FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 4.

Composition of cactus mucilage obtained by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry at a sample’ moisture content of 96_43%
| Content of the chemical elements | Value [%] | Content of the oxides | Value [%] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potassium (K) | 1.7810 | Potassium oxide (K2O) | 2.6042 |
| Calcium (Ca) | 0.8190 | Magnesium oxide (MgO) | 0.6014 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | 0.5913 | Calcium oxide (CaO) | 0.3110 |
| Chlorine (Cl) | 0.2883 | Phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) | 0.0372 |
| Phosphorus (P) | 0.0402 | ||
| Sulfur (S) | 0.0333 | Chlorine (Cl) | 0.0040 |
| Iron (Fe) | 0.0050 | Iron oxide (Fe2O3) | 0.0033 |
| Zinc (Zn) | 0.0034 | Sulfur trioxide (SO3) | 0.0024 |
| Manganese (Mn) | 0.0031 | Manganese oxide (MnO) | 0.0017 |
| Copper (Cu) | 0.0019 | Zinc oxide (ZnO) | 0.0008 |
Shapiro–Wilk normality test results
| Content of cactus mucilage [%] | W statistic | p | Normal distribution? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.8925 | 0.3948 | yes |
| 4 | 0.8604 | 0.2616 | yes |
| 6 | 0.9281 | 0.5835 | yes |
| 8 | 0.9736 | 0.8636 | yes |
Properties of cactus mucilage
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Viscosity | 1,087.9 cSt |
| Density | 0.9948 g·cm−3 |
| Potential of hydrogen (pH) | 4.61 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
| Source of variation | Sum of squares (SS) | Degrees of freedom (df) | Mean square (MS) | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 0.1183 | 3 | 0.03940 | 8.37 | 0.0028 |
| Within groups | 0.0565 | 12 | 0.00471 | – | – |
| Total | 0.1748 | 15 | – | – | – |
Names of cactus mucilage used in other countries
| Scientific name | Country | Plant common name | Mucilage common name |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opuntia ficus-indica | Mexico | Nopal | Nopal mucilage |
| Peru | Cactus | Cactus mucilage | |
| Argentina | Tuna | Prickly pear mucilage | |
| Chile | Tuna | ||
| Ecuador | Tuna | ||
| Bolivia | Tuna | ||
| Opuntia spp. | United States | Nopal | Nopal mucilage |
| Colombia | Nopal | ||
| Venezuela | Nopal |
Statistical indicators (SD, SEM, CI)
| Cactus mucilage dosage [%] | Mean [g·cm−3] | SD | SEM | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.84 | 0.010 | 0.006 | 1.828–1.852 |
| 4 | 1.85 | 0.015 | 0.009 | 1.833–1.867 |
| 6 | 1.90 | 0.020 | 0.012 | 1.876–1.924 |
| 8 | 1.78 | 0.018 | 0.010 | 1.760–1.800 |
Granulometry of the soil sample
| Sieve | Mesh [mm] | Weight [g] | Soil retained [%] | Cumulative of soil retained [%] | Soil passing [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3″ | 76.200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 2″ | 50.800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 1 1/2″ | 38.100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 1″ | 25.400 | 52.308 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 98.26 |
| 3/4″ | 19.050 | 34.808 | 1.16 | 2.90 | 97.10 |
| 1/2″ | 12.700 | 90.288 | 3.01 | 5.91 | 94.09 |
| 3/8″ | 9.525 | 42.478 | 1.42 | 7.33 | 92.67 |
| 1/4″ | 6.350 | 109.378 | 3.65 | 10.98 | 89.02 |
| No 4 | 4.760 | 93.048 | 3.10 | 14.08 | 85.92 |
| No 8 | 2.380 | 494.968 | 16.50 | 30.58 | 69.42 |
| No 16 | 1.190 | 567.208 | 18.91 | 49.48 | 50.52 |
| No 30 | 0.595 | 537.688 | 17.92 | 67.41 | 32.59 |
| No 50 | 0.297 | 489.528 | 16.32 | 83.72 | 16.28 |
| No 100 | 0.150 | 376.848 | 12.56 | 96.29 | 3.71 |
| No 200 | 0.075 | 98.928 | 3.30 | 99.58 | 0.42 |
| Bottom | – | 12.518 | 0.42 | 100 | – |
| Total | 2,999.994 |
