Next Article in Journal
Metabolomic Profiling and Biological Investigation of the Marine Sponge-Derived Fungus Aspergillus sp. SYPUF29 in Response to NO Condition
Next Article in Special Issue
The Application of Fungi and Their Secondary Metabolites in Aquaculture
Previous Article in Journal
Epidemiology of Onychomycosis in the United States Characterized Using Molecular Methods, 2015–2024
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Light on the Fruiting Body Color and Differentially Expressed Genes in Flammulina velutipes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/jof10090634
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Mycelium Composite Boards Made from Lentinus sajor-caju with Various Ratios of Corn Husk and Sawdust

by
Praween Jinanukul
1,
Jaturong Kumla
2,3,4,
Worawoot Aiduang
2,3,
Wandee Thamjaree
5,
Rawiwan Oranratmanee
1,
Umpiga Shummadtayar
1,
Yuttana Tongtuam
1,
Saisamorn Lumyong
3,4,6,
Nakarin Suwannarach
2,3,4,* and
Tanut Waroonkun
1,*
1
Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2
Office of Research Administration, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
4
Center of Excellence in Microbial Diversity and Sustainable Utilization, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
5
Department of Physics and Materials Science, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
6
Academy of Science, The Royal Society of Thailand, Bangkok 10300, Thailand
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2024, 10(9), 634; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10090634
Submission received: 29 July 2024 / Revised: 29 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 5 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Biotechnology and Application 3.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mycelium-based composites (MBCs) exhibit varied properties as alternative biodegradable materials that can be used in various industries such as construction, furniture, household goods, and packaging. However, these properties are primarily influenced by the type of substrate used. This study aims to investigate the properties of MBCs produced from Lentinus sajor-caju strain CMU-NK0427 using different ratios of sawdust to corn husk in the development of mycelium composite boards (MCBs) with thicknesses of 8, 16, and 24 mm. The results indicate that variations in the ratios of corn husk to sawdust and thickness affected the mechanical and physical properties of the obtained MCBs. Reducing the corn husk content in the substrate increased the modulus of elasticity, density, and thermal conductivity, while increasing the corn husk content increased the bending strength, shrinkage, water absorption, and volumetric swelling. Additionally, an increase in thickness with the same substrate ratio only indicated an increase in density and shrinkage. MCBs have sound absorption properties ranging from 61 to 94% at a frequency of 1000 Hz. According to the correlation results, a reduction in corn husk content in the substrate has a significant positive effect on the reduction in bending strength, shrinkage, and water absorption in MCBs. However, a decrease in corn husk content shows a strong negative correlation with the increase in the modulus of elasticity, density, and thermal conductivity. The thickness of MCBs with the same substrate ratio only shows a significant negative correlation with the modulus of elasticity and bending strength. Compared to commercial boards, the mechanical (bending strength) and physical (density, thermal conductivity, and sound absorption) properties of MCBs made from a 100% corn husk ratio are most similar to those of softboards and acoustic boards. The results of this study can provide valuable information for the production of MCBs and will serve as a guide to enhance strategies for further improving their properties for commercial manufacturing, as well as fulfilling the long-term goal of eco-friendly recycling of lignocellulosic substrates.

1. Introduction

A current issue with synthetic materials, including cement, concrete, and polymers, is their environmental impact, particularly their contribution to pollution problems [1,2,3]. These materials are incapable of deterioration and take hundreds of years to degrade, causing them to accumulate in landfills, oceans, and the natural environment [4,5]. Furthermore, the production of synthetic materials frequently requires complex equipment, high costs for raw materials, processing, and product development, as well as high energy consumption during production [6,7,8]. Consequently, a worldwide campaign has been established to create and use more sustainable materials and technologies [7,9,10]. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in lignocellulose-based composites due to their renewable and biodegradable materials, which often renders them more environmentally friendly compared to synthetic materials [11,12]. However, the widespread use of formaldehyde-based resins as adhesives for bonding lignocellulose-based composites limits the advancement of fully natural composite materials. Furthermore, formaldehyde emissions from these products are classified as carcinogenic and harmful to human health [13,14,15]. In response to these concerns, researchers have shifted their focus towards developing natural, ecologically sustainable alternatives to replace toxic chemicals used in lignocellulose-based materials [16,17].
One of the promising alternatives is mycelium, derived from fungi, which shows great potential as a green adhesive material, replacing synthetic adhesives in lignocellulose-based composite production and creating mycelium-based composites (MBCs) [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. MBCs represent the biological processes during the vegetative growth phase of fungal mycelium, characterized by a complex network with the unique ability to digest and adhere to organic substrate surfaces under ambient conditions, acting as a natural self-assembling adhesive [25]. Beyond its adhesive properties, mycelium exhibits structural binding characteristics by generating interconnecting fibrous threads consisting of chitin- and beta-glucan-based structural oligosaccharides. These oligosaccharides contribute to forming a robust and cohesive network within the mycelial structure [26]. This transformative process of MBCs converts lignocellulose waste into valuable resources, offering an eco-friendly alternative material [6,27,28]. Moreover, the process of MBC production is characterized by low energy consumption, low processing costs, a low carbon footprint, biodegradability, and an attractive range of properties for construction materials, board products, packaging, and foam-like materials, contributing to an overall reduction in waste and pollution [21,23,24,29,30,31]. Based on the fungal mycelial network, the monomitic hyphal system consists solely of generative hyphae. While the dimitic hyphal system forms both generative and skeletal hyphae and the trimitic hyphal system comprises three types of hyphae (generative, skeletal, and binding hyphae) [32]. MBCs made from dimitic and trimitic hyphae have higher qualities than those formed from monomitic hyphae because the skeletal and binding hyphae in these types have thicker walls, higher densities, and greater hardness [22]. Various lignocellulosic materials, particularly from the agricultural sector, including cotton, straw, sawdust, woodchips, and rice husk, have been utilized as organic substrates in the production of MBCs [6,22,23,24,25,28]. Additionally, lignocellulosic materials have been selected and used in the production of MBCs based on their availability in each country. Remarkably, the characteristics of MBCs can be directly influenced by different fungal mycelial network and substrate types [8,14,21,24,27,28,29]. In our previous study, Lentinus sajor-caju (dimitic hyphal system) was found to have a great deal of potential for developing MBCs from sawdust and corn husk [33]. However, the different ratios of sawdust to corn husk in the production process are still necessary for the development of MBCs. To date, there are no reports on MBCs made from varying ratios of corn husks and sawdust. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical (modulus of elasticity and bending strength) and physical properties (density, shrinkage, water absorption, volumetric swelling, thermal conductivity, and sound absorption) of mycelium composite boards (MCBs) produced from L. sajor-caju using different ratios of sawdust to corn husk. The information obtained from this study can be valuable for developing MBCs as a type of bio-board with properties suitable for environmentally friendly architecture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Fungal Strain

The pure culture of L. sajor-caju strain CMU-NK0427 was obtained from the Culture Collection of the Center of Excellence in Microbial Diversity and Sustainable Utilization, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, and used in this study. This fungus was cultured on potato dextrose agar (PDA, Conda, Madrid, Spain) and incubated at 30 °C.

2.2. Sources of Substrate and Preparation

Two different types of wood and agricultural residues, namely rubber tree sawdust and corn husk, were used as substrates for the present study. These residues were from a sawmill and agricultural regions situated in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. Both substrates were dried at 60 °C in an oven for 72 h. Subsequently, each substrate was then ground in a woodchipper and sieved. Particles ranging in size from 5 to 20 mm were collected and used.

2.3. Preparation of Mycelial Inoculum

The mycelial inoculum was prepared using sorghum seeds as a nutrient source. Initially, sorghum seeds were boiled for 20 min and then cooled. Subsequently, 100 g of boiled grains was placed in a glass bottle with a cotton swab inserted. The bottle was autoclaved at 121 °C for 20 min and then gradually cooled at room temperature over 24 h. Following this process, mycelial plugs (1 × 1 cm) obtained from pure culture of L. sajor-caju on PDA were transferred to a 325 mL glass bottle (5 plugs per bottle). After that, the inoculated bottle was incubated for two weeks at 30 °C to allow the sorghum seeds to be completely covered with mycelium for use as an inoculum.

