Fungi and bacteria could be used to build homes one day, new study suggests
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.
Living in a house made of fungi and bacteria may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but researchers are now one step closer to eventually making it a reality, according to a new study.
A research team in Montana grew dense, spongy tangles of mycelium — the rootlike structure that connects fungal networks underground — as a framework to create a living, self-repairing building material.
The ability to create durable, load-bearing structures with living material is still many years away. However, this discovery is an important step toward creating a sustainable alternative to cement, the binding agent in concrete, said Chelsea Heveran, senior author of the study published April 16 in the journal Cell Reports Physical Science.
More than 4 billion metric tons (4.4 billion tons) of cement is manufactured annually, contributing about 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to London-based think tank Chatham House. This means if cement production were a country, it would rank third after China and the United States based on 2023 emissions.
'We asked 'what if we could do it a different way using biology?' That's the vision,' said Heveran, who is an assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at Montana State University Bozeman.
The study authors introduced bacteria capable of producing calcium carbonate — the same chemical compound found in coral, eggshells and limestone — to the fungal mycelium, which served as scaffolds. Through a process called biomineralization, the calcium carbonate hardened the gooey, flexible mycelium into a stiff, bonelike structure.
'We're not the first ones to biomineralize something and call it a building material. … But if you want to keep (the bacteria) alive for longer so that you can do more with them, there's been some challenges involved to extend that viability,' Heveran said. 'So that's why we gave them fungal mycelium scaffolds, because the mycelium is really robust, and in nature, sometimes it biomineralizes (itself).'
The team experimented with letting the fungus, called Neurospora crassa, biomineralize on its own but found that killing it and then adding the microbes helped achieve a stiffer material in less time. The bacteria, called Sporosarcina pasteurii, created crystalline nets of calcium carbonate around the fungal threads after metabolizing urea, which is like food for the bacteria.
While other biomineralized building materials are only considered 'living' for a few days, Heveran said her team was able to keep the microbes active for at least four weeks, and eventually, that period could extend to months or even years.
'We're really excited in our next work to ask the questions 'could we seal a crack in the material?' Or 'could we sense something using these bacteria?' Like, imagine you had poor air quality in your building, and these bricks were your walls. Could they light up to (indicate) that?' Heveran said. 'Before, we couldn't do any of that because the microbes weren't alive enough, but they're very alive now.'
Before being used for homes, fences or other construction, a lot more testing is needed to find a living building material to replace cement, said Avinash Manjula-Basavanna, a bioengineer who was not involved in the study.
'These kinds of experiments are done on a small scale. … They are not necessarily a reflection of the bulk material properties,' said Manjula-Basavanna, who is senior research scientist at Northeastern University in Boston. 'It's not stiffness that people are interested in when it comes to construction materials. It is the strength, (the) load-bearing ability.'
While the strength and durability of living building materials is not on par with concrete yet, Heveran said mycelium is still a promising base. Thanks to its flexibility, the sticky substance could be shaped to include vascular-like channels within beams, bricks or walls.
Much like blood vessels in the human body, cells within living building materials need structures capable of delivering nutrients to stay alive. However, adding these structures into the design of building materials could make them weaker, presenting a challenge for future studies, Manjula-Basavanna said.
'I think in the future, they could be useful for single-story buildings, these smaller structures — it's very much feasible,' Manjula-Basavanna said. 'It might be five to 10 years down the line.'
Fungus is also a potential respiratory hazard, and though killing the mycelium reduces its allergen-producing ability, more research should be done before it's considered safe to inhabit, Heveran said.
'It's very clear to conceptualize a test framework by which the materials need to be strong enough, because those kinds of standards exist already,' Heveran said. 'But we don't have regulatory standards for my bricks that have cells in them.'
It's safe to say you won't see fungus bricks sold at your local home improvement store any time soon.
Heveran's team is just one of many in the country exploring the possibilities of mycelium, which has been used for other, softer items such as packaging and insulation.
Several government agencies are already interested in the possible use cases of living building materials, Heveran said.
'There's a lot of 'ifs' that would have to come into play for the average household to have a cost benefit from this,' Heveran said.
'But for society, it might be a lot cheaper when you're trying to build infrastructure for a community that really needs it, or if you're trying to build infrastructure in space, this might be a lot easier than carting cement and concrete up there,' she explained. 'The possibilities are really exciting to me.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
‘Damages beyond repair': Military analyst shows before and after photos of Iran's nuclear site
US airstrikes on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility have left at least six large craters, indicating the use of bunker-busting bombs, a CNN analysis of satellite imagery found. CNN military analyst Col. Cedric Leighton (Ret.) analyzes the satellite images that show the damage before and after US strikes.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
‘Damages beyond repair': Colonel shows before and after photos of Iran's nuclear site
US airstrikes on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility have left at least six large craters, indicating the use of bunker-busting bombs, a CNN analysis of satellite imagery found. CNN military analyst Col. Cedric Leighton (Ret.) analyzes the satellite images that show the damage before and after US strikes.
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Climate change threatens world food supply. How bad could it be in the U.S.?
It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The planet's food system faces growing risks from climate change, a new study says. It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The study, published June 18, assessed six staple crops – maize (corn), soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum – and found that only rice might avoid substantial losses from rising temperatures. 'If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," study co-author Solomon Hsiang of Stanford University said in a statement. Will there still be a Corn Belt? The projected losses for U.S. agriculture are especially steep, according to the study. 'Places in the Midwest that are really well suited for present-day corn and soybean production just get hammered under a high warming future,' said lead study author Andrew Hultgren of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'You do start to wonder if the Corn Belt is going to be the Corn Belt in the future.' Scientists estimated that for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels, production will decline by 120 calories per person per day, the equivalent of 4.4% of today's daily consumption. That will push up prices and make it harder for people to access food, Hsiang told CNN. Wheat, soy and corn most affected Wheat and corn will be among the crops most at risk, the study found. The study suggested that under a high-emissions scenario, by the end of the century, maize production could decline by up to 40% in the United States, Eastern China, Central Asia, Southern Africa and the Middle East. Wheat loses could range from 15% to 25% in Europe, Africa and South America and 30% to 40% in China, Russia, the United States and Canada. 'This is basically like sending our agricultural profits overseas," Hsiang said in a statement from Stanford. "We will be sending benefits to producers in Canada, Russia, China. Those are the winners, and we in the U.S. are the losers. The longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more money we lose.' Data center: Hot, hotter, hottest: How much will climate change warm your county? Steepest losses at the extremes The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy, according to a statement from Stanford University. That includes modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, such as the United States, and subsistence farming communities that rely on small harvests of cassava. In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis found yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest-income regions by 2100. In the study, scientists concluded further adaptation and the expansion of cropland may be needed to ensure food security and limit the effects of climate change. A favorable climate, Hsiang said, is a big part of what keeps farmland productive across generations. 'Farmers know how to maintain the soil, invest in infrastructure, repair the barn,' Hsiang said. 'But if you're letting the climate depreciate, the rest of it is a waste. The land you leave to your kids will be good for something, but not for farming.' The study was published in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
