4.2 Article

Novel Mycelium-Based Biocomposites (MBB) as Building Materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE MATERIALS
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 1067-1076

出版社

TECH SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.32604/jrm.2020.09646

关键词

Mycelium-based biocomposites (MBB); mechanical properties; water absorption; biodegradation

资金

  1. Latvian State Institute of Wood Chemistry Bioeconomy grant MiBiKom
  2. Riga Technical University's Doctoral Grant programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Novel mycelium-based biocomposites (MBB) were obtained from local agricultural (hemp shives) and forestry (wood chips) by-products which were bounded together with natural growth of fungal mycelium. As a result, hemp mycocomposites (HMC) and wood mycocomposites (WMC) were manufactured. Mechanical, water absorption and biodegradation properties of MBB were investigated. MBB were characterized also by ash content and elemental composition. The results of MBB were compared with the reference materials such as the commercial MBB material manufactured by Ecovative (R) Design (EV), hemp magnesium oxychloride concrete (HC) and cemented wood wool panel (CW), manufactured by CEWOOD (R). The mechanical properties of HMC and WMC showed that the bending strength difference was about 30%, with a better result for HMC. Compression strength was better for WMC by about 60% compared to that of HMC. The mechanical strength of HMC and HC materials was equal; both materials contained hemp shives but differed by the binding material. Water absorption and volumetric swelling tests showed that HMC and WMC could be considered as potential biosorbents. Ash content and elemental analysis showed that reference materials (CW, HC) contained significant amounts of inorganic compounds that decreased the biodegradation rate, compared to the case of HMC and WMC materials. The biodegradation results of HMC and WMC, after 12 weeks, revealed a mass loss (ML) above 70%, while in the case of EV, HC and CW, it was about 60%, 17% and only 6%, respectively. MBB were completely biodegradable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据