TABLE 3.

Comparison between CMF and G. trabeum (Gt) decay treatments.

Sample	Low-q	Mid-q		High-q
	P1	Rg (nm)	P2	EF spacing (nm)
UW	3.91 ± 0.16*	–	–	4.66 ± 0.23*
UW-CMF-1	3.72 ± 0.16*	9 ± 1.3	1.6 ± 0.1	5.11 ± 0.17*
UW-CMF-2	3.57 ± 0.21*	7.9 ± 0.5	2.1 ± 0.1	6.40 ± 0.44*
UW-CMF-4	3.40 ± 0.31*	6 ± 1.1	2.5 ± 0.1	7.70 ± 0.15*
0 dGt	4.1 ± 0.07	–	1.2 ± 0.1	5.07 ± 0.24
18 dGt	3.6**	8 ± 2.2	1.8 ± 0.4	7**
42 dGt	3.6**	8 ± 0.7	2.4 ± 0.3	7**

* Parameters were fitted using the anisotropic curve and fixed while fitting the amorphous curve. ** Parameters were fixed while fitting the isotropic curves due to weak features and/or limited q-range.