ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparing substrates for mycelium-based composite insulation materials with thermal and environmental assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The construction industry needs to transition toward more sustainable materials to reduce environmental impacts. Insulation materials reduce energy demands of buildings, yet traditional options often have high embodied carbon and rely on finite resources. Mycelium-based composites (MBCs) have emerged as promising bio-based alternatives, formed by the colonisation of fungal mycelium on lignocellulosic feedstocks; the mycelium acts as a natural adhesive and upon drying an inert material is produced. MBCs have demonstrated low thermal conductivity (λ) and sustainability benefits, with substrate choice being a key factor in determining both thermal and environmental performance. This study emphasises the need for a functional unit (FU) that accounts for thermal performance rather than mass-based declared units (DUs) in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). MBCs were produced using Lentinus tigrinus mycelium and five different substrates: ash-wood chips, bark, beech-wood sawdust, hemp shiv, and wheat straw. Thermal conductivity measurements (ASTM C518) were conducted, revealing that ash-wood chip MBCs exhibited the highest thermal conductivity (λ = 0.048 W/m·K), while straw-based MBCs had the lowest (λ = 0.031 W/m·K). Thermal conductivity and density of the material were used to calculate the FU (mass of insulation required to achieve an R-value of 1 m[Formula: see text]K/W). A cradle-to-gate LCA (EN 15804) compared environmental impacts per FU for each MBC produced at lab-scale. Ash-wood chip MBCs demonstrated the lowest total global warming potential (GWP) (-9.77 kg CO[Formula: see text] eq), while straw-based MBCs had the highest (4.04 kg CO[Formula: see text] eq). Further analyses examined whether transport distance, waste designation, and carbon sequestration uncertainty would affect substrate ranking and, consequently, selection. While local sourcing and waste-derived substrates reduced emissions, it did not alter rankings. A Monte Carlo analysis confirmed that even with uncertainty in substrate carbon sequestration, MBCs maintained low GWP values. These findings show that low λ MBCs can be produced from various substrates. Substrate selection should consider thermal and environmental performance, as carbon sequestration, rather than λ, is the dominant factor influencing GWP. This underscores the need to consider broader environmental trade-offs when optimising MBC insulation materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.