan, J. W. Hoy, C. A. Kimbeng, C, M. LaBorde, and G. L. Hawkins (2008) Registration of 'L 79-1002' Sugarcane. Journal of Plant Registrations, 2(3):211-217. **Samples:** grown at research stations in Louisiana, 15 stalks used for samples
**Analytical Method:** Brix and fiber measurements only 

## Percent Composition**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper:**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

Brix **Total**

**extractives Cellulose**  L 79-1002, grown 1976-1980 10.4 **10.4** L 79-1002, plant cane 10.1 **10.1** L 79-1002 first ratoon 8.3 **8.3** L 79-1002 second ratoon 9.2 **9.2** L 79-1002 third ratoon 9.9 **9.9** Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant. 

## Total (% Composition)**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) L 79-1002, grown 1976-1980 27.9 10.4 38.3 L 79-1002, plant cane 25.0 10.1 35.1 L 79-1002 first ratoon 25.7 8.3 34 L 79-1002 second ratoon 24.5 9.2 33.7 L 79-1002 third ratoon 26.7 9.9 36.6 Average 26.0 9.6 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)
**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics L 79-1002, grown 1976-1980 73% 27% L 79-1002, plant cane 71% 29% L 79-1002 first ratoon 76% 24% L 79-1002 second ratoon 73% 27% L 79-1002 third ratoon 73% 27% Average 73% 27%Bischoff, K. P., K. A. Gravois, T. E. Reagan, J. W. Hoy, C. A. Kimbeng, C, M. LaBorde, and G. L. Hawkins (2008) Registration of 'L 79-1002' Sugarcane. Journal of Plant Registrations, 2(3):211-217.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Fiber27.9 25 25.7 24.5 26.7 Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)Bischoff, K. P., K. A. Gravois, T. E. Reagan, J. W. Hoy, C. A. Kimbeng, C, M. LaBorde, and G. L. Hawkins (2008) Registration of 'L 79-1002' Sugarcane. Journal of Plant Registrations, 2(3):211-217.

## Energycane & Napiergrass - Data from BP

**Reference:** Data from Company Research Trials **Samples:** Multiple trial plots taken over a range of geographies and multiple years
**Analytical Method:**Methods not specified 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

**Total extractives**  Cellulose Energycane Napiergrass Detailed compositional data for energy cane and napiergrass was not provided 

## Total (% Composition)

**Reported "Fiber"**  Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Energycane 75.2 19.6 5.2 100 Napiergrass 83.4 13.1 3.5 100
Samples were not adjusted for % recovery because numbers had already been adjusted to 100% yield

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Energycane 79% 21% Napiergrass 86% 14%**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper: Total**  **hemicellulo**
**se**

## Switchgrass and reed canarygrass - Data from Dien et al. (2006)

**Reference:** Chemical Composition and Response to Dilute-acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Saccharification of Alfalfa, Reed Canarygrass, and Switchgrass, Bruce S. Dien, Hans-Joachim G. Jung, Kenneth P. Vogel, Michael D. Casler, JoAnn F.S. Lamb, Loren Iten, Robert B. Mitchell, Gautum Sarath, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (2006) 880-891 **Samples:** two canary grass, three switchgrass samples samples collected at different stages of maturity **Analytical Method:**ethanol, water extractions, sulfuric acid-hydrolysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Reported in Paper:** 

Ether extractorganic

acids Glc Fru Suc Raf Sta **Reed canarygrass - vegitative**2.2 2.4 0.4 0.5 6.9 0.3 0 **Reed canarygrass - Ripe seed**1.3 1 0.2 1.2 3 0 0.1 **Reed canarygrass - AVERAGE Switchgrass - pre-boot**  1 0.9 0.6 0.6 2.7 0.1 0 **Switchgrass - Anthesis** 1 0.9 1.4 1 5.1 0.1 0 **Switchgrass - post-frost** 1.6 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 0 **Switchgrass - AVERAGE**



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) **Reed canarygrass - vegitative** 51.1 25 12.8 88.9 **Reed canarygrass - Ripe seed** 64.6 16.7 9.5 90.8 **Reed canarygrass - AVERAGE** 57.9 20.9 11.2 89.9 **Switchgrass - pre-boot**65.7 12.9 8.9 87.5 **Switchgrass - Anthesis** 69.4 16.6 5.7 91.7 **Switchgrass - post-frost**78.9 8.3 5.7 92.9 **Switchgrass - AVERAGE**71.3 12.6 6.8 90.7

**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganics **Reed canarygrass - vegitative** 57.5 28.1 14.4 **Reed canarygrass - Ripe seed** 71.1 18.4 10.5 **Reed canarygrass - AVERAGE** 64.3 23.3 12.4 **Switchgrass - pre-boot**75.1 14.7 10.2 **Switchgrass - Anthesis** 75.7 18.1 6.2 **Switchgrass - post-frost**84.9 8.9 6.1 **Switchgrass - AVERAGE**78.6 13.9 7.5

**Adjusted for Inorganics**Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics **Reed canarygrass - vegitative** 67% 33% **Reed canarygrass - Ripe seed** 79% 21% **Reed canarygrass - AVERAGE** 73% 27% **Switchgrass - pre-boot** 84% 16% **Switchgrass - Anthesis** 81% 19% **Switchgrass - post-frost**90% 10% **Switchgrass - AVERAGE**85% 15%Chemical Composition and Response to Dilute-acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Saccharification of Alfalfa, Reed Canarygrass, and Switchgrass, Bruce S. Dien, Hans-Joachim G. Jung, Kenneth P. Vogel, Michael D. Casler, JoAnn F.S. Lamb, Loren Iten, Robert B. Mitchell, Gautum Sarath, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (2006) 880-891

**Cellulose Hemicellulose**  **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Total extractabl** 
**es** Glucose**Cellulose** XyloseArabinoseGalactoseMannose **12.7** 20.9 **20.9** 11.7 3 1.6 0.6 **6.8** 26.5 **26.5** 16.3 2.8 1.3 0.6

**5.9** 27.3 **27.3** 17.9 3.1 1.3 0.5 **9.5** 28.3 **28.3** 19.5 2.7 1 0.4 **4.6** 32.2 **32.2** 22.3 3 1.2 0.5Chemical Composition and Response to Dilute-acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Saccharification of Alfalfa, Reed Canarygrass, and Switchgrass, Bruce S. Dien, Hans-Joachim G. Jung, Kenneth P. Vogel, Michael D. Casler, JoAnn F.S. Lamb, Loren Iten, Robert B. Mitchell, Gautum Sarath, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (2006) 880-891

**Lignin Other**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** **Reported in paper:**

RhamnoseFucoseuronic

acids **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose Klason** 

**Lignin** ProteinStorage (starch) 0.1 0.1 2.2 **19.3 10.9**  8.8 3.5 0.1 0.1 2.1 **23.3 14.8**  4.5 5.4 **0** 0.2 0.1 2 **25.1 13.3**  6.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 **25.7 15.4**  3.2 3.9 0.2 0.1 2.1 **29.4 17.3**  3 0.7 **0**Chemical Composition and Response to Dilute-acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Saccharification of Alfalfa, Reed Canarygrass, and Switchgrass, Bruce S. Dien, Hans-Joachim G. Jung, Kenneth P. Vogel, Michael D. Casler, JoAnn F.S. Lamb, Loren Iten, Robert B. Mitchell, Gautum Sarath, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (2006) 880-891

inorganics (ash)12.8 9.5

8.9 5.7 5.7

## Corn Stover - Data from DOE Database

**Reference:** http://www.afdc.energy.gov/biomass/progs/search1.cgi **Samples:** Corn stoverDatabase cites: Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52. from Colorado State University, stored in square bales Wheat strawDatabase cites: Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.

NIST Research Material 8494

**Analytical Method:**ASTM/NREL methodology 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

**Extractives Total** 

**Extractives** Glucan**Cellulose Corn Stover**  7.74 **7.74** 34.61 **34.61** 4.75 **4.75** 35.82 **35.82** 11.89 **11.89** 30.61 **30.61** 5.16 **5.16** 35.76 **35.76** 3.32 **3.32** 36.51 **36.51** 4.42 **4.42** 35.67 **35.67** 3.89 **3.89** 37.12 **37.12** 5.02 **5.02** 34.02 **34.02** 4.57 **4.57** 34.32 **34.32** 4.29 **4.29** 35.22 **35.22** 4.78 **4.78** 38.12 **38.12** 5.61 **5.61** 37.69 **37.69 Wheat Straw**  12.95 **12.95** 32.64 **32.64**



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) **Corn stover** 77.63 11.99 10.24 99.86 80.81 8.4375 9.82 99.0675 71.45 15.89 11.04 98.38 79.24 9.16 11.48 99.88 82.97 7.945 11.42 102.33579.84 8.2325 11.11 99.1825 81.16 8.4525 12.54102.1525 79.54 9.395 13.34 102.275 80.53 9.1325 13.46103.1225 80.61 8.6025 13.51102.7225 84.2 8.9675 11.53104.6975 84.55 9.6725 10.06104.2825 **Average 80.21**  **9.66 11.63**  **Wheat straw** 74.3616.8875 10.22101.4675

**Adjusted for % recovery**Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganics Corn Stover 77.74 12.01 10.25 81.57 8.52 9.91 72.63 16.15 11.22 79.34 9.17 11.49 81.08 7.76 11.16 80.50 8.30 11.20 79.45 8.27 12.28 77.77 9.19 13.04 78.09 8.86 13.05 78.47 8.37 13.15 80.42 8.57 11.01 81.08 9.28 9.65

Wheat straw 73.28 16.64 10.07

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Corn Stover 87% 13% 91% 9% 82% 18% 90% 10% 91% 9% 91% 9% 91% 9% 89% 11% 90% 10% 90% 10% 90% 10% 90% 10%**Average 89%**  **11%**

Wheat straw 81% 19%Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.
Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**
**Uronic acids** **Arabinan Xylan** **Mannan Galactan** **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Total**  **Lignin**
3.12 2.54 18.32 0.4 0.95 **25.33 17.69**  4.17 2.69 18.97 0.47 0.92 **27.22 17.77**  3.53 1.89 15.99 0.51 0.73 **22.65 18.19**  3.14 2.55 18.94 0.52 0.94 **26.09 17.39**  4.39 2.42 18.97 0.47 0.96 **27.21 19.25**  4.53 2.52 18.58 0.42 0.99 **27.04 17.13**  1.72 2.46 20.31 0.48 0.92 **25.89 18.15**  2.84 2.11 19.52 0.54 0.83 **25.84 19.68**  3.03 1.91 18.88 0.43 0.71 **24.96 21.25**  2.94 2.18 19.91 0.55 0.85 **26.43 18.96**  2.41 2.03 20.25 0.41 0.74 **25.84 20.24**  2.99 2.42 21.61 0.38 0.87 **28.27 18.59**  2.24 2.35 19.22 0.31 0.75 **24.87 16.85** Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.
Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.

**Other Reported in paper:** 

**Protein Ash** 

4.25 10.24 3.6875 9.82 4 11.04 4 11.48 4.625 11.42 3.8125 11.11 4.5625 12.54 4.375 13.34 4.5625 13.46 4.3125 13.51 4.1875 11.53 4.0625 10.06 3.9375 10.22Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.
Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.