2.4. Preparation of MBCs

The preparation of MBCs in this study followed the methods of Aiduang et al. [33]. Five different ratios based on the dry weight of corn husk and sawdust were designed in this study, including 100% corn husk, 75% corn husk with 25% sawdust, 50% corn husk with 50% sawdust, 25% corn husk with 75% sawdust, and 100% sawdust. Each mixed substrate was added with 5% rice bran, 1% calcium carbonate, 2% calcium sulfate, and 0.2% sodium sulfate. The moisture content of each mixed substrate was adjusted at 60% relative humidity by adding water. Then, 500 g of each mixed substrate was carefully placed in a polypropylene bag with dimensions of 3.5 inches in width and 12.5 inches in length. The bag was securely sealed. These sealed bags were then inserted into polyvinyl chloride rings and covered with paper before being subjected to autoclaving at 121 °C for 60 min. After autoclaving, a cooling period of 24 h at room temperature was allowed. Five grams of mycelial inoculum was inoculated onto the top of the substrate of each bag. The inoculated bags were incubated at 30 °C and fungal mycelia were observed to completely cover the substrate after 35 days of incubation.

2.5. Preparation of MCB Molds

The molds used in MCB production were meticulously fabricated from acrylic sheets with dimensions of 410 mm × 570 mm, featuring a side margin of 20 mm, resulting in MCB specimens with sizes of 370 mm × 530 mm. The MCBs were then cut to standard sizes for testing material properties. It is important to note that the molds have varying thicknesses, mirroring the diversity observed in current board materials. For this study, three representative thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm were intentionally selected to assess the influence of mycelium board thicknesses on its properties.

2.6. MCB Production

The substrate covered by fungal mycelia inside the bags were carefully transferred to designated molds corresponding to each thickness. A total of 800, 1600, and 2400 g were used for 8, 16, and 24 mm thick molds, respectively. Then, cold pressing was conducted using a press (Shop press ZX0901 E–1, New Taipei, Taiwan). The pressing process involved exerting a controlled force of 2 MPa for a precise duration of 10 min. Following cold pressing, the molds underwent incubation at 30 °C for a period of three weeks to allow further development of the samples. Then, specimens were removed and incubated for another 7 days. Subsequently, the samples were carefully transferred to an oven at 70 °C to dry completely for 72 h. The scheme for the MCB production process in this study is shown in Figure 1.

2.7. Specimen Preparation for Determination of Mechanical and Physical Properties

Each MBC, with varying substrate ratios and thicknesses (Figure 2A), was cut into specimens for testing mechanical and physical properties (Table 1). Three specimens were used for testing each property. Specimens for testing the modulus of elasticity (MOE) and bending strength (BS) were cut to a width of 50 mm and a length of 530 mm, as shown in Figure 2B. Specimens for testing density, water absorption, swelling thickness, and thermal conductivity were cut to a width and length of 50 mm, as shown in Figure 2C. Additionally, specimens for measuring the sound absorption coefficient were cut to a diameter of 50 mm, as shown in Figure 2D. Note that specimens for measuring thermal conductivity and sound absorption coefficient were cut from an MCB with a thickness of 24 mm due to limitations with the testing equipment. The material properties were examined at the Science and Technology Service Center and the Department of Physics and Materials Science, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

2.8. Determination of Mechanical Properties

2.8.1. Modulus of Elasticity

The testing procedure was conducted utilizing a universal testing machine employing the centralized concentration loading method, as outlined in BS EN 310:1993 [34,35]. The modulus of elasticity (MOE) was determined using the formula [l13 (F2 − F1)]/4 bt3 (a2 − a1), where (F2 − F1) represents the increased load applied along the linear segment of the load–deflection curve, measured in newtons (N). ‘F1’ corresponds to approximately 10% of the maximum load, while ‘F2’ corresponds to approximately 40% of the maximum load. The width of the specimen (‘b’) and its thickness (‘t’) are measured in millimeters (mm), and ‘a2 − a1’ denotes the deflection of the specimen at mid-span. The MOE is expressed in units of MPa.

2.8.2. Bending Strength

The experiments were conducted using a universal testing machine based on the centralized concentration loading method, enabling the evaluation of bending strength (BS) [36,37]. The formula for BS is derived from (3Fmaxl1)/(2 bt2) according to BS EN 310:1993, where ‘Fmax’ denotes the maximum load measured in newtons (N), ‘l1’ refers to the distance between the centers of the supports measured in millimeters (mm), ‘b’ represents the width of the specimen in millimeters (mm), and ‘t’ indicates the thickness of the specimen. The BS test yields resulted in units of MPa.

2.9. Determination of Physical Properties

2.9.1. Density

Density tests were conducted on the MBCs to determine the mean density associated with each specific board type. The testing procedure strictly adhered to the guidelines stipulated in the British code of standards, specifically BS EN 323 [36,38]. The equation of density (kg/m3) = M/V, where W = the mass of the specimen (kg) and V = the volume of the specimen (m3).

2.9.2. Shrinkage

The shrinkage of each specimen was assessed and computed using wet and dry volumes, following the procedure outlined by Elsacker et al. [20]. This reduction was quantified as a shrinkage percentage (%), calculated as follows: Shrinkage (%) = [(V1 − V2)/V1] × 100, where V1 represents the wet volume of the specimen (m3) and V2 is the dry volume of the specimen (m3).

2.9.3. Water Absorption

Water absorption tests followed the ASTM D1037:2002 standard [37,39]. The specimens were dried at 70 °C until achieving a stable mass. Following this, the initial mass of each specimen was precisely measured to ensure data accuracy. After measurement, the specimens were submerged in deionized water for a total duration of 84 h, with weight measurements taken at precise time intervals of 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 h. Water absorption (%) was calculated using the formula (W − D) × 100)/D, where W represents the wet mass (kg) and D represents the dry mass (kg) [40].

2.9.4. Volumetric Swelling

The determination of volumetric swelling of MCB specimens followed the protocols of the ASTM D1037:2002 standard [37]. Initial sizing (width × length × thickness) measurements (TI) were accurately recorded using a vernier caliper. Subsequently, the samples underwent immersion in water for designated durations of 84 h, respectively. Post-immersion, the final sizing (Tf) of each sample was measured and documented. The percentage of size change by each sample was calculated using the equation for volumetric swelling: (Tf − Ti) × 100/Ti, where Tf represents the final volume (m3) and Ti denotes the initial volume (m3) [41].

2.9.5. Thermal Conductivity

Thermal conductivity in this study was conducted following ISO 22007-2:2022 [41,42]. The measurement was conducted at room temperature employing the hot wire technique utilizing the Transient Hot Bridge apparatus (LINSEIS, THB-1). Two specimens were measured, with a sensor probe positioned between their surfaces in a sandwich setup configuration [43].

2.9.6. Sound Absorption Coefficient

The sound absorption coefficient in this study was quantified following the established protocols delineated in ISO 10534-2 [44], employing a Kundt’s tube apparatus [45,46]. Measurements were conducted at discrete frequencies of 250, 500, and 1000 Hz, and outcomes were represented as a percentage.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained from each experiment were analyzed through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the SPSS program, v22, for Windows. Subsequently, Duncan’s multiple range test was utilized to ascertain significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among the mean values. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for the ratio of substrate and thickness with the properties of MCBs were analyzed using the SPSS program at a significance level of p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Mechanical Properties of MCBs

