FIND OUR PODCAST: SPOTIFY | APPLE | AMAZON | YOUTUBE
Introduction: The Construction Industry’s Chemical Hangover
The construction industry is currently grappling with a “chemical and mineral” hangover. For decades, the architectural world has relied upon a carbon‑intensive cocktail of concrete, energy‑hungry mineral wool, and petroleum‑derived synthetic foams to shelter humanity. This reliance comes at a staggering cost: the built environment is responsible for approximately 39% of global energy‑related CO₂ emissions, with the cement industry alone accounting for 8%. We have spent a century perfecting the art of “assembling” static, often toxic components into rigid structures. The emergence of mycelium based building materials offers a radical alternative.
However, a radical biological intervention is emerging from the forest floor. Mycelium based building materials (MBCs) represent a fundamental shift from a manufacturing paradigm to a cultivation paradigm. We are moving toward a future where we don’t just build our homes; we grow them. By harnessing the vegetative root structures of filamentous fungi – specifically species like Ganoderma lucidum (Reishi) and Pleurotus ostreatus (Oyster) – architects and material scientists are engineering a “living manufacturing system” that uses biological glue to bind agricultural skeletal remains into high‑performance building components.
This article explores seven surprising reasons why mycelium based building materials will soon revolutionize architecture. From carbon negative mycoblocks to fire retardant mycelium insulation, from acoustic mycelium panels to fungal waste upcycling construction, the evidence is clear: the next generation of architecture will be grown, not built.
For an overview of bio‑based construction, visit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/bio-based-materials
Your Walls Could Be a Carbon Sink, Not a Source
In the current construction model, every cubic meter of material represents an “embodied carbon” debt. For example, standard concrete carries an embodied carbon (EC) of 361 kg CO₂eq m⁻³. Mycelium based building materials flip this script entirely. According to comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data synthesized from the research of Achiya Livne et al. (2022), a standard carbon negative mycoblock achieves a negative embodied carbon value of -39.5 kg CO₂eq m⁻³.
This is not merely about “doing less harm”; it is about active carbon sequestration. The fungus thrives on agricultural waste streams – such as rapeseed straw or recycled cellulose – which have already captured atmospheric CO₂ through photosynthesis during their growth cycles. When the mycelium colonizes this substrate, it “locks” that carbon into a structural form. The shift from “minimizing damage” to “actively fixing CO₂” represents a profound paradigm shift for the circular economy. Mycelium based building materials that function as carbon negative mycoblocks could turn our cities into carbon storage networks.
The Life Cycle Assessment of Mycoblocks
The LCA data reveals that while the embodied energy (EE) of a carbon negative mycoblock is approximately 860.3 MJ m⁻³ – roughly 1.5 to 6 times lower than expanded polystyrene (EPS) or concrete – the real victory lies in the sequestration. Even when accounting for the “metabolic breath” of the fungus (the CO₂ it exhales while growing), the net impact remains carbon‑negative. As a ReLondon success story noted: “Biohm is embarking on a mission to create healthier, sustainable buildings… benefits of their interventions include enhanced energy‑in‑use, a significantly lower carbon footprint and reduced waste and transport pollution.”
For architects specifying mycelium based building materials, the carbon accounting is straightforward: every carbon negative mycoblock installed is a verified carbon drawdown. This is impossible with concrete, steel, or petrochemical foams.
For more on embodied carbon, visit: https://www.buildinggreen.com/embodied-carbon
The “Fire‑Proof” Mushroom: Silicon Secret and Thermal Degradation
The greatest safety risk in modern residential construction is the rapid, toxic combustion of petroleum‑based insulation foams like EPS or polyurethane (PUR). These materials possess a Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) of less than 13, meaning they ignite instantly and burn aggressively. Mycelium based building materials, by contrast, offer an inherent fire‑retardant chemistry that can be supercharged through a “silicon secret.” Fire retardant mycelium insulation is not a contradiction – it is an emerging standard.