## Switchgrass - Data from DOE Database

**Reference:** http://www.afdc.energy.gov/biomass/progs/search1.cgi **Samples:** #1Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52. #2Compositional Variability in Herbaceous Energy Crops (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/8098_pt1.pdf)
**Analytical Method:**ASTM/NREL methodology 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

**Extractives Total** 

**Extractives** Glucan**Cellulose Switchgrass**  16.99 **16.99** 30.97 **30.97** 15.56 **15.56** 31.85 **31.85** 15.2 **15.2** 33.22 **33.22** 12.97 **12.97** 34.94 **34.94** 15.25 **15.25** 33.03 **33.03** 10.45 **10.45** 34.63 **34.63** 10.82 **10.82** 33.59 **33.59** 11.08 **11.08** 35.34 **35.34** 9.53 **9.53** 32.3 **32.3** 7.88 **7.88** 32.93 **32.93** 10.37 **10.37** 31.41 **31.41** 6.79 **6.79** 33.48 **33.48** 7.86 **7.86** 33.01 **33.01** 4.91 **4.91** 32.92 **32.92** 14.18 **14.18** 34.88 **34.88** 13.97 **13.97** 35.42 **35.42** 11.46 **11.46** 35.39 **35.39** 14.96 **14.96** 33.52 **33.52** 12.2 **12.2** 34.44 **34.44** 15.48 **15.48** 33.59 **33.59** 13.51 **13.51** 34.34 **34.34** 21.19 **21.19** 28.85 **28.85** 22.61 **22.61** 28.02 **28.02** 24.14 **24.14** 30.74 **30.74** 24.21 **24.21** 26.78 **26.78** 18.27 **18.27** 30.27 **30.27** 16.49 **16.49** 30.91 **30.91** 20.57 **20.57** 27.84 **27.84** 11.35 **11.35** 31.6 **31.6** 14.25 **14.25** 33.81 **33.81** 13.31 **13.31** 36.66 **36.66** 15.24 **15.24** 35.69 **35.69** 16.25 **16.25** 37.49 **37.49**15.56 **15.56** 33.47 **33.47** 11.73 **11.73** 36.9 **36.9** 13.2 **13.2** 37 **37** 11.87 **11.87** 35.78 **35.78** 11.71 **11.71** 36.61 **36.61** 15.64 **15.64** 37.14 **37.14** 16.35 **16.35** 31.17 **31.17** 12.5 **12.5** 32.52 **32.52** 12.33 **12.33** 32.77 **32.77** 10.79 **10.79** 32.06 **32.06** 13.8 **13.8** 33.08 **33.08** 13.49 **13.49** 32.81 **32.81** 8.45 **8.45** 33.35 **33.35** 13.31 **13.31** 32.58 **32.58** 8.23 **8.23** 34 **34** 12.18 **12.18** 34.02 **34.02** 6.38 **6.38** 34.44 **34.44** 11.09 **11.09** 34.21 **34.21** 13.64 **13.64** 32.89 **32.89** 12.81 **12.81** 33.04 **33.04** 8.96 **8.96** 33.69 **33.69** 13.33 **13.33** 31.27 **31.27** 7.39 **7.39** 33.49 **33.49** 7.33 **7.33** 33.18 **33.18**



## Total (% Composition) Samples shown in gray font were not analyzed for protein

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Switchgrass 74.08 20.1775 5.76100.0175 76.89 15.56 6.22 98.67 78.35 15.2 5.63 99.18 82.41 12.97 4.54 99.92 78.22 15.25 5.21 98.68 82.32 10.45 5.33 98.1 81.67 15.2575 5.84102.7675 83.12 14.5175 5.25 102.8875 **79.6 14.9**  **5.5 100.0**  78.62 13.7175 6.07 98.4075 80.51 11.38 5.92 97.81 77.33 14.495 5.93 97.755 81.08 10.9775 5.75 97.8075 **79.4 12.6**  **5.9 97.9**  80.52 10.9225 6.16 97.6025 83.22 8.66 6.44 98.3279.53 16.93 4.76 101.22 81.1 17.5325 5.6 104.2325 82.23 15.335 5.78 103.345 78.69 18.71 5.98 103.38 79.76 16.075 5.91 101.745 78.11 18.855 5.93 102.895 77.89 16.9475 5.74100.5775 69.41 27.5025 5.47102.3825 67.09 31.6725 5.69104.4525 68.75 29.9525 5.17103.8725 66.9 32.2725 5.67104.8425 73.71 26.2075 5.69105.6075 74.26 23.74 5.73 103.73 71.84 29.07 5.44 106.35 81.42 16.1 5.08 102.6 80.61 18.6875 4.46103.7575 82.51 15.185 3.13 100.825 80.52 18.3025 3.57102.3925 80.53 18.4375 2.58101.5475 **77.1 20.3**  **5.2 102.7**  80.52 18.81 3.15 102.48 82.84 14.48 3.16 100.48 84.19 15.45 2.77 102.41 85.07 13.8075 2.54101.4175 85.39 13.5225 2.57101.4825 **83.6 15.2**  **2.8 101.7**  82.91 17.4525 2.27102.6325 74.13 23.225 6.33 103.685 77.86 18.3125 6.87103.0425 79.14 18.455 7.52 105.115 76.44 16.79 7.3 100.53 75.87 20.55 6.42 102.84 76.81 19.49 6.25 102.55 77.86 16.3875 7.38101.6275 76.14 19.935 6.46 102.535 78.97 15.48 7.08 101.53 77.98 18.6175 7.02 103.6175 79.87 12.88 6.71 99.46 79.52 15.6525 6.4 101.5725 78.19 18.9525 5.56102.7025 78.92 17.4975 5.64102.0575 80.87 13.835 6.03 100.735 76.65 19.33 5.49 101.47 81.03 12.4525 7.03 100.5125 80.19 12.33 7.55 100.07 **Average 78.7**  **17.4 5.4**  **101.6 Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganics Switchgrass 74.07 20.17 5.76 77.93 15.77 6.30 79.00 15.33 5.68 82.48 12.98 4.54 79.27 15.45 5.28 83.91 10.65 5.43 79.47 14.85 5.68 80.79 14.11 5.10 79.89 13.94 6.17 82.31 11.63 6.05 79.11 14.83 6.07 82.90 11.22 5.88 82.50 11.19 6.31 84.64 8.81 6.55 78.57 16.73 4.70 77.81 16.82 5.37 79.57 14.84 5.59 76.12 18.10 5.78 78.39 15.80 5.81 75.91 18.32 5.76 77.44 16.85 5.71 67.79 26.86 5.34 64.23 30.32 5.45 66.19 28.84 4.98 63.81 30.78 5.41 69.80 24.82 5.39 71.59 22.89 5.52 67.55 27.33 5.12 79.36 15.69 4.95 77.69 18.01 4.30 81.83 15.06 3.10 78.64 17.87 3.49 79.30 18.16 2.54 78.57 18.35 3.07 82.44 14.41 3.14 82.21 15.09 2.70 83.88 13.61 2.50 84.14 13.32 2.53 80.78 17.00 2.21 71.50 22.40 6.11 75.56 17.77 6.67 75.29 17.56 7.1576.04 16.70 7.26 73.77 19.98 6.24 74.90 19.01 6.09 76.61 16.13 7.26 74.26 19.44 6.30 77.78 15.25 6.97 75.26 17.97 6.77 80.30 12.95 6.75 78.29 15.41 6.30 76.13 18.45 5.41 77.33 17.14 5.53 80.28 13.73 5.99 75.54 19.05 5.41 80.62 12.39 6.99 80.13 12.32 7.54

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Switchgrass 79% 21% 83% 17% 84% 16% 86% 14% 84% 16% 89% 11% 84% 16% 85% 15% **84% 16%**  85% 15% 88% 12% 84% 16% 88% 12% **86% 14%**  88% 12% 91% 9% 82% 18% 82% 18% 84% 16% 81% 19% 83% 17% 81% 19% 82% 18% 72% 28%68% 32% 70% 30% 67% 33% 74% 26% 76% 24% 71% 29% 83% 17% 81% 19% 84% 16% 81% 19% 81% 19% **79% 21%**  81% 19% 85% 15% 84% 16% 86% 14% 86% 14% **85% 15%**  83% 17% 76% 24% 81% 19% 81% 19% 82% 18% 79% 21% 80% 20% 83% 17% 79% 21% 84% 16% 81% 19% 86% 14% 84% 16% 80% 20% 82% 18% 85% 15% 80% 20% 87% 13% 87% 13% Average 82% 18%Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52. Compositional Variability in Herbaceous Energy Crops (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/8098_pt1.pdf)

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**
**Uronic acids** **Arabinan Xylan** **Mannan Galactan** **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Total**  **Lignin**
1.17 2.75 20.42 0.29 0.92 **25.55** 17.56 2.12 2.69 21.67 0.22 0.94 **27.64** 17.4 1.03 2.81 22.13 0.21 0.99 **27.17** 17.96 1.13 2.85 23.7 0.25 1.01 **28.94** 18.53 1.05 2.87 22.37 0.23 1.04 **27.56** 17.63 1.05 2.87 23.22 0.3 1.11 **28.55** 19.14 1.12 2.91 23.08 0.37 1.15 **28.63** 19.45 0.99 2.81 23.85 0.27 1.09 **29.01** 18.77 1.33 2.72 20.88 0.35 1.01 **26.29** 20.03 1.15 2.75 21.49 0.37 1.04 **26.8** 20.78 1.18 2.64 21.02 0.35 0.97 **26.16** 19.76 1.18 2.65 21.49 0.46 1.04 **26.82** 20.78 1.19 2.74 21.63 0.39 1.06 **27.01** 20.5 1.17 2.74 22.22 0.55 1.13 **27.81** 22.49 1.33 2.76 21.83 0.28 0.84 **27.04** 17.61 2.02 2.67 22.66 0.33 0.88 **28.56** 17.12 2.15 2.73 22.44 0.39 0.96 **28.67** 18.17 2.13 2.76 21.74 0.29 0.93 **27.85** 17.32 2.01 2.73 22.1 0.25 0.87 **27.96** 17.36 1.88 2.8 22.02 0.19 0.89 **27.78** 16.74

2.7 22.38 0.27 0.85 **26.2** 17.35 2.3 3.4 18.72 0.24 1.29 **25.95** 14.61 2.1 3.24 17.56 0.4 1.22 **24.52** 14.55 2.37 3.32 17.59 0.28 1.3 **24.86** 13.15 2.45 3.28 17.89 0.37 1.3 **25.29** 14.83 2.53 3.54 19.4 0.28 1.36 **27.11** 16.33 1.64 3.41 19.35 0.36 1.41 **26.17** 17.18 1.83 3.33 19.05 0.38 2.19 **26.78** 17.22 1.95 3.66 21.65 0.5 2.08 **29.84** 19.98 2.43 3.34 20.09 0.46 2.12 **28.44** 18.36 2.04 2.59 23.98 0.22 0.72 **29.55** 16.3 2.43 2.65 21.95 0.33 0.82 **28.18** 16.65 1.93 2.26 21.92 0.19 0.67 **26.97** 16.072.08 2.5 23.49 0.31 0.73 **29.11** 17.94

1.56 2.5 23.42 0.22 0.61 **28.31** 17.63 2.32 2.3 23.35 0.31 0.66 **28.94** 18.25 1.66 2.35 24.92 0.29 1.21 **30.43** 18.86 1.51 2.44 24.87 0.26 0.85 **29.93** 18.85 1.76 2.17 21.84 0.36 1.19 **27.32** 18.45

3.02 21.87 0.25 1.04 **26.18** 16.78 3.18 23.22 0.2 1.04 **27.64** 17.7 3.32 23.95 0.36 1 **28.63** 17.74 3.07 21.79 0.35 1.03 **26.24** 18.14 3.01 20.93 0.27 1.04 **25.25** 17.54 2.99 21.15 0.3 1.16 **25.6** 18.4 2.95 21.05 0.39 0.98 **25.37** 19.14 3.05 21.85 0.21 0.95 **26.06** 17.5 3.11 21.25 0.39 1.01 **25.76** 19.21 3.09 21.75 0.4 1.05 **26.29** 17.67 2.93 21.17 0.39 0.98 **25.47** 19.96 3.03 22.91 0.29 1.09 **27.32** 17.99 3.02 22.65 0.31 1.05 **27.03** 18.27 3.19 23.27 0.22 1.05 **27.73** 18.15 3.09 23.75 0.25 0.94 **28.03** 19.15 3.09 22.54 0.1 1.08 **26.81** 18.57 3.23 22.96 0.42 1.02 **27.63** 19.91 3.24 22.33 0.49 1.13 **27.19** 19.82Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.

