International Journal of Polymer Science / 2015 / Article / Tab 1

Research Article

Suitability of Aquatic Plant Fibers for Handmade Papermaking

Table 1

Comparison of fiber dimension and derived values of aquatic and other nonwood plant species.

SpeciesPartFiber dimensionDerived valueReference (s)
Fiber length (mm)Fiber diameter (µm)Lumen diameter (µm)Cell wall thickness (µm)Slenderness ratioFlexibility coefficientRunkel ratio

(1) Cyperus digitatus S0.72 ± 0.03b9.64 ± 0.39bc5.15 ± 0.40bc2.25 ± 0.14b76.85 ± 4.31ab52.91 ± 2.85ab1.06 ± 0.14abPresent study
(2) Cyperus rotundus S0.71 ± 0.02b9.13 ± 0.47c4.32 ± 0.37c2.41 ± 016ab81.57 ± 4.95ab46.63 ± 2.56bc1.28 ± 0.13abPresent study
(3) Cyperus halpan S0.73 ± 0.04b11.08 ± 0.55ab6.02 ± 0.53ab2.53 ± 0.18ab69.01 ± 4.52b53.54 ± 3.11ab1.02 ± 0.15aPresent study
(4) Scirpus grossus S0.83 ± 0.02a12.11 ± 0.98a7.30 ± 0.89a2.41 ± 0.16ab73.77 ± 7.32ab58.08 ± 4.07a0.84 ± 0.17aPresent study
(5) Typha angustifolia S0.83 ± 0.02a10.01 ± 0.66bc4.35 ± 0.42c2.83 ± 0.18a89.34 ± 5.62a42.52 ± 2.19c1.52 ± 0.18bPresent study
(6) Eichhornia crassipes Lf1.605.509.002.50290.90163.640.56Goswami and Saikia [23]
(7) Arundo donax In1.2217.308.504.4070.5049.201.00Ververis et al. [5]
(8) Musa paradisiaca S1.5522.0014.205.5070.5064.550.77Goswami et al. [24]
(9) Saccharum sp. Bg1.5121.406.277.7470.5629.292.46Agnihotri et al. [25]
(10) Zea mays Rs0.8820.1210.924.5944.0854.270.84Kiaei et al. [26]
(11) Bambusa tulda St1.8917.003.456.78111.2020.293.93Sharma et al. [27]
(12) Brassica napus St1.2013.108.602.2591.0064.000.58Tofanica et al. [22]

All values are given as mean ± S.E. Alphabets in the same column indicate significant difference at < 0.05 (DMRT), a > b > c. Aquatic plants (no. 1–7); crop plants (no. 8–10); commercial plants (no. 11); vegetable plants (no. 12). S: stem; Lf: leaf; In: internode; Bg: bagasse; Rs: residue; St: stalk.