3. The Growing Profile of Pure Mycelial Materials
3.1. Laying out the Design Space for PMMs
The recent interest in PMMs has steadily evolved into a large yet thoroughly uncharted collection of diverse materials the true potential of which is difficult to realize without an assay of the current prospects of these materials in their applications as leathers, foams, films, and more. One such method is through the process of materials selection, as introduced by Ashby and Cebon
[40][41][42]. This process leverages materials data to systematically identify key qualities of comparable engineering materials in order to determine a desired materials profile that meets the necessary design function, objectives, and constraints
[40][41][42]. The method of materials selection employs a measured approach in evaluating materials as they pertain to function, form, and design. To prioritize each one of these factors, the performance of materials is evaluated through relevant properties such as density or strength, as seen in
Table 1, or a combination of many relevant properties in the form of a Material Property Index (MPI)
[40][41][42]. The material to best fit the target application is the one which maximizes the optimization criteria of the MPI, while all others are ranked below in decreasing order
[40][42].
Table 1. Common properties of materials, their definitions, and their units.
The first step in crafting an MPI is to define an objective, typically minimum mass or density (ρ), which decides the direction of a design process. The next step comes with specific materials constraints as defined by the different components within the engineering design. For instance, materials like leathers need to be able to endure tensile conditions without reaching tensile rupture with a high enough ultimate tensile strength (σ
UTS). MPI
1 combines the minimum mass objective as well as the constraints on tensile performance to create an index to rank how MBLs perform in comparison to other leathers
[42][43].
There are limits to this index, as leathers, along with rubbers, wools, and silks, do not only endure uniaxial tensile loads, but need to have an intrinsic springiness controlled by their stiffness or Young’s modulus (E)
[43]. In line with the minimum mass design objective, MPI
2 assesses the ability to store high amounts of energy before springing back without failure
[40][43].
In order to visually grade the performance of different materials, various combination of properties (e.g., σ
UTS, E, ρ) for different materials are plotted using a material property chart (commonly known as an Ashby chart) in a log-log scale
[40]. In
Figure 2 and
Figure 3, the wide gamut of PMMs can be visually compared to the typical material families
[7][19][20][32][33][40][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Both MPI
1 and MPI
2 can be visualized as straight guidelines with defined slopes of 1 and ½, respectively. In the case for MPI
2, for instance, materials higher on the line maximize the energy storage, while those that lie on it are on equal footing
[40]. It is evident from the laid out purple space that PMMs fit comfortably within a wide range of material families, including foams, elastomers, and polymers, depending on their species of origin, treatment process, and intended functions. Leveraging the principles of materials selection by way of materials property charts and MPIs offers detailed performance metrics of novel materials like PMMs and outline the necessary trajectory for large-scale viability.
Figure 2. Material property chart comparing pure mycelial materials to typical materials families in terms of tensile strength (in MPa) against density (in kg/m
3). The guideline signifies which materials optimize specific tensile strength with minimum mass designs. The image was generated using ANSYS, Inc. (
https://www.ansys.com/, accessed on 20 January 2024).
Figure 3. Material property chart comparing pure mycelial materials to typical materials families in terms of tensile strength (in MPa) against the product of density and Young’s modulus (in GPa·kg/m
3). The guideline signifies which materials optimize energy absorption per unit mass. The image was generated using ANSYS, Inc. (
https://www.ansys.com/, accessed on 20 January 2024).
3.2. The Past, Present, and Future of Mycelial Textiles
In contrast with the textile’s historical ubiquity, the current methods for modern leather production are becoming increasingly incompatible with society’s vision of a better future
[19][44][52]. There is a coming paradigm shift towards vegan leather, with the industry projected to overtake the market for traditional leathers by 2027
[44][53]. The emergence of the more affordable MBLs is spearheading this paradigm shift towards sustainable alternatives, challenging the dominance of their bovine and synthetic counterparts
[44][53]. A comprehensive life cycle assessment conducted on MycoWorks’ Reishi
TM MBL revealed promising environmental credentials
[29]. In their 2022 pilot-scale production, mycelium-based leather boasted a remarkably low carbon footprint of 6.2 kg of CO
2 equivalents per m
2, a stark contrast to the 32.97 kg of CO
2 equivalents per m
2 associated with bovine leather
[29]. As production scales up, projections suggest an increase to 13.88 kg of CO
2 equivalents per m
2; however, with optimized practices, this figure could plummet to as low as 2.76 kg of CO
2 equivalents per m
2 resulting from the transition to bio-gas free workflows
[29]. Furthermore, research by Jones et al. highlights the superior cost-effectiveness of MBLs, with production costs estimated at a mere $0.18–0.28 per m
2 compared to the substantially higher $5.38–6.24 per m
2 for raw hides
[44].
