Skip to main content
International Journal of Biomaterials logoLink to International Journal of Biomaterials
. 2022 Mar 12;2022:8401528. doi: 10.1155/2022/8401528

Mycelium-Based Composite: The Future Sustainable Biomaterial

Digafe Alemu 1,2, Mesfin Tafesse 1,2, Ajoy Kanti Mondal 3,
PMCID: PMC8934219  PMID: 35313478

Abstract

Because of the alarming rate of human population growth, technological improvement should be needed to save the environment from pollution. The practice of business as usual on material production is not creating a circular economy. The circular economy refers to an economic model whose objective is to produce goods and services sustainably, by limiting the consumption and waste of resources (raw materials, water, and energy). Fungal-based composites are the recently implemented technology that fulfills the concept of the circular economy. It is made with the complex of fungi mycelium and organic substrates by using fungal mycelium as natural adhesive materials. The quality of the composite depends on both types of fungi and substrate. To ensure the physicochemical property of the fabricated composite, mycelium morphology, bimolecular content, density, compressive strength, thermal stability, and hydrophobicity were determined. This composite is proven to be used for different applications such as packaging, architectural designs, walls, and insulation. It also has unique features in terms of low cost, low emission, and recyclable.

1. Introduction

The world population is booming at an alarming rate. It needs technological improvement to meet the needs of the people unless it leads to environmental pollution, waste generation, and natural resource depletion. With rapid population growth and urbanization, annual waste generation is expected to increase by 70%, from 2.01 billion tons in 2016 to 2.2 billion tons and 3.40 billion tons in 2025 and 2050, respectively [1, 2] (The World Bank, 2019). The major sources of these wastes are from commercial centers, construction sectors, domestics, agriculture, and industries [3]. Improper recycling of wastes generated from these sources has resulted in the pollution of water bodies, air, landfills, and fertile soils [4]. To minimize the environmental effect of such wastes, recycling technology will be the prominent solution. Natural resources are getting scarce, necessitating a search for renewable and recyclable materials, and alternative ways for using existing resources are the other responsibilities of human beings.

As the world human population increases, so does the need for industrialization and natural resource depletion. About 66% of the world population will live in urban areas by 2050 according to the United Nations prediction [5]. Similarly, the need for housing, infrastructure, packaging, and other industrial products will be increased. The practice of such material production is one of the causes of environmental pollution [6]. According to IPCC data presented in 2010, about 18% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be from production, transportation, and demolition of materials [6].

Most industrially fabricated materials such as construction and packaging materials nowadays are nonrecyclable and environmentally unfriendly. The utilization of these conventional materials consumes energy, limits natural resources, and pollutes air, soil, and water bodies during production, transportation, and demolition. Eight to ten percent of the global total carbon dioxide emissions were released from the manufacturing of construction materials [7].

The practice of business as usual in material production will not create a sustainable environment and circular economy. The advancement of technology in sustainable materials production has become one of the most important key issues in the field of biotechnology and civil engineering research. Recent studies point out that there is a possibility of biocomposites production from the mycelium substrate complex to replace the conventional materials [8, 9]. This biomaterial or composite is grown rather than manufactured [9]. Mycelium is the vegetative part of a fungus with the mass of branching hyphae and a hollow and tubular structure that provides a fast-growing, safe, and inert material as the binding matrix [10]. It acts as a natural binder, where it fastens onto any organic substrates around it (i.e., coffee husk, sawdust, wheat bran, straw, and bagasse) to create a superdense network of threads [11, 12]. Mycelium-derived materials have several key advantages over conventional synthetic materials including their low cost, low density, ecofriendly nature, and energy consumption [13, 14]. The main aim of this review is to elaborate on the possibility of fungal mycelium for the production of various sustainable materials and to verify the future prospective.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Materials

Materials that produce less pollution and waste during manufacturing, utilization, transportation, and demolition process as well as economically feasible are being considered as sustainable materials [15]. Most conventional construction materials are nonrecyclable, consume high energy, are environmentally unfriendly, and require high cost. When such material enters the environment, it will remain there for many years [11]. Most conventional industrially fabricated materials are the largest energy consumers and greenhouse gas emitters, both in developed and developing countries [16]. In developing countries, only the production of construction materials accounted for 32% of total global energy consumption and 19% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in 2010, and this result will be doubled or tripled in the next 50 years [17]. While in developed countries such as the US, from all industrial-related emissions in 2002, about 6% was from construction sector [18]. Projection stated by the same author also predicted that about 80 million metric tons of CO2 will be emitted from the construction sector in 2030 [18].

Most construction materials such as blocks, partition walls, insulation, and concrete in the world are made up of cement, gypsum, sand, metal, and wood products. About 4.18 million tons of cement were produced globally in 2014 for these purposes [19]. If the perception of using cement as construction materials is not changed globally, then 3.5 billion metric tons of cement could be produced in the world by the year 2050 [20]. Among all building materials, cement is the most widely used, plays a crucial role in the construction sector, and attains special features in the construction activities due to its durability, high compressive strength, and resistance to chemical and weathering actions [21, 22]. Not only these different wood products, but also gypsum and polymers are used in the construction sector. Despite their high strength and resistance to weather conditions, these materials have a great role in environmental pollution from production to demolition due to their nonbiodegradable feature and high emission. Using wood products for construction purposes leads to deforestation and unexpected weather fluctuation. According to the findings of [23], the main cause of Ethiopian forest reduction is utilization of woods for construction purposes. To keep the world clean, sustainable activities such as the use of (a) recyclable materials, (b) locally available materials in order to minimize transportation cost and fuel, (c) ecofriendly materials, and (d) cost-effective materials and (e) materials design improvement should be carried out.