3.1.1. Modulus of Elasticity

The MOE values obtained in 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm thick specimens ranged from 5.44 to 7.88 MPa, 0.75 to 2.36 MPa, and 0.17 to 0.77 MPa, respectively (Figure 3A). According to our results, the MOE values ranged from 0.17 to 7.88 MPa and fell within the previously documented ranges of MOE values observed in MBCs (0.14 to 97.00 MPa) [20,22,31,46]. The results showed that the different ratios of corn husks to sawdust affected the MOE value. An increase in the ratio of sawdust led to an increase in the MOE value for each thickness. These outcomes were consistent with previous studies showing that the type of lignocellulosic residues and the ratio mixture used in the bio-fabrication of MBCs affect their modulus of elasticity [20,22,31,46]. Results showed that there was no significant difference in the MOE values of 8C25S75 and 8C0S100 specimens. Furthermore, the MOE value decreased as MBC thickness increased (Figure 3A). The maximum MOE value for the same substrate ratio was found at a thickness of 8 mm, followed by 16 mm and 24 mm. This result was supported by previous studies that found the elastic modulus of the material increases with decreasing thickness [47,48].
Kuznetsova et al. [49] found that an increase in the thickness of mycelial films made from Ganoderma lucidum and Pleurotus eryngii was associated with decreased MOE values. Additionally, Appels et al. [22] explained that thinner MBCs have a higher distribution and density of mycelial networks per unit volume compared to thicker MBCs, which enhances the material’s stiffness and resistance to deformation, contributing to a higher elastic modulus. According to the Pearson correlation (p < 0.05), the MOE value showed a significant strong negative correlation with a decreasing in the ratio of corn husk at the same thickness (r = −0.937 to −0.772, p < 0.001) (Table 2). This indicates that lower corn husk content is associated with a higher MOE value. The MOE value also showed a significant negative correlation with an increase in thickness at the same substrate ratio (r = −0.929 to −0.898, p < 0.001) (Table 3). Appels et al. [22] also found that the hot-pressing process increased the MOE value compared to the cold-pressing process.

3.1.2. Bending Strength

The BS values of specimens obtained in this study are shown in Figure 3B. The BS values were 0.38 to 1.26 MPa, 0.16 to 0.41 MPa, and 0.13 to 0.17 MPa for specimens with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. When compared to previous studies, the BS values from this study (0.13 to 1.26 MPa) fall within the reported range of 0.07 to 4.40 MPa [6,22,50,51,52]. The results revealed that the different ratios of corn husks to sawdust affected the BS value, and an increase in the ratio of sawdust led to a decrease in the BS value for each thickness. The highest BS values of the obtained MCB in this study was discovered in the MCB made from 100% corn husk in each thickness. In contrast, the 100% sawdust MCBs had the lowest bending strength. Similarly, numerous previous studies have demonstrated that the flexural strength of MBCs was influenced by the type of substrate, type of mycelia network, and pressing method [22,53]. Generally, bending strength is influenced by the proportion of lignin and cellulose in the substrate. The proportion of lignin and cellulose in rubber tree sawdust ranges from 0.86 to 1.35, which is higher than in corn husks, which ranges from 0.22 to 0.33 [54,55,56,57]. Previous studies have found that substrates with a higher ratio of lignin and cellulose exhibit lower bending strength [58,59]. Similarly, this study found that MCBs made from substrates with increasing sawdust content showed a higher ratio of lignin to cellulose, which resulted in reduced bending strength. Furthermore, L. sajor-caju is a white-rot fungus that primarily breaks down lignin in its growing substrate [60]. This may enhance lignin degradation and lead to a higher cellulose content in the substrate, which is also associated with increased bending strength. In this study, the bending strength (BS) value showed a significant positive correlation with a decrease in the ratio of corn husks at the same thickness (r = 0.764 to 0.977, p < 0.001) (Table 2), indicating that lower corn husk content is associated with a lower BS value. A strong negative correlation between the BS value and an increase in thickness at the same substrate ratio (r = −0.957 to −0.919, p < 0.001) was observed, according to Pearson correlation analysis (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

3.2. Physical Properties of MCBs

3.2.1. Density

The density of the MCBs in this study is displayed in Figure 4A. The results exhibited that the obtained density value varied according to the ratio of substrates used. The highest density was found in the MCB made from 100% sawdust in each thickness. The findings indicated that the decrease in MCB density varied with the increase in the amount of corn husk added. Density values in this investigation ranged from 209.17 to 256.28 kg/m3, and were in the range of 25 to 954 kg/m3 from previous reports [15,22,57,61,62,63,64,65]. In addition, the density at the same substrate ratio increased with increasing thickness. The results are consistent with several previous studies, which reported that substrate type and ratio, substrate particles, volume fraction, and pressing process have a major impact on the density of MBCs [62,66,67].
According to the Pearson correlation (p < 0.05), the density showed a significant strong negative correlation with a decrease in the ratio of corn husks at the same thickness (r = −0.975 to −0.635, p < 0.001). This indicates that a lower corn husk content has a higher density value. It also showed a significant positive correlation with an increase in thickness at substrate ratios of 50% corn husks and 50% sawdust, 25% corn husk and 75% sawdust, and 100% sawdust (r = 0.898 to 0.929, p < 0.001) (Table 2). However, the substrate ratios of 100% corn husk (r = −0.635, p = 0.006) and 75% corn husk and 25% sawdust (r = −0.555, p = 0.120) showed a non-significant correlation with an increase in thickness (Table 3).

3.2.2. Shrinkage

Shrinkage value is an important aspect of the physical properties of MCBs, primarily resulting from the dehydration process during drying and depending on the substrate type [20,53,62,64]. According to this study, different ratios of corn husks to sawdust affected the shrinkage value, as shown in Figure 4B. MCBs produced from 100% corn husk exhibited the highest shrinkage values at each thickness, while the lowest values were observed in MCBs made from 100% sawdust. An increase in the ratio of sawdust led to a decrease in shrinkage values for each thickness. Additionally, the obtained shrinkage values ranged between 8.15% and 25.78%. Prior to this study, the shrinkage values of MBCs were reported to be in the range of 2.78% to 17% [12,20,62,65,66,67,68,69]. Remarkably, the shrinkage values obtained from ratios of 100% corn husk (23.20% to 25.78%), 75% corn husk with 25% sawdust (18.89% to 19.39%), and 50% corn husk with 50% sawdust (17.19% to 18.86%) at 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm thicknesses were higher than previously reported values. Therefore, it is crucial to select a suitable substrate in order to control the shrinkage value of MBCs. According to the Pearson correlation (p < 0.05), a decrease in the ratio of corn husks at the same thickness showed a significantly strong positive correlation with the shrinkage value (r = 0.968 to 0.992, p < 0.001 to 0.007) (Table 2). This indicates that lower corn husk content is associated with a lower shrinkage value. However, the shrinkage value did not show a significant positive correlation with thickness at the same substrate ratio (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

3.2.3. Water Absorption

The water absorption ability of the MCBs, obtained from different ratios of corn husks and sawdust and varying thicknesses, was assessed by immersing the MCB specimens in water for 84 h. The percentages of water absorption values over the period from 0 to 84 h are presented in Figure 5A–C. It was found that the water absorption ability of the MCBs made from 100% corn husks, in all thicknesses, increased over a 16 h period and slowly stabilized after 24 h. In contrast, the water absorption ability of the MCBs made from 100% sawdust increased over a period of 36 h and slowly stabilized after 48 h. Additionally, the water absorption ability of the mixture of corn husks and sawdust increased mostly over 24 h and slowly stabilized after 48 h. After 4 h, it was found that the water absorption for specimens with a 100% corn husk ratio showed the highest value, followed by specimens with a 75% corn husk and 25% sawdust ratio, a 50% corn husk and 50% sawdust ratio, and a 100% sawdust ratio. The water absorption for specimens with a 75% corn husk and 25% sawdust ratio and a 50% corn husk and 50% sawdust ratio was not significantly different over a period of 2 to 84 h. In addition, the increase in sawdust in MCBs decreased the water absorption. After 84 h, it was observed that MCBs produced from 100% corn husks displayed water absorption rates ranging between 204.01 and 256.11%, while MBCs produced from 100% sawdust exhibited water absorption rates ranging from 96.86 to 161.68%. The percentage of water absorbed by MCBs made of various sawdust and corn husk combinations ranged from 146.32 to 219.01%. The water absorption ability of MCBs in this study was within the range of 24.45 to 560%, as reported in previous studies when submerged in water for 24 to 192 h [6,20,22,23,30,33,66]. According to the results of several studies, MBCs are classified as hydrophilic materials, and the substrate type and fungal species influence their water absorption ability [20,22,23,30,33,66].
Based on the morphology of MBCs, water absorption capacity was found to correlate with the porous structure of the composites. Corn husks exhibit higher porosity compared to rubber tree sawdust [32]. Consequently, the higher ratio of corn husks used in the MCBs in this study led to increased water absorption. The water absorption capacity of MBCs is typically linked to the proportions of lignin and cellulose. Several previous studies have reported that lignin is a hydrophobic component, while cellulose is hydrophilic. Thus, a high proportion of lignin and cellulose in the substrate can decrease water absorption [32,33,70]. According to a comparison of the lignin and cellulose content of the two materials employed in this study, rubber tree sawdust has a larger lignin and cellulose proportion (0.86 to 1.35) than corn husks (0.22 to 0.33) [53,54,55,71]. As a result, MCBs with larger corn husk content have higher water absorption. Furthermore, the enhanced lignin degradation by L. sajor-caju results in a higher cellulose content in the substrate, which is associated with increased water absorption capacity. In this study, a decrease in the ratio of corn husks at the same thickness showed a significantly strong positive correlation with the water absorption ability (r = 0.973 to 0.937, p = 0.005 to 0.019) according to the Pearson correlation analysis (p < 0.05) (Table 2). This indicates that a lower corn husk content is associated with lower water absorption values. However, water absorption did not show a significant negative correlation with an increase in thickness at the same substrate ratio (r = −0.955 to −0.896, p = 0.193 to 0.210) (Table 3).

