Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Soil improvement with the addition of natural materials, such as cactus mucilage Cover

Figures & Tables

FIGURE 1.

Regions where cactus mucilage is used for soil compactionSource: own work.

FIGURE 2.

Liquid limit of the soil sampleSource: own work.

FIGURE 3.

Comparative graph of dry density values of soil with cactus mucilage (CM)Source: own work.

FIGURE 4.

Comparative graph of dry density values of soil with cactus mucilage (CM)Source: own work.

Composition of cactus mucilage obtained by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry at a sample’ moisture content of 96_43%

Content of the chemical elementsValue [%]Content of the oxidesValue [%]
Potassium (K)1.7810Potassium oxide (K2O)2.6042
Calcium (Ca)0.8190Magnesium oxide (MgO)0.6014
Magnesium (Mg)0.5913Calcium oxide (CaO)0.3110
Chlorine (Cl)0.2883Phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5)0.0372
Phosphorus (P)0.0402
Sulfur (S)0.0333Chlorine (Cl)0.0040
Iron (Fe)0.0050Iron oxide (Fe2O3)0.0033
Zinc (Zn)0.0034Sulfur trioxide (SO3)0.0024
Manganese (Mn)0.0031Manganese oxide (MnO)0.0017
Copper (Cu)0.0019Zinc oxide (ZnO)0.0008

Shapiro–Wilk normality test results

Content of cactus mucilage [%]W statisticpNormal distribution?
00.89250.3948yes
40.86040.2616yes
60.92810.5835yes
80.97360.8636yes

Properties of cactus mucilage

PropertyValue
Viscosity1,087.9 cSt
Density0.9948 g·cm−3
Potential of hydrogen (pH)4.61

Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Source of variationSum of squares (SS)Degrees of freedom (df)Mean square (MS)Fp
Between groups0.118330.039408.370.0028
Within groups0.0565120.00471
Total0.174815

Names of cactus mucilage used in other countries

Scientific nameCountryPlant common nameMucilage common name
Opuntia ficus-indicaMexicoNopalNopal mucilage
PeruCactusCactus mucilage
ArgentinaTunaPrickly pear mucilage
ChileTuna
EcuadorTuna
BoliviaTuna
Opuntia spp.United StatesNopalNopal mucilage
ColombiaNopal
VenezuelaNopal

Statistical indicators (SD, SEM, CI)

Cactus mucilage dosage [%]Mean [g·cm−3]SDSEM95% CI
01.840.0100.0061.828–1.852
41.850.0150.0091.833–1.867
61.900.0200.0121.876–1.924
81.780.0180.0101.760–1.800

Granulometry of the soil sample

SieveMesh [mm]Weight [g]Soil retained [%]Cumulative of soil retained [%]Soil passing [%]
3″76.200000100
2″50.800000100
1 1/2″38.100000100
1″25.40052.3081.741.7498.26
3/4″19.05034.8081.162.9097.10
1/2″12.70090.2883.015.9194.09
3/8″9.52542.4781.427.3392.67
1/4″6.350109.3783.6510.9889.02
No 44.76093.0483.1014.0885.92
No 82.380494.96816.5030.5869.42
No 161.190567.20818.9149.4850.52
No 300.595537.68817.9267.4132.59
No 500.297489.52816.3283.7216.28
No 1000.150376.84812.5696.293.71
No 2000.07598.9283.3099.580.42
Bottom12.5180.42100
Total2,999.994
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22630/srees.10861 | Journal eISSN: 2543-7496 | Journal ISSN: 1732-9353
Language: English
Page range: 3 - 19
Submitted on: Oct 8, 2025
Accepted on: Dec 19, 2025
Published on: Mar 31, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Sleyther Arturo De La Cruz Vega, Cristian Milton Mendoza Flores, Kevin Arturo Ascoy Flores, Ccori Siello Vega Neyra, published by Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.