**Other Reported in paper:** 

**Protein Ash**  **Data source** 3.1875 5.76 #1

6.22 #1 5.63 #1 4.54 #1 5.21 #1 5.33 #1 4.4375 5.84 #1 3.4375 5.25 #1 4.1875 6.07 #1 3.5 5.92 #1 4.125 5.93 #1 4.1875 5.75 #1 3.0625 6.16 #1 3.75 6.44 #1 2.75 4.76 #1 3.5625 5.6 #1 3.875 5.78 #1 3.75 5.98 #1 3.875 5.91 #1 3.375 5.93 #1 3.4375 5.74 #1 6.3125 5.47 #2 9.0625 5.69 #2 5.8125 5.17 #2 8.0625 5.67 #2 7.9375 5.69 #2 7.25 5.73 #2 8.5 5.44 #2 4.75 5.08 #2 4.4375 4.46 #2 1.875 3.13 #2 3.0625 3.57 #2 2.1875 2.58 #23.25 3.15 #2

2.75 3.16 #2 2.25 2.77 #2 1.9375 2.54 #2 1.8125 2.57 #2 1.8125 2.27 #2 6.875 6.33 #2 5.8125 6.87 #2 6.125 7.52 #2 6 7.3 #2 6.75 6.42 #2 6 6.25 #2 7.9375 7.38 #2 6.625 6.46 #2 7.25 7.08 #2 6.4375 7.02 #2 6.5 6.71 #2 4.5625 6.4 #2 5.3125 5.56 #2 4.6875 5.64 #2 4.875 6.03 #2 6 5.49 #2 5.0625 7.03 #2 5 7.55 #2Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.

## Hardwood & Softwood - Data from DOE Database

**Reference:** http://www.afdc.energy.gov/biomass/progs/search1.cgi **Samples:** #1Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52. #2Variability in the Composition of Short Rotation Woody Feedstocks (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/8098_pt1.pdf) #3Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421. #4NREL TRB #1548p104

**Analytical Method:**ASTM/NREL methodology 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

**Extractives Total** 

**Extractives** Glucan**Cellulose Black Locust**  3.87 **3.87** 40.38 **40.38 Black Locust**  4.21 **4.21** 40 **40 Black Locust**  4.59 **4.59** 42.62 **42.62 Black Locust**  4.81 **4.81** 41.45 **41.45 Black Locust**  6.13 **6.13** 39.26 **39.26 Black Locust**  5.32 **5.32** 39.79 **39.79 Black Locust**  3.78 **3.78** 42.09 **42.09 Black Locust**  7.33 **7.33** 36.4 **36.4 Eucalyptus**  4.15 **4.15** 48.07 **48.07 Eucalyptus**  0.62 **0.62** 50.27 **50.27 Eucalyptus**  0.8 **0.8** 49.05 **49.05 Eucalyptus**  2.11 **2.11** 46.64 **46.64 Hybrid Poplar**  6.89 **6.89** 39.23 **39.23 Hybrid Poplar**  6.54 **6.54** 41.05 **41.05 Hybrid Poplar**  6.8 **6.8** 40.52 **40.52 Hybrid Poplar**  2.31 **2.31** 42.86 **42.86 Hybrid Poplar**  3.44 **3.44** 41.47 **41.47 Hybrid Poplar**  4.81 **4.81** 41.18 **41.18 Hybrid Poplar**  2.51 **2.51** 41.13 **41.13 Hybrid Poplar**  3.29 **3.29** 42.39 **42.39 Hybrid Poplar**  3.35 **3.35** 40.25 **40.25 Hybrid Poplar**  2.09 **2.09** 43.72 **43.72 Hybrid Poplar**  3.14 **3.14** 42.18 **42.18 Hybrid Poplar**  4.47 **4.47** 45.08 **45.08 Hybrid Poplar**  4.08 **4.08** 43.67 **43.67 Hybrid Poplar**  1.62 **1.62** 43.14 **43.14 Hybrid Poplar**  2.94 **2.94** 42.85 **42.85 Hybrid Poplar**  3.22 **3.22** 44.65 **44.65 Hybrid Poplar**  3.07 **3.07** 43.65 **43.65 Hybrid Poplar**  3.74 **3.74** 47.32 **47.32**

**Hybrid Poplar** 2.62 **2.62** 45.52 **45.52 Hybrid Poplar**  2.34 **2.34** 45.67 **45.67 Hybrid Poplar**  2.07 **2.07** 40.8 **40.8 American Sycamore**  5.49 **5.49** 38.6 **38.6 American Sycamore**  2.98 **2.98** 39.25 **39.25 American Sycamore**  3.17 **3.17** 37.24 **37.24 American Sycamore**  1.73 **1.73** 41.6 **41.6 American Sycamore**  1.62 **1.62** 41.75 **41.75 Eastern Cottonwood**  **(Populus Deltoides)** 2.4 **2.4** 42.2 **42.2 yellow Poplar**  2.81 **2.81** 42.06 **42.06 Monterey Pine (Pinus**  **Radiata)** 2.7 **2.7** 41.7 **41.7**



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Black Locust 90.4 7.245 2.08 99.725 Black Locust 91.62 4.21 1.64 97.47 Black Locust 88.15 7.465 1.61 97.225 Black Locust 89.83 4.81 1.53 96.17 Black Locust 85 10.5675 1.77 97.3375 Black Locust 88.67 8.2575 1.05 97.9775 Black Locust 91.01 6.9675 1.19 99.1675 Black Locust 78.48 12.83 9.68 100.99 **Average black locust 87.9**  **7.8 2.6**  **98.3** Eucalyptus 91.74 4.4625 1.22 97.4225 Eucalyptus 96.69 0.995 0.62 98.305 Eucalyptus 95.49 0.8 0.59 96.88 Eucalyptus 93.37 5.235 1.09 99.695 **Average Eucalyptus 94.3**  **2.9 0.9**  **98.1** Hybrid Poplar 85.37 10.14 2.03 97.54 Hybrid Poplar 83.72 8.04 1.57 93.33 Hybrid Poplar 82.56 6.8 1.31 90.67 Hybrid Poplar 92.87 3.4975 2.43 98.7975 Hybrid Poplar 88.25 4.815 2.03 95.095 Hybrid Poplar 87.36 5.9975 1.92 95.2775 Hybrid Poplar 91.88 4.0725 1.94 97.8925 Hybrid Poplar 92.46 4.4775 1.31 98.2475 Hybrid Poplar 85.97 3.35 0.56 89.88 Hybrid Poplar 89.05 2.09 0.8 91.94 Hybrid Poplar 86.81 3.14 0.81 90.76 Hybrid Poplar 86.94 4.47 0.56 91.97Hybrid Poplar 87.72 4.08 0.94 92.74

Hybrid Poplar 89.02 1.62 0.63 91.27 Hybrid Poplar 88.22 2.94 0.72 91.88 Hybrid Poplar 91.15 3.22 0.85 95.22 Hybrid Poplar 89.96 3.07 0.77 93.8 Hybrid Poplar 89.05 3.74 0.52 93.31 Hybrid Poplar 89.85 2.62 0.69 93.16 Hybrid Poplar 90.21 2.34 0.68 93.23 Hybrid Poplar 91.78 2.07 0.43 94.28 **Average hybrid poplar 88.6**  **4.1 1.1**  **93.8** American Sycamore 85.41 7.0525 1.24 93.7025 American Sycamore 89.11 4.6675 1.23 95.0075 American Sycamore 84.1 3.17 1.56 88.83 American Sycamore 88.85 3.0425 0.67 92.5625 American Sycamore 85.53 1.62 1.05 88.2 **Average Sycamore 86.6**  **3.9 1.2**  **91.7** Eastern Cottonwood (Populus Deltoides) 88 2.9 1 91.9 yellow Poplar 89.42 2.81 1.88 94.11 Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) 90.6 2.8875 0.3 93.7875

**Adjusted for % recovery**Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganics Black Locust 90.65 7.26 2.09 Black Locust 94.00 4.32 1.68 Black Locust 90.67 7.68 1.66 Black Locust 93.41 5.00 1.59 Black Locust 87.33 10.86 1.82 Black Locust 90.50 8.43 1.07 Black Locust 91.77 7.03 1.20 Black Locust 77.71 12.70 9.59 Eucalyptus 94.17 4.58 1.25 Eucalyptus 98.36 1.01 0.63 Eucalyptus 98.57 0.83 0.61 Eucalyptus 93.66 5.25 1.09 Hybrid Poplar 87.52 10.40 2.08 Hybrid Poplar 89.70 8.61 1.68 Hybrid Poplar 91.06 7.50 1.44 Hybrid Poplar 94.00 3.54 2.46 Hybrid Poplar 92.80 5.06 2.13 Hybrid Poplar 91.69 6.29 2.02 Hybrid Poplar 93.86 4.16 1.98 Hybrid Poplar 94.11 4.56 1.33 Hybrid Poplar 95.65 3.73 0.62 Hybrid Poplar 96.86 2.27 0.87Hybrid Poplar 95.65 3.46 0.89

Hybrid Poplar 94.53 4.86 0.61 Hybrid Poplar 94.59 4.40 1.01 Hybrid Poplar 97.53 1.77 0.69 Hybrid Poplar 96.02 3.20 0.78 Hybrid Poplar 95.73 3.38 0.89 Hybrid Poplar 95.91 3.27 0.82 Hybrid Poplar 95.43 4.01 0.56 Hybrid Poplar 96.45 2.81 0.74 Hybrid Poplar 96.76 2.51 0.73 Hybrid Poplar 97.35 2.20 0.46 American Sycamore 91.15 7.53 1.32 American Sycamore 93.79 4.91 1.29 American Sycamore 94.68 3.57 1.76 American Sycamore 95.99 3.29 0.72 American Sycamore 96.97 1.84 1.19 Eastern Cottonwood (Populus Deltoides) 95.76 3.16 1.09 yellow Poplar 95.02 2.99 2.00 Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) 96.60 3.08 0.32