Silicon Biotransformation
Research by Xijin Zhang (2024) and Gezer/Kuştaş (2024) demonstrates that cultivating fungi with silicon sources – specifically sodium silicate solution or silicon‑rich agricultural waste like rice husks – creates a natural mineralized shield within the chitinous matrix. This process, often referred to as “fungus‑mediated biotransformation,” results in significantly higher ignition temperatures. Fire retardant mycelium insulation produced this way outperforms many synthetic alternatives.
Fire Performance Metrics (Comparison of SS0 vs. SS2 Samples)
| Metric | 0% Silicon | 2% Silicon |
|---|---|---|
| Ignition Time | 2.9 seconds | 8.0 seconds |
| Ignition Temperature | 183.2 °C | 315.8 °C |
| Flame Height | 23.42 mm | 10.85 mm |
| Flame Duration | 5.6 seconds | 4.8 seconds |
Thermal Degradation Stages
To understand why mycelium based building materials excel in fire, we must look at the Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) and Derivative Thermogravimetry (DTG) curves. Thermal degradation of these fungal materials occurs in three distinct stages:
- 30–100 °C: Evaporation of free and chemically bound water.
- 200–450 °C: Decomposition of the hemicellulose and cellulose within the substrate, alongside the thermal degradation of the mycelium’s own chitin, lipids, and polysaccharides.
- 450–700 °C: Lignin pyrolysis and the formation of a stable “char” layer.
Unlike synthetic foams that melt and release toxic gases like carbon monoxide and toluene, fire retardant mycelium insulation forms a protective char that insulates the core of the material from the heat source. This allows fungal‑based buildings to maintain structural integrity far longer than those using resin‑bonded panels. For building codes, mycelium based building materials with enhanced silicon treatment are approaching compliance with Class A fire ratings.
For fire testing standards, visit: https://www.astm.org/Standards/E84
Silent Walls: The Physics of “Tortuosity” and Acoustic Superiority
If you have ever lived in a noisy urban apartment, you know that traditional plastics and plywood are poor shields against the low‑frequency rumble of the world. Mycelium based building materials are proving to be acoustic superstars, but the success depends heavily on the choice of fungal strain. The best performing acoustic mycelium panels rival commercial acoustic tiles.
Strain‑Dependent Acoustic Performance
Data from the Karadeniz Technical University research shows a massive disparity between species. While Pleurotus ostreatus (PO) achieved sound absorption coefficients of 87% to 99% at 1000 Hz, the more rigid Ganoderma lucidum (GL) only managed between 37% and 53%. Therefore, acoustic mycelium panels intended for noise reduction should be grown from PO, not GL.
The Physics of Silence
The superior performance of the PO strain is due to its porous, fibrous network. In the world of acoustics, this is called tortuosity. As sound waves attempt to pass through the material’s curved, microscopic passages, the air molecules collide with the mycelial fibers. These fibers act as “friction elements,” converting the mechanical energy of the sound wave into low‑grade heat.
Sound Transmission Loss (TL) at 1000 Hz
| Material | Sound Transmission Loss (dBa) |
|---|---|
| Acoustic mycelium panels (PO strain) | 46.4 – 59.7 |
| Commercial ceiling tiles | 61 |
| Urethane foam board | 64 |
| Plywood | 65 |
While the GL fungus creates a denser, more “stiff” structure better suited for internal bond strength, the PO fungus creates the “open‑cell” architecture required to swallow sound. For an architect specifying mycelium based building materials, this means the ability to “tune” a room’s acoustics simply by selecting the right fungal species for the walls. Acoustic mycelium panels are already being prototyped in European office retrofits.
For acoustic testing methods, visit: https://www.acoustics.org/standards/
The Incredible “Mycelium Skin” Effect: Reishi’s Secret Shield
Nature doesn’t just grow bulk material; it grows sophisticated membranes. In the study of Ganoderma lucidum (Reishi), researchers discovered that when grown under high relative humidity (80‑90%), the fungus generates a dense, continuous surface membrane known as a Mycelium Film (MF). This self‑forming skin adds another dimension to mycelium based building materials.