The application of microorganisms in biomaterial production especially in the construction and packaging sector is the anticipative technology in the near future to bring environmental sustainability [14]. The concept of using mycelium as a material was started in 2007 [24], by the Evocative company owners Eben Bayer and Gavin McIntyre [25]. This company produces high-quality packaging products that can be 100% recyclable and nontoxic [26]. Microbes can be applied in the construction sector through two major directions: (1) indirect method, by the production of construction materials by using enzymes extracted from microbes, and (2) direct method, direct application of microbes such as cell wall, mycelium, and spore of microorganisms [27]. An enzyme extracted from microorganisms is used for soil stabilization. Some other microbes also precipitate calcite from their cell wall and are used for calcium carbonate production. As illustrated in Table 1, microbes have a great role in the production of construction materials such as bioconcrete, bioblock, biocement, and biopolymer through precipitation of their calcium carbonate, secreting soil stabilizing enzyme, and through their unique natural adhesive property by their mycelium [2830].

Table 1.

Construction materials made of microbes.

No. Species name Kingdom Products Application References
1 T. versicolor Fungi Bioblock Thermal insulation [28]
2 Ganoderma lucidum Fungi Block Insulation [12, 29]
3 Agrocybe aegerita Fungi Block Design and architecture [30]
4 Aspergillus nidulans Fungi Bioconcrete Construction [31]
5 Trametes versicolor Fungi Block Insulation [29]
6 Ganoderma sessile Fungi Block Architecture [32]
7 Pleurotus ostreatus Fungi Block Packaging [4]
8 Trametes multicolor and Pleurotus ostreatus Fungi Block Construction [33]
9 Rhizopus oryzae, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, A. terreus, A. oryzae, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fungi Bioconcrete Construction [34]
10 T. ochracea and P. ostreatus Fungi Board Board [33]
11 Not specified (white-rot basidiomycete mycelium) Fungi Board Particle board [35]
12 Ganoderma sp. Fungi Sheets Packaging material [36]
13 Not specified Fungi Sheets Insulation panel [36]
14 Bacillus alkalinitrilicus and Bacillus licheniformis Bacteria Biocement Construction [27]
15 Bacillus lentus Bacteria Biocement Construction [27]
16 Bacillus pseudofirmus and Bacillus halodurans Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [21, 37]
17 Bacillus sphaericus Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [38]
18 Xanthomonas campestris Bacteria Biopolymer Construction [39]
19 Bacillus sphaericus Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [40]
20 Bacillus megaterium Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [41]
21 Bacillus subtilis Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [7, 42]
22 Bacillus massiliensis Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [43]
23 Escherichia coli Bacteria Bioconcrete Construction [38]

Bio-based materials combine many mitigation strategies such as low embodied energy and carbon, low cost, recyclable, use locally available materials, and are available as waste and byproducts; as a result, they can be easily integrated with the prefabricated constructive system [25]. In addition, bio-based construction materials are better in thermal resistance, ease of production, attractive, and self-growing rather than manufacturing [11, 25, 4448]. Raw material availability and ease of production for microbe-based materials result in cost minimization. Using biomaterials can reduce costs about 80 times lower than conventional materials [49]. Biological construction materials can reduce carbon emissions nearly by 800 million tons per year [50]. If immediate action cannot be taken to replace conventional materials such as cement, gypsum, and other polymer and plastic products with biomaterials, it will be very difficult to withstand its environmental impact. In the same manner, biological materials have also indirect advantages in organic waste reduction because most raw materials used for the production of microbial-based materials are locally available organic wastes.

The cost was the prior advantage of the mycelium-based block (MBB) over conventional materials. Mycelium-based blocks are 80 times cheaper than cement- and gypsum-based blocks [49]. The author points out that only 18.92 USD is needed per m3 of MBB, whereas 936.87 USD per m3 was needed for the cement-based block. Apart from these inherent physicochemical properties of these bioblocks, the additional and most significant benefits are the green synthesis approach, ease of fabrication, nontoxicity, and biodegradability.

2.2. Mycelium as a Biomaterial Production

Mycelium has been used for a long period in medicinal industries and molecular compounds [51]. It has been used as the production of dietary supplements or nutraceuticals such as antitumor, antimetastatic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, insecticidal, and antimicrobial. Gradually, utilization of mycelium was translated into mycoremediation since the 1980s [5254]. Beyond bioremediation and medicinal application, nowadays mycelium is applied in biomaterial production such as biocement, bioblock, and bioenzyme. A few companies such as MycoWorks (https://www.mycoworks.com, 2021), NEFFA [55], Evocative Design [56], and MOGU [57] started to design and commercialize mycelium-bound composites in the world. Since 2007, designers and architects started to use mycelium-based products such as synthetic leather [33], kitchen utensils [8], packaging items [25], various furniture [58], wall and ceiling panels [4], biocement [31, 34, 59], and blocks and masonry units [8, 45, 49, 60, 61] as alternatives to conventional materials. Figure 1 shows different mycelium-based materials. Of all materials, synthetic leather is made up of pure mycelium, while packaging items, furniture, panels, and blocks are made of a combination of mycelium and organic substrates [33, 63]. Using mycelium-based material as an alternative to polystyrene and plastic packaging was started in 2013 by a company called Evocative Design [56]. As observed in the figure, fungal-based composites can replace conventional materials. Different artifacts can also be produced because they can be molded into different shapes and with low density.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Different mycelium-based materials [8, 13, 24, 30, 33, 58, 62]. Leather-like materials, with companies in Indonesia, Italy, and the United States having already released promotional material and prototypes in fundraising campaigns, and they are twice cheaper than convectional materials (a). Lightweight mycelium-based composites, despite their load-bearing capability and durability, led the designers to explore designing various furniture by cultivating mycelium, such as chairs (b). Mycelium-based packaging as an environment-friendly alternative to plastic-based foam packaging (c). Light and low-density kitchenware and pots as biodegradable and recyclable alternatives to single-use plastics (d). Blocks made of mycelium substrate complex, partition wall, and indoor construction (e). Fungus used for self-healing of cracks through calcite production (f). Mycelium-based light fixture to enhance lamp light reflection (g). Coffee table with mycelium-based tabletop (h). Flexible mycelium-based polymer-like material (foam) (i).