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Black Locust 93% 7% Black Locust 96% 4% Black Locust 92% 8% Black Locust 95% 5% Black Locust 89% 11% Black Locust 91% 9% Black Locust 93% 7% Black Locust 86% 14% **Average Black Locust 92%**  **8%** Eucalyptus 95% 5% Eucalyptus 99% 1% Eucalyptus 99% 1% Eucalyptus 95% 5% **Average Eucalyptus 97%**  **3%** Hybrid Poplar 89% 11% Hybrid Poplar 91% 9% Hybrid Poplar 92% 8% Hybrid Poplar 96% 4% Hybrid Poplar 95% 5% Hybrid Poplar 94% 6% Hybrid Poplar 96% 4% Hybrid Poplar 95% 5%Hybrid Poplar 96% 4%

Hybrid Poplar 98% 2% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 95% 5% Hybrid Poplar 96% 4% Hybrid Poplar 98% 2% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 96% 4% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 97% 3% Hybrid Poplar 98% 2% **Average hybrid poplar 96%**  **4%** American Sycamore 92% 8% American Sycamore 95% 5% American Sycamore 96% 4% American Sycamore 97% 3% American Sycamore 98% 2% **Average Sycamore 96%**  **4%** Eastern Cottonwood (Populus Deltoides) 97% 3% yellow Poplar 97% 3% Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) 97% 3%Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52. Variability in the Composition of Short Rotation Woody Feedstocks (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/8098_pt1.pdf) Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**
**Uronic acids** **Arabinan Xylan** **Mannan Galactan** **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Total**  **Lignin**
3.89 0.74 14 2.07 0.77 **21.47** 28.55 5.04 0.85 14.7 2.09 0.84 **23.52** 28.1 3.26 0.82 15.02 1.62 0.94 **21.66** 23.87 5.12 0.79 15.59 1.61 0.87 **23.98** 24.4 3.92 0.95 13.2 1.5 0.99 **20.56** 25.18 4.03 0.94 14.75 1.55 0.99 **22.26** 26.62 4.04 0.81 15.14 1.45 1.01 **22.45** 26.47 2.86 3 18.03 0.58 1.01 **25.48** 16.6 4.07 0.3 10.42 1.23 0.74 **16.76** 26.91 4.21 0.4 11.85 1.09 1.07 **18.62** 27.8 4.17 0.45 12.21 0.9 0.88 **18.61** 27.83 4.45 0.39 11.76 0.92 1.05 **18.57** 28.16 4.31 0.89 13.07 1.81 0.88 **20.96** 25.18 1.36 0.75 13.37 2.02 0.89 **18.39** 24.28

1.1 14.18 1.85 0.92 **18.05** 23.99 3.11 1.19 16.95 1.42 0.7 **23.37** 26.64 4.26 0.94 13 1.73 0.98 **20.91** 25.87 4.6 0.77 12.83 2.18 0.84 **21.22** 24.96 4.69 0.67 14.52 1.99 0.83 **22.7** 28.05 4.67 0.69 15.17 2.2 0.91 **23.64** 26.43

0.59 17.61 3.07 0.71 **21.98** 23.74 0.59 17.37 2.91 0.59 **21.46** 23.87 0.58 17.31 2.72 0.68 **21.29** 23.34 0.66 15.98 3.03 0.65 **20.32** 21.54 0.54 16.55 2.77 0.65 **20.51** 23.54 0.63 17.65 2.87 0.75 **21.9** 23.98 0.52 17.4 2.63 0.81 **21.36** 24.01 0.59 18.55 2.63 0.82 **22.59** 23.91 0.54 18.71 3.25 0.74 **23.24** 23.070.56 16.55 2.81 0.72 **20.64** 21.09 0.41 16.97 2.71 0.66 **20.75** 23.58 0.48 17.26 2.75 0.68 **21.17** 23.37 4.6 0.46 15.7 2.38 0.67 **23.81** 27.17 4.93 0.5 14.38 1.8 1.1 **22.71** 24.1 4.11 0.49 15.47 1.67 1 **22.74** 27.12

0.51 16.33 1.79 0.93 **19.56** 27.3 4.49 0.5 14.31 1.97 0.8 **22.07** 25.18

0.47 15.33 2.06 0.88 **18.74** 25.04

3.6 0.6 13.4 2 0.6 **20.2** 25.6 5.09 0.45 15.09 2.35 1.03 **24.01** 23.35

2.5 1.5 5.9 10.7 2.4 **23** 25.9Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.
Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.

**Other Reported in paper:** 

**Protein Ash**  **Data source** 3.375 2.08 #1

1.64 #1 2.875 1.61 #1

1.53 #1 4.4375 1.77 #1 2.9375 1.05 #1 3.1875 1.19 #1 5.5 9.68 #1 0.3125 1.22 #1 0.375 0.62 #1

0.59 #1 3.125 1.09 #1 3.25 2.03 #1 1.5 1.57 #1

1.31 #1 1.1875 2.43 #1 1.375 2.03 #1 1.1875 1.92 #1 1.5625 1.94 #1 1.1875 1.31 #1

0.56 #2 0.8 #2 0.81 #2 0.56 #2 0.94 #2 0.63 #2 0.72 #2 0.85 #2 0.77 #20.52 #2 0.69 #2 0.68 #2 0.43 #2 1.5625 1.24 #1 1.6875 1.23 #1

1.56 #1 1.3125 0.67 #1

1.05 #1

0.5 1 #3

1.88 #4

0.1875 0.3 #3Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.
Agblevor, F. A.; Chum, H. L.; Johnson, D. K. (1993). "Compositional Analysis of NIST Biomass Standards from the IEA Whole Feedstock Round Robin." Energy from Biomass and Wastes XVI: Proceedings of the Institute of Gas Technology Conference, 2-6 March 1992, Orlando, Florida. Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology; pp. 395-421.Adam, P.; Ashley, P.; Chum, H.; Deutch, S.; Fennell, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Wiselogel, A. (1994). "Study of Compositional Changes in Biomass Feedstocks Upon Storage (Results)." Storage and Drying of Woody Biomass: Proceedings of the International Energy Agency/Bioenergy Agreement Task IX Activity 5 Workshop, 19 May 1993, New Brunswick, Canada. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Report No. 241; pp. 28-52.

## Branches & leaves - Data from Eleazer et al. (1997)

**Reference:** Eleazer, William E., William S. Odle, III, Yu-Sheng Wang, and Morton A. Barlaz (1997) Biodegradability of municipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 911-917. **Samples:** Branches less than 5cm in diameter, leaves and branches were collected from a compost facility and stored at 4 decress C for 16 days prior to use Shredded **Analytical Method:**unknown (references another published paper) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 
Ethanol/ toluene ethanolhot water**Total extractabl** 
**es** Cellulose**Cellulose Branches**  **0** 35.4 35.4 **Leaves 0**  15.3 15.3



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Branches 86.4 3.4 89.8 Leaves 69.6 9.8 79.4
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Branches 89% Leaves 77%Eleazer, William E., William S. Odle, III, Yu-Sheng Wang, and Morton A. Barlaz (1997) Biodegradability of municipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 911-917. Branches less than 5cm in diameter, leaves and branches were collected from a compost facility and stored at 4 decress C for 16 days prior to use

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper: Calculated** 

Hemicellulo
se **Total**

**hemicellulo**
**se** Lignin **Total Lignin**  Volatile

solids inorganics

(ash) 18.4 **18.4** 32.6 **32.6** 96.6 3.4 10.5 **10.5** 43.8 **43.8** 90.2 9.8

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not validEleazer, William E., William S. Odle, III, Yu-Sheng Wang, and Morton A. Barlaz (1997) Biodegradability of municipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 911-917.

## Giant reed, sugarcane, sweetcane, energy cane, elephantgrass, and miscanthus - Data from Fedenko et al. (2013)

**Reference:** Fedenko, Jeffrey R., John E. Erickson, Kenneth R. Woodard, Lynn E. Sollenberger, Joao M. B. Vendramini, Robert A. Gilbert, Zane R. Helsel, and Gary F. Peter (2013) Biomass Production and Composition of Perennial Grasses Grown for Bioenergy in a Subtropical Climate Across Florida, USA. Bioenergy Research, 6:1082-1093. **Samples:** replicated field experiment in three locations in Florida, four replicate plots per species at each site

harvested in fall around late November, 4 stalks of whole plant were collected for composition measurements
**Analytical Method:**NREL Methods 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper:**

**Calculated Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

Total extractivesNonextractives (fiber) **Total**

**extractives** Glucose (fiber basis) **Cellulose** Giant reed (Arundo donax21.5 78.5 **21.5** 39 30.6 Sugarcane (Saccharum 45.7 54.3 **45.7** 40.2 21.8 Sweetcane (Saccharum arundinaceum 19.6 80.4 **19.6** 41.8 33.6 Energycane (Saccharum 24.1 75.9 **24.1** 42.5 32.3 Elephantgrass (Pennisetum purpureum 20.5 79.5 **20.5** 42.3 33.6 Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus 16.6 83.4 **16.6** 39.5 32.9 First Ratoon Giant reed 20.2 79.8 **20.2** 39.4 31.4 Sugarcane 42.8 57.2 **42.8** 40.3 23.1 Sweetcane 16.5 83.5 **16.5** 42.6 35.6 Energycane 22.7 77.3 **22.7** 43.2 33.4 Elephantgrass 17.1 82.9 **17.1** 44.8 37.1 Miscanthus 11.7 88.3 **11.7** 42.7 37.7 Cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin were reported on a fiber basis. The "Total extractives" values were used to adjust these to a whole plant (dry matter) basis. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Giant reed 72.8 21.5 94.2852 Sugarcane 50.8 45.7 96.53566 Sweetcane 76.7 19.6 96.32572 Energycane 72.9 24.1 96.97159 Elephantgrass 74.2 20.5 94.6735 Miscanthus 76.0 16.6 92.55238 First Ratoon Giant reed 73.1 20.2 93.26488 Sugarcane 52.9 42.8 95.74432 Sweetcane 78.9 16.5 95.44925 Energycane 73.2 22.7 95.87218 Elephantgrass 78.7 17.1 95.82184 Miscanthus 82.7 11.7 94.42827**Averages**

Giant reed 72.9 20.9 93.77504 Sugarcane 51.9 44.3 96.13999 Sweetcane 77.8 18.1 95.88749 Energycane 73.0 23.4 96.42189 Elephantgrass 76.4 18.8 95.24767 Miscanthus 79.3 14.2 93.49033 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Giant reed 77% 23% Sugarcane 53% 47% Sweetcane 80% 20% Energycane 75% 25% Elephantgrass 78% 22% Miscanthus 82% 18% First Ratoon Giant reed 78% 22% Sugarcane 55% 45% Sweetcane 83% 17% Energycane 76% 24% Elephantgrass 82% 18% Miscanthus 88% 12%

**Average values** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Giant reed 78% 22% Sugarcane 54% 46% Sweetcane 81% 19% Energycane 76% 24% Elephantgrass 80% 20% Miscanthus 85% 15%

## Giant reed, sugarcane, sweetcane, energy cane, elephantgrass, and miscanthus - Data from Fedenko et al. (2013) Fedenko, Jeffrey R., John E. Erickson, Kenneth R. Woodard, Lynn E. Sollenberger, Joao M. B. Vendramini, Robert A. Gilbert, Zane R. Helsel, and Gary F. Peter (2013) Biomass Production and Composition of Perennial Grasses Grown for Bioenergy in a Subtropical Climate Across Florida, USA. Bioenergy Research, 6:1082-1093. replicated field experiment in three locations in Florida, four replicate plots per species at each site harvested in fall around late November, 4 stalks of whole plant were collected for composition measurements

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  Xylose (fiber basis) Arabinose

(fiber basis) **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** Lignin

(fiber basis) **Lignin** inorganics (ash) 24.6 1.02 **20.1** 28.1 **22.1** 25.5 1.12 **14.5** 26.8 **14.6** 25.1 1.23 **21.2** 27.3 **21.9** 25.1 1.11 **19.9** 27.3 **20.7** 23.1 1 **19.2** 26.9 **21.4** 23.4 1.27 **20.6** 26.9 **22.4**

24 0.76 **19.8** 27.4 **21.9** 25.1 1.06 **15.0** 26.1 **14.9** 23.8 0.95 **20.7** 27.2 **22.7** 24.2 0.86 **19.4** 26.4 **20.4** 22.9 0.76 **19.6** 26.5 **22.0** 23.3 0.99 **21.4** 26.7 **23.6** Cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin were reported on a fiber basis. The "Total extractives" values were used to adjust these to a whole plant (dry matter) basis.Fedenko, Jeffrey R., John E. Erickson, Kenneth R. Woodard, Lynn E. Sollenberger, Joao M. B. Vendramini, Robert A. Gilbert, Zane R. Helsel, and Gary F. Peter (2013) Biomass Production and Composition of Perennial Grasses Grown for Bioenergy in a Subtropical Climate Across Florida, USA. Bioenergy Research, 6:1082-1093.Fedenko, Jeffrey R., John E. Erickson, Kenneth R. Woodard, Lynn E. Sollenberger, Joao M. B. Vendramini, Robert A. Gilbert, Zane R. Helsel, and Gary F. Peter (2013) Biomass Production and Composition of Perennial Grasses Grown for Bioenergy in a Subtropical Climate Across Florida, USA. Bioenergy Research, 6:1082-1093.