Biochemistry of the Skin
G. lucidum is a “selective white‑rot fungus.” Unlike brown‑rot fungi that destroy everything in their path, Reishi secretes a specialized suite of extracellular enzymes – laccases, manganese peroxidases, and lignin peroxidases. These enzymes depolymerize the rigid lignin matrix of the substrate into soluble monomers while leaving the crystalline cellulose fibers intact. This creates a high‑density, leather‑like skin that is remarkably hydrophobic.
Thermal Performance of the Skin
Using the laser flash method (via a Linseis XFA 500 analyzer) to measure thermal diffusivity, researchers found that this “skin” has a thermal conductivity value (k₍MF₎) of 0.015 W m⁻¹ K⁻¹. For context, still air has a thermal conductivity of ~0.026 W m⁻¹ K⁻¹. This means the fungal skin is a better thermal insulator than the air trapped within it. When integrated into mycelium based building materials, this self‑generating skin acts as a high‑performance building envelope, preventing “thermal bridging” and moisture intrusion – the twin enemies of traditional bio‑based materials.
For more on fungal enzymes in construction, visit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251925/
Fungi Can “Eat” Our Unrecyclable Waste (OSB & Desilicated Straw)
The most compelling argument for the circularity of mycelium based building materials is their ability to upcycle waste streams that the current industrial system cannot handle. This is fungal waste upcycling construction in action.
Trametes versicolor and OSB
Research from the University of Bath has shown that Trametes versicolor (Turkey Tail) can break down Oriented Strand Board (OSB). OSB is a construction staple, but it is a recycling nightmare because it is saturated with synthetic resins that release formaldehyde. T. versicolor doesn’t mind; it treats the OSB as a carbon source, threading its hyphae through the wood flakes and “gluing” them into a natural, thermally insulating composite. This fungal waste upcycling construction method transforms toxic building waste into valuable feedstock.
Desilicated Wheat Straw
Similarly, researchers have utilized “desilicated” wheat straw. By removing the silica that naturally inhibits fungal growth, the straw becomes more “digestible,” allowing for a much higher hyphal density and improved mechanical strength. Fungal waste upcycling construction thus turns low‑value agricultural residue into high‑performance mycelium based building materials.
The Solid‑State Fermentation (SSF) Methodology
- Chipping: Grinding OSB or agricultural straw into 1 mm fragments to maximize surface area.
- Soaking & Pre‑treatment: Hydrating the substrate and applying a desilication process (if using straw) to improve nutrient accessibility.
- Inoculation: Introducing the fungal spawn (typically 3% weight ratio, but up to 10‑32% for high‑density sandwich panels).
- Growth (The SSF Phase): Maintaining the incubation chamber at 25–30 °C with CO₂ concentrations manipulated to 5 vol%. This elevated CO₂ suppresses the formation of “fruiting bodies” (the mushrooms we eat) and instead forces the energy into dense vegetative hyphal expansion.
For a deep dive into solid‑state fermentation, visit: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02614/full
The “Hidden” Cost of Fungal Metabolism: Transparency in LCA
To maintain “green” credibility, the industry must be radically transparent about the biology of growth. A counter‑intuitive finding in the Livne et al. (2022) source is that the fungus itself breathes. Like us, fungi consume oxygen and exhale CO₂. This metabolic CO₂ accounts for approximately 21% of total emissions during the manufacturing process of mycelium based building materials.
The Metabolic CO₂ Equation
The researchers developed a precise linear relationship to calculate this:
MCO₂ = 1.761 × Δm – 0.0521
Where Δm is the dry weight loss of the substrate. Interestingly, the conversion ratio of 1.761 g of CO₂ per 1 g of substrate reduction is higher than the theoretical 1.63 g value for burning cellulose. This “gap” is explained by the different carbon contents of the fungus versus the substrate – the fungus essentially concentrates the mass while releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
Why This Matters for Designers
For the architect and science communicator, this data is the ultimate defense against “greenwashing.” By acknowledging the metabolic cost of the “living manufacturing system,” we can build a truly honest model of sustainability that traditional “factory‑made” materials can never match. Mycelium based building materials are not magic – they are biology. And biology has a metabolic price. But even with that price, the net carbon impact of a carbon negative mycoblock remains negative.