Mycelium is a dense network of thin strands called hyphae that grow and fuse together into a solid material. Mycelium growth forms self-assembling bonds and miles of tiny white fibers which invade and degrade the organic substrate, gradually colonize the organic matter, and bind them into strong and 3D structure materials [11]. During mycelium colonization, the cellulose or lignin or both compounds of the substrate can be degraded by fungi through secreting an enzyme such as lactase, lignin peroxidase (Lip), and manganese peroxidase (MnP) [64], whereas hemicellulose is usually attacked by all the species [65]. Not all species have the same lignin-degrading ability. While degrading lingocellulose substrate, the mycelium can assemble together and form a block-like structure. This self-assembling property of mycelium makes fungi unique in the production of noble bioproducts. As mycelium can grow easily on organic wastes, its derivative materials have the potential to become the material of choice for a wide variety of applications because they are emission-free, recyclable, and of low cost [11]. Mycelium-based materials (MBm) are recyclable and renewable and can substitute other conventional materials [66]. These materials are fully biological so that they can be selected by different designers and architects to be used for packaging and building industries with little or no cost and environmental damage [67]. Mechanical and hydrophilic properties are some of the drawbacks of MBm; however, different recent studies show that these properties could be adjusted by improving production methodology, best fungal and substrate selection, and strain gene modification [49, 60].

Species selection is one of the most challenging tasks for different researchers in effective biomaterial production. Criteria for species selection include mycelium density, growth rate, cost of growth media (substrate), noxiousness level [32], ease of cultivation, and mycelium structure [68]. Fungi have dense mycelium, grow fast at locally available media, and have no toxicity level. Phylum Basidiomycota is selected for biomaterial production by different scientists due to their mycelium natural adhesive property and their ability to degrade lignocellulose [33]. This phylum has been selected due to the presence of two important features: septa and anastomosis [67]. (1) Septa are special transverse cell walls of fungi having an opening valve that can be closed, help the cell to decrease the damage caused to the colony by a rupture through on and off the opening, and also greatly increase the robustness of the mycelium [66], whereas (2) anastomosis has a special feature in making two different hyphae to fuse together when they meet [32, 68]. When two or more hyphae are fused together, a large network can be formed and it allows for more nutrient transportation between the substrate through the large network; as a result, mycelium can grow fast, strong, and dense. These two hyphae structures make Basidiomycota unique in biomaterial production.

Pleurotus ostreatus (P. ostreatus) and Ganoderma lucidum (G. lucidum) are found to be the most common species that belong to the phylum Basidiomycota [32, 44, 49, 60]. These species belong to the same class of Agaricomycetes and have a different order, family, and class. Pleurotus ostreatus is categorized under order Agaricales, family Pleurotaceae, and genus Pleurotus, while Ganoderma lucidum goes to order Polyporales, family Polyporaceae, and genus Ganoderma [64]. Fungal species that belong to the order Agaricales (Pleurotus ostreatus) result in the production of higher compressive strength biomaterials and have more stiffness properties [33]. That is due to its ability to colonize and grow rapidly on various organic materials containing lignin, cellulose, and hemicelluloses and thick cell walls [4, 44, 61]. P. ostreatus is a member of oyster mushroom, sometimes known as “white oyster” (Precious, 2019), and the most widely utilized species worldwide for enhancing food security.

This species can colonize and degrade a large area of lignocellulose waste streams such as sawdust and straw within a few days [32, 33]; furthermore, it has rough skin and a more rigid appearance [63]. As a result, most researchers prefer this species for its best properties of biomaterial production.

The species type, substrate type, and manufacturing methods play a great role in the quality of mycelium-based materials [64, 68, 69]. However, the effect of fungal species on final material properties is more dominant than the effect of substrate type [33]. Biomaterial quality is greatly depending on fungal species type rather than other factors. That is due to the presence of chitin in the fungal mycelium which has a prominent role in substrate adhesion. The following factors should be considered for substrate selection: (1) nutritional content, (2) availability and abundance, (3) degradability, (4) cost, (5) textural and structural properties, and (6) compatibility [68]. Substrate nutrient such as glucose is the main source of nutrient for fungi; to get this nutrient, some fungi break down cellulose into glucose. Substrates with high cellulose content allow fungi to grow rapidly; as a result, it corresponds to a high tensile strength [68]. That is in fact due to higher mycelium density and chitin content. However, some plant species such as hemp secrete a toxic substance which is incompatible with fungal growth [70]. Such plant species should be selected to save the strain life. The most known substrates for the production of mycelium-based materials are wood chips [30, 32, 66], sawdust, straw [4, 8, 9, 33, 71], coconut powder [72], garden waste [14], and bagasse [4]. These substrates are selected due to their compatibility for fungal growth and their lignocellulosic content. However, the mycelium invasion rate and biomaterial quality vary from substrate to substrate.