## Napier grass - Data from Grant et al. (1975)

**Reference:** Grant, R. J., P. J. Van Soest, R. E. McDowell, and C. B. Perez, Jr. (1974) Intake, Digestibility and Metabolic Loss of Napier Grass by Cattle and Buffaloes When Fed Wilted, Chopped and Whole. Journal of Animal Science, 39(2):423-434. **Samples:** napier grass was measured at 45 and 60 days of regrowth
**Analytical Method:**AOAC, detergent fiber analysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Total extractives**Total**

**extractives** Cellulose**Cellulose** Hemicellul
ose Napier grass Wet season, 45 days growth 31.1 31.1 19.1 Wet season, 60 days growth 32.2 32.2 19 Dry season, 60 days growth 31.9 31.9 20.8 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Napier grass Wet season, 45 days growth 56.5 15.3 71.8 Wet season, 60 days growth 60.0 13.8 73.8 Dry season, 60 days growth 59.7 13.3 73 Average 58.7 14.1 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Napier grass Wet season, 45 days growth 67% Wet season, 60 days growth 70% Dry season, 60 days growth 69% Average 68%Grant, R. J., P. J. Van Soest, R. E. McDowell, and C. B. Perez, Jr. (1974) Intake, Digestibility and Metabolic Loss of Napier Grass by Cattle and Buffaloes When Fed Wilted, Chopped and Whole. Journal of Animal Science, 39(2):423-434.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose** Lignin **Lignin** inorganics (ash) Crude

protein

**19.1** 6.3 **6.3** 15.3 7.5 **19.0** 8.8 **8.8** 13.8 6.7 **20.8** 7 **7.0** 13.3 6

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not validGrant, R. J., P. J. Van Soest, R. E. McDowell, and C. B. Perez, Jr. (1974) Intake, Digestibility and Metabolic Loss of Napier Grass by Cattle and Buffaloes When Fed Wilted, Chopped and Whole. Journal of Animal Science, 39(2):423-434.

## Rice Straw, Miscanthus & Bagasse - Data from Guo et al. (2009)

**Reference:** Characterization of enzymatic saccharification for acid-pretreated lignocellulosic materials with diffeent lignin composition, Gia-Luen Guo, Deng-Chieh Hsu, Wen-Hua Chen, Wei-Hsi Chen, Wen-Song Hwang, Enzyme and Microbial Technology 45 (2009) 80-87 **Samples:** Collected from field near Longtan Taiwan single sample? **Analytical Method:**modified NREL analytical method 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

Glucose**Cellulose Rice Straw**  34.6 34.6 **Miscanthus** 37.4 37.4 **Bagasse** 40.7 40.7



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Rice Straw 73.8 0 14.5 88.3 Miscanthus 85 0 4.3 89.3 Bagasse 89.9 0 8.2 98.1
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Rice Straw 86% Miscanthus 89% Bagasse 98%Characterization of enzymatic saccharification for acid-pretreated lignocellulosic materials with diffeent lignin composition, Gia-Luen Guo, Deng-Chieh Hsu, Wen-Hua Chen, Wei-Hsi Chen, Wen-Song Hwang, Enzyme and Microbial Technology 45 (2009) 80-87

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** **Reported in paper:**

XyloseArabinoseAcetyl**Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  inorganics (ash) 21.3 3.8 1.1 **26.2 13**  14.5 23.5 3.5 2 **29 18.6**  4.3 23.6 4.1 2.7 **30.4 18.8**  8.2

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not validCharacterization of enzymatic saccharification for acid-pretreated lignocellulosic materials with diffeent lignin composition, Gia-Luen Guo, Deng-Chieh Hsu, Wen-Hua Chen, Wei-Hsi Chen, Wen-Song Hwang, Enzyme and Microbial Technology 45 (2009) 80-87

## Energy cane - Data from Hale et al. (2010)

**Reference:** Hale, A. L. (2010) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 02-113. Sugar Bulletin, 88(10):28-29. **Samples:** grown in randomized block designs with 4 replications; 10 whole stalks per plot were removed to measure composition
**Analytical Method:**Brix and fiber measurements only 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Brix **Total**

**extractives Cellulose**  L 79-1002 Grown in Welsh 8.9 **8.9** Grown in Schriever 9.6 **9.6** Grown in Lacassine 8.3 **8.3** Ho 02-113 Grown in Welsh 9.3 **9.3** Grown in Schriever 10.7 **10.7** Grown in Lacassine 10.7 **10.7** Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) L 79-1002 Grown in Welsh 27.5 8.9 36.4 Grown in Schriever 26.8 9.6 36.4 Grown in Lacassine 26.4 8.3 34.7 Average 26.9 8.9 35.8 Ho 02-113 Grown in Welsh 26.7 9.3 36 Grown in Schriever 25.5 10.7 36.2 Grown in Lacassine 24.2 10.7 34.9 Average 25.5 10.2 35.7 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics L 79-1002 Grown in Welsh 76% 24% Grown in Schriever 74% 26% Grown in Lacassine 76% 24%**Average L 79-1002 75%**  **25%**

Ho 02-113 Grown in Welsh 74% 26% Grown in Schriever 70% 30% Grown in Lacassine 69% 31% **Average Ho 02-113 71%**  **29%**Hale, A. L. (2010) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 02-113. Sugar Bulletin, 88(10):28-29. grown in randomized block designs with 4 replications; 10 whole stalks per plot were removed to measure composition

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Fiber

27.5 26.8 26.4

26.7 25.5 24.2 Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)

## Rice straw - Data from Jin and Chen (2007)

**Reference:** Jin, S. and H. Chen (2007) Near-infrared analysis of the chemical composition of rice straw. Industrial Crops and Products, 26:207-211 **Samples:** from China, harvested at maturity, milled

43 species of rice straw; 258 ground samples (80% used for model calibration, 20% for validation) **Analytical Method:**NIRS, calibrated using detergent fiber analysis methods based on Van Soest et al (1991) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

Cellulose**Cellulose Rice straw**  33.1 33.1 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Rice straw 68.7 10.7 79.4 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives or protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Rice straw 77%Jin, S. and H. Chen (2007) Near-infrared analysis of the chemical composition of rice straw. Industrial Crops and Products, 26:207-211
43 species of rice straw; 258 ground samples (80% used for model calibration, 20% for validation) NIRS, calibrated using detergent fiber analysis methods based on Van Soest et al (1991)

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper:**

Hemicellul
ose **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** Klason

lignin **Lignin** Total ashAcid insoluble ash 25.4 **25.4** 10.2 **10.2** 10.7 8

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives or protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

## Branches & leaves - Data from Komilis et al. (2003)

**Reference:** Komilis, Dmitris, and Robert K. Ham (2003) The effect of lignin and sugars to the aerobic decomposition of solid wastes. Waste Management, 23, 419-423. **Samples:** no sample info
**Analytical Method:**Not reported in the paper. 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

fats/lipidshot water

soluble matter**Total**

**extractable**
**s** Cellulose**Cellulose Leaves**  2.59 1.68 **4.27** 9.48 9.48 **Branches** 1.04 3.2 **4.24** 14.71 14.71



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Leaves 46.6 36.7 83.3 Branches 70.47 18.3 88.77
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Leaves 74% Branches 86%Komilis, Dmitris, and Robert K. Ham (2003) The effect of lignin and sugars to the aerobic decomposition of solid wastes. Waste Management, 23, 419-423.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper:**  **Calculated**

Hemicellul
ose **Total**

**hemicellulo**
**se** Lignin **Total Lignin**  Volatile

solids inorganics

(ash) 3.24 **3.24** 33.88 **33.88** 63.3 36.7 12.87 **12.87** 42.89 **42.89** 81.7 18.3

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid**Many Feedstocks, summarized in Lee et al. (2007)**

**Reference:** Composition of Herbaceous Biomass Feedstocks. DoKyoung Lee, Vance N. Owens, Arvid Boe, and Peter Jeranyama (2007). Report sponsored by Sun Grant Initiative. **Samples:** Compilation of data from dozens of studies
**Analytical Method:**carbohydrates: individual sugar analysis or fiber analysis; lignin: ASTM methods **Percent Composition Extractables**  **Cellulose Hemicellulose**  **Lignin Other**  **Reported in paper Reported in paper** **Reported in paper Reported in paper:** 

**Cellulose Total** 

**hemicellu lose**  **Lignin Acid**  **detergent lignin**  **Adjusted**

**grass lignin**  **(low) Adjusted** 

**grass lignin**  **(high) lignin** * Proteininorganics (ash) **Crop residues**

**corn stover 38**  **26** 19 **19** 5 6 **soybean 33**  **14** 14 **18** 5 6 **wheat straw 38**  **29** 15 **15** 4 6 **rye straw 31**  **25** 3 **9** 3 6 **barley straw 42**  **28** 7 **21** 7 11 **Grasses switchgrass**  **37 29**  19 **19** 3 6

**big bluestem 37**  **28** 18 **18** 6 6 **indiangrass 39**  **29** 6 12 24 **18** 3 8 **little bluestem 35**  **31** 7 **prairie cordgrass 41**  **33** 6 12 24 **18** 3 6 **miscanthus 43**  **24** 19 **19** 3 2 **intermediate wheatgrass 35**  **29** 6 12 24 **18** 3 6 **reed canarygrass 24**  **36** 2 4 8 **6** 10 8 **smooth bromegrass 32**  **36** 6 12 24 **18** 14 8

**timothy 28**  **30** 5 10 20 **15** 7 6 **tall fescue 25**  **25** 14 **14** 13 11
Note: samples in gray reported ADL lignin, and we adjusted these values as described. **Total (% Composition) Calculated:**  Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) **Crop residues**

**corn stover** 83 11 6 **soybean** 65 29 6 **wheat straw** 82 12 6 **rye straw** 65 29 6 **barley straw** 91 -2 11 **Grasses switchgrass**  85 9 6

