5 ms·

species: Cladosporium sphaerospermum """ radiation beneath a ≈ 1.7 mm thick lawn of the dematiaceous radiotrophic fungus was 2.17±0.25% lower as compared to t

by ianai 5y ago

species: Cladosporium sphaerospermum """ radiation beneath a ≈ 1.7 mm thick lawn of the dematiaceous radiotrophic fungus was 2.17±0.25% lower as compared to the negative control. In addition, a growth advantage in Space of ~ 21% was observed, substantiating the thesis that the fungus’ radiotropism is extendable to Space radiation. """

ianai 5y ago
Consider on the low end ((2.17-.25)% per 1.7 mm thick) this works out to 88.6 mm for 100% coverage or around 3.5 inches. I'm wondering whether the fungus could actually be grown to various thicknesses, or is 1.7mm kind of its natural thickness? Might need a layer system of some sort. I'm really thinking I should burn some time on learning about fungi and bacteria. It'd be cool if there were some ecosystem of them capable of taking in human waste as input and outputting useful things like cleaner water and shielding. (Replied to myself since the other comment is older.)
- satya71 5y ago
  You'd need about 400mm thick layer to cut radiation to 1% of incident at 2% per layer.
- phdelightful 5y ago
  Does it actually work like that or does each successive 1.7mm multiply the radiation flux by 0.98? And then the inner layers will get less radiation and grow less well also?
  - ianai 5y ago
    Yeah if it's like that, I get around .9 meters thick for blocking 99.999997%. I'd like to see what a 10x thicker fungus could block. That would help inform how it's likely to flesh out at scale.
  - version_five 5y ago
    This is correct, each incremental layer would block 2% of what is incident on it, not knock 2% off the starting number
- sailingparrot 5y ago
  > ((2.17-.25)% per 1.7 mm thick) this works out to 88.6 mm for 100% coverage or around 3.5 inches. 2.17% is when only one side is shielded: "it can be extrapolated that the biomass would reduce total radiation levels (of the measured spectrum) by 4.34±0.5% were it fully surrounding an object" But your assumption that this thing scale linearly is far from reality, see for example their estimate for Mars: "In a case study we estimated that a ~ 2.3 m layer of melanized fungal biomass (8.6% [wmelanin/wCWW] melanin-content) would be needed to lower Martian radiation levels to those on Earth (from 234 mSv/a to 6.2 mSv/a [6, 7, 53])" ISS is at apporximately 144 mSv/a.
  - ianai 5y ago
    I think it's probably fair to say this is early research and much more would need to be done. I also figure this could be done on earth and tested against various radiation sources.
- lioeters 5y ago
  Book recommendation: Mycelium Running > Mycoremediation: the use of mycelium for decomposing toxic wastes and pollutants https://fungi.com/products/mycelium-running https://fungi.com/products/mycelium-running
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  I grew fungi for a living at my previous job. They will grow in any shape you like as long as they have food and substrate. The lower levels will get less radiation though. https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/greensulate---fungus-based-insulation-material-thats-grown-rather-manufactured https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/greensulate---fungus-base...
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    It could be grown in movable segments so that the less exposed parts got a good dose regularity. Sounds like a pain to manage. Either way, you’d need to be checking it regularly as having a section die would be bad.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > It'd be cool if there were some ecosystem of them capable of taking in human waste as input and outputting useful things like cleaner water and shielding. Earth is pretty good. A little large to change its direction of travel though.
ByThyGrace 5y ago
So what is "growth advantage" and why is the 21% figure meaningul?
- plutonorm 5y ago
  The fungus grows better in space. Probably because it's radiographic (uses radiation for energy). But also possibly because it came from space and incidentally populates environments on earth (I'm semi serious).
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    I don't think the conditions on random meteors are in any way comparable to some lab in the ISS...

by ianai 5y ago

ianai 5y ago

Consider on the low end ((2.17-.25)% per 1.7 mm thick) this works out to 88.6 mm for 100% coverage or around 3.5 inches. I'm wondering whether the fungus could actually be grown to various thicknesses, or is 1.7mm kind of its natural thickness? Might need a layer system of some sort. I'm really thinking I should burn some time on learning about fungi and bacteria. It'd be cool if there were some ecosystem of them capable of taking in human waste as input and outputting useful things like cleaner water and shielding. (Replied to myself since the other comment is older.)

satya71 5y ago
You'd need about 400mm thick layer to cut radiation to 1% of incident at 2% per layer.
phdelightful 5y ago
Does it actually work like that or does each successive 1.7mm multiply the radiation flux by 0.98? And then the inner layers will get less radiation and grow less well also?
- ianai 5y ago
  Yeah if it's like that, I get around .9 meters thick for blocking 99.999997%. I'd like to see what a 10x thicker fungus could block. That would help inform how it's likely to flesh out at scale.
- version_five 5y ago
  This is correct, each incremental layer would block 2% of what is incident on it, not knock 2% off the starting number
sailingparrot 5y ago
> ((2.17-.25)% per 1.7 mm thick) this works out to 88.6 mm for 100% coverage or around 3.5 inches. 2.17% is when only one side is shielded: "it can be extrapolated that the biomass would reduce total radiation levels (of the measured spectrum) by 4.34±0.5% were it fully surrounding an object" But your assumption that this thing scale linearly is far from reality, see for example their estimate for Mars: "In a case study we estimated that a ~ 2.3 m layer of melanized fungal biomass (8.6% [wmelanin/wCWW] melanin-content) would be needed to lower Martian radiation levels to those on Earth (from 234 mSv/a to 6.2 mSv/a [6, 7, 53])" ISS is at apporximately 144 mSv/a.
- ianai 5y ago
  I think it's probably fair to say this is early research and much more would need to be done. I also figure this could be done on earth and tested against various radiation sources.
lioeters 5y ago
Book recommendation: Mycelium Running > Mycoremediation: the use of mycelium for decomposing toxic wastes and pollutants https://fungi.com/products/mycelium-running https://fungi.com/products/mycelium-running
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
I grew fungi for a living at my previous job. They will grow in any shape you like as long as they have food and substrate. The lower levels will get less radiation though. https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/greensulate---fungus-based-insulation-material-thats-grown-rather-manufactured https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/greensulate---fungus-base...
- lostlogin 5y ago
  It could be grown in movable segments so that the less exposed parts got a good dose regularity. Sounds like a pain to manage. Either way, you’d need to be checking it regularly as having a section die would be bad.
lostlogin 5y ago
> It'd be cool if there were some ecosystem of them capable of taking in human waste as input and outputting useful things like cleaner water and shielding. Earth is pretty good. A little large to change its direction of travel though.

ByThyGrace 5y ago

So what is "growth advantage" and why is the 21% figure meaningul?

plutonorm 5y ago
The fungus grows better in space. Probably because it's radiographic (uses radiation for energy). But also possibly because it came from space and incidentally populates environments on earth (I'm semi serious).
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  I don't think the conditions on random meteors are in any way comparable to some lab in the ISS...