3.2.4. Volumetric Swelling

After soaking in water for 84 h, the volumetric swelling of the MCBs in this study varied from 2.63 to 19.03% (Figure 5D) and fell within the previously reported ranges of volumetric swelling observed in MBCs (0.28 to 21%) [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. The volumetric swelling rate of MCBs made from 100% corn husk was higher for all thicknesses compared to that of other MCBs. Subsequently, a decrease in corn husk ratio content in MCBs led to a reduction in volumetric swelling rate. It was found that MCBs with high water absorption also have high volumetric swelling. The outcome is in accordance with previous studies that found a direct correlation between volumetric swelling and the water absorption capability of the mycelium-based material [7,20]. In Table 2, the volumetric swelling rate showed a non-significant positive correlation (r = 0.949 to 0.943, p = 0.140 to 0.160) with a decrease in the ratio of corn husk at the same thickness. The volumetric swelling also exhibited a non-significant negative correlation with an increase in thickness at the same substrate ratio (r = −0.999 to −0.850, p = 0.220 to 0.940), as shown in Table 3.

3.2.5. Thermal Conductivity Values

Thermal conductivity is the capacity of a material to conduct or transfer heat. In this study, only the 24 mm thick specimens were used due to limitations of the testing equipment. According to our results, the thermal conductivity values ranged from 0.037 to 0.079 W/m∙K (Table 4). These obtained values were within the previously documented range of thermal conductivity values observed in MBCs, which is 0.029 to 0.124 W/m·K [20,24,72,73,74]. The results showed that variations in the ratio of corn husk to sawdust led to different thermal conductivity values. An increase in sawdust ratio in MCBs led to an increase in the thermal conductivity value. The correlation between thermal conductivity value and a reduction in corn husk content showed a significant negative effect (r = −0.921, p = 0.026) (Table 2). In this study, it was found that the thermal conductivity values of MCBs were related to density, with higher thermal conductivity values associated with higher density values. The results are consistent with several previous studies that reported that the type of substrate used in mycelium-based material production influences thermal conductivity values and is related to density [53]. Based on our previous study [32], the morphological characteristics of MBCs produced from L. sajor-caju and lignocellulosic residues (including corn husks, sawdust, and rice straw) include larger pores and a dense mycelial network. Therefore, the possible mechanisms influencing the thermal conductivity of MCBs include porosity and air pockets within the material acting as thermal insulators, as well as the potential enhancement of heat transfer by a dense mycelial network, as reported in previous studies [75,76].

3.2.6. Sound Absorption Coefficient

Sound absorption is one of the most important factors in producing suitable materials with MBCs. MCBs typically feature a porous structure due to the growth of mycelium and the presence of fibrous materials [77]. The possible mechanisms of sound absorption by MCBs include trapping sound waves within their porous structure; converting sound energy into heat through friction and viscous effects of the fibrous materials; and reducing sound intensity through disruption and scattering of sound waves by the mycelial network [78,79,80,81]. In this study, only specimens with a thickness of 24 mm were employed due to testing equipment restrictions. The percentage of sound absorption of MCBs at frequencies of 250, 500, and 1000 Hz is shown in Table 5. It was found that the percentage of sound absorption of MCBs varied with different substrate ratios used. The highest percentage of sound absorption at frequencies of 250, 500, and 1000 Hz was found in MCBs made using a 75% corn husk and 25% sawdust ratio. It was found that the percentage of sound absorption of the mixed substrate showed higher values than individual substrates, consistent with previous findings [6,20]. Moreover, the sound absorption coefficient of the substrate is influenced by substrate size and the pressing method [82]. In addition, Barta et al. [83] found that MBCs made from Ganoderma lucidum and Trametes versicolor showed different sound absorption abilities, indicating that the fungal species affects this property. Pelletier et al. [26] found that MBCs made from varied substrates (including residues of flax shive, hemp, kenaf, rice straw, sorghum stalk, and switch glass) showed 70–75% sound absorption at 1000 Hz. Interestingly, MCB specimens in this study made from pure corn husk and a mixture of corn husk with sawdust showed 84–94% sound absorption at 1000 Hz. According to the Pearson correlation (p < 0.05), a decrease in the ratio of corn husk content in MCBs showed a non-significant positive correlation with sound absorption at frequencies of 250 (r = 0.281, p = 0.647), 500 (r = 0.228, p = 0.712), and 1000 Hz (r = 0.740, p = 0.153) (Table 2). Our results suggest that the selection of substrate combination and sound frequencies should be taken into consideration when developing suitable MCBs for sound absorption materials. However, reports on the sound absorption coefficient of MBCs are limited; therefore, further studies are required.

3.3. Comparison of Properties with Commercial Boards

The properties of MCBs obtained in this study were compared to previous reports of MBCs and other commercial boards, as shown in Table 6. Based on mechanical properties, the BS values of MCBs were within the range of softboards and acoustic boards. However, the MOE values were lower than those of other conventional boards. Based on physical properties, the density values of some MCBs, including 8C0S100, 16C25S75, 16C0S100, 24C50S50, 24C25S75, and 24C0S100 in this study, fall within the density range of softboards. However, the shrinkage, water absorption, and volumetric swelling of MCBs were higher than those of other conventional boards. It was found that the thermal conductivity properties of MCBs were within the range of softboards and insulated boards. In addition, MCBs made from 100% corn husk exhibited thermal conductivity within the range of acoustic boards. According to the sound absorption coefficient, MCBs were in the range of acoustic boards, insulated boards, and softboards, with higher values than medium-density fiberboards, gypsum boards, and fiber cement boards.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated various mechanical and physical properties of MCBs derived from L. sajor-caju. The results showed that mechanical and physical properties of MCBs varied in substrate ratio and thickness. The different ratios of corn husk and sawdust showed a significant correlation with the MOE, BS, density, shrinkage, water absorption, and thermal conductivity of MCBs. The thickness of MCBs showed a significant correlation with MOE, BS, and density (with corn husk at less than 50%). It was found that the MOE (0.17–7.88 MPa), BS (0.13–1.26 MPa), density (209.17–256.08 kg/m3), water absorption (96.86–256.11%), volumetric swelling (2.63–19.03%), thermal conductivity (0.037–0.079 W/m·K), and sound absorption (61–94% at 1000 Hz) of MCBs were within the ranges reported in several previous studies. However, MCBs showed a higher shrinkage value (8.15–25.78%) compared to previous reports. Based on the mechanical (BS) and physical properties (density, thermal conductivity, and sound absorption), MCBs made from 100% corn husk are most similar to softboard and acoustic boards. Further improvement of the MOE, shrinkage, water absorption, and volumetric swelling of this MCB is still required. Improvement in the qualities of mycelium-based materials will be achieved through continued research and biotechnological developments, which will address the challenges of standardization, production costs, and commercial acceptability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.J., Y.T., S.L., T.W. and N.S.; methodology, P.J., Y.T., W.A., J.K., T.W. and N.S.; investigation, P.J., W.A., J.K., W.T., T.W. and N.S.; software, P.J. and W.A.; validation, P.J., Y.T., W.A., J.K., T.W. and N.S.; formal analysis, P.J., Y.T., J.K., W.T., T.W. and N.S.; data curation, P.J., Y.T., W.A., J.K., T.W. and N.S.; writing—original draft preparation—P.J., J.K. and N.S.; writing—review and editing—P.J., Y.T., W.A., J.K., S.L., W.T., T.W., U.S. and N.S.; supervision, Y.T., R.O., J.K., S.L., T.W., U.S. and N.S.; project administration, R.O., S.L., T.W. and N.S.; funding acquisition, R.O. and N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Fundamental Fund 2023 (FF66/056), Chiang Mai University. P.J. was supported by CMU Presidential Scholarship, Chiang Mai University (2566-075).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