**big bluestem** 83 11 6 **indiangrass** 86 6 8 **little bluestem** 66 27 7 **prairie cordgrass** 92 2 6 **miscanthus** 86 12 2 **intermediate wheatgrass** 82 12 6 **reed canarygrass** 66 26 8 **smooth bromegrass** 86 6 8

**timothy** 73 21 6 **tall fescue** 64 25 11
Samples were not adjusted for % recovery because this wasn’t reported. **Adjusted for Inorganics**
Cellulosic Content grasses

(low lignin)grasses

(high lignin) **Crop residues**

**corn stover**88% **soybean** 69% **wheat straw**87% **rye straw**69% **barley straw**102% **Grasses switchgrass** 90%

**big bluestem** 88% **indiangrass**93% **little bluestem** 71% **prairie cordgrass**98% **miscanthus**88% **intermediate wheatgrass**87% **reed canarygrass** 72% **smooth bromegrass**93%

**timothy**78% **tall fescue**72% *When acid

-detergent lignin was reported, we followed the approach described in Lee et al. to adjust this number to becomparable to total lignin:

--For grasses, we multiplied the ADL number by 3 (total lignin is 2

-4 times higher than ADL lignin for grasses)

--For everything else,wemultiplied the ADL by 1.3 (total lignin is 30% higher than ADL for

## Oat straw, barley straw, rye straw, wheat straw and maize stover - Data from Lopez et al. (2005)

**Reference:** Lopez, S., D.R. Davies, F.J. Giraldez, M.S. Dhanoa, J. Dijkstra, and J. France (2005) Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85:1550-1557 **Samples:** from Leon (northwestern Spain); samples collected from barns or fields after combine harvesting
**Analytical Method:**detergent fiber analysis methods, based on Van Soest et al (1991) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

**Cellulose Avena sativa (oat straw)**  **Hordeum vulgare (barley straw) Secale cereale (rye straw)**  **Triticum aestivum (wheat straw) Zea mays (maize stover)**  NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Oat straw 79.5 5 84.5 Barley straw 71.6 6.2 77.8 Rye straw 84.4 3.8 88.2 Wheat straw 75 5.4 80.4 Maize stover 86.2 6.7 92.9
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was calculated by assuming 100% recovery

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Oat straw 84% Barley straw 76% Rye straw 88% Wheat straw 79% Maize stover 92%

## Oat straw, barley straw, rye straw, wheat straw and maize stover - Data from Lopez et al. (2005) Lopez, S., D.R. Davies, F.J. Giraldez, M.S. Dhanoa, J. Dijkstra, and J. France (2005) Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85:1550-1557 from Leon (northwestern Spain); samples collected from barns or fields after combine harvesting

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper** **Reported in paper: Calculated** **Reported Reported**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Organic matterinorganics

(ash) Crude

proteinNDF **5.8** 95 5 2.6 79.5 **6.8** 93.8 6.2 3.3 71.6 **5.5** 96.2 3.8 2.5 84.4 **5.3** 94.6 5.4 2.7 75 **4.6** 93.3 6.7 3.6 86.2 NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin.Lopez, S., D.R. Davies, F.J. Giraldez, M.S. Dhanoa, J. Dijkstra, and J. France (2005) Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85:1550-1557

**Reported**

ADF50.5 42.3 54.4 44.5 45.8

## Soybean straw - Data from Maheri-Sis et al. (2011)

**Reference:** Maheri-Sis, Naser , Bayaz Abdollahi-Ziveh, Ramin Salamatdoustnobar , Alireza Ahmadzadeh, **Samples:** from 4 soybean threshing farms in Iran; samples were pooled
**Analytical Method:**Detergent fiber analysis, using Van Soest et al (1991) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Clculated Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Ether extract **Total**

**extractive**
**s Cellulose**  **Soybean straw** 2.85 **2.85 0**  NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Soybean straw 80.8 3.183.9
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was calculated by assuming 100% recovery

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Soybean straw 83%Maheri-Sis, Naser , Bayaz Abdollahi-Ziveh, Ramin Salamatdoustnobar , Alireza Ahmadzadeh,Abolfazl Aghajanzadeh-Golshani and Mehdi Mohebbizadeh (2011) Determining nutrive value of soybean straw for ruminants using nylon bags technique. Pakistan Journal of Nutrion, 10(9):838-841.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper:**  **Calculated: Reported**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose** acid

detergent lignin **Total**

**Lignin** Organic

matterInorganics

(ash) Crude

proteinNDF **0** 13 **13** 96.9 3.1 5.1 80.8 NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin.Abolfazl Aghajanzadeh-Golshani and Mehdi Mohebbizadeh (2011) Determining nutrive value of soybean straw for ruminants using nylon bags technique. Pakistan Journal of Nutrion, 10(9):838-841.

ADF63.2

## Wheat Straw & Switchgrass - Data from NREL

**Reference:** Email message from Mary Biddy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National Bioenergy Center, on January 4, 2013 **Samples:** 13 samples of wheat straw, 58 of switchgrass
**Analytical Method:**NREL Methods 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

Extractivessoluble

solids **Total**

**organics** Cellulose**Cellulose** Wheat Straw 6.53 0 **6.53** 36.29 36.29 Switchgrass 11.35 3.76 **11.35** 31.42 31.42 Soluble solids were added by NREL for mass balance. EPA eliminated them from the analysis and adjusted for % recovery at the end. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Wheat Straw 83.34 7.25 9.41 100 Switchgrass 74.93 15.34 5.96 96.23

**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics Wheat Straw 83.3 7.3 9.4 Switchgrass 77.9 15.9 6.2

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Wheat Straw 92% 8% Switchgrass 83% 17%Email message from Mary Biddy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National Bioenergy Center, on January 4, 2013

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**

Xylan GalactanArabinanMannanAcetate**Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  20.89 0.88 2.49 0 2.37 **26.63 20.42**  18.73 1.24 2.49 0.19 1.81 **24.46 19.05**  Soluble solids were added by NREL for mass balance. EPA eliminated them from the analysis and adjusted for % recovery at the end.**Other**

**Reported in paper:**

Proteininorganics

(ash) 0.72 9.41 3.99 5.96

## Giant reed (Arundo Donax) - Data from Scordia et al. (2011)

**Reference:** Scordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Sosentino, Jae-Won Lee, and Thomas W. Jeffries (2011) Dilute oxalic acid pretreatment for biorefining giant reed (Arundo donax L.). Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 3018-3024. **Samples:** one sample from wild giant reed
**Analytical Method:**sulfuric acid hydrolysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper:**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

**Total extractives**  Glucan **Cellulose** Giant reed 35.7 35.7



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Giant reed 83.5 3.7 87.2
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein or extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Giant reed 87%Scordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Sosentino, Jae-Won Lee, and Thomas W. Jeffries (2011) Dilute oxalic acid pretreatment for biorefining giant reed (Arundo donax L.). Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 3018-3024.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**

Xylan GalactanArabinanMannanAcetyl groups **Total**

**hemicellulo**
**se Klason**  **Lignin** 18.6 0.6 1.6 0.2 4.5 **25.5 22.3** 

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein or extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not validScordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Sosentino, Jae-Won Lee, and Thomas W. Jeffries (2011) Dilute oxalic acid pretreatment for biorefining giant reed (Arundo donax L.). Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 3018-3024.

**Other Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper:**

Protein Ash3.7

## Giant reed (Arundo donax) - Data from Scordia et al. (2012)

**Reference:** Scordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Cosentino, Jae-Won Lee, Thomas W. Jeffries (2012) Bioconversion of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) hemicellulose hydrolysate to ethanol by Scheffersomyces stipitis CBS6054. Biomass and Bioenergy, 39:296-305. **Samples:** clone of Capo d'Orlando, harvested after one year
**Analytical Method:**sulfuric acid hydrolysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Total extractives**Total**

**extractives** Glucan**Cellulose** Xylan Arundo donax 34.6 34.6 20.41 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Arundo donax 78.1 5.9 84.0 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives and protein were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Arundo donax 83%Scordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Cosentino, Jae-Won Lee, Thomas W. Jeffries (2012) Bioconversion of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) hemicellulose hydrolysate to ethanol by Scheffersomyces stipitis CBS6054. Biomass and Bioenergy, 39:296-305.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated** 

ArabinanGalactanMannanRhamnan**Total hemicellul** 
**ose** Klason

lignin **Lignin** 1.81 0.66 0.12 0.06 **23.1** 20.44 **20.4**

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because extractives and protein were not reported, so the value for "other organics" is not validScordia, Danilo, Salvatore L. Cosentino, Jae-Won Lee, Thomas W. Jeffries (2012) Bioconversion of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) hemicellulose hydrolysate to ethanol by Scheffersomyces stipitis CBS6054. Biomass and Bioenergy, 39:296-305.

**Other Reported in paper:** 

inorganics (ash)5.9

## Barley straw, oat straw, rye straw, soybean straw and wheat straw - Data from Stanton and LeValley (2010)

**Reference:** Stanton, T.L. and S. LeValley (2010) Feed composition for cattle and sheep. Colorado State University Extension, Fact Sheet 1.615 **Samples:** unspecified
**Analytical Method:**unspecified 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

**Cellulose Barley straw**  **Oat straw Rye straw**  **Soybean straw Wheat straw**  NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Barley straw 82 7 89 Oat straw 70 8 78 Rye straw 71 6 77 Soybean straw 70 6 76 Wheat straw 85 7 92
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Barley straw 88% Oat straw 76% Rye straw 76% Soybean straw 74% Wheat straw 91%

## Barley straw, oat straw, rye straw, soybean straw and wheat straw - Data from Stanton and LeValley (2010) Stanton, T.L. and S. LeValley (2010) Feed composition for cattle and sheep. Colorado State University Extension, Fact Sheet 1.615

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper** **Reported in paper: Total**  **hemicellul**
**ose** inorganics (ash) NDF ADF Crude protein 7 82 57 4 8 70 46 4 6 71 55 4 6 70 54 5 7 85 56 4 NDF (neutral detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. ADF (acid detergent fiber) is the total amount of cellulose and lignin.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

## Rye straw and bermudagrass - Data from Sun and Cheng (2005)

**Reference:** Sun, Y. and J.J. Cheng (2005) Dilute acid pretreatment of rye straw and bermudagrass for ethanol production. Bioresource Technology, 96:1599-1606 **Samples:** from Barham Farm, Zebulon, NC. Rye harvested in May, Bermudagrass harvested in August
**Analytical Method:**Two-stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper**

**Calculated:**

Glucan**Cellulose Rye straw**  33.12 33.12 **Bermudagrass** 32.36 32.36 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Rye straw 75.16 18.69 6.15 100 Bermudagrass 77.48 18.34 4.17 99.99

**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganics Rye straw 75.2 18.7 6.2 Bermudagrass 77.5 18.3 4.2

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Rye straw 80% 20% Bermudagrass 81% 19%Sun, Y. and J.J. Cheng (2005) Dilute acid pretreatment of rye straw and bermudagrass for ethanol production. Bioresource Technology, 96:1599-1606 from Barham Farm, Zebulon, NC. Rye harvested in May, Bermudagrass harvested in August

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper:**

ArabinanGalactanXylan **Total hemicellul** 
**ose** Acidinsoluble lignin **Total**

**Lignin** Inorganics

(ash) 2.47 0.31 19.46 **22.24** 19.8 **19.8** 6.15 4.33 1.09 19.37 **24.79** 20.33 **20.33** 4.17**Reported in paper:**