The mycelium growth rate in the straw substrate is faster than in sawdust [8]; similarly, mycelium growth on bagasse shows a faster growth rate than sawdust and its mixture [4]. This is due to the nutritional variation and complexity of glucan in sawdust. In addition, straw and bagasse have softer particle properties than sawdust, so the fungi can utilize nutrients easily from soft substrates than hard substrate according to [32]. To enhance the nutritional content, different supplements such as wheat bran [8]and rice bran and different agricultural straw [72] are mixed. Table 2 shows different mycelium-based materials with various strains, supplements, and substrates. Fungi with high mycelium development on the substrates result in relatively higher MBm compressive strength [8]. That is because the substrate mixed with the supplement shows higher mycelium growth than the nonmixed substrate.

Table 2.

Mycelium-based materials with different strain and substrates.

Fungal species Substrate type Supplement Moisture content (%) Temperature (°C) Incubation time (days) Mold type Drying method Fabrication method Target use Compressive strength (kPa) References
Trametes versicolor, Trametes multicolor, and G. sessile Saw dust Wheat straw 50 23 6a + 6b Plastic mold Oven-dried for 48 h at 60°C [32]
Paddy straw, fine paddy powder, and saw dust 26–27 (7–15)a + 7b Plastic mold 1000 C for 30–45 minutes Construction materials 347 [73]
Pleurotus ostreatus Sawdust, straw, and mixture Wheat bran 67.5 ± 2.5 24 ± 1 14a + 3b Plastic form work Oven-dried at 90°C for 90 min Construction materials 20 to 188 [8]
Ganoderma lucidum and Pleurotus ostreatus Cellulose PDA 70–80 25–30 20b 60°C for 2 h [74]
P. ostreatus, Pleurotus eryngii, and Pycnoporus sanguineus Coconut powder Wheat bran 60–70 25 (15, 30, 45)b 0.02 ± 0.01 to 0.04 ± 0.01 [75]
Ganoderma lucidum Cotton stalk Cotton bran 65 25 7b Plastic mold 65°C for 10 hr [76]
Pleurotus ostreatus Sawdust 80 25 45b Plastic mold At 130°C for 20 and 40 min Heat press Composite board [71]
Trametes multicolor and Pleurotus ostreatus Sawdust and straw 65–70 25 14b Plastic mold Heat press 150°C for 20 min [63]
Pleurotus ostreatus Bagasse, sawdust, and wheat bran 60 25 14a + 14b Wooden mold 90°C for 12 hrs 10 kg load pressing Packaging material, insulation, and furniture 6500 [4]
Pleurotus ostreatus, Volvariella, and Polyporus squamosus Wood chips and hemp fiber 25 35b Oven-dried at 70°C for 18 hrs Compressing with spoon Design and architecture 452 [68]
Ganoderma sp. Cotton carpel Cotton seed hull and starch 21 6b Plastic mold Oven-dried at 60°C for 8 hr Hand press Packaging [36]
P. ostreatus, P. citrinopileatus, Pleurotus eryngii, and G. lucidum Husk psyllium, flour, feathers, and textile 25 7b Glass beaker Oven-dried at 90°C for 2 hrs Hand press Footwear products 124.80 to 340.08 [77]
Saw dust and rice bran 33b Steel mold 110–115°C for 24 hrs Construction materials 4409 to 7990 [9]
Trichoderma asperellum, G. lucidum, Agaricus bisporus, P. ostreatus Oat husk and rapeseed cake 21 14a + 7b Plate 40°C for 48 hrs Oil press Plastic 16.8 to 299.6 [44]
G. lucidum Rapeseed straw Cellulose fiber 58 30 21b EPS mold 65°C for 24 hrs Hand press Wall insulation 845 ± 90.0 [64]
Coriolus versicolor and Pleurotus ostreatus Wood chips, hemp hurd and fiber, and hemp mat 30b Plastic mold 125°C for 2 hrs Plastic 24–93 [67]
Pleurotus ostreatus Soil, xanthan gum, and guar gum Hay, glycerol, and molasses 60–70 27 20a + 30b Glass tank Architectural activity [78]
Trametes versicolor Hardwood chips and hemp shives 70 ± 5 22 ± 2 Mold 93°C Building materials 360 ± 50.0 to 520 ± 80.0 [69]
Trametes versicolor Yellow birch wood veneers 80 28 18b Hot pressing Wood bonding 1740 [35]
Sawdust and millet grain Wheat bran 14 Tubular mold 60°C for 24 h Biofoam 570 [47]

aIncubation period before mold. bIncubation period after mold.

3. Mechanisms

MBB production consists of the following six major stages: strain cultivation, substrate preparation and sterilization, substrate inoculation, molding, deactivation, and transportation [28, 30, 48, 79]. Strain cultivation is started from culturing, isolation, and screening. Most Basidiomycota strain culture begins from the tissue culture method or spore print method. In addition, they are also isolated from dead trees, soil, and other organic wastes [80]. The optimum temperature and humidity for most fungi mycelium development are 25–30°C [26] and 60–65% [81]. The temperature and humidity below and above the optimum level reduce the mycelium growth rate or damage the strain. The obtained pure culture is inoculated into grains for spawn production [82, 83]. Spawn is the grain inoculated with pure culture used for startup of the substrate colonization. Most of the time, it can be prepared by using grain and sawdust filled into glass bottles or polyethylene plastic bags. Substrate colonization rate is determined by the amount of inoculum [84], types of strain used, and types of substrate [4]. Amount of optimum spawn used for inoculum varies in different studies: 10%–20% [28], 10% [82], 3% [32], and 15% [68] in dry weight basis. As the amount of inoculum increases, the growth rate increases and the contamination level decreases [84]. The high amount of inoculum can occupy a large surface of the substrate so that the mycelium can fully colonize within a short time. As a result, the chance for contamination is less. However, the extended amount of inoculum may affect the biomaterials' quality.