P.J. acknowledges the CMU Presidential Scholarship for the Doctor of Philosophy Program in Architecture (International Program) at the Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University. The authors are grateful to Wachirawit Bunma and Punyavee Lugsanagul for the substrate preparation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hammond, G.; Jones, C.; Lowrie, F. Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) (Version 2.0); University of Bath with BSRIA: Bracknell, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. Symons, K. Book Review: Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE); University of Bath with BSRIA: Bracknell, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xanthos, D.; Walker, T.R. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 118, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lambert, S.; Wagner, M. Characterisation of nanoplastics during the degradation of polystyrene. Chemosphere 2016, 145, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Suwanmanee, U.; Varabuntoonvit, V.; Chaiwutthinan, P.; Tajan, M.; Mungcharoen, T.; Leejarkpai, T. Life cycle assessment of single use thermoform boxes made from polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid (PLA), and PLA/starch: Cradle to consumer gate. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rendón-Villalobos, R.; Ortíz-Sánchez, A.; Tovar-Sánchez, E.; Flores-Huicochea, E. The Role of Biopolymers in Obtaining Environmentally Friendly Materials; Ghaly, A.A., Ed.; Composites from Renewable and Sustainable Materials; InTech: Vladivostok, Russia, 2016; pp. 151–179. [Google Scholar]
  7. Teeraphantuvat, T.; Jatuwong, K.; Jinanukul, P.; Thamjaree, W.; Lumyong, S.; Aiduang, W. Improving the physical and mechanical properties of mycelium-based green composites using paper waste. Polymers 2024, 16, e262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Garcia-Garcia, D.; Quiles-Carrillo, L.; Balart, R.; Torres-Giner, S.; Arrieta, M.P. Innovative solutions and challenges to increase the use of Poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) in food packaging and disposables. Eur. Polym. J. 2022, 178, e111505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Balaeș, T.; Radu, B.-M.; Tănase, C. Mycelium-composite materials—A promising alternative to plastics? J. Fungi 2023, 9, e210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Acharjee, S.A.; Bharali, P.; Gogoi, B.; Sorhie, V.; Walling, B.; Alemtoshi. PHA-based bioplastic: A potential alternative to address microplastic pollution. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Khalil, H.P.S.A.; Bhat, A.H.; Yusra, A.F.I. Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012, 87, 963–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, Y.; Dang, B.; Jin, C.; Sun, Q. Processing lignocellulose-based composites into an ultrastrong structural material. ACS Nano 2018, 13, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ferdosian, F.; Pan, Z.; Gao, G.; Zhao, B. Bio-based adhesives and evaluation for wood composites application. Polymers 2017, 9, e70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hemmilä, V.; Adamopoulos, S.; Karlsson, O.; Kumar, A. Development of sustainable bio-adhesives for engineered wood panels–A review. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 38604–38630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sun, W.; Tajvidi, M.; Hunt, C.G.; McIntyre, G.; Gardner, D.J. Fully bio-based hybrid composites made of wood, fungal mycelium and cellulose nanofibrils. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, e3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arikan, E.B.; Ozsoy, H.D. A review: Investigation of bioplastics. J. Civil. Eng. Archit. 2015, 9, 188–192. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moshood, T.D.; Nawanir, G.; Mahmud, F.; Mohamad, F.; Ahmad, M.H.; AbdulGhani, A. Biodegradable plastic applications towards sustainability: Recent innovations in the green product. Cleaner Eng. Technol. 2022, 6, e100404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Girometta, C.; Picco, A.M.; Baiguera, R.M.; Dondi, D.; Babbini, S.; Cartabia, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Savio, E. Physico-mechanical and thermodynamic properties of mycelium-based biocomposites: A review. Sustainability 2019, 11, e281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ali, G.; Paniz, F.; Fabricio, V.; John, P.; Benay, G. Mycelium-based bio-composites for architecture: Assessing the effects of cultivation factors on compressive strength. Architecture in the Age of the 4th Industrial Revolution. In Proceedings of the 37th eCAADe and 23rd SIGraDi Conference, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 2019; pp. 505–514. [Google Scholar]
  20. Elsacker, E.; Vandelook, S.; Brabcart, J.; Peeters, E.; Laet, L.D. Mechanical, physical and chemical characterisation of mycelium-based composites with different types of lignocellulosic substrates. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Attias, N.; Danai, O.; Tarazi, E.; Pereman, I.; Grobman, Y.J. Implementing bio-design tools to develop mycelium-based products. Des. J. 2019, 22, 1647–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Appels, F.V.W.; Camere, S.; Montalti, M.; Karana, E.; Jansen, K.M.B.; Dijksterhuis, J.; Krijgsheld, P.; Wösten, H.A.B. Fabrication factors influencing mechanical, moisture- and water-related properties of mycelium-based composites. Mater. Des. 2019, 161, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aiduang, W.; Jatuwong, K.; Jinanukul, P.; Suwannarach, N.; Kumla, J.; Thamjaree, W.; Teeraphantuvat, T.; Waroonkun, T.; Oranratmanee, R.; Lumyong, S. Sustainable innovation: Fabrication and characterization of mycelium-based green composites for modern interior materials using agro-industrial wastes and different species of fungi. Polymers 2024, 16, e550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xing, Y.; Brewer, M.; El-Gharabawy, H.; Griffith, G.; Jones, P. Growing and testing mycelium bricks as building insulation materials. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 121, e022032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Chan, W.K. Cost modeling and optimization of a manufacturing system for mycelium-based biocomposite parts. J. Manuf. Syst. 2016, 41, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pelletier, M.G.; Holt, G.A.; Wanjura, J.D.; Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. An evaluation study of mycelium based acoustic absorbers grown on agricultural by-product substrates. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 51, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Robertson, O.; Høgdal, F.; Mckay, L.; Lenau, T. Fungal future: A review of mycelium biocomposites as an ecological alternative insulation material. In Proceedings of NordDesign; Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2020; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Inciong, E.; Sendo, V.; Soliman, C.; Siggaoat, A. Using waste in producing bio-composite mycelium bricks. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, e5303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bagheriehnajjar, G.; Yousefpour, H.; Rahimnejad, M. Environmental impacts of mycelium-based bio-composite construction materials. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 5437–5458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alaneme, K.K.; Anaele, J.U.; Oke, T.M.; Kareem, S.A.; Adediran, M.; Ajibuwa, O.A.; Anabaranze, Y.O. Mycelium based composites: A review of their bio-fabrication procedures, material properties and potential for green building and construction applications. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 83, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, L.; Qin, Z. Bioprospects of Macrofungi; Qin, Z., Ed.; Experimental analysis of the mechanics of mycelium-based biocomposites; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 205–232. [Google Scholar]
  32. Aiduang, W.; Jatuwong, K.; Luangharn, T.; Jinanukul, P.; Thamjaree, W.; Teeraphantuvat, T.; Waroonkun, T.; Lumyong, S. A Review delving into the factors influencing mycelium-based green composites (MBCS) production and their properties for long-term sustainability targets. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aiduang, W.; Kumla, J.; Srinuanpan, S.; Thamjaree, W.; Lumyong, S.; Suwannarach, N. Mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of mycelium-based composites produced from various lignocellulosic residues and fungal species. J. Fungi 2022, 8, e1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kadir, Y.A.; Samsi, H.W.; Masseat, K.; Rashid, N.A.A.; Ali, S.Z.; Karim, S.R.A.; Karim, A.A. Physical and mechanical properties of plywood made from Meranti temak nipis (Shorea roxburghii). In Proceedings of the Forest Products Seminar Lignocellulosic Materials Towards a Sustainable Future, FRIM Proceedings No. 25; Forest Research Institute Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2023; pp. 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  35. BS EN 310:1993; Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity in Bending and of Bending Strength. The British Standards Institution (BSI): London, UK, 1993.
  36. Gezer, E.D.; Gümüşkaya, E.; Uçar, E.; Ustaömer, E. Mechanical properties of mycelium based MDF. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2020, 11, 135–140. [Google Scholar]
  37. Espinoza-Herrera, R.; Cloutier, A. Physical and mechanical properties of gypsum particleboard reinforced with portland cement. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2011, 69, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. BS EN 323:1993; Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Density. The British Standards Institution (BSI): London, UK, 1993.
  39. ASTM D1037:2002; Standard Test Methods for Evaluating Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
  40. Dotun, A.O.; Olalekan, O.S.; Olugbenga, A.L.; Emmanuel, M.A. Physical and mechanical properties evaluation of corncob and sawdust cement bonded ceiling boards. Int. J. Eng. Res. Africa 2019, 42, 65–75. [Google Scholar]
  41. Faouel, J.; Mzali, F.; Jemni, A.; Nasrallah, A.B. Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity measurements of wood in the three anatomic directions using the transient hot-bridge method. Spec. Top. Rev. Porous Media Int. J. 2012, 3, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ISO 22007-2:2022; Plastics—Determination of Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity—Part 2: Transient Plane Heat Source (Hot Disc) Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