Other 18.69 18.34

## Corn Stover - Data from Templeton et al. (2009)

**Reference:** Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS, David W. Templeton, Amie D. Sluiter, Tammy K. Hayward, Bonnie R. Hames, Steven R. Thomas, Cellulose 2009 16:621-639 **Samples:** collected from 47 sites in 8 corn belt states after the 2001, 2002, and 2003 harvests

508 commercial hybrid corn stover samples **Analytical Method:**Near-infrared spectroscopy/partial least squares multivariate modeling, calibrated with standard NREL Laboratory Analytical Prodedures (LAPs) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**

in Ethanol sucrose inorganicswater-ext (other) **Total**

**organics** Glucan Average 3.3 3.6 2.5 8.6 **15.5** 31.9



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) 70.9 19.2 6.4 96.5
**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics 73.5 19.9 6.6
**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics 79% 21%Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS, David W. Templeton, Amie D. Sluiter, Tammy K. Hayward, Bonnie R. Hames, Steven R. Thomas, Cellulose 2009 16:621-639

Near-infrared spectroscopy/partial least squares multivariate modeling, calibrated with standard NREL Laboratory Analytical Prodedures (LAPs)

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

**Cellulose** Xylan GalactanArabinanMannanAcetyl**Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  31.9 18.9 1.5 2.8 0.3 2.2 **25.7 13.3** Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS, David W. Templeton, Amie D. Sluiter, Tammy K. Hayward, Bonnie R. Hames, Steven R. Thomas, Cellulose 2009 16:621-639

**Other Reported in paper:**  **Calculated:**

Protein Structural

inorganics (ash) Total

inorganics 3.7 3.9 6.4

## Corn Stover & Bagasse - Data from Templeton et al. (2010)

**Reference:** Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertanties, David W. Templeton, Christopher J. Scarlata, Justin B. Sluiter, and Edward J. Wolfrum, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9054-9062 **Samples:** Corn stover: Pioneer hybrid 33B51 harvested in fall of 2003 from northeastern CO, Bagasse: NIST RM 8491

Corn stover: 1 sample, 154 replicate analyses in 13 batches, by 7 analysts in 2 labs; Bagasse: 1 analysis per batch, 14 total **Analytical Method:**NREL methods 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated:**  **Reported in paper**

**sucrose (extractive)**  **water**

**extractive (other)**  **ethanol**

**extractive Total** 

**extractives protein +** 

**ash (extractive)**  Glucan Corn Stover (average) 7.2 8 2.6 22.5 4.7 34 Bagasse 0.7 2.7 1.9 5.7 0.4 39 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Corn Stover (average) 71.9 20 4.7 96.6 Bagasse 91.5 5.8 3.9 101.2

**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics Corn Stover (average) 74.4 20.7 4.9 Bagasse 90.4 5.7 3.9

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Corn Stover (average) 78% 22% Bagasse 94% 6%Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertanties, David W. Templeton, Christopher J. Scarlata, Justin B. Sluiter, and Edward J. Wolfrum, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9054-9062 Corn stover: Pioneer hybrid 33B51 harvested in fall of 2003 from northeastern CO, Bagasse: NIST RM 8491 Corn stover: 1 sample, 154 replicate analyses in 13 batches, by 7 analysts in 2 labs; Bagasse: 1 analysis per batch, 14 total

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Calculated:** **Reported in paper Calculated:** **Reported in paper Reported in paper:** 

Cellulose **Arabinan Xylan** **Galactan Acetyl** **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Protein 34 2.5 19.2 1 2.9 **25.6 12.3**  2.2 39 1.8 21.8 0.8 3.3 **27.7** 24.8 0.5Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertanties, David W. Templeton, Christopher J. Scarlata, Justin B. Sluiter, and Edward J. Wolfrum, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9054-9062

**Reported in paper:**

Ash4.7 3.9

## Energy cane - Data from Tew et al. (2007)

**Reference:** Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 00-961. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):23-24 **Samples:** mean of 2 locations
**Analytical Method:**Brix and fiber measurements only 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Brix **Total**

**extractives Cellulose**  Ho 00-961 plant cane 17.7 **17.7** Ho 00-961 first stubble 16.8 **16.8** Ho 00-961 second stubble17.6 **17.6** Ho 00-961 third stubble 18.9 **18.9** Ho 00-961 mean 17.7 **17.7** Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Ho 00-961 plant cane 14.7 17.7 32.4 Ho 00-961 first stubble16.2 16.8 33 Ho 00-961 second stubble15.8 17.6 33.4 Ho 00-961 third stubble16.7 18.9 35.6 Ho 00-961 mean 15.9 17.7 33.6 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Ho 00-961 plant cane 45% 55% Ho 00-961 first stubble49% 51% Ho 00-961 second stubble47% 53% Ho 00-961 third stubble47% 53% Ho 00-961 mean 47% 53%Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 00-961. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):23-24

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Fiber14.7 16.2 15.8 16.7 15.9 Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 00-961. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):23-24

## Energy cane - Data from Tew et al. (2007)

**Reference:** Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety HoCP 91-552. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):25-26 **Samples:** mean of 2 locations
**Analytical Method:**Brix and fiber measurements only 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Brix **Total**

**extractives Cellulose**  HoCP 91-552 plant cane 17.6 **17.6** HoCP 91-552 first stubble 15.3 **15.3** HoCP 91-552 second stubble17.6 **17.6** HoCP 91-552 mean 16.8 **16.8** Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant. 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) HoCP 91-552 plant cane15.5 17.6 33.1 HoCP 91-552 first stubble13.7 15.3 29 HoCP 91-552 second stubble 16.5 17.6 34.1 HoCP 91-552 mean 15.2 16.8 32 Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics HoCP 91-552 plant cane47% 53% HoCP 91-552 first stubble47% 53% HoCP 91-552 second stubble 48% 52% HoCP 91-552 mean 48% 53%Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety HoCP 91-552. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):25-26

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated Reported in paper:**  **Total hemicellul** 
**ose Lignin**  Fiber15.5 13.7 16.5 15.2 Only Brix and total fiber were reported. They were reported on a whole plant basis, which includes water in the plant.

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because ash was not reported, and values were reported on a whole plant basis (including water in the cane)Tew, T. L., E. O. Dufrene Jr., D. D. Garrison, W. H. White, M. P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E. P. Richard Jr., B. L. Legendre, J. D. Miller (2007) Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety HoCP 91-552. Sugar Bulletin, 85(10):25-26

## Miscanthus - Data from Villaverde et al. (2010)

**Reference:** Villaverde, Juan Jose, Pablo Ligero and Alberto de Vega (2010) Miscanthus x giganteus as a source of biobased products through Organosolv fractionation: A mini review. The Open Agricultural Journal, 4, 102-110 **Samples:** collected late winter, after senescence
**Analytical Method:**unknown (not described in paper) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 
Ethanol/ tolueneethanolhot water**Total extractabl** 
**es** Glucose**Cellulose Miscanthus**  2.2 0.1 1.6 **3.9** 38 38



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Miscanthus 77.2 0.8 78
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Miscanthus 78%Villaverde, Juan Jose, Pablo Ligero and Alberto de Vega (2010) Miscanthus x giganteus as a source of biobased products through Organosolv fractionation: A mini review. The Open Agricultural Journal, 4, 102-110

**Hemicellulose Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

Xylose MannoseGalactoseArabinoseRhamnoseUronic acids **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** 14.9 0 0.3 1.1 0 1.2 **17.5**

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not validVillaverde, Juan Jose, Pablo Ligero and Alberto de Vega (2010) Miscanthus x giganteus as a source of biobased products through Organosolv fractionation: A mini review. The Open Agricultural Journal, 4, 102-110

**Lignin Other**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper:**

Acid insolubleAcidsoluble lignin **Total**

**Lignin** inorganics (ash) 20.8 0.9 **21.7** 0.8

## Switchgrass - Data from Vogel et al. (2011)

**Reference:** Vogel, Kenneth P., Bruce S. Dien, Hans G. Jung, Michael D. Casler, Steven D. Masterson, and Robert B. Mitchell (2011) Quantifying Actual and Theoretical Ethanol Yields for Switchgrass Strains Using NIRS Analyses. Bioenergy Research, 4, 96-110. **Samples:** 112 samples from a range of locations and growing conditions to develop NIRS calibration

Cultivars and experimental strains listed here were grown at University of Nebraska, Agricultural Research and Development Center, harvested in mid-August
**Analytical Method:**Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy, calibrated with two stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

Extracted fat Total

soluble carbohydr ates **Total**

**extractives** Glucose**Cellulose** Summer 0.99 4.16 **5.15** 28.19 28.19 Trailblazer 1.19 3.33 **4.52** 28.07 28.07 Shawnee 1.11 4.98 **6.09** 26.94 26.94 Kanlow 0.92 3.97 **4.89** 29.93 29.93 NE 2229 1.08 4.4 **5.48** 28.02 28.02 NE 2234 1.14 3.5 **4.64** 28.09 28.09 Mean 1.09 3.76 **4.85** 28.21 28.21



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Summer 70.78 11.505 6.56 88.845 Trailblazer 71.65 11.44 6.86 89.95 Shawnee 67.87 13.28 6.59 87.74 Kanlow 69.94 10.815 5.84 86.595 NE 2229 69.99 12.49 6.51 88.99 NE 2234 70.62 11.37 6.91 88.9 Mean 70.392 11.71 6.72 88.822

**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics Summer 79.7 12.9 7.4 Trailblazer 79.7 12.7 7.6 Shawnee 77.4 15.1 7.5 Kanlow 80.8 12.5 6.7 NE 2229 78.6 14.0 7.3 NE 2234 79.4 12.8 7.8 Mean 79.3 13.2 7.6**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Summer 86% 14% Trailblazer 86% 14% Shawnee 84% 16% Kanlow 87% 13% NE 2229 85% 15% NE 2234 86% 14% Mean 86% 14%Vogel, Kenneth P., Bruce S. Dien, Hans G. Jung, Michael D. Casler, Steven D. Masterson, and Robert B. Mitchell (2011) Quantifying Actual and Theoretical Ethanol Yields for Switchgrass Strains Using NIRS Analyses. Bioenergy Research, 4, 96-110. 112 samples from a range of locations and growing conditions to develop NIRS calibration Cultivars and experimental strains listed here were grown at University of Nebraska, Agricultural Research and Development Center, harvested in mid-August
Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy, calibrated with two stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis

**Hemicellulose Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

XyloseGalactoseArabinoseMannoseRhamnoseFucoseUronic acids **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** 20.82 0.85 2.99 0.49 0.12 0.01 1.59 **26.87** 20.67 0.89 3.07 0.61 0.13 0.01 1.64 **27.02** 19.82 0.87 2.93 0.56 0.12 0.01 1.63 **25.94** 20.61 0.87 2.95 0.54 0.1 0.02 1.61 **26.7** 20.57 0.88 3.07 0.52 0.13 0.01 1.66 **26.84** 20.72 0.9 3.1 0.55 0.13 0.01 1.66 **27.07** 20.56 0.88 3.03 0.55 0.12 0.012 1.63**26.782**Vogel, Kenneth P., Bruce S. Dien, Hans G. Jung, Michael D. Casler, Steven D. Masterson, and Robert B. Mitchell (2011) Quantifying Actual and Theoretical Ethanol Yields for Switchgrass Strains Using NIRS Analyses. Bioenergy Research, 4, 96-110.