Fabricating fungal textiles has a storied history with Transylvanian craftspeople utilizing mushrooms of
Fomes fomentarius and
Piptoporus betulinus to create Amadou leathers as early as the 19th century
[54][55]. In their fabrication, wild fruiting bodies are collected by hand, and then boiled in caustic lye solutions to makes the process of fabrication smoother. From there, the material is trimmed to shape by following the natural “grain” or growth direction, and then stretched to create products such as hats, belts, bags, etc.
[54][56]. The resulting finish is a breathable material similar to felt and close to the color of bovine leather as a result of the high composition of melanin-like substances
[57]. On the other side of the world, a Tlingit wall pocket from 1903 was discovered to have made from similar mycelial textiles by indigenous communities in British Columbia
[58]. Upon examining the hyphal morphology of the wall pocket with a scanning electron microscope (SEM), the mycelia were determined to be characteristic of
Fomitopsis officianalis, another bracket fungi not too dissimilar to those employed in Transylvania. While the methods of the Tlingit community are unclear, the process of evaluating the global ethnomycological usage of fungi elucidates how best to recontextualize these textiles for today
[54][58]. Amadou has not been left in history, however, with fashion houses (as seen in
Figure 4a) and bush crafters alike finding ways to recontextualize the material to modern needs
[59][60].
Figure 4. The product diversity of fungal textiles today. (a) The modern “Amadou tulip hat” made from the trama of Fomes fomentarius mushrooms sold by Eden Power Corp in 2022. (b) Lab-grown mycelium-based leather made from Schizophyllum commune mycelia grown through liquid-state fermentation and treated with polyethylene glycol.
To meet modern levels of demand, the process of producing MBLs has become more efficient than the mushroom-based artisanal handcrafting of Amadou through a more industrial, fermentation-based cultivation of mycelia. SSF and LSSF offer better control on the quality of the mycelial mats compared to historical manufacturing that depended on the seasonality of foraged mushrooms
[20][53][54]. After the cultivation period is over, the mycelial material is typically separated from the substrate and then subjected to a range of treatment procedures
[44]. Before any cross-linking or physical treatment, the mycelial mats are pre-treated with hydrating agents such as glycerol, ethylene glycol, or polyethylene glycol (PEG) which also plasticize the hyphal fibers (as seen in
Figure 4b)
[19]. Next, the plasticized mats are immersed in alcohols or acetic acids in order to denature proteins and create sites for cross-linking
[27][44]. Cross-linking with vegetable tannic acid allows the mycelia to more closely imitate the aesthetic, form, and function of conventional leathers
[7][19][45][61]. In all cases, after chemical treatment, mechanical pressing of the materials is undertaken in an effort to further densify the mycelia with different methods using either heating or cooling to rapidly dry the mycelial mat
[19][27][28].
According to investigations of the morphological, mechanical, and physiochemical characteristics of these materials, MBLs are more variable in comparison to bovine and synthetic leathers, as seen in
Table 2 [18][19][62]. Comparing individual properties such as density, elongation rate, tensile strength, and Young’s modulus shows the different advantages of each material. While the tensile strengths of many MBLs are comparable to conventional leathers, the lower stiffness show that there is still a need to develop better post-processing methods for long-term feasibility
[19][62]. Even those with high stiffnesses such as the treated
Rhizopus delemar leather present failings with their poor elastic elongation rate
[7].
Table 2. Physical properties of mycelium-based leathers versus conventional leathers.
Figure 2 visualizes materials that maximize their specific strength as defined with MPI
1 as a guideline with a slope of 1. Bovine leather only boasts an MPI
1 of 3.43 Pa·m
3/g, while the artificial leather outperforms it by a whole order of magnitude
[51][52][64][65]. The
F. fraxinea leather improved impressively once cross-linked with PEG and heat pressed at 120 °C and even surpassed the reference bovine leather with an MPI
1 of 4.9 Pa·m
3/g
[19]. On the other hand, the virgin
R. delemar, the second best MBL, was more successful than its treated counterpart (2.2 Pa·m
3/g vs. 0.378 Pa·m
3/g respectively), demonstrating that not all species reap the same benefits from chemical treatments
[62]. It is also worth noting that only two commercial MBLs, the Reishi
TM Brown Natural and Black Embossed, were in the same range as the bovine leathers, while all the rest lagged in this metric of specific strength.
