Toxic particles remaining after bioremediation test


#1

Hi BioFab community,
I would like to start an open reflexion about the toxicity level remaining after a bioremediation trial. I am starting to investigate ways to “close the loop” after soil bioremediation and I’m wondering if someone has searched on this topic.

  1. Mycoremediation test
    After a mycelial enzymatic reaction of complex molecules (heavy metals for example), remaining contaminated particles are stocked in the fruit body and I am wondering what is the level of remained toxicity and if there is a risk that some toxic substances might still be found in the mycelium roots while transferring to the fruit?
    I am researching ways to close the loop after a mycoremediation test - How could we use a mushroom culture that has digested and stocked polluted particles? More precisely: is there a risk in using the mycelium part that should not be contaminated to produce objects?

I know that Paul Stamets mentioned a vitrifying method in his Fukushima mycoremediation protocol:
“8. Continuously remove the mushrooms, which have now concentrated the radioactivity, particularly Cesium 137, to an incinerator. Burning the mushroom will result in radioactive ash. This ash can be further refined and the resulting concentrates vitrified (placed into glass) or stored using other state-of-the-art storage technologies.”

  1. Comparison with toxic compounds in Phytoremediation test
    Also, I have read that after a phytoremediation test, the compounds synthesized by plants showed remarkable properties that could be used as an efficient eco-catalyst (Claude Grison, CNRS Montpellier). This is apparently a very simple technic, 2 to 3 times more efficient than traditional metal catalysts. So instead of purifying compounds (which needs lots of energy and are expensive), they would actually be very almost directly performant (and recyclable) for chemical purposes such as medicine, cosmetic, biopesticides… Could that be a possibility from synthesized compounds from mycoremediation too?

#2

Depending on the metal in question you would have better luck using them like compost for certain plants that actually need them. like so:

In the end mycoremediation for metals is really focused on creating a collectable concentrator, and maybe transforming to slightly less toxic species, say Cr+6 to Cr+3. If it is Cu o Ni then there is a risk of allergic reactions.

If we are talking organic mycoremediation, the biorefinery approach, breaking down large molecules into smaller usable molecules, should be ideal to close the loop, but we are still a decent time away from those.


#3

Vitrifying seems like a last resort approach only for the most harmful substances that have no place in nature to begin with. Heavy metals have been mined though. I was thinking it’d be best to get them back in their original form as ore, put them back into the ground. No idea if that’s been considered technically, or if there is anyway still a leakage of metals this way.