  43. Keawprak, N.; Arkom, P.; Lao-auyporn, P.; Kaewpreak, N.; Wannasut, P.; Watcharapasorn, A. Development of expanded perlite board for thermal insulation. Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2022, 49, 1644–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. ISO 10534-2:2023; Acoustics—Determination of Acoustic Properties in Impedance Tubes—Part 2: Two-Microphone Technique for Normal Sound Absorption Coefficient and Normal Surface Impedance. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  45. Yang, W.D.; Li, Y. Sound absorption performance of natural fibers and their composites. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2012, 55, 2278–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siano, D.; Viscardi, M.; Chimenti, M.; Panzaa, M.A.; Molaro, A.; Lanzillo, S. Experimental analysis of innovative acoustic materials for engine noise control in vehicles. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Sound and Vibration. ICSV No. 26, Montreal, France, 7–11 July 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, e41292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shi, J.; Peng, J.; Huang, Q.; Cai, L.; Shi, S.Q. Fabrication of densified wood via synergy of chemical pretreatment, hot-pressing and post mechanical fixation. J. Wood Sci. 2020, 66, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kuznetsova, I.; Zaitsev, B.; Krasnopolskaya, L.; Teplykh, A.; Semyonov, A.; Avtonomova, A.; Ziangirova, M.; Smirnov, A.; Kolesov, V. Influence of humidity on the acoustic properties of mushroom mycelium films used as sensitive layers for acoustic humidity sensors. Sensors 2020, 20, e2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Johnston, J.C.; Kuczmarski, M.A.; Olszko, G. Development of instrumentation for the measurement of the performance of acoustic absorbers. Open J. Acoust. 2015, 5, 172–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, R.; Li, X.; Long, L.; Sheng, Y.; Xu, J.; Wang, Y. Improvement of mechanical properties of mycelium/cotton stalk composites by water immersion. Compos. Interfaces 2020, 27, 953–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kuribayashi, T.; Lankinen, P.; Hietala, S.; Mikkonen, K.S. Dense and continuous networks of aerial hyphae improve flexibility and shape retention of mycelium composite in the wet state. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2022, 152, e106688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jones, M.; Mautner, A.; Luenco, S.; Bismarck, A.; John, S. Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: A critical review. Mater. Des. 2020, 187, e108397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pointner, M.; Kuttner, P.; Obrlik, T.; Jäger, A.; Kahr, H. Composition of corncobs as a substrate for fermentation of biofuels. Agron. Res. 2014, 12, 391–396. [Google Scholar]
  55. El-Tayeb, T.S.; Abdelhafez, A.A.; Ali, S.H.; Ramadan, E.M. Effect of acid hydrolysis and fungal biotreatment on agro-industrial wastes for obtainment of free sugars for bioethanol production. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2012, 43, 1523–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Song, S.T.; Saman, N.; Johari, K.; Mat, H.B. Removal of mercury (II) from aqueous solution by using rice residues. J. Teknol. 2013, 63, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Islam, M.R.; Tudryn, G.; Bucinell, R.; Schadler, L.; Picu, R.C. Morphology and mechanics of fungal mycelium. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, e13070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kokubo, A.; Kuraishi, S.; Sakurai, N. Culm strength of barley 1: Correlation among maximum bending stress, cell wall dimensions, and cellulose content. Plant Physiol. 1989, 91, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ye, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Mu, J. Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin on the morphology and mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 173, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kirk, T.K.; Farrell, R.L. Enzymatic “combustion”: The microbial degradation of lignin1, 2. Ann. Rev. Micro. 1987, 41, 465–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Irbe, I.; Loris, G.D.; Filipova, I.; Andze, L.; Skute, M. Characterization of self-growing biomaterials made of fungal mycelium and various lignocellulose-containing ingredients. Materials 2022, 15, e7608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mbabali, H.; Lubwama, M.; Yiga, V.A.; Were, E.; Kasedde, H. Development of rice husk and sawdust mycelium-based bio-composites: Optimization of mechanical, physical and thermal properties. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D 2023, 105, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aiduang, W.; Suwannarach, N.; Kumla, J.; Thamjaree, W.; Lumyong, S. Valorization of agricultural waste to produce myco-composite materials from mushroom mycelia and their physical properties. Agr. Nat. Resour. 2020, 56, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar]
  64. Butu, A.; Rodino, S.; Miu, B.; Butu, M. Mycelium-based materials for the ecodesign of bioeconomy. Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2020, 15, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ascensão, G.; Beersaerts, G.; Marchi, M.; Segata, M.; Faleschini, F.; Pontikes, Y. Shrinkage and mitigation strategies to improve the dimensional stability of CaO-FeOx-Al2O3-SiO2 inorganic polymers. Materials 2019, 12, e3679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Holt, G.A.; McIntyre, G.; Flagg, D.; Bayer, E.; Wanjura, J.D.; Pelletier, M.G. Fungal mycelium and cotton plant materials in the manufacture of biodegradable molded packaging material: Evaluation study of select blends of cotton byproducts. J. Biobased Mater. Bioenergy 2012, 6, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Houette, T.; Maurer, C.; Niewiarowski, R.; Gruber, P. Growth and mechanical characterization of mycelium-based composites towards future bioremediation and food production in the material manufacturing cycle. Biomimetics 2022, 7, e103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rigobello, A.; Ayres, P. Compressive behaviour of anisotropic mycelium-based composites. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, e6846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Angelova, G.; Brazkova, M.; Goranov, B. Effect of the lignocellulose substrate type on mycelium growth and biocomposite formation by Ganoderma lucidum GA3P. Food Sci. Appl. Biotechnol. 2022, 5, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Agustiany, E.A.; Ridho, M.R.; Rahmi, M.D.N.; Madyaratri, E.W.; Falah, F.; Lubis, M.A.R.; Solihat, N.N.; Syamani, F.A.; Karungamye, P.; Sohail, A.; et al. Recent developments in lignin modification and its application in lignin-based green composites: A review. Polym. Comp. 2022, 8, 4848–4865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chuayplod, P.; Aht-Ong, D. A study of microcrystalline cellulose prepared from parawood (Hevea brasiliensis) sawdust waste using different acid types. J. Met. Mater. Miner. 2018, 28, 106–114. [Google Scholar]
  72. Răut, I.; Călin, M.; Vuluga, Z.; Oancea, F.; Paceagiu, J.; Radu, N.; Doni, M.; Alexandrescu, E.; Purcar, V.; Gurban, A.-M.; et al. Fungal based biopolymer composites for construction materials. Materials 2021, 14, e2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dias, P.P.; Jayasinghe, L.B.; Waldmann, D. Investigation of mycelium-Miscanthus composites as building insulation material. Results Mater. 2021, 10, e100189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vette, J.F.; Böttger, W.O.J. Properties of mycelium-composite biobased insulation materials with local organic waste streams as substrate and after use for mushroom cultivation. RILEM Proceedings Pro 131. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Bio-Based Building Materials, Belfast, UK, 26–28 June 2019; pp. 649–650. [Google Scholar]
  75. Rao, S.E.; Ray, L.; Khan, T.; Ravi, G. Thermal conductivity, density and porosity of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks from the Lower and Higher Himalaya, Western Himalaya. India. Geo. J. Inter. 2022, 231, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, H.; Zhao, X. Thermal Conductivity Analysis of High Porosity Structures with Open and Closed Pores. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2022, 183, e122089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Olivero, E.; Gawronska, E.; Manimuda, P.; Jivani, D.; Chaggan, F.Z.; Corey, Z.; de Almeida, T.S.; Kaplan-Bie, J.; McIntyre, G.; Wodo, O.; et al. Gradient porous structures of mycelium: A quantitative structure–mechanical property analysis. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, e19285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Cao, L.; Fu, Q.; Si, Y.; Ding, B.; Yu, J. Porous materials for sound absorption. Compos. Commun. 2018, 10, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kalauni, K.; Pawar, S.J. A review on the taxonomy, factors associated with sound absorption and theoretical modeling of porous sound absorbing materials. J. Porous Mater. 2019, 26, 1795–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Seddeq, H.S. Factors influencing acoustic performance of sound absorptive materials. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009, 3, 4610–4617. [Google Scholar]
  81. Walter, N.; Gürsoy, B. Simulating Acoustic Performance of Mycelium-Based Sound Absorption Panels. In Proceedings of the 41st Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, eCAADe 2023, Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Graz, Austria, 20–23 September 2023; pp. 277–286. [Google Scholar]
  82. Castagnède, B.; Aknine, A.; Brouard, B.; Tarnow, V. Effects of compression on the sound absorption of fibrous materials. Appl. Acoust. 2000, 61, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Barta, D.-G.; Simion, I.; Tiuc, A.-E.; Vasile, O. Mycelium-based composites as a sustainable solution for waste management and circular economy. Materials 2024, 17, e404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hsu, T.; Dessi-Olive, J. A design framework for absorption and diffusion panels with sustainable materials. In Proceedings of the 2021 Inter-Noise Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 1–4 August 2021. [Google Scholar]
  85. Cai, J.; Han, J.; Ge, F.; Lin, Y.; Pan, J.; Ren, A. Development of impact-resistant mycelium-based composites (MBCs) with agricultural waste straws. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 389, e131730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ayrilmis, N.; Buyuksari, U.; As, N. Bending strength and modulus of elasticity of wood-based panels at cold and moderate temperatures. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2010, 63, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ayrilmis, N.; Winandy, J.E. Effects of post heat-treatment on surface characteristics and adhesive bonding performance of medium density fiberboard. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2009, 24, 594–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ayrilmis, N.; Jarusombuti, S.; Fueangvivat, V.; Bauchongkol, P. Effects of thermal treatment of rubberwood fibres on physical and mechanical properties of medium density fibreboard. J. Trop. For. Sci. 2011, 23, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  89. Suchsland, O.; Woodson, G.E. Fiberboard Manufacturing Practices in the United States; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
  90. Sonderegger, W.; Niemz, P. Thermal conductivity and water vapour transmission properties of wood-based materials. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2009, 67, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nemli, G.; Çolakoğlu, G. Effects of mimosa bark usage on some properties of particleboard. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2005, 29, 227–230. [Google Scholar]
  92. BS EN 622-4:2009; Fibreboards, Specifications, Requirements for Softboards. British Standards Institution (BSI): London, UK, 2009.
  93. Papadopoulos, A.N.; Hill, C.A.S. The sorption of water vapour by anhydride modified softwood. Wood Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ganev, S.; Cloutier, A.; Beauregard, R.; Gendron, G. Linear expansion and thickness swell of MDF as a function of panel density and sorption state. Wood Fiber Sci. 2005, 37, 327–336. [Google Scholar]
  95. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G. Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications. Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cramer, S.M.; Friday, O.M.; White, R.H.; Sriprutkiat, G. Mechanical properties of gypsum board at elevated temperatures. In Proceedings of the Fire and Materials 2003: 8th International Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27–28 January 2003; pp. 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  97. Bénichou, N.; Sultan, M.A. Thermal properties of lightweight-framed construction components at elevated temperatures. Fire Mater. 2005, 29, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Karni, J.; Karni, E.Y. Gypsum in construction: Origin and properties. Mater. Struct. 1995, 28, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wakili, K.G.; Tanner, C. U-value of a dried wall made of perforated porous clay bricks: Hot box measurement versus numerical analysis. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Camino, G.; Maffezzoli, A.; Braglia, M.; de Lazzaro, D.; Zammarano, M. Effect of hydroxides and hydroxycarbonate structure on fire retardant effectiveness and mechanical properties in ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2001, 74, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Feng, C.; Janssen, H.; Wu, C.; Feng, Y.; Meng, Q. Validating various measures to accelerate the static gravimetric sorption isotherm determination. Build. Environ. 2013, 69, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Warnock, A.C.C. Controlling sound transmission through concrete block walls. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 103, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
  103. Ardanuy, M.; Claramunt, J.; Filho, R.D.T. Cellulosic fiber reinforced cement-based composites: A review of recent research. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 79, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mohr, B.J.; Nanko, H.; Kurtis, K.E. Durability of kraft pulp fiber–cement composites to wet/dry cycling. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Akers, S.A.S. Cracking in fibre cement products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 4, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Biot, M.A.; Tolstoy, I. Formulation of wave propagation in infinite media by normal coordinates with an application to diffraction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1957, 29, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jelle, B.P. Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions–Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2549–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Papadopoulos, A.M. State of the art in thermal insulation materials and aims for future developments. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Schiavoni, S.; Alessandro, F.D.; Bianchi, F.; Asdrubali, F. Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 988–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Asdrubali, F.; Alessandro, F.D.; Schiavoni, S. A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2015, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 10 00634 g001
Figure 1. Scheme for the MCB production process in this study.
Figure 1. Scheme for the MCB production process in this study.
Jof 10 00634 g001
Jof 10 00634 g002
Figure 2. Example specimens of MBCs obtained from L. sajor-caju and corn husk and sawdust in this study. Mycelium composite boards (A). Specimens for modulus of elasticity and bending strength testing (B), specimens for water absorption measurement, thickness of swelling, shrinkage, and thermal conductivity measurement (C), and specimens for sound absorption coefficient measurement (D). Scale bar = 50 mm.
Figure 2. Example specimens of MBCs obtained from L. sajor-caju and corn husk and sawdust in this study. Mycelium composite boards (A). Specimens for modulus of elasticity and bending strength testing (B), specimens for water absorption measurement, thickness of swelling, shrinkage, and thermal conductivity measurement (C), and specimens for sound absorption coefficient measurement (D). Scale bar = 50 mm.
Jof 10 00634 g002
Jof 10 00634 g003
Figure 3. Modulus of elasticity [MOE; (A)] and bending strength [BS; (B)] of MCBs in this study. Red, blue, and yellow bars indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3. Modulus of elasticity [MOE; (A)] and bending strength [BS; (B)] of MCBs in this study. Red, blue, and yellow bars indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Jof 10 00634 g003
Jof 10 00634 g004
Figure 4. Density (A) and shrinkage (B) of MCBs in this study. Red, blue, and yellow bars indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 4. Density (A) and shrinkage (B) of MCBs in this study. Red, blue, and yellow bars indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Jof 10 00634 g004
Jof 10 00634 g005
Figure 5. Water absorption behavior of MBC specimen’s thickness at 8 mm (A), 16 mm (B), and 24 mm (C) and volumetric swelling (D) in this study. *, **, *** in subfigures (A–C) indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05). Red, blue, and yellow bars in subfigures (D) indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness in subfigures (D) indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5. Water absorption behavior of MBC specimen’s thickness at 8 mm (A), 16 mm (B), and 24 mm (C) and volumetric swelling (D) in this study. *, **, *** in subfigures (A–C) indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05). Red, blue, and yellow bars in subfigures (D) indicate MCBs with thicknesses of 8 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm, respectively. The different letters within the same group of MCB thickness in subfigures (D) indicate a significant difference according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Jof 10 00634 g005
Table 1. Information of MCBs created in this study.
Table 1. Information of MCBs created in this study.
Thickness (mm)Ratio of Substrate Based on Dry Weight (%)Specimen Name
Corn HuskSawdust
810008C100S0
75258C75S25
50508C50S50
25758C25S75
01008C0S100
16100016C100S0
752516C75S25
505016C50S50
257516C25S75
010016C0S100
24100024C100S0
752524C75S25
505024C50S50
257524C25S75
010024C0S100
Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients between the properties and a decreasing in the ratio of corn husk of MCBs with the same thickness.
Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients between the properties and a decreasing in the ratio of corn husk of MCBs with the same thickness.
PropertiesPearson Correlation Coefficients (r/p-Value)
8 mm16 mm24 mm
MOE−0.772 */<0.001−0.937 */<0.001−0.923 */<0.001
BS0.977 */<0.0010.967 */<0.0010.764 */<0.001
DS−0.635 */<0.001−0.975 */<0.001−0.975 */<0.001
SK0.992 */<0.0010.973 */<0.0010.968 */0.007
WA0.973 */0.0050.963 */0.0090.937 */0.019
VS0.943/0.1600.949/0.1400.944/0.160
TCNDND−0.921 */0.026
SAC (250 Hz)NDND0.281/0.647
SAC (500 Hz)NDND0.228/0.712
SAC (1000 Hz)NDND0.740/0.153
“*” indicates a significant correlation at a significance level of p < 0.05. r = Pearson correlation coefficients, MOE = modulus of elasticity, BS = bending strength, DS = density, SK = shrinkage, WA = water absorption, VS = volume swelling, SAC = sound absorption coefficient, and “ND” = not determined.
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between the properties and an increase in thickness of MCBs with different substrate ratios.
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between the properties and an increase in thickness of MCBs with different substrate ratios.
PropertiesPearson Correlation Coefficients (r/p-Value)
C100S0C75S25C50S50C25S75C0S100
MOE−0.898 */<0.001−0.908 */<0.001−0.921 */<0.001−0.922 */<0.001−0.929 */<0.001
BS−0.945 */<0.001−0.951 */<0.001−0.957 */<0.001−0.937 */<0.001−0.919 */<0.001
DS0.635/0.0660.555/0.1200.929 */<0.0010.898 */<0.0010.949 */<0.001
SK0.980/0.1250.752/0.5490.921/0.2560.990/0.0890.958/0.186
WA−0.946/0.200−0.946/0.210−0.955/0.193−0.896/0.293−0.951/0.200
VS−0.894/0.297−0.917/0.262−0.850/0.353−0.093/0.940−0.999/0.220
“*” indicates a significant correlation at a significance level of p < 0.05. r = Pearson correlation coefficients, MOE = modulus of elasticity, BS = bending strength, DS = density, SK = shrinkage, WA = water absorption, and VS = volume swelling.
Table 4. Average thermal conductivity values of MCBs obtained in this study.
Table 4. Average thermal conductivity values of MCBs obtained in this study.
Specimen NameThermal Conductivity (W/m∙K)
24C100S00.037
24C75S250.048
24C50S500.052
24C25S750.054
24C0S1000.079
Table 5. Average sound absorption coefficient at each frequency for MCBs obtained in this study.
Table 5. Average sound absorption coefficient at each frequency for MCBs obtained in this study.
Specimen NameSound Absorption Coefficient (%)
250 Hz500 Hz1000 Hz
24C100S0403485
24C75S25514994
24C50S50434586
24C25S75434384
24C0S100404161
Table 6. Comparison of MBC properties in this study with commercial boards.
Table 6. Comparison of MBC properties in this study with commercial boards.
PropertiesMBCsCommercial Boards *
This StudyPrevious StudiesMedium-Density Fiber BoardSoftboardGypsum BoardFiber Cement BoardInsulated BoardAcoustic Board
MOE (MPa)0.17–7.880.14–97.002500–400080–1501500–30006000–15,0003000–700020–100
BS (MPa)0.13–1.260.02–4.4020–400.70–1.201.5–3.510–300.1–0.30.5–2.0
DS (kg/m3)209.17–256.2825–954640–800230–400600–8001300–170015–20060–400
SK (%)8.15–25.782.78–170.01–0.300.2–0.50.05–0.100.02–0.050.015–0.0300.02–0.10
WA (%)96.86–254.1124.45–5605–1530–7030–5010–251–45–30
VS (%)2.63–19.030.28–2110–2515–400.02–0.100.1–2.01.0–2.50.1–1.0
TC (W/m·K)0.037–0.0790.029–0.1240.10–0.180.035–0.0600.16–0.250.20–0.400.022–0.0400.03–0.05
SAC
(%)		250 Hz40–5116–2010–2015–305–1010–2030–6050–80
500 Hz34–4950–518–1530–505–88–1565–9080–100
1000 Hz61–9470–756–1250–704–76–1285–10090–100
MOE = modulus of elasticity, BS = bending strength, DS = density, SK = shrinkage, WA = water absorption, VS = volume swelling, SAC = sound absorption coefficient. * Seddeq [80], Hsu et al. [84], Cai et al. [85], Ayrilmis et al. [86,87,88], Suchsland et al. [89], Sonderegger et al. [90], Nemli et al. [91], BS EN 622-4:2009 [92], Papadopoulos and Hill [93], Ganev et al. [94], Berardi et al. [95], Cramer et al. [96], Bénichou et al. [97], Karni et al. [98], Wakili et al. [99], Camino et al. [100], Feng et al. [101], Warnock [102], Ardanuy et al. [103], Mohr et al. [104], Akers. [105], Biot et al. [106], Jelle [107], Papadopoulos [108], Schiavoni et al. [109], and Asdrubali et al. [110].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jinanukul, P.; Kumla, J.; Aiduang, W.; Thamjaree, W.; Oranratmanee, R.; Shummadtayar, U.; Tongtuam, Y.; Lumyong, S.; Suwannarach, N.; Waroonkun, T. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Mycelium Composite Boards Made from Lentinus sajor-caju with Various Ratios of Corn Husk and Sawdust. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10090634