Figure 3 visualizes materials with optimal energy storage per unit mass and optimal performances are defined in the region with MPI
2 as a guideline and with a slope of ½. Successful leathers can store great amounts of energy and combine the properties of tensile strength and Young’s modulus in a ratio of σ
UTS2/E
[43]. Unfortunately, some commercial MBLs such as Reishi
TM and Mylea
TM do not have Young’s modulus data, excluding them from this analysis
[46][47][48][49][50]. Artificial leathers derived from polyurethane are in their own league, as the majority of MBLs do not come close
[19][64][65]. The lone outlier, Raman et al.’s treated
F. fraxinea mycelia, builds on its excellent specific strength properties with an extraordinary elastic storage ability (MBI
2 = 4990 Pa·m
3/g) that even supersedes bovine leather
[19][43]. The success of these treated MBLs highlights the importance of researching chemical cross-linking, heat treatment, and species-based optimization if these materials are to supplant the conventional leathers of today.
Other mechanical properties, such as large scratch recoveries and high dynamic stress resistance, demonstrate the capability of the textile to withstand continual, repetitive loads. Furthermore, the lack of external fungal and bacterial growth on fabricated MBLs demonstrates their natural antifungal and antibacterial properties
[62]. Just recently, MBLs have evolved from a niche idea to a growing trend in sustainable fashion embodied by the products of brands such as Adidas, Balenciaga, and Hermès
[13][66]. With significant knowledge gaps in optimizing mycelium mat cultivation and post-processing procedures, the success of MBLs is heavily reliant upon future research prospects and could further expand the applications of MBLs to fit the materials needs of tomorrow.
3.3. Flexible Fungal Foams
Flexible fungal foams are promising candidates to replace insulation, petroleum-based foams, and wood composite cores. Presently, Ecovative LLC’s patented Forager
TM is the sole pure mycelial biofoam on the market which is reported to be completely “tunable” in terms of tensile strength, density, and fiber orientation
[67]. These materials are fabricated through SSF with the addition of a vented void chamber on top of a tray. Since the void chamber is only accessible through the vents, a CO
2 gradient (3–7% concentration by volume) is introduced which encourages the mycelia to propagate through the vents and create an isolated mat of mycelia. Additionally, the relative humidity and temperature (29–35 °C) of the chamber are carefully chosen in order to mitigate primordial initiation which would compromise the mechanical properties of the foam. Before the foam is extracted, the mycelial mat is compressed to a chosen size and is left for an additional 72 h to densify and strengthen its fibers. Finally, the foam is separated from the substrate, dried at 43 °C, and, optionally, heat pressed to further densify the structure
[16][68].
Presently, these foams are deployed as specialized textiles for the fashion industry that are marketed to be “insulating, water-repellent, and fire-resistant”
[6][67][69]. Interestingly, a densified, closed-cell variety of Ecovative’s foams has been shown to work as an excellent acoustic shield at a wide frequency range from 350 Hz to 4 kHz
[70]. With the widespread employment of mineral wools, synthetic fibers, and petrochemical-derived polyurethane foams, these flexible fungal foams shine as greener and more sustainable alternatives
[6][71]. Since there is only one player on the market, plans to apply these uniquely adaptable foams are nascent. The purported tensile strength (0.1 to 0.3 MPa), Young’s modulus (0.6 to 2.0 MPa), and density (0.03 to 0.05 g/cm
3) of the Forager
TM material shows that it has a place, albeit small, in the foam material family, as seen in
Figure 2 and
Figure 3 [20][68]. It performs worse than bovine and artificial leathers in terms of specific strength (MPI
1 = 0.447 Pa·m
3/g) and elastic energy storage (MPI
2 = 707 Pa·m
3/g). However, these numbers should be taken with caution as they do not come from any peer-reviewed measurements in original research papers and are instead reported in Gandia et al.’s trend review paper alone
[20].
Unlike other materials, the performance of foams relies greatly upon their relative densities, which describe whether they are open-celled or close-celled. Consequently, future potential is difficult to gauge with one overarching materials property index. If it was assumed that it behaved as an open-cell foam exhibiting Euler buckling (with relative densities between 0.01 to 0.3), a more general criterion could be created based upon the goal of maximizing energy absorption at a minimum mass. In fact, Bird et al. modeled such a criterion (MPI
3) during a case study on selecting the correct lightweight foam to make impact-absorbing helmets
[72]. Here, E
S and ρ
S are the Young’s modulus and density of the solid material, respectively, which can be determined with knowledge of the foam’s relative density. Materials that optimize this index have high impact absorption at a minimum mass.
If competitiveness is the plan, then future fungal foams must target an optimization of this index as compared to other cushioning foams (e.g., open-cell polyurethane, polyethylene, neoprene, etc.)
[40][43][72]. Of course, this is only one of many factors for assessing viability, but it is a defined threshold of success. For now, however, the biggest obstacle in realizing the current potential of these foams is the unfortunate dearth of materials testing and literature studies.