Macromolecular Composition of Totora (Schoenoplectus californicus. C.A. Mey, Sojak) Stem and Its Correlation with Stem Mechanical Properties

Figures & data

Figure 1. Totora plants in the paccha lagoon in the Andean region of Ecuador.

Figure 2. Sample testing figures: compressive strength (a), tensile strength (b), bending strength (c).

Table 1. Chemical composition of totora rind and pith.

	Extractives (%)	Lignin (%)	Cellulose (%)	Ash (%)
Rind	14.00 (5.0)^a	20.14 (1.7)^a	40.97 (4.5)^a	6.87 (1.7)^a
Pith	10.66 (5.3)^b	6.93 (2.3)^b	49.62 (3.3)^b	7.21 (1.4)^a

Values in parentheses signify standard deviation, and different letters (in superscript) in a column indicate significant differences (Tukey posthoc test, p < .05).

Table 2. Comparison of chemical properties obtained by different studies.

		Rind lignin content	Pith lignin content	Rind holocellulose/cellulose content	Pith holocellulose/cellulose content
Author	Species	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)
This study	Schoenoplectus californicus sp.	20.14	6.93	40.97	49.62
Hidalgo-Cordero et al. (2020)	Schoenoplectus californicus sp.	16.42	8.9	57.3	61.03
Rosado et al., (2021)	Cyperus papyrus	27	15.7	18.4	29.3

Figure 3. Correlation between totora stem cross section and chemical composition of totora rind.

Figure 4. Correlation between totora stem cross section and chemical composition of totora pith.

Figure 5. Influence of lignin and cellulose content of totora rind on mechanical properties of totora stems.

Figure 6. Influence of lignin and cellulose content of totora pith on mechanical properties of totora stems.

Table 3. Mean values of mechanical properties of totora stems.

	Tensile strength (MPa)	Compressive strength (MPa)	Bending strength (MPa)
Totora stem	1.52 (4.3)	1.65 (.6)	7.75 (3.5)

Values in parentheses signify standard deviation.

Table 4. Comparison of tensile strength properties obtained by different studies.

Author	Species	Tensile strength (MPa)	Condition
This study	Schoenoplectus californicus sp	1.52	uncompressed
E. C. Mejía et al. (2019)	Schoenoplectus californicus sp	88.5	compressed to reduce stem section

Figure 7. SEM images of totora rind (A, B) and cross section of totora pith (C).

Hidalgo-Cordero, J. F., T. García-Ortuño, and J. García-Navarro. 2020. “Comparison of Binderless Boards Produced with Different Tissues of Totora (Schoenoplectus Californicus (C.A. Mey) Soják) Stems.” Journal of Building Engineering 27 (June 2019): 100961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100961.

 Google Scholar

Rosado, M. J., F. Bausch, J. Rencoret, G. Marques, A. Gutiérrez, T. Rosenau, A. Potthast, and J. C. Del Río. 2021. “Differences in the Content, Composition and Structure of the Lignins from Rind and Pith of Papyrus (Cyperus Papyrus L.) Culms.” Industrial Crops and Products 174:114226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114226.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mejía, C., D. Ojeda, and L. Goyos. 2019. “Mechanical Behavior Under Tension of Schoenoplectus Californicus Fiber.” Journal of Natural Fibers 16 (1): 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2017.1401506.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar