Suitability of Aquatic Plant Fibers for Handmade Papermaking

Table 1

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

Species	Part	Fiber dimension				Derived value			Reference (s)
		Fiber length (mm)	Fiber diameter (µm)	Lumen diameter (µm)	Cell wall thickness (µm)	Slenderness ratio	Flexibility coefficient	Runkel ratio
(1) Cyperus digitatus	S	0.72 ± 0.03^b	9.64 ± 0.39^bc	5.15 ± 0.40^bc	2.25 ± 0.14^b	76.85 ± 4.31^ab	52.91 ± 2.85^ab	1.06 ± 0.14^ab	Present study
(2) Cyperus rotundus	S	0.71 ± 0.02^b	9.13 ± 0.47^c	4.32 ± 0.37^c	2.41 ± 016^ab	81.57 ± 4.95^ab	46.63 ± 2.56^bc	1.28 ± 0.13^ab	Present study
(3) Cyperus halpan	S	0.73 ± 0.04^b	11.08 ± 0.55^ab	6.02 ± 0.53^ab	2.53 ± 0.18^ab	69.01 ± 4.52^b	53.54 ± 3.11^ab	1.02 ± 0.15^a	Present study
(4) Scirpus grossus	S	0.83 ± 0.02^a	12.11 ± 0.98^a	7.30 ± 0.89^a	2.41 ± 0.16^ab	73.77 ± 7.32^ab	58.08 ± 4.07^a	0.84 ± 0.17^a	Present study
(5) Typha angustifolia	S	0.83 ± 0.02^a	10.01 ± 0.66^bc	4.35 ± 0.42^c	2.83 ± 0.18^a	89.34 ± 5.62^a	42.52 ± 2.19^c	1.52 ± 0.18^b	Present study
(6) Eichhornia crassipes	Lf	1.60	5.50	9.00	2.50	290.90	163.64	0.56	Goswami and Saikia [23]
(7) Arundo donax	In	1.22	17.30	8.50	4.40	70.50	49.20	1.00	Ververis et al. [5]
(8) Musa paradisiaca	S	1.55	22.00	14.20	5.50	70.50	64.55	0.77	Goswami et al. [24]
(9) Saccharum sp.	Bg	1.51	21.40	6.27	7.74	70.56	29.29	2.46	Agnihotri et al. [25]
(10) Zea mays	Rs	0.88	20.12	10.92	4.59	44.08	54.27	0.84	Kiaei et al. [26]
(11) Bambusa tulda	St	1.89	17.00	3.45	6.78	111.20	20.29	3.93	Sharma et al. [27]
(12) Brassica napus	St	1.20	13.10	8.60	2.25	91.00	64.00	0.58	Tofanica 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.