Mycelium development is evaluated by chemical and physical parameters such as visual inspection, pH test, organic matter content, water content [32], and mycelium surface morphology [4]. Well-developed fungal mycelium has decreased pH level and total organic matter which is due to enzymatic digestion, whereas the amount of nitrogen and water increases as mycelium is well developed [30, 32]. As mycelium grows, a network of branching hyphae composed of biomolecules mainly chitin grow out of the substrate into the air creating a fluffy or compact layer (fungal skin) covering the substrate and a vast three-dimensional matrix [10, 69, 76]. The mycelium (vegetative part) can be grown into dense material in a mold to form different shapes for different items. While growing, the mycelium adheres to the substrate and can be shaped to different structures or new design objects [11]. Once reaching the desired structural characteristics, the fungal growth is stopped from further growth [8, 65, 84]. Fungal growth can be stopped by drying and/or heating the colonized substrate. However, drying cannot stop mycelium growth permanently. It makes the strain preserve the fungi in a “hibernated” state. In the latter case, growth can be reinitiated under suitable environmental conditions [33]. Heating the mycelium deactivates the strain from reinitiation and stops its growth permanently. In addition to the deactivation of the cell, heating also helps to detoxify the strain in case the strain is toxic. Figure 2 shows the major process flowchart for the production of mycelium-based materials.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Flowchart showing production of mycelium-based composite (adopted from [28]).

Table 3 shows the comparative study of mycelium-based block with the conventional one in terms of density, strength, cost, recyclability, and persistency. The mycelium-based composites are shown to be of low dense and low cost, recyclable, and can be made with locally available raw materials.

Table 3.

Comparison of MBB in cost, strength, density, recyclability, and manufacturing method with the conventional construction materials.

Material property Mycelium-based materials Polymer materials Gypsum-based materials Cement material
Density (kg/m3) 110 ± 0.01 to 330 ± 0.05(i) 22 to 30(i,b) 417–945(c) 1800–1950(d)
Cost ($/kg) 0.07–0.17(h) 2.1–2.3(h) 1.4–11(h)
Cost ($/m3) 19.05(e) 942.86(i)
Compressive strength (kPa) 360 ± 5 to 520 ± 8(m) 69–400(l) 60–550(c) 3450(k)
Water absorption (%) 200(b) 6.9(a) 52(f) 12(k)
Recyclability Fully degradable(h) Decades, century(h) Years, decades(h) None(g)
Raw materials Mycelium and organic wastes or substrates(i) Polymers and natural gases(a) Adhesives, sawdust, and chips(j) Cement and sand(k)
Manufacturing process Molding and growing(i) Polymerization and expansion(h) Lathing, pressing, resin infusion, and milling(h) Mixing, molding, and curing(k)

a[32], b[85], c[86], d[49], e[87], f[7], g[13], h[4], i[88], j[89], k[47], and l[69].

3.1. Factors Affecting Mycelium-Based Materials

Different factors can affect the quality of MBm including strain type [44], substrate type [4], mycelium growth condition, incubation time [74], additive used [8], fabrication method [60,63], and types of inoculum used [65]. Better growth of mycelium on the substrates provides a higher compressive strength of MBm. An increase in the incubation period and pressing time also affects the strength of the materials. Most authors agreed that heat press can increase the tensile strength and elasticity of the MBm [63].

The length of the incubation period affects the quality of the composite materials. The density of fungal-based composites increased as the incubation period increased from 195 kg/m3 to 280 kg/m3 [52]. That might be due to the fact that the voids between the fibers are filled as the mycelium continues to grow and the substrate is bonded more strongly together which in turn increases the density [28]. Similarly, longer inoculation time increased mycelium composition such as chitin [71], which positively affects the compressive strength of the materials [65]. On the other hand, an extensive incubation period leads to complete degradation of the feeding substrate, which causes a decrease in compressive strength [28, 72]. The extensive growth period of sawdust above 4 weeks resulted in decreased material strength [72]. The main reason behind this might be the physical nature of the substrate [30] and its chemical contents [8].

Substrate type and strain type are also the other factors affecting the quality of the composite. The composite made from sawdust was the lowest of all substrates in water absorption capacity, and coffee husk was the highest which is strongly related to mycelium development and the density of the materials [32]. It is might due to substrate composition and substrate size [4].

The maximum density and compressive strength of MBB made from sawdust composites were 280 kg/m3 and 570 kPa, with 200% water absorption [32]. MBB made from mycelium and sawdust has higher compressive strength and density than bagasse [4]. The same author reported that the lower strength and density of bagasse as compared to sawdust were due to the fact that it has maximum substrate size and low mycelium penetration. Heat application during the fabrication method could increase the density and compressive strength of MBB by 2-3 folds than cold press [33, 90]. In addition, the quality of the mycelium-based composite is affected by the homogeneity of particle size and composition of raw materials [91]. The authors conclude that mycelium contains vitamin and mineral enzymes that grow well on the substrate which strongly influence the composite strength [91].

3.2. The Future Projection

It is mandatory to shift our economy to biomaterials to live in a sustainable environment. Further study is needed to improve the physicochemical quality of the mycelium composite. Compressive strength, density, and hydrophobicity of composite could be improved through heat application and genetic modification. Gene modification can be done through gene deletion or transformation. Furthermore, alterations in growth conditions such as light and CO2 levels affect hyphal density and performance, suggesting that these alterations can be used to tailor mycelium material traits. Some alkaline fungi strain can produce their own calcium carbonate and be used for self-healing of building cracks and bioconcrete. Gene transformation of such calcite-producing strain to composite-forming fungi can enhance the quality of the composite. In addition, the main concern of using composite in the construction sector is its poor water absorption. It can be improved by coating water-resistant materials.