AMA Style

Jinanukul P, Kumla J, Aiduang W, Thamjaree W, Oranratmanee R, Shummadtayar U, Tongtuam Y, Lumyong S, Suwannarach N, Waroonkun T. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Mycelium Composite Boards Made from Lentinus sajor-caju with Various Ratios of Corn Husk and Sawdust. Journal of Fungi. 2024; 10(9):634. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10090634

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jinanukul, Praween, Jaturong Kumla, Worawoot Aiduang, Wandee Thamjaree, Rawiwan Oranratmanee, Umpiga Shummadtayar, Yuttana Tongtuam, Saisamorn Lumyong, Nakarin Suwannarach, and Tanut Waroonkun. 2024. "Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Mycelium Composite Boards Made from Lentinus sajor-caju with Various Ratios of Corn Husk and Sawdust" Journal of Fungi 10, no. 9: 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10090634

APA Style

Jinanukul, P., Kumla, J., Aiduang, W., Thamjaree, W., Oranratmanee, R., Shummadtayar, U., Tongtuam, Y., Lumyong, S., Suwannarach, N., & Waroonkun, T. (2024). Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Mycelium Composite Boards Made from Lentinus sajor-caju with Various Ratios of Corn Husk and Sawdust. Journal of Fungi, 10(9), 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10090634

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop