## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Van Soest Method  
The Van Soest results expressed in organic and dry mass are presented in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Cellulose** & **Hemicelluloses** & **Lignin** & **Soluble Compounds** & **Minerals** \\ \hline HS1 & Dry (g \(\times\)/100 g dry & 49.0 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 21.5 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 8.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 18.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline HS2 & mass) & 56.5 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 19.7 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 12.2 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 9.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline HS1 & Organic (g \(\times\)/100 g & 50.4 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 22.2 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 19.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 & - \\ \hline HS2 & organic mass) & 57.7 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 20.1 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 12.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 9.7 \(\pm\) 0.8 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cell wall hemp shiv composition determined by [PERSON] method (% \(w/w\)). \(n=6\) with standard variation. The analysis of the chemical composition of hemp shiv samples HS1 and HS2 reveals distinct differences in their cell wall structure. Specifically, HS1 contains 49.0% cellulose, 21.5% hemicellulose, 8.1% lignin, 18.6% soluble compounds (including pectins, sugars, lipids, and proteins), and less than 3% minerals or ashes. In contrast, HS2 is composed of 56.5% cellulose, 19.7% hemicellulose, 12.2% lignin, 9.6% soluble compounds, and a similar low mineral content. The dry mass accounts for both organic and inorganic compounds, while the organic mass considers only the organic components. As a result, the proportion of cell wall compounds increases in the organic mass calculation. HS1 contains 50.4% cellulose, 22.2% hemicellulose, 8.3% lignin, and 19.1% soluble compounds (including pectins, sugars, lipids, and proteins). In contrast, HS2 is composed of 57.7% cellulose, 20.1% hemicellulose, 12.5% lignin, and 9.7% soluble compounds. When comparing these two hemp shiv samples, the cellulose, hemicellulose, and mineral contents are relatively consistent. However, notable differences emerge in the lignin and soluble compound fractions, with HS1 containing about 4% less lignin but 9% more soluble compounds than HS2. These differences in chemical composition could have significant implications for their behavior in agro-based construction materials, particularly in processes such as binderless particle board production or agro-based concrete hardening, where the release of these compounds during processing plays a critical role [11; 12; 13]. Literature values for the chemical composition of hemp shiv are generally within the same range as our findings. For instance, previous studies report cellulose content ranging from 44.0% to 51.6%, hemicelluloses from 6.4% to 27.0%, lignin from 8.0% to 28.0%, soluble compounds (including proteins) from 1.0% to 29.4%, and mineral content from 0.6% to 8.8% (Table 4). The variability observed between different studies, even when using the same analytical technique such as the Van Soest method, underscores the influence of external factors on the chemical composition of hemp shiv. Several factors may contribute to these variations, including differences in agricultural practices and environmental conditions [39]. For example, variations in pluviometry, climate, and temperature during the growing season can significantly impact the development of the plant's cell wall and, consequently, its chemical composition [39; 40]. Such environmental influences could explain why HS1, despite having lower lignin content, shows a higher proportion of soluble compounds [39; 40]. These differences in chemical composition between HS1 and HS2 are crucial in understanding their performance in various construction applications. For instance, the lower lignin content and higher soluble compound concentration in HS1 might make it