4. Conclusions

The current review explores the potential of fungi-based materials in the construction sector. The composite made of fungal mycelium and the organic substrate is emission-free, nontoxic, low cost, and recyclable. Most researchers agree that fungal species belonging to the phylum Basidiomycota such as Pleurotus ostreatus and Ganoderma lucidum show better results in composite production. These species have thick mycelium, grow easily on the locally available substrate, and have high ability of cellulose degradation. Mycelium-based composite is mainly used for packaging, thermal insulation, and other different furniture. This composite shows excellent thermal stability, hydrophobic properties, and mechanical strength that can replace conventional construction materials which are nonbiodegradable, high emission, and high cost. Factors affecting the physicochemical property of the composite include type of substrate and strain, incubation time, and fabrication process.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all who had been instrumental in the creation of this review article.

Data Availability

All data presented or analyzed during this study are included within this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Hoornweg D., Bhada-Tata P. Urban development series; knowledge papers . Vol. 15. Washington DC, USA: World Bank; 2012. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management.10986 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chattopadhyay S., Dutta A., Ray S. Municipal solid waste management in Kolkata, India-a review. Waste Management . 2009;29(4):1449–1458. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Abdel-Shafy H. I., Mansour M. S. M. Solid waste issue: sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum . 2018;27(4):1275–1290. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Joshi K., Meher M. K., Poluri K. M. Fabrication and characterization of bioblocks from agricultural waste using fungal mycelium for renewable and sustainable applications. ACS Applied Bio Materials . 2020;3(4):1884–1892. doi: 10.1021/acsabm.9b01047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights . New York, NY, USA: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Peñaloza D. The Role of Biobased Building Materials in the Climate Impacts of Construction: Effects of Increased Use of Biobased Materials in the Swedish Building Sector . Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Italia H., Patel I., Shah J. Experimental study of bacterial self-healing effect on concrete. A Review . 2016;3(1):78–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ghazvinian A., Farrokhsiar P., Vieira F., Pecchia J., Gursoy B. Mycelium-Based Bio-Composites for Architecture: Assessing the Effects of Cultivation Factors on Compressive Strength, the eCAADe and SIGraDi Conference . Porto, Portugal: University of Porto; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maximino J., Ongpeng C., Inciong E., Sendo V., Soliman C., Siggaoat A. Using waste in producing bio-composite mycelium bricks. Applied Sciences . 2020;10(15):p. 5303. doi: 10.3390/app10155303. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Travaglini S., Dharan C., Ross P. Mycology matrix sandwich composites flexural characterization. Proceedings of the 16th US-Japan Conference on Composite Materials; 2014; La Jolla, CA, USA. pp. 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Elkhateeb W. A., Daba G. M. The amazing potential of fungi in human life. ARC Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences . 2019;5(3):12–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Heisel F., Schlesier K., Lee J., et al. Design of a load-bearing mycelium structure through informed structural engineering. Proceedings of the World Conference on Sustainable Technologies; 2017; Cambridge, MA, USA. pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jones M., Mautner A., Luenco S., Bismarck A., John S. Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: a critical review. Materials & Design . 2020;187 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108397.108397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zou D., Gao L. Preparation and properties of fungal mycelium based on garden waste. Science Discovery . 2020;8(2):p. 43. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.20200802.14. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wasim J., Nine A. Climate Change and Low Carbon Emission Green Building . Dhaka, Bangladesh: Greenie, Civil Engineering Fest, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST); 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sagheb A., Vafaeihosseini E., Ramancharla P. K. The role of building construction materials on global warming: lessons for architects. Proceedings of the National Conference on Recent Trends in Civil Mechanical Engineering; 2011; Hyderabad, India. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pavia R., Caldas L., Dias R., Filho T. Role of Bio-Based Building Materials in Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: PBMC, COPPE-UFRJ; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Truitt P. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector . Washington, DC, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Siddique R., Singh K., Kunal M., Singh M., Corinaldesi V. Properties of bacterial rice husk ash concrete. Construction and Building Materials . 2016;121:112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Petkar S. 2014. Environmental impact of construction materials and practices. PhD dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karthik C., Rao R. M. Properties of bacterial-based self-healing concrete-A review. International Journal of ChemTech Research . 2016;9(2):182–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Radhakrishna P., Kumar K., Venugopal K., Vinod S. Characteristics of Alternative building materials. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Food Nutrition and Civil Engineering (ICFNCE’2015); March 2015; Dubai, UAE. pp. 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mpakati-Gama E., Wamuziri S., Sloan B. The use of alternative building materials in developing countries: addressing challenges faced by stakeholders. Proceedings of the World Construction Conference; May 2012; West Lafayette, IN, USA. pp. 266–275. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sydor M., Bonenberg A., Doczekalska B., Cofta G. Mycelium-based composites in art, architecture, and interior design: a review. Polymers . 2022;14:p. 145. doi: 10.3390/polym14010145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dougoud M. Mycelium Infrastructures for Impermanent Futures . Washington D.C., USA: Research Works Archive; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Krivanek S. Fungal Mycelium; the Key to a Sustainable Future . Lincoln, NE, USA: University of Nebraska; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ivanov V., Chu J., Stabnikov V. Basics of Construction Microbial Biotechnology. Biotechnologies and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering . 2015:21–56. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09287-4_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Elsacker E., Vandelook S., Van Wylick A., Ruytinx J., De Laet L., Peeters E. A comprehensive framework for the production of mycelium-based lignocellulosic composites. The Science of the Total Environment . 2020;725 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138431.138431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Xing Y., Brewer M., El-Gharabawy H., Griffith G., Jones P. Growing and testing mycelium bricks as building insulation materials. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science . 2018 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/121/2/022032.022032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Attias N., Danai O., Ezov N., Tarazi E., Grobman Y. J. Developing novel applications of mycelium based bio-composite materials for design and architecture. Proceedings of the Building with Biobased Materials: Best practice and Performance Specification; September 2017; Zagreb, Croatia. pp. 76–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Menon R. R., Luo J., Chen X., et al. Screening of fungi for potential application of self-healing concrete. Scientific Reports . 2019;9(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39156-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Attias N., Danai O., Abitbol T., et al. Mycelium bio-composites in industrial design and architecture: comparative review and experimental analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2020;246 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119037.119037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Appels F. V., Wösten H. A. Mycelium Materials, Encyclopedia of Mycology . 2021;2:710–718. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Konwarh R., Palanisamy S. B., Jogi P. K. A mini review on prospects and challenges of harnessing fungi for concrete-crack healing. Material Science Research India . 2020;17(2):117–128. doi: 10.13005/msri/170204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sun W., Tajvidi M., Howell C., Hunt C. G. Functionality of surface mycelium interfaces in wood bonding. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces . 2020 doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c18165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Holt G., Mcintyre G., Flagg D., Bayer E., Wanjura J., Pelletier M. Fungal mycelium and cotton plant materials in the manufacture of biodegradable molded packaging material: evaluation study of select blends of cotton byproducts. Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy . 2012;6(4):431–439. doi: 10.1166/jbmb.2012.1241. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jonkers H. M., Schlangen E. A two component bacteria-based self-healing concrete. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting; November 2008; Cape Town, South Africa. pp. 119–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Samudre M. P., Mangulkar M., Saptarshi S. A review of emerging way to enhance the durability and strength of concrete structures: microbial concrete. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology . 2014;3(2):9311–9316. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chang I., Jeon M., Cho G.-C. Application of microbial biopolymers as an alternative construction binder for earth buildings in underdeveloped countries. International Journal of Polymer Science . 2015;2015:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2015/326745. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Seifan M., Samani A. K., Berenjian A. Bioconcrete: next generation of self-healing concrete. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology . 2016;100(6):2591–2602. doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7316-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mondal S., Ghosh A. Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies: Resilience and Sustainability of Infrastructure . Reston, VA, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2018. Microbial concrete as a sustainable option for infrastructural development in emerging economies. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ghodke P., Mote S. The self-healing concrete–a review. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology . 2018;11(1):29–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bashir J., Kathwari I., Tiwary A., Singh K. Bio concrete-the self-healing concrete. Indian Journal of Science and Technology . 2016;9(47):1–5. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i1/105252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tacer-Caba Z., Varis J. J., Lankinen P., Mikkonen K. S. Comparison of novel fungal mycelia strains and sustainable growth substrates to produce humidity-resistant biocomposites. Materials & Design . 2020;192 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108728.108728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Vallas T., Courard L. Using nature in architecture: building a living house with mycelium and trees. Frontiers of Architectural Research . 2017;6(3):318–328. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2017.05.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Vidholdová Z., Kormúthová D., Iždinský J., Lagaňa R. Compressive resistance of the mycelium composite. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Forestry and Wood Technology . 2018;107:31–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yang Z., Zhang F., Still B., White M., Amstislavski P. Physical and mechanical properties of fungal mycelium-based biofoam. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering . 2017;29(7) doi: 10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001866.04017030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Indrajeet M., Rathi M. A. Production of Mycelium Bricks, International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology . 2018;3(4):484–513. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.van Empelen J. C. A Study into More Sustainable, Alternative Building Materials as A Substitute for Concrete in Tropical Climates . Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2018. pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kumarappan N., Sudharsan P., Hubert C. A comparative analysis of bacteria made bio brick and conventional brick. International Journal of Chem Tech Research . 2018;11(2):132–136. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Rathore H., Prasad S., Kapri M., Tiwari A., Sharma S. Medicinal importance of mushroom mycelium: mechanisms and applications. Journal of Functional Foods . 2019;56:182–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2019.03.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ayele A., Haile S., Alemu D., Kamaraj M. Comparative utilization of dead and live fungal biomass for the removal of heavy metal: a concise review. The Scientific World Journal . 2021 doi: 10.1155/2021/5588111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ayele A., Haile S., Alemu D., Tesfaye T., Kamaraj M. Mycoremediation: Fungal-Based Technology for Biosorption of Heavy Metals–A Review, Strategies and Tools for Pollutant Mitigation: Avenues to a Cleaner Environment . Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Dhankhar R., Hooda A. Fungal biosorption–an alternative to meet the challenges of heavy metal pollution in aqueous solutions. Environmental technology . 2011;32(5):467–491. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2011.572922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Neffa. Growing the Future of Fashion . 2020. https://neffa.nl/ [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ecovative Design . 2020. https://ecovativedesign.com/ [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mogu. Radical by Nature . 2020. https://mogu.bio . [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Jacewicz N. Making Furniture from Fungi - Scientific American Blog Network . 2015. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/making-furniture-from-fungi/ [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Luo J., Chen X., Crump J., et al. Interactions of fungi with concrete: significant importance for bio-based self-healing concrete. Construction and Building Materials . 2018;164:275–285. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Javadian A., Le Ferrand H., Hebel D., Saeidi N. Application of mycelium-bound composite materials in construction industry: a short review. SOJ Materials Science & Engineering . 