**Lignin Other**  **Reported in paper Reported in paper:**  **Calculated**

Klason lignin **Lignin** Nitrogeninorganics (ash) Starch Protein 15.72 **15.72** 0.9 6.56 0.73 5.625 16.56 **16.56** 1 6.86 0.67 6.25 14.99 **14.99** 1 6.59 0.94 6.25 13.31 **13.31** 0.9 5.84 0.3 5.625 15.13 **15.13** 1 6.51 0.76 6.25 15.46 **15.46** 1 6.91 0.48 6.25 15.4 **15.4** 1 6.72 0.61 6.25

## Switchgrass - Data from Vogel et al. (2013)

**Reference:** Vogel, K. P., R. B. Mitchell, G. Sarath, H. G. Jung, B. S. Dien, and M. D. Casler (2013) Switchgrass Biomass Composition Altered by Six Generations of Divergent Breeding for Digestibility. Crop Science, 53, 853-862. **Samples:** multiple generations of switchgrass bred for increased in vitro dry matter digestibility
**Analytical Method:** Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy 

## Percent Composition **Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 

Extracted fat Total

soluble carbohydr ates **Total**

**extractives** Glucose**Cellulose** NE Trailblazer C-1 1.21 2.18 **3.39** 28.12 28.12 NE Trailblazer C0 1.2 2.5 **3.7** 28.43 28.43 Trailblazer 1.18 2.7 **3.88** 28.4 28.4 NE Trailblazer C2 1.15 2.68 **3.83** 28.24 28.24 NE Trailblazer C3 1.13 2.84 **3.97** 28.31 28.31 NE Trailblazer C4 1.15 2.82 **3.97** 28.83 28.83 NE Trailblazer C5 1.18 2.55 **3.73** 28.77 28.77 NE Trailblazer C4 MSFS 1.26 2.7 **3.96** 28.54 28.54 

## Total (% Composition) **Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) NE Trailblazer C-1 71.24512.4325 9.01 92.6875 NE Trailblazer C0 71.176 12.67 8.54 92.386 Trailblazer 70.741 13.015 8.43 92.186 NE Trailblazer C2 70.484 13.175 8.81 92.469 NE Trailblazer C3 70.49513.4825 8.8 92.7775 NE Trailblazer C4 71.7 13.345 8.25 93.295 NE Trailblazer C5 72.084 13.175 8.62 93.879 NE Trailblazer C4 MSFS 71.22 13.5075 8.69 93.4175 Average 71.14312513.100318.6437592.88719
**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics NE Trailblazer C-1 76.9 13.4 9.7 NE Trailblazer C0 77.0 13.7 9.2 Trailblazer 76.7 14.1 9.1 NE Trailblazer C2 76.2 14.2 9.5 NE Trailblazer C3 76.0 14.5 9.5 NE Trailblazer C4 76.9 14.3 8.8NE Trailblazer C5 76.8 14.0 9.2

NE Trailblazer C4 MSFS 76.2 14.5 9.3 Average 76.6 14.1 9.3
**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics NE Trailblazer C-1 85% 15% NE Trailblazer C0 85% 15% Trailblazer 84% 16% NE Trailblazer C2 84% 16% NE Trailblazer C3 84% 16% NE Trailblazer C4 84% 16% NE Trailblazer C5 85% 15% NE Trailblazer C4 MSFS 84% 16% Average 84% 16%Vogel, K. P., R. B. Mitchell, G. Sarath, H. G. Jung, B. S. Dien, and M. D. Casler (2013) Switchgrass Biomass Composition Altered by Six Generations of Divergent Breeding for Digestibility. Crop Science, 53, 853-862. multiple generations of switchgrass bred for increased in vitro dry matter digestibility

**Hemicellulose Reported in paper**  **Calculated:**

XyloseGalactoseArabinoseMannoseRhamnoseFucoseUronic acids **Total**

**hemicellul**
**ose** 19.71 0.78 2.95 0.62 0.1 0.015 1.69**25.865** 20.16 0.81 3 0.59 0.102 0.014 1.69**26.366** 20.07 0.8 3.04 0.62 0.098 0.013 1.7**26.341** 19.71 0.81 3.04 0.61 0.102 0.012 1.73**26.014** 19.52 0.82 3.06 0.61 0.103 0.012 1.74**25.865** 20.05 0.8 3.04 0.63 0.097 0.013 1.73 **26.36** 20.01 0.82 3.07 0.6 0.101 0.013 1.72**26.334** 19.8 0.81 3.05 0.61 0.099 0.011 1.74 **26.12**Vogel, K. P., R. B. Mitchell, G. Sarath, H. G. Jung, B. S. Dien, and M. D. Casler (2013) Switchgrass Biomass Composition Altered by Six Generations of Divergent Breeding for Digestibility. Crop Science, 53, 853-862.

**Lignin Other**  **Reported in paper Reported in paper:**  **Calculated**

Klason lignin **Lignin** Nitrogeninorganics (ash) Starch Protein 17.26 **17.26** 1.37 9.01 0.48 8.5625 16.38 **16.38** 1.36 8.54 0.47 8.5 16 **16** 1.38 8.43 0.51 8.625 16.23 **16.23** 1.42 8.81 0.47 8.875 16.32 **16.32** 1.45 8.8 0.45 9.0625 16.51 **16.51** 1.46 8.25 0.25 9.125 16.98 **16.98** 1.46 8.62 0.32 9.125 16.56 **16.56** 1.47 8.69 0.36 9.1875

## Woods - Data from Wang et al. (2011)

**Reference:** Wang, Xiaming, Jennifer M. Padgett, Florentino B. De la Cruz, and Morton A. Barlaz (2011) Wood Biodegradation in Laboratory-Scale Landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 6864-6871. **Samples:** wood obtained from a lumber yard and shredded
**Analytical Method:**sulfuric acid hydrolysis, analysis of sugars, Klason lignin 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Reported in paper: Calculated**  **Reported in paper Calculated:** 
Ethanol/ tolueneethanolhot water**Total extractabl** 
**es** Cellulose**Cellulose Red oak**  40.5 40.5 **eucalyptus** 40 40 **spruce** 42 42 **radiata pine** 41.1 41.1



## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Red oak 83.7 0.4 84.1 eucalyptus 83 0.1 83.1 spruce 89.7 1.5 91.2 radiata pine 88.3 0.8 89.1
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Red oak 84% eucalyptus 83% spruce 91% radiata pine 89%Wang, Xiaming, Jennifer M. Padgett, Florentino B. De la Cruz, and Morton A. Barlaz (2011) Wood Biodegradation in Laboratory-Scale Landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 6864-6871.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper Calculated:**  **Reported in paper:**

Hemicellulo
se **Total**

**hemicellulo**
**se** Klason lignin **Total**

**Lignin** volatile

solids inorganics

(ash) 19.6 **19.6** 23.6 **23.6** 99.6 0.4 11 **11** 32 **32** 99.9 0.1 20.3 **20.3** 27.4 **27.4** 98.5 1.5 20.1 **20.1** 27.1 **27.1** 99.2 0.8

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for protein, so the value for "other organics" is not validWang, Xiaming, Jennifer M. Padgett, Florentino B. De la Cruz, and Morton A. Barlaz (2011) Wood Biodegradation in Laboratory-Scale Landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 6864-6871.

## Maize straw, wheat straw, rapeseed straw, and soybean straw - Data from Yalchi et al. (2011)

**Reference:** Yalchi, Taher, and Behzad Hajieghrari (2011) Effect of fungal treatment on chemical composition and in vitro ruminal digestibility of some agricultural residues. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(85):19707-19713. **Samples:** collected from several fields and mixed
**Analytical Method:**Detergent fiber analysis, using Van Soest et al (1991) 

## Percent Composition

**Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper** 

Ether extract **Total**

**extractive**
**s** Cellulose

(ADF - lignin) **Cellulose** Hemicellulose (NDFADF) **Maize straw** 1.27 **1.27** 36 **36** 36.36 **Wheat straw** 1.07 **1.07** 43.67 **43.67** 25.92 **Rapeseed straw** 1.14 **1.14** 48.52 **48.52** 19.03 **Soybean straw** 0.51 **0.51** 47.08 **47.08** 14.8 

## Total (% Composition)

**Calculated:** Cellulosic ContentOther

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (%

recover) Maize straw 77.63 5.9183.54 Wheat straw 77.96 12.9990.95 Rapeseed straw 77.28 6.5283.8 Soybean straw 72.99 8.7281.71
Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for all extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not valid

**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic ContentOther

Organics Maize straw 83% Wheat straw 90% Rapeseed straw 83% Soybean straw 80%

## Maize straw, wheat straw, rapeseed straw, and soybean straw - Data from Yalchi et al. (2011) Yalchi, Taher, and Behzad Hajieghrari (2011) Effect of fungal treatment on chemical composition and in vitro ruminal digestibility of some agricultural residues. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(85):19707-19713.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper:** 

**Total hemicellul** 
**ose** Acid

detergent lignin **Total**

**Lignin** Ash Crude proteinNDF ADF **36.36** 5.27 **5.27** 5.91 5.76 77.63 41.26 **25.92** 8.37 **8.37** 12.99 4.28 77.75 51.83 **19.03** 9.73 **9.73** 6.52 5.31 77.28 58.25 **14.8** 11.11 **11.11** 8.72 4.88 72.98 58.19

Analysis did not adjust for % recovery because samples were not analyzed for all extractives, so the value for "other organics" is not validYalchi, Taher, and Behzad Hajieghrari (2011) Effect of fungal treatment on chemical composition and in vitro ruminal digestibility of some agricultural residues. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(85):19707-19713.

## Corn kernel fiber - Data from Yoshida et al. (2012)

**Reference:** Yoshida, T., M. Sakamoto, and J. Azuma (2012) Extraction of hemicelluloses from corn pericarp by the NaOH-urea solvent system. Procedia Chemistry, 4, 294-300. **Samples:** kernels of sweet corn. Corn pericarp manually separated.
**Analytical Method:** AOAC methods; Cellulose and hemicellulose measured using methods described in Lopez-Casado et al. (2007) J. Exp. Bot. 2007; 58: 3875-3883. 

## Percent Composition **Extractables Cellulose**  **Hemicellulose Reported in paper:** 

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Total extractive** 
**s** Cellulose**Cellulose** Hemicellul
ose Sweet corn pericarp 13.5 13.5 73.6 

## Total (% Composition) **Calculated:** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganicsTotal (% recover) Sweet corn pericarp 87.1 13.4 1.1 101.6
**Adjusted for % recovery** Cellulosic Content Other

OrganicsInorganics Sweet corn pericarp 85.7 13.2 1.1
**Adjusted for Inorganics** Cellulosic Content Other

Organics Sweet corn pericarp 87% 13%Yoshida, T., M. Sakamoto, and J. Azuma (2012) Extraction of hemicelluloses from corn pericarp by the NaOH-urea solvent system. Procedia Chemistry, 4, 294-300.

AOAC methods; Cellulose and hemicellulose measured using methods described in Lopez-Casado et al. (2007) J. Exp. Bot. 2007; 58: 3875-3883.

**Hemicellulose Lignin**  **Other**

**Calculated: Reported in paper**  **Reported in paper: Total**  **hemicellul**
**ose** Lignin **Lignin** Proteininorganics (ash) Lipid Starch **73.6** 5 1.1 4.9 3.5