For a full LCA methodology, visit: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/
From Lab to Living Room: The Commercial Scale‑Up
The transition from a Petri dish to a pilot plant is the final frontier. We are seeing a surge of climate‑tech startups successfully crossing this “valley of death.” The commercial adoption of mycelium based building materials is accelerating.
Mykor (Portugal)
Recently raised €4.6 M to scale “MykoFoam” at their Portuguese pilot plant. Their product is grown from Alentejo agricultural residues and uses 90% less water and 40% less energy than traditional foam. Crucially, they claim their panels are up to 35% cheaper than other eco‑friendly alternatives. Mykor focuses on fire retardant mycelium insulation for residential and commercial buildings.
Biohm (United Kingdom)
Based in the UK, Biohm is aiming for a production goal of 120 homes per month. They are training mycelium strains to “eat” unrecyclable plastics and latexes, turning industrial pollution into insulation. Their acoustic mycelium panels have been installed in several London office retrofits. Biohm exemplifies fungal waste upcycling construction at scale.
Ecovative (United States)
The category pioneer that has spent 15 years perfecting the “MycoFoam” core material, which boasts a compressive strength of 0.12 MPa (18 psi). Ecovative’s mycelium based building materials are now used in packaging, furniture, and building insulation. They have partnered with几家 major insulation distributors.
The Scaling Challenge
A single 100‑square‑meter detached house requires roughly 500 to 800 square meters of insulation board. When you consider that the European insulation market shipped 600 million cubic meters of product in 2024, the opportunity for fungal disruption is astronomical. As Ehab Sayed, founder of Biohm, noted: “We are working with over 300 different strains and it’s a game of marrying the right strains with the right waste streams so the opportunity to scale is huge.”
For startup and investment news, visit: https://www.climate-tech.com/mycelium-construction
Conclusion: A New Way of Co‑Existing with Biology
Mycelium based building materials are not just a material – they are a bio‑technological platform. They allow us to view waste not as a problem to be buried, but as a feedstock for a chitinous matrix that threads through the skeletal remains of our industrial past. By optimizing the specific heat capacity (averaging 9,000 J/kg·K) and harnessing the enzymatic precision of white‑rot fungi, we can grow structures that are carbon‑negative, fire‑resistant, and acoustically serene.
We have explored seven reasons: the carbon negative mycoblock that sequesters CO₂; the fire retardant mycelium insulation that chars rather than melts; the acoustic mycelium panels that convert sound to heat; the Reishi skin that insulates better than still air; the fungal waste upcycling construction that devours OSB and desilicated straw; the transparent LCA that accounts for fungal metabolism; and the commercial scale‑up that is bringing mycelium based building materials to the mass market.
As we look toward 2030, the question for designers is no longer “what can we build,” but “what can we grow?” If we can grow our homes to be as efficient as a forest and as resilient as a fungal network, why would we ever go back to building them like a factory?
Selected Bibliography
- Livne, A., et al. (2022). “Life cycle assessment of mycelium‑based composite materials.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130‑139.
- Zhang, X., et al. (2024). “Silicon‑mediated fire retardancy in mycelium composites.” Construction and Building Materials, 385, 131‑142.
- Gezer, E. D., & Kuştaş, S. (2024). “Acoustic properties of Pleurotus and Ganoderma mycelium panels.” Building Acoustics, 31(2), 145‑158.
- Haneef, M., et al. (2017). “Advanced materials from fungal mycelium: fabrication and tuning of physical properties.” Scientific Reports, 7, 41292.
- Jones, M., et al. (2020). “Mycelium composites: a review of engineering properties and growth kinetics.” Materials, 13(7), 1650.
- Biohm. (2025). “Circular construction using fungal waste upcycling.” ReLondon Success Story.
Dig Deeper Into the Mycelium:
Paralepista flaccida Identification: Therapeutic Funnel vs Toxic Lookalikes | Lichen The Vibe
Oregon Mushroom Harvesting Regulations: Complete Coastal Guide | Lichen The Vibe
Ecological Tree-to-Table Foraging: Master Wild Mushrooms | Lichen The Vibe
Morel Mushroom Foraging: 8 Amazing Counter-Intuitive Secrets | Lichen The Vibe