2020;7(1):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yang K. Investigations of Mycelium as a Low-Carbon Building Material . New Hampshire: Dissertation, Thayer School of Engineering Dartmouth College Hanover; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Flagel J. Mycelium: Using Mushrooms to Make Packaging Materials . Munich, Germany: Matmatch; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Appels F. V. W. The Use of Fungal Mycelium for the Production of Bio-Based Materials . Utrecht, Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gauvin F., Vette I. J. Characterization of Mycelium-Based Composites as Foam-like Wall Insulation Material . Eindhoven, Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Girometta C., Picco A. M., Baiguera R. M., et al. Physico-mechanical and thermodynamic properties of mycelium-based biocomposites: a review. Sustainability . 2019;11(1):p. 281. doi: 10.3390/su11010281. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lelivelt R., Lindner G., Teuffel P., Lamers H. The production process and compressive strength of mycelium-based materials. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bio-Based Building Materials; June 2015; Clermont-Ferrand, France. pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lelivelt R., Lindner G., Teuffel P., Lamers H. U.S.D. SD, the Mechanical Possibilities of Mycelium Materials . Eindhoven, Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e); 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Etinosa O. P. Design and Testing of Mycelium Biocomposite . Abuja, Nigeria, PhD Thesis: African University of Science and Technology Research; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zimele Z., Irbe I., Grinins J., Bikovens O., Verovkins A., Bajare D. Novel mycelium-based biocomposites (MBB) as building materials. Journal of Renewable Materials . 2020;8(9):1067–1076. doi: 10.32604/jrm.2020.09646. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Li Y., Pickering K. The effect of chelator and white rot fungi treatments on long hemp fibre-reinforced composites. Composites Science and Technology . 2009;69(7-8):1265–1270. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.02.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Shakir M. A., Azahari B., Yusup Y., Yhaya M. F., Salehabadi A., Ahmad M. I. Preparation and characterization of mycelium as a bio-matrix in fabrication of bio-composite. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences . 2020;65(2):253–263. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Matos M. P., Teixeira J. L., Nascimento B. L., Griza S., Holanda F. S. R., Marino R. H. Production of biocomposites from the reuse of coconut powder colonized by Shiitake mushroom. Ciencia E Agrotecnologia . 2019;43 doi: 10.1590/1413-7054201943003819. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Santhosh B., Bhavana D., Rakesh M. Mycelium composites: an emerging green building material. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology . 2018;5:3066–3068. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Haneef M., Ceseracciu L., Canale C., Bayer I. S., Heredia-Guerrero J. A., Athanassiou A. Advanced materials from fungal mycelium: fabrication and tuning of physical properties. Scientific Reports . 2017;7(1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/srep41292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Teixeira J. L., Matos M. P., Nascimento B. L., Griza S., Holanda F. S. R., Marino R. H. Production and mechanical evaluation of biodegradable composites by white rot fungi. Ciencia E Agrotecnologia . 2018;42(6):676–684. doi: 10.1590/1413-70542018426022318. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Liu R., Li X., Long L., Sheng Y., Xu J., Wang Y. Improvement of mechanical properties of mycelium/cotton stalk composites by water immersion. Composite Interfaces . 2020;27(10):953–966. doi: 10.1080/09276440.2020.1716573. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Silverman J., Cao H., Cobb K. Development of mushroom mycelium composites for footwear products. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal . 2020;38(2):119–133. doi: 10.1177/0887302x19890006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Colmo C., Ayres P. 3d printed Bio-hybrid structures-Investigating the architectural potentials of mycoremediation. Proceedings of the 38th eCAADe Conference; September 2020; Berlin, Germany. pp. 573–582. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Dahmen J. Mushroom Furniture . Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Pavlík M., Pavlík Š. Wood decomposition activity of oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) isolate in situ. Journal of Forest Science . 2013;59(1):28–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Butu A., Rodino S., Miu B., Butu M. Mycelium-based materials for the ecodesign of bioeconomy. Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures . 2020;15(4):1129–1140. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Sánchez C. Cultivation of Pleurotus ostreatus and other edible mushrooms. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology . 2010;85(5):1321–1337. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2343-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Stamets P. Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms . Berkeley, CA, USA: Ten Speed Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Jones M., Bhat T., Kandare E., et al. Thermal degradation and fire properties of fungal mycelium and mycelium-biomass composite materials. Scientific Reports . 2018;8(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36032-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Cai X., Ren R., Zhang M., Jin X., Zhao Q. Preparation of nitrogen-containing activated carbon from waste medium density fiberboard for electric double layer capacitor. Bioresources . 2015;10(3):5573–5585. doi: 10.15376/biores.10.3.5586-5595. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Elahi T. E., Shahriar A. R., Islam M. S. Engineering characteristics of compressed earth blocks stabilized with cement and fly ash. Construction and Building Materials . 2021;277 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122367.122367 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Feldman D., Banu D., Hawes D., Ghanbari E. Obtaining an energy storing building material by direct incorporation of an organic phase change material in gypsum wallboard. Solar Energy Materials . 1991;22(2–3):231–242. doi: 10.1016/0165-1633(91)90021-c. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Mirski R., Dukarska D., Derkowski A., Czarnecki R., Dziurka D. By-products of sawmill industry as raw materials for manufacture of chip-sawdust boards. Journal of Building Engineering . 2020;32 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101460.101460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Nurain Izzati M. Y., Suraya Hani A., Shahiron S., et al. Strength and water absorption properties of lightweight concrete brick. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering . 2019;513(1) doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/513/1/012005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Appels F. V., Camere S., Montalti M., et al. Fabrication factors influencing mechanical, moisture-and water-related properties of mycelium-based composites. Materials & Design . 2019;161:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Mardijanti D. S., Megantara E. N., Bahtiar A., Sunardi S. Turning the cocopith waste into myceliated biocomposite to make an insulator. International Journal of Biomaterials . 2021 doi: 10.1155/2021/6630657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented or analyzed during this study are included within this article.


Articles from International Journal of Biomaterials are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES