Next Article in Journal
A Novel Major Facilitator Superfamily Transporter Gene Aokap4 near the Kojic Acid Gene Cluster Is Involved in Growth and Kojic Acid Production in Aspergillus oryzae
Next Article in Special Issue
Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals Occurrence in Two Wild Edible Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus spp.) Collected from Rajaji National Park
Previous Article in Journal
De Novo Long-Read Whole-Genome Assemblies and the Comparative Pan-Genome Analysis of Ascochyta Blight Pathogens Affecting Field Pea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Copper Resistance Strategies of Rhodonia placenta and Phanerochaete chrysosporium in a Copper/Azole-Treated Wood Microcosm
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Mycoremediation of Flotation Tailings with Agaricus bisporus

Department of Chemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 75, 60-625 Poznań, Poland
Department of Vegetable Crops, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Dąbrowskiego 159, 60-594 Poznań, Poland
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
Department of Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, University of South Bohemia, 370 04 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
Faculty of Chemistry, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 8, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(8), 883;
Received: 24 July 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heavy Metals in Mushrooms)


Due to their enzymatic and bioaccumulation faculties the use of macromycetes for the decontamination of polluted matrices seems reasonable for bioremediation. For this reason, the aim of our study was to evaluate the mycoremediation ability of Agaricus bisporus cultivated on compost mixed with flotation tailings in different quantities (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20% addition). The biomass of the fruit bodies and the content of 51 major and trace elements were determined. Cultivation of A. bisporus in compost moderately polluted with flotation tailings yielded significantly lower (the first flush) and higher (the second flush) biomass of fruit bodies, compared with the control treatment. The presence of toxic trace elements did not cause any visible adverse symptoms for A. bisporus. Increasing the addition of flotation tailings to the compost induced an elevated level of most determined elements. A significant increase in rare earth elements (both flushes) and platinum group elements (first flush only) was observed. The opposite situation was recorded for major essential elements, except for Na and Mg in A. bisporus from the second flush under the most enriched compost (20%). Nevertheless, calculated bioaccumulation factor values showed a selective accumulation capacity—limited for toxic elements (except for Ag, As, and Cd) and the effective accumulation of B, Cu, K, and Se. The obtained results confirmed that A. bisporus can be used for practical application in mycoremediation in the industry although this must be preceded by larger-scale tests. This application seems to be the most favorable for media contaminated with selected elements, whose absorption by fruiting bodies is the most efficient.

1. Introduction

Mycoremediation as a form of bioremediation may be an effective, eco-friendly technique for decontamination of polluted environmental matrices because of its simplicity and highly efficient implementation process [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. It is also one of the least costly forms of remediation, and both micromycetes and macromycetes may be used [8,9]. Fungi-mediated remediation as a cost-effective method may use mycelium to effectively secrete extracellular enzymes, finally transforming organic pollutants into non-toxic compounds (bioaugmentation) or accumulating toxic elements [10,11,12].
There are numerous literature data about biodegradation, bioconversion, or biosorption for the degradation of common pollutants using different mushroom species [13,14]. Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Trametes versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, and P. eryngii; pesticides and herbicides by Botryosphaeria laricina, Aspergillus glaucus, T. pavonia, Penicillium spiculisporus, and P. verruculosum; antibiotics and pharmaceuticals by Leptospaherulina sp, Irpex lacteus, Lentinula edodes, Mucor hiemalis, and Phanerochaete chrysosporium were reviewed by Akhtar and Mannan [9]. Effective biosorption of heavy metals (aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn)) with the use of spent Agaricus bisporus from production has also been described in the literature [4,15,16]. In terms of heavy metals, mycoremediation by easily cultivable, fast-growing, and highly accumulating white rot fungi P. sajor-caju, A. bitorquis, and Ganoderma lucidum with a potential for Cr, Cu, and Pb remediation was described by Hanif and Bhatti [17]. This method may also use macromycetes to accumulate toxic elements in their biomass [18]. An example of such a species is Pleurotus spp., which is known to effectively accumulate selected trace elements in whole fruit bodies [19]. This method limits the initial toxicity of elements after their accumulation without the risk of the production of toxic metabolites, which are usually present in bioremediation with microbes [20].
It should be remembered that despite many advantages, biological methods of environmental remediation also have limiting factors. In the review of Boopathy [20], various factors that limit the use of bioremediation technologies were summarized. Some information can be found in the literature on the critical aspects and limitations of the use of mycoremediation. They should not be forgotten and strategies to overcome them are necessary [9]. One of the examples of limiting factors is the reduced bioavailability of pollutants. Puglisi et al. [21] observed that some fungi overcome this limitation by the production of unique proteins (hydrophobins), due to their ability to dissolve hydrophobic molecules into aqueous media. For an effective process, optimal conditions should be present (temperature: 10–28 °C, pH: about 6.5, humidity: 86–90%, and CO2 level: 15–20%) [22,23]. In the case of the in situ process, maintaining the above-mentioned conditions can be difficult, which is another limitation. Rubichaud et al. [24] confirmed that cold environmental conditions can impede the activity of various fungal enzymes necessary to degrade toxic pollutants. Therefore, the selection of suitable macrofungi for the particular substrate is essential. A high rate of element accumulation combined with a more frequent harvest cycle is a clear argument for using this method in practice [25].
A separate issue is the efficiency of metal accumulation by fruit bodies related to their concentration in naturally and artificially polluted soil [26,27]. Sithole et al. [28] studied accumulation in mushrooms growing around three mining areas and reported that heavy metal contents can be significantly different. This confirms that both element concentration and soil chemistry influence the bioavailability of metals and their contents in fruit bodies. It seems that the enrichment of samples may be diverse, which is finally related to the potential toxicity of mushrooms and differing contents of essential inorganic elements [29].
Among the many industrial activities with negative environmental effects, the production of hazardous wastes poses serious environmental and social problems around the world. One group of such wastes is metal processing tailings. Flotation is a common mineral processing method used to upgrade copper sulfide ores where copper mineral particles are concentrated in froth, and associated gangue minerals are separated as tailings [30,31,32,33]. According to Zhai et al. [34], 60 million tons of Cu slag are generated annually worldwide during flotation and cause irreversible water and soil pollution. Finding an environmentally friendly remediation technology is crucial. There is potential for transforming tailing wastes into valuable products due to their considerable concentrations of many critical metals/metalloids. The recovery of elements and the use of the mineral residues in high- and low-value products can be very profitable from an industrial point of view (for producers of these pollutants and companies experienced in these methods). The amounts of generated wastes are so significant that a combination of several different approaches (reduce, reprocess, upcycle, downcycle) is needed [35]. One of the stages may be effective mycoremediation.
Agaricus bisporus is the most important commercially cultivated mushroom, contributing approximately 40–45% to world mushroom production [36,37]. Since it is so commonly cultivated, it would seem to be ideal for mycoremediation purposes. There are more and more reports of such use in the literature. Kryczyk et al. [38] presented in vitro cultures of A. bisporus demonstrating their remediation capacity for Cd and Pb from a supplemented medium. Kumar et al. [39] described an integrated approach for sustainable management of industrial wastewater and agricultural residues in A. bisporus production while minimizing the risks associated with their disposal. Ugya and Imam [40] described the effectiveness of A. bisporus in the remediation of refinery wastewater. The species showed high reduction efficiency for sulphate, phosphate, nitrate, alkalinity, electrical conductivity (EC), biological and chemical oxygen demands (BOD and COD), and heavy metals (Ag, Hg, Mn, Pb, and Zn).
In view of the above, the aim of this study was to evaluate the mycoremediation ability of A. bisporus. The content of 51 elements in the mushroom fruit bodies growing on compost mixed with highly polluted flotation tailings in different quantities (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20% addition) enriched with flotation tailing was determined. The biomass of the collected fruit bodies was also assessed to estimate how polluted materials affect mushroom development. An experiment was performed to show the mineral composition of fruit bodies after the mycoremediation process.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

The substrate used for the experimental cultivation came from the commercial production of compost for mushroom growing (WRONA Company, Pszczyna, Poland). The compost was based on wheat straw, chicken manure, and gypsum and was prepared using a conventional method characteristic for phase II compost (fermentation and pasteurization). The compost was mixed with flotation tailings in quantities of 0 (control), 1 (FT1), 5 (FT5), 10 (FT10), 15 (FT15,), and 20% (FT20) by weight of the compost. Granulation [%] of flotation tailings was 11, 88, and 1 for clay, silt and sand, respectively. The pH of this component was 7.19, with an EC of 6.98 dS m−1. The characteristics of element concentration in flotation tailings are described in Table 1.
The compost was inoculated with commercial A. bisporus mycelium in 5% of the compost weight. The strain EuroMycel 58 was used. The mixtures were placed in plastic containers (15 × 18 × 14 cm) at 1 kg per container for each particular experimental system (Figure 1). The compost layer thickness was 8 cm. Eight containers for each treatment were prepared. Incubation was carried out in a growing chamber at a temperature of 24–25 °C and 85–90% of humidity. Once the compost was completely overgrown with mycelium, a 3.5 cm layer of casing soil was applied to the substrate surface. The moisture content of the casing soil was 75%. The casing soil came from the Wokas Company (Łosice, Poland) and was prepared based on sphagnum peat moss with chalk (pH 6.7). Incubation was continued until the mycelium overgrew the casing soil. When it appeared on the casing soil surface, the air temperature was lowered to 17–18 °C. The casing soil was watered to maintain constant moisture content. The growing chamber was aerated to keep CO2 concentration below 1500 ppm. The fruit bodies were collected fully developed but still completely closed. Individuals from the control and treatment FT1 were harvested simultaneously, whereas from the other experimental systems (FT5, FT10, FT15, and FT20) 2, 3, 4, and 5 days later, respectively. The delay in the harvesting of fruiting bodies was due to the fact that increasing the amount of sludge (waste) addition delayed their setting.
Just two flushes of fruit bodies were produced and harvested. The interval between consecutive harvests was 8 days in each case. The yield included whole fruit bodies collected from 1 container, and the determined yield was a mean value calculated based on 8 containers belonging to the same treatment. None of the fruit bodies showed any signs of distortion or discoloration (Figure 1). The experiment was performed in May 2020.

2.2. Analytical Procedure

All collected fruit bodies were carefully washed with distilled water from a Milli-Q Academic System (non-TOC) (Merck Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) to remove substrate particles, and subsequently dried with paper towels and weighed. The mushrooms were then dried at 40 ± 1 °C to a constant weight in an electric oven (SLW 53 STD, Pol-Eko, Poland) and ground in a laboratory Cutting Boll Mill PM 200 (Retsch, Haan, Germany).
An accurately weighed 0.200–0.500 (±0.001) g of a sample was digested with 10 mL of concentrated nitric acid (HNO3; 65%; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) in closed Teflon containers in a microwave digestion system (Mars 6 Xpress, CEM, Matthews, NC, USA). Finally, the samples were filtered (Qualitative Filter Papers Whatman) and diluted to a volume of 15.0 mL with demineralized water (Direct-Q system, Millipore, USA). The inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system PlasmaQuant MS Q (Analytik Jena, Germany) was used to determine the following conditions: plasma gas flow 9.0 L min−1, nebulizer gas flow 1.05 L min−1, auxiliary gas flow 1.5 L min−1, radio frequency (RF) power 1.35 kW. The interferences were reduced using the integrated collision reaction cell (iCRC) working sequentially in three modes: with helium (He) as the collision gas, hydrogen (H) as the reaction gas, and without gas addition. The uncertainty for the analytical procedure, including sample preparation, was at the level of 20%. The detection limits were determined at the level of 0.001–0.010 mg kg−1 dry weight (DW) for all elements determined (3 times the standard deviation of the blank analysis (n = 10)). The accuracy was checked by analysis of the reference materials CRM 2709—soil; CRM S-1—loess soil; CRM 667—estuarine sediments; CRM 405—estuarine sediments; CRM NCSDC (73349)—bush branches and leaves, and the recovery (80–120%) was acceptable for most of the elements determined. For uncertified elements, recovery was defined using the standard addition method.
All the determined major and trace elements were divided into 6 groups, according to Kalač (2019):
Major essential elements (MEEs): calcium (Ca), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and sodium (Na);
Essential trace elements (ETEs): boron (B), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn);
Trace elements with detrimental health effects (TEWDHE): silver (Ag), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and thallium (Tl);
Rare earth elements (REEs): cerium (Ce), dysprosium (Dy), erbium (Er), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), holmium (Ho), lanthanum (La), lutetium (Lu), neodymium (Nd), praseodymium (Pr), scandium (Sc), samarium (Sm), terbium (Tb), thulium (Tm), yttrium (Y) and ytterbium (Yb);
Platinum group elements (PGEs): iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru);
Nutritionally non-essential elements (NNEs): aluminium (Al), gold (Au), bismuth (Bi), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), indium (In), lithium (Li), rhenium (Re), antimony (Sb), strontium (Sr), and tellurium (Te).

2.3. Statistical Analysis and Calculation

All statistical analyses were performed using the Agricole package (R). The analyses were performed in accordance with the procedure implemented in the R 3.6.1 environment [41]. To compare the content of determined elements in compost with different proportions of flotation tailings, a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD (statistically significant difference) post hoc: test was used. The same analysis was performed to compare the content of elements in fruit bodies growing in particular experimental treatments, separately for both flushes. This analysis used the Stat and Agricole package. A heatmap with a cluster analysis (implemented in the package Heatmaply) was performed to visualize multidimensional data separately for particular groups of elements and all elements jointly. An empirical normalization transformation brings data to the 0 to 1 scale and it allows comparison of variables of different scales, but it also keeps the shape of the distribution. A dendrogram was computed and reordered based on row and columns means. Additionally, to compare Ca, K, Mg, and Na contents together in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies from both flushes produced from particular experimental treatments, the rank-sum test was performed [42].
To estimate the efficiency of the element accumulation by mushrooms growing under particular treatments, the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) was calculated as a ratio of metal content in the whole fruit body dry matter to its concentration in substrate dry matter.

3. Results

3.1. Fructification and Biomass Yield of A. bisporus

The fastest dynamic growth of A. bisporus fruit bodies was observed in the control treatment in both flushes. In contrast, the slowest growth was apparent for mushrooms growing under the FT15 and FT20 treatments. Generally, the size of fruit bodies growing under FT5 and FT15 treatments was greater than for the rest (including the control), which is partially visible in Figure 2. The same color characterized all the collected fruit bodies from both flushes. No negative symptoms as a result of the presence of toxic elements in flotation tailings were noted.
Within the first flush, decreasing biomass yields of 339, 268, 267, 265, 178, and 111 g in the control, FT5, FT15, FT1, FT10, and FT20, respectively, were recorded (Figure 3). The determined quadratic equation (y = −1.24x2 − 26.3x + 349; R2 = 0.6628) indicates a clear decrease in the biomass yield with an increasing proportion of flotation tailings in the substrate. The biomass of A. bisporus collected from the second flush increased from the control (134 g) to treatments FT1, FT5, and FT10 with similar biomasses of 183, 194, and 191 g, respectively. The growth of fruit bodies under the FT15 system was related to the same biomass (134 g) as for the control, whereas the lowest biomass was observed for the FT20 (84.1 g). These changes are described by a quadratic equation (y = −13.7x2 + 84.3x + 65.8), which reflects (R2 = 0.9777) the fruit body response in relation to the increasing proportion of flotation tailings.

3.2. Content of Elements in Substrates

The addition of flotation tailings to the compost led to a lower mean content of MEEs from 6380 to 2550 mg kg−1 for Ca, from 3030 to 1560 mg kg−1 for K, from 726 to 282 mg kg−1 for Mg, and from 144 to 68.5 mg kg−1 for Na, for the control and FT20 (Table 2). Regarding the content of all MMEs in substrates, the highest similarities were observed between FT1 and FT5 or FT10 and FT15 (Figure 4a).
The content of ETEs in compost with flotation tailings significantly increased for all the elements included in this group except Mn, where the highest content was determined in the control and the lowest in the FT20 system (55.6 and 17.0 mg kg−1, respectively) (Table 3). This observation confirms the heatmap, where the content of Mn in the control and FT1 belong to a separate group of objects (Figure 4b). The lowest and the highest mean contents of elements in the control and FT20 system were, in mg kg−1, as follows: 1.32 and 4.62 (B); 0.057 and 0.623 (Co); 0.287 and 3.66 (Cr); 6.35 and 14.7 (Cu); 29.5 and 158 (Fe); 0.405 and 2.12 (Ni); 0.027 and 0.239 (Se); and also 45.2 and 781 (Zn). The highest mean contents determined in the substrate from the FT20 system were: 359, 1093, 1275, 231, 536, 885, and 1728% of the content for the control, respectively, for B, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Se, and Zn.
A significant increase in the mean TEWDHE content in the next treatment was also observed with the lowest value for the control (0.017, 1.55, 5.03, 0.036, 0.359, and 0.017 mg kg−1, respectively, for Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Pb, and Tl) and the highest for the FT20 system (0.107, 145, 11.6, 39.7, 15.8, and 1.87 mg kg−1, respectively) (Table 4). It is worth underlining that a high similarity was also observed between Ag and Cd, Pb and Tl, and As and Ba (Figure 4c).
Mean ∑REEs ranged from 9.12 to 21.5 mg kg−1 for the control and FT20, respectively. The dominant REEs were Nd, from 7.92 to 18.7 mg kg−1 and Ce from 0.983 to 1.67 mg kg−1 (Table 5). This observation is confirmed by a heatmap, where, based on all experimental systems, the highest similarity is between ∑REEs and Nd (creating a separate group). At the same time, Ce, especially with Eu and Er, La, Pr, and Gd, create another group (Figure 4d). Moreover, the control and FT1 were similar, whereas the remaining systems created a new group of objects.
Platinum was a dominant PGE with a mean content ranging from 0.323 to 1.42 mg kg−1, respectively, for the control and FT20 system (Table 6, Figure 4e). The addition of flotation tailings caused an increase in Pt content in the substrate. An increase in Ir content with the addition of flotation tailings was also observed from 0.150 to 0.323 mg kg−1, respectively, for the control and FT20 system. In the case of Pd and Rh, a significantly higher content of these elements was only observed in substrate FT20 compared with the other experimental systems.
For the NNEs, a significantly higher mean content of Al, Au, Bi, In, Li, Re, Sb, Sr, and Te was observed for the substrate in the FT15 and FT20 systems than for the control (Table 7). There were no significant differences in Ga and Ge content between the substrates in the control and particular treatments. All these observations are confirmed by a heatmap, where the control and FT1 systems create a separate group of objects and the highest contents, especially of Al, Bi, In, Li, Sr, and Te, are visible (Figure 4f). According to Figure 4g, where a heatmap for all detectable elements was prepared, the control and FT1 systems create a separate group, the same as the rest of the treatments used in this study. In contrast, there is generally an increased content of the studied elements in substrates with increased flotation tailings.

3.3. Content of Elements in A. bisporus Fruit Bodies

The content of Ca significantly decreased in fruit bodies collected from the first (from 109 to 24.6 mg kg−1) and the second yield (from 100 to 24.6 mg kg−1) with an increase of flotation tailings in addition to the compost (Table 2). A similar trend was also observed for K and Mg (from the first yield only). The increased addition of flotation tailings to the compost did not generally cause significant changes in Mg content in fruit bodies from the second yield or Na in mushrooms from both yields. In this experiment, fruit bodies growing under a particular system were characterized by a high similarity between Ca and Na (Figure 4a). It is worth underlining that a heatmap with a separate object created for fruit bodies growing under the FT20 system from the second yield shows the effect of the lowest content of Ca, K, and Na (10.4, 4710, and 17.9 mg kg−1, respectively) and the highest content of Mg (494 mg kg−1). Only effective accumulation (BAF > 1) of K in A. bisporus from both yields and Mg in fruit bodies from the second yield under FT20 was observed (Figure 5).
The efficiency of ETE accumulation by mushroom species was highly diverse, which confirms a clear limited accumulation of Co, Cr, Fe, or Zn in mushrooms, especially from the second yield, and the opposite situation for Cu (Table 3). The highest mean content of ETEs was determined for mushrooms growing in substrates with higher additions of flotation tailings collected from the first (FT10 and/or FT15 and/or FT20) and the second yield (FT20), which confirms the heatmap where a separate group of objects was indicated for these treatments (Figure 4b). An apparent decrease of Mn content in the fruit bodies of A. bisporus was also confirmed by the heatmap, where this metal (similarly to B) is separated from the others (Figure 4b). BAF values higher than 1 were only observed for B, Cu, and Se in fruit bodies, mainly from the first yield (Figure 5).
The content of TEWDHE in fruit bodies collected from the first yield was the highest under the FT15 and/or FT20 experimental systems, whereas from the second yield it was only under the FT20 system, except for Tl, where the highest content of this metal was recorded under FT10 and FT15 (0.062 and 0.058 mg kg−1, respectively) (Table 4). Despite this result, all mushrooms growing under the mentioned experimental systems created a separate group of objects, which undoubtedly shows similarities and differences concerning the other systems (Figure 4c). BAF > 1 was calculated only for Ag in A. bisporus bodies from the first (control, FT1, FT15, and FT20) and the second (FT20) yield (Figure 5).
∑REE content was the highest for A. bisporus growing under the FT20 system obtained from the first yield and FT4 from the second yield (21.6 and 7.88 mg kg−1, respectively) (Table 5), which confirms the graphical interpretation of the obtained results (a heatmap), where mushrooms growing on both these substrates are included in the same separate group of objects (Figure 4d). The dominant REEs were Nd and Ce in fruit bodies collected from both the first (1.14–8.12 and 0.142–4.94 mg kg−1, respectively) and the second yield (0.137–1.35 and 0.022–1.41 mg kg−1, respectively). The lower content of REEs in mushrooms growing under FT20 compared with FT15 from the second yield was probably the effect of the lower content of these elements in the substrate after the first yield and their generally limited accumulation in the second yield. The BAF calculated for ∑REEs in the first yield of A. bisporus growing only under FT20 was higher than 1 (Figure 5).
Effective accumulation of PGEs was determined, especially for Ir and Pt, whose highest mean content in fruit bodies under FT20 was 2.79 and 1.67 mg kg−1, respectively (first yield). In this case, the heatmap shows that mushrooms growing under this treatment create absolutely separate objects (Figure 4e). The efficiency of PGE accumulation by A. bisporus after the second yield was lower (Table 6). The BAF calculated for particular PGEs shows that values higher than 1 were observed, especially for the fruit bodies collected in the first yield growing under all the experimental systems (Pd, Rh, and Ru), FT5-FT20 (Ir), and FT20 (Pt) (Figure 5). In the second yield, BAF > 1 was also calculated, although it was usually an effect of a similar and low concentration of elements in the substrate and the content of these elements in mushrooms.
The efficiency of NNE accumulation in fruit bodies was diverse, with generally the highest content found in mushrooms under the highest addition of flotation tailings, except for Au (1.14 mg kg−1 under FT1) and Sb (0.256 mg kg−1 under FT1) in bodies from the first and the second yield, respectively (Table 7). According to the heatmap, the high similarity concerning the content of all NNEs between mushrooms from the first yield was the same as between mushrooms from the second yield (Figure 4f). Effective accumulation (BAF > 1) of Ga, Ge, In, and Re was recorded for mushrooms growing under almost all experimental systems from both yields, whereas for the other NNEs only for mushrooms under the addition of selected flotation tailings (Figure 5).
Based on all determined elements in the collected fruit bodies growing under the control (both yields) and the FT1, FT5, and FT10 systems from the second yield, a similarity was noted between them and their content in the substrates of the control FT1 (Figure 4g). On the other hand, A. bisporus growing under the remaining experimental systems enriched with flotation tailings (except for mushrooms under FT20 from the first yield) were characterized by a similar content of all determined elements, which are clearly shown as a separate group. The above-mentioned mushrooms growing under the FT20 system and collected from the first yield created a separate object characterized by the highest content of all studied elements jointly.

4. Discussion

Recently, there have been more and more reports on the possibility of using A. bisporus in remediation. In our experiment, five different quantities of flotation tailings were used to study the mycoremediation potential of this species. In the first flushes, a reduction in the yield was confirmed with the addition of flotation tailings. The literature confirms that supplementation of the substrate with metals/metalloids may reduce the growth dynamics of this species. Rzymski et al. [43] showed supplementation with Cu, Se, and Zn resulted in the biomass of fruiting bodies decreasing significantly at higher element addition (0.8 mM). Also, the addition of higher Hg concentrations (0.4 and 0.5 mM) to the growing medium reduced the growth of A. bisporus biomass [44].
The substrate in our experiment was richer in MEEs than mixtures of substrate and flotation tailings. The same tendency was confirmed in fruit bodies growing in experimental systems with their use. A different trend was observed concerning other groups of elements. The control substrate (compost) contained a significantly lower content of other elements than the substrate with flotation tailings. Because of the ability of A. bisporus to accumulate selected elements, the composition of waste affects the composition of its fruit (different amounts of waste addition resulting in different levels of elements in the substrate). Differences in the accumulation of heavy metals (Cd, Cr, and Pb) in A. bisporus fruiting bodies depending on the concentration of these elements in the growing medium were confirmed by Zhou et al. [45]. Nagy et al. [46] also confirmed that the maximum removal efficiencies from monocomponent aqueous solutions by A. bisporus for Cd and Zn took place at the highest concentrations of the substrate. The ability of A. bisporus to effectively accumulate selected elements shown in our study, is also well demonstrated by the results of our previous studies on supplementation during the cultivation of these mushrooms. Effective uptake of Cu, Se, and Zn from the enriched medium was confirmed by Rzymski et al. [43]. Supplementation with 0.6 mmol L−1 of Cu, Se, and Zn resulted in an over 3-fold, 2.5-fold, and 10-fold increase in their concentrations in fruiting bodies, respectively, whereas Rzymski et al. [44] demonstrated that Hg uptake increased in a concentration-dependent manner and exceeded 116 mg kg−1 in A. bisporus caps after 0.5 mM was added to the substrate.
BAF values may measure the mycoremediation efficiency of different mushroom species growing in polluted substrates and provide direct information about the potential of particular mushroom species to accumulate elements. This is crucial because this process has numerous dependent factors (environmental and genetic) [47], and is also the case for mushroom cultivation using different substrates as previously described [48]. In this study, effective accumulation was observed for selected elements only, which reflected the chosen additions of flotation tailings added to the compost. It suggests that A. bisporus application can be limited and/or used for the accumulation of selective elements only [13,49].
In general, mushroom fruit bodies collected after the mycoremediation process are waste that can be a substrate for the recovery of elements in the case of very high contents of especially precious elements [50]. The risk of contaminated food is genuine [51]. The problem of assessing the quality of fruit bodies (especially for significant and toxic trace elements) that could be consumed has been closely associated with a lack of appropriate legal regulations for many years [52,53]. However, even in countries where legislation exists, the regulations are limited to specific and usually toxic trace elements only [54,55]. The analysis and the further possibility of using the “product” from the mycoremediation of post-industrial wastes seems to be unlikely. Simultaneously, the risk of consuming contaminated fruit bodies is high, as may be shown in the study of Pająk et al. [56], who collected 10 mushroom species from polluted forest ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

The possibility of using mushroom fruiting bodies to decontaminate contaminated substrates effectively is an essential aspect of bioremediation due to their ability to accumulate elements effectively. The A. bisporus strain tested in this study effectively accumulated selected elements (Ag, Au, B, Cu, Ga, Ge, In, Ir, K, Mg, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru, Sb, Se, and Te), as evidenced by values of BAF > 1. Although this efficiency was not spectacular, to be able to recover elements in pure form, fundamentally enriched the fruiting bodies. The results of these studies indicate the potential for using A. bisporus fruiting bodies after the mycoremediation process in industry, although this must be preceded by larger-scale tests. This application seems to be the most favorable for media contaminated with selected elements, the absorption of which by fruiting bodies is the most efficient. Our study confirmed that the key to mycoremediation is determining the right fungal species to target a specific pollutant. However, due to the particularly effective accumulation of As and Cd, the post-flotation sediment subjected to this process should contain the lowest possible concentrations of both of these elements. Further research is necessary to determine the long-term potency of such a method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B., M.S. and M.M.; methodology, M.S., M.M. and P.N.; software, P.N. and A.B.; validation, S.B., M.S. and M.M; formal analysis, S.B. and P.N.; investigation, S.B., M.M., P.N.; resources, M.M. and A.B.; data curation, S.B., M.M. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B., M.M. and M.G.; writing—review and editing, S.B., M.M. and P.K.; visualization, S.B. and M.M.; supervision, M.M. and P.K.; project administration, S.B., M.S. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Gupta, S.; Wali, A.; Gupta, M.; Annepu, S.K. Fungi: An Effective Tool for Bioremediation. Plant-Microbe Interact. Agro-Ecol. Perspect. 2017, 2, 593–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kaur, P.; Balomajumder, C. Effective Mycoremediation Coupled with Bioaugmentation Studies: An Advanced Study on Newly Isolated Aspergillus sp. in Type-II Pyrethroid-Contaminated Soil. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 261, 114073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ngadin, A.A.; Taghavi, E.; Eaton, T. The Development of White-Rot Fungi as a Mycoremediation Product. In Applied Mycology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hegde, G.M.; Aditya, S.; Wangdi, D.; Chetri, B.K. Mycoremediation: A Natural Solution for Unnatural Problems. In Fungal Diversity, Ecology and Control Management; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 363–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shourie, A.; Vijayalakshmi, U. Fungal Diversity and Its Role in Mycoremediation. Geomicrobiol. J. 2022, 39, 426–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dey, P.; Malik, A.; Singh, D.K.; Haange, S.-B.; von Bergen, M.; Jehmlich, N. Insight into the Molecular Mechanisms Underpinning the Mycoremediation of Multiple Metals by Proteomic Technique. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 872576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kumar, V.; Dwivedi, S.K. Mycoremediation of Heavy Metals: Processes, Mechanisms, and Affecting Factors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 10375–10412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Purohit, J.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Biswas, M.K.; Singh, N.K. Mycoremediation of Agricultural Soil: Bioprospection for Sustainable Development. In Mycoremediation and Environmental Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 91–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Akhtar, N.; Mannan, M.A.U. Mycoremediation: Expunging Environmental Pollutants. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 26, e00452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Koul, B.; Ahmad, W.; Singh, J. Mycoremediation: A Novel Approach for Sustainable Development. In Microbe Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dey, P.; Malik, A.; Mishra, A.; Singh, D.K.; von Bergen, M.; Jehmlich, N. Mechanistic Insight to Mycoremediation Potential of a Metal Resistant Fungal Strain for Removal of Hazardous Metals from Multimetal Pesticide Matrix. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 262, 114255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bosco, F.; Mollea, C. Mycoremediation in Soil. In Environmental Chemistry and Recent Pollution Control Approaches; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Prasad, Y.; Sachin, D. Biosorption of Cu, Zn, Fe, Cd, Pb and Ni by Non-Treated Biomass of Some Edible Mushrooms. Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci. 2013, 4, 190–195. [Google Scholar]
  14. Akinyele, J.B.; Fakoya, S.; Adetuyi, C.F. Anti-Growth Factors Associated with Pleurotus Ostreatus in a Submerged Liquid Fermentation. Malays. J. Microbiol. 2012, 8, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Corral-Bobadilla, M.; González-Marcos, A.; Alba-Elías, F.; Diez de Santo Domingo, E. Valorization of Bio-Waste for the Removal of Aluminum from Industrial Wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Corral-Bobadilla, M.; González-Marcos, A.; Vergara-González, E.P.; Alba-Elías, F. Bioremediation of Waste Water to Remove Heavy Metals Using the Spent Mushroom Substrate of Agaricus bisporus. Water 2019, 11, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Hanif, M.A.; Bhatti, H.N. Remediation of Heavy Metals Using Easily Cultivable, Fast Growing, and Highly Accumulating White Rot Fungi from Hazardous Aqueous Streams. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 53, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vaseem, H.; Singh, V.K.; Singh, M.P. Heavy Metal Pollution Due to Coal Washery Effluent and Its Decontamination Using a Macrofungus, Pleurotus ostreatus. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 145, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kapahi, M.; Sachdeva, S. Mycoremediation Potential of Pleurotus Species for Heavy Metals: A Review. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2017, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Boopathy, R. Factors Limiting Bioremediation Technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 74, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Puglisi, I.; Faedda, R.; Sanzaro, V.; lo Piero, A.R.; Petrone, G.; Cacciola, S.O. Identification of Differentially Expressed Genes in Response to Mercury I and II Stress in Trichoderma Harzianum. Gene 2012, 506, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pihurov, M.; Vlăduț, V.; Bordean, D.; Ferdes, M. Mycoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soil. In Proceedings of the International Symposium, ISB-INMA-TEH, Agricultural and Mechanical Engineering, Bucharest, Romania, 31 October–1 November 2019; INMA: Bucharest, Romania, 2019; pp. 423–428. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bhatt, P.; Chen, S. Optimization of Mycoremediation Process for the Isolated Fungi. In Mycoremediation Protocols; Humana: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Robichaud, K.; Girard, C.; Dagher, D.; Stewart, K.; Labrecque, M.; Hijri, M.; Amyot, M. Local Fungi, Willow and Municipal Compost Effectively Remediate Petroleum-Contaminated Soil in the Canadian North. Chemosphere 2019, 220, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Damodaran, D.; Suresh, G.; Mohan, R. Bioremediation of soil by removing heavy metals using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. In Proceedings of the 2011 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology IPCBEE; IACSIT Press: Singapore, 2011; Volume 6, pp. 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gray, S.N. Fungi as Potential Bioremediation Agents in Soil Contaminated with Heavy or Radioactive Metals. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 1998, 26, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. Damodaran, D.; Vidya Shetty, K.; Raj Mohan, B. Uptake of Certain Heavy Metals from Contaminated Soil by Mushroom—Galerina vittiformis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 104, 414–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sithole, S.C.; Mugivhisa, L.L.; Amoo, S.O.; Olowoyo, J.O. Pattern and Concentrations of Trace Metals in Mushrooms Harvested from Trace Metal-Polluted Soils in Pretoria, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 108, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rhodes, C.J. Mycoremediation (Bioremediation with Fungi)—Growing Mushrooms to Clean the Earth. Chem. Speciat. Bioavailab. 2015, 26, 196–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bilal, M.; Park, I.; Hornn, V.; Ito, M.; Hassan, F.U.; Jeon, S.; Hiroyoshi, N. The Challenges and Prospects of Recovering Fine Copper Sulfides from Tailings Using Different Flotation Techniques: A Review. Minerals 2022, 12, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qu, G.; Chen, B.; Zhang, D.; Wu, F.; Jin, C.; Li, H.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Qin, J. Pollutants’ Migration and Transformation Behavior in Phosphorus Ore Flotation Tailings Treated with Different Additives. Appl. Geochem. 2022, 143, 105358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Antonijević, M.M.; Dimitrijević, M.D.; Stevanović, Z.O.; Serbula, S.M.; Bogdanovic, G.D. Investigation of the Possibility of Copper Recovery from the Flotation Tailings by Acid Leaching. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 158, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Galjak, J.; Đokić, J.; Dervišević, I.; Milentijević, G.; Mojsić, M.; Živković, B. Assessment of Pollution and Distribution of Heavy Metals in the Soil Near the Flotation Gornje Polje. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2022, 31, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhai, Q.; Liu, R.; Wang, C.; Wen, X.; Li, X.; Sun, W. A Novel Scheme for the Utilization of Cu Slag Flotation Tailings in Preparing Internal Electrolysis Materials to Degrade Printing and Dyeing Wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kinnunen, P.; Karhu, M.; Yli-Rantala, E.; Kivikytö-Reponen, P.; Mäkinen, J. A Review of Circular Economy Strategies for Mine Tailings. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 8, 100499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhao, K.; Zhu, X.; Ma, H.; Ji, J.; Jin, X.; Sun, J. Design and Experiment of the Environment Control System for the Industrialized Production of Agaricus Bisporus. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 14, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shahnaz, M.; Sharma, S.; Dev, D.; Prasad, D.N. Cultivation Technology and Antibacterial Activity of Agaricus bisporus (U-03). Int. J. Pharm. Chem. Anal. 2020, 7, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kryczyk, A.; Piotrowska, J.; Sito, M.; Sulkowska-Ziaja, K.; Dobosz, K.; Opoka, W.; Muszynska, B. Remediation Capacity of Cd and Pb Ions by Mycelia of Imleria badia, Laetiporus sulphureus, and Agaricus bisporus in Vitro Cultures. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2017, 52, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumar, P.; Kumar, V.; Goala, M.; Singh, J.; Kumar, P. Integrated Use of Treated Dairy Wastewater and Agro-Residue for Agaricus bisporus Mushroom Cultivation: Experimental and Kinetics Studies. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 32, 101940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ugya, A.Y.; Imam, T.S. Efficiency of the decomposition process of agaricus bisporus in the mycoremediation of refinery wastewater: Romi stream case study. World J. Pharm. Res. 2017, 6, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform, 2019, version 3.6.1, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit); R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2019.
  42. Morrison, D.F. Multivariate Statistical Methods; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1990; p. 495. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rzymski, P.; Mleczek, M.; Niedzielski, P.; Siwulski, M.; Gąsecka, M. Cultivation of Agaricus bisporus Enriched with Selenium, Zinc and Copper. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 923–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rzymski, P.; Mleczek, M.; Siwulski, M.; Gąsecka, M.; Niedzielski, P. The Risk of High Mercury Accumulation in Edible Mushrooms Cultivated on Contaminated Substrates. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2016, 51, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhou, L.; Guo, S.; Shu, M.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Guo, X. Accumulation Characteristics and Resistance to Heavy Metal Contamination of Agaricus bisporus Varieties in Shanxi Province, China. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 7, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nagy, B.; Mânzatu, C.; Măicăneanu, A.; Indolean, C.; Barbu-Tudoran, L.; Majdik, C. Linear and Nonlinear Regression Analysis for Heavy Metals Removal Using Agaricus bisporus Macrofungus. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S3569–S3579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  47. Ali, A.; Guo, D.; Mahar, A.; Wang, P.; Shen, F.; Li, R.; Zhang, Z. Mycoremediation of Potentially Toxic Trace Elements—A Biological Tool for Soil Cleanup: A Review. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Koutrotsios, G.; Danezis, G.; Georgiou, C.; Zervakis, G.I. Elemental Content in Pleurotus ostreatus and Cyclocybe cylindracea Mushrooms: Correlations with Concentrations in Cultivation Substrates and Effects on the Production Process. Molecules 2020, 25, 2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nagy, B.; Mǎicǎneanu, A.; Indolean, C.; Mânzatu, C.; Silaghi-Dumitrescu, L.; Majdik, C. Comparative Study of Cd(II) Biosorption on Cultivated Agaricus bisporus and Wild Lactarius piperatus Based Biocomposites. Linear and Nonlinear Equilibrium Modelling and Kinetics. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2014, 45, 921–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liang, X.; Gadd, G.M. Metal and Metalloid Biorecovery Using Fungi. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 1199–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Chatterjee, S.; Sarma, M.K.; Deb, U.; Steinhauser, G.; Walther, C.; Gupta, D.K. Mushrooms: From Nutrition to Mycoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 19480–19493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Peintner, U.; Schwarz, S.; Mešić, A.; Moreau, P.A.; Moreno, G.; Saviuc, P. Mycophilic or Mycophobic? Legislation and Guidelines on Wild Mushroom Commerce Reveal Different Consumption Behaviour in European Countries. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  53. European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No 629/2008 of 2 July 2008 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 Setting Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Foodstuffs; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  54. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition & Allergies. In Dietary Reference Values for Nutrients; Summary Report, Technical Report; EFSA Supporting Publication: Parma, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  55. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on Arsenic in Food. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pająk, M.; Gąsiorek, M.; Jasik, M.; Halecki, W.; Otremba, K.; Pietrzykowski, M. Risk Assessment of Potential Food Chain Threats from Edible Wild Mushrooms Collected in Forest Ecosystems with Heavy Metal Pollution in Upper Silesia, Poland. Forests 2020, 11, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Preparation of experimental systems.
Figure 1. Preparation of experimental systems.
Jof 08 00883 g001
Figure 2. Macroscopic characteristics of Agaricus bisporus fruit bodies growing in particular experimental systems.
Figure 2. Macroscopic characteristics of Agaricus bisporus fruit bodies growing in particular experimental systems.
Jof 08 00883 g002
Figure 3. Biomass of Agaricus bisporus treated with particular flotation tailing addition; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Figure 3. Biomass of Agaricus bisporus treated with particular flotation tailing addition; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Jof 08 00883 g003
Figure 4. Correlation for compost with flotation tailings (1–6) and Agaricus bisporus collected from the 1st (7–12) and the 2nd flush (13–18) concerning the content of MEEs (a), ETEs (b), TEWDHE (c), REEs (d), PGEs (e), NNEs (f), and all elements jointly (g).
Figure 4. Correlation for compost with flotation tailings (1–6) and Agaricus bisporus collected from the 1st (7–12) and the 2nd flush (13–18) concerning the content of MEEs (a), ETEs (b), TEWDHE (c), REEs (d), PGEs (e), NNEs (f), and all elements jointly (g).
Jof 08 00883 g004
Figure 5. Bioaccumulation factor values for elements in fruit bodies collected from particular treatments.
Figure 5. Bioaccumulation factor values for elements in fruit bodies collected from particular treatments.
Jof 08 00883 g005
Table 1. Concentration of elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in flotation tailings used in experiment.
Table 1. Concentration of elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in flotation tailings used in experiment.
Elements GroupElementConcentrationElements GroupElementConcentration
MEEsCa12,700 ± 1510REEsLu0.197 ± 0.016
K7920 ± 231Nd95.6 ± 4.76
Mg2210 ± 187Pr0.814 ± 0.037
Na384 ± 24.6Sc0.980 ± 0.102
ETEsB27.9 ± 4.18Sm0.269 ± 0.035
Co4.87 ± 1.04Tb0.196 ± 0.021
Cr22.2 ± 2.29Tm0.446 ± 0.087
Cu238 ± 19.8Y1.08 ± 0.113
Fe884 ± 55.7Yb0.127 ± 0.036
Mn97.7 ± 10.1REEs123 ± 9.94
Ni28.3 ± 1.95
Se3.77 ± 0.96PGEsIr1.96 ± 0.224
Zn4200 ± 1670Pd0.893 ± 0.055
TEWDHEAg5.47 ± 1.02Pt11.7 ± 0.978
As818 ± 27.9Rh0.617 ± 0.042
Ba77.9 ± 6.64Ru0.135 ± 0.012
Cd188 ± 13.7NNEsAl476 ± 35.2
Pb163 ± 11.0Au2.87 ± 0.138
Tl10.6 ± 1.14Bi1.43 ± 0.117
REEsCe16.5 ± 2.01Ga0.201 ± 0.013
Dy1.23 ± 0.11Ge0.228 ± 0.024
Er2.64 ± 0.676In1.16 ± 0.112
Eu0.654 ± 0.024Li1.65 ± 0.097
Gd0.375 ± 0.016Sb7.65 ± 0.921
Ho0.127 ± 0.09Sr80.7 ± 5.34
La1.26 ± 0.076Te0.836 ± 0.101
MEEs—major essential elements; ETEs—essential trace elements; TEWDHE—trace elements with detrimental health effects; REEs—rare earth elements; PGEs—platinum group elements; NNEs—nutritionally non-essential elements.
Table 2. Content of major essential elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 2. Content of major essential elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control6380 a3030 a726 a144 a
FT14720 b2420 ab536 b124 ab
FT54930 b2350 ab495 b114 ab
FT104700 b2130 bc474 b101 b
FT154020 b1820 bc428 bc94.0 bc
FT202550 c1560 c282 c68.5 bc
System1st flush
Control109 a5280 b148 a17.5 c
FT192.6 b5150 bc140 ab18.0 bc
FT583.1 b4900 d133 ab18.3 abc
FT1051.9 c4800 e122 b19.2 abc
FT1543.5 c5540 a120 b20.5 ab
FT2024.6 d5010 c119 b20.9 a
System2nd flush
Control100 a6420 a148 b62.8 a
FT182.0 b5660 b165 b26.3 b
FT563.9 c5770 ab150 b22.7 b
FT1048.2 d4990 c111 b19.2 b
FT1540.6 e4970 c142 b18.6 b
FT2010.4 f4710 c494 a17.9 b
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 3. Content of essential trace elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 3. Content of essential trace elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control1.32 e0.057 e0.287 d6.35 d29.5 e55.6 a0.405 c0.027 c45.2 d
FT12.03 d0.060 e0.351 d6.66 d42.8 e33.3 b0.611 c0.033 c54.0 d
FT52.73 c0.217 d1.31 c7.72 cd76.6 d32.3 b1.01 b0.108 b255 c
FT103.34 bc0.367 c1.50 c9.26 bc99.0 c31.7 b1.08 b0.185 a364 b
FT153.91 b0.513 b2.07 b11.0 b117 b26.6 cb1.19 b0.216 a441 b
FT204.62 a0.623 a3.66 a14.7 a158 a17.0 c2.12 a0.239 a781 a
System1st flush
Control3.05 e0.010 c0.061 c1.64 e2.04 d0.40 d0.017 c0.367 f4.17 d
FT17.19 de0.019 bc0.180 b8.05 de8.56 c1.26 c0.048 bc1.05 e14.6 c
FT58.30 d0.019 bc0.176 b14.1 d9.00 bc1.31 bc0.080 ab1.35 d14.8 c
FT104.43 c0.050 bc0.175 b32.9 c9.98 bc1.40 abc0.087 ab1.65 c16.1 bc
FT153.81 b0.025 ab0.184 b44.2 b10.3 b1.46 ab0.105 ab2.62 b17.9 b
FT205.73 a0.062 a0.254 a103 a17.1 a1.52 a0.124 a2.11 a26.4 a
System2nd flush
Control0.892 e0.010 b0.064 b3.21 b2.48 b0.37 b0.014 b0.318 b6.63 d
FT11.53 d0.013 ab0.064 b3.35 b2.84 b0.49 b0.026 ab0.511 b6.95 cd
FT51.96 c0.013 ab0.061 b4.31 b2.20 b0.52 b0.037 ab0.092 b7.30 cd
FT102.27 b0.023 ab0.062 b8.94 b2.30 b0.67 b0.053 ab0.466 b9.07 bc
FT152.36 ab0.023 ab0.058 b7.52 b3.54 b0.64 b0.053 ab0.432 b9.86 b
FT202.62 a0.030 a0.273 a68.8 a16.9 a1.79 a0.075 a2.38 a20.8 a
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test
Table 4. Content of trace elements with detrimental health effects [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 4. Content of trace elements with detrimental health effects [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control0.017 d1.55 f5.03 e0.036 e0.359 e0.017 d
FT10.023 d35.2 e5.76 de1.51 e0.675 e0.108 d
FT50.060 c71.2 d7.52 cd13.1 d3.07 d0.189 d
FT100.077 bc100 c8.42 bc18.7 c6.55 c0.743 c
FT150.100 ab126 b9.48 b25.0 b10.2 b1.58 b
FT200.107 a145 a11.6 a39.7 a15.8 a1.87 a
System1st flush
Control0.017 b0.330 d0.141 d0.019 f0.047 d0.010 c
FT10.035 b4.22 c0.285 c1.14 e0.171 c0.064 b
FT50.055 b5.76 c0.337 c3.87 d0.264 bc0.054 b
FT100.049 b9.85 b0.273 c9.46 c0.272 bc0.057 b
FT150.100 a16.4 a0.707 a15.2 b0.328 b0.105 a
FT200.118 a14.6 a0.511 b33.3 a1.03 a0.118 a
System2nd flush
Control0.010 b0.137 d0.128 d0.021 c0.032 b0.011 b
FT10.010 b1.19 c0.155 d0.320 c0.032 b0.011 b
FT50.027 b2.04 b0.214 c1.22 bc0.092 b0.010 b
FT100.027 b1.98 b0.288 b5.09 b0.062 b0.062 a
FT150.030 b2.22 b0.318 b3.02 bc0.173 b0.058 a
FT200.163 a3.02 a0.390 a27.9 a0.546 a0.013 b
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 5. Content of rare earth elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 5. Content of rare earth elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control0.983 b0.010 a0.041 d0.010 a0.013 b0.010 a0.027 c0.010 a7.92 d0.010 b0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.040 c0.010 a9.12 d
FT11.38 ab0.010 a0.293 c0.010 a0.027 ab0.010 a0.093 b0.010 a10.6 c0.010 b0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.053 bc0.010 a12.6 c
FT51.42 ab0.010 a0.337 cb0.013 a0.030 ab0.010 a0.123 b0.010 a12.5 c0.010 b0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.090 bc0.010 a14.6 c
FT101.46 a0.010 a0.340 cb0.010 a0.033 ab0.010 a0.117 b0.010 a14.8 b0.010 b0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.097 bc0.010 a17.0 b
FT151.53 a0.010 a0.423 ab0.020 a0.033 ab0.010 a0.143 b0.010 a16.5 ab0.010 b0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.107 b0.010 a18.8 b
FT201.67 a0.010 a0.537 a0.027 a0.043 a0.010 a0.213 a0.010 a18.7 a0.093 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.010 a0.173 a0.010 a21.5 a
System1st flush
Control0.010 c0.010 fbDLbDL0.013 c0.010 f0.013 f0.010 f0.077 c0.013 b0.010 f0.010 f0.011 f0.010 f0.010 f0.013 f0.221 f
FT10.142 bc0.074 ebDLbDL0.142 bc0.088 e0.170 e0.084 e1.14 c0.142 b0.085 e0.096 e0.089 e0.086 e0.081 e0.082 e2.50 e
FT50.265 bc0.119 dbDLbDL0.265 bc0.114 d0.265 d0.109 d1.59 c0.303 b0.108 d0.120 d0.123 d0.105 d0.117 d0.111 d3.71 d
FT100.378 bc0.142 c0.568 bbDL0.426 ba0.142 c0.426 c0.142 c3.31 b0.426 b0.142 c0.142 c0.142 c0.142 c0.142 c0.142 c6.81 c
FT150.851 b0.180 b0.624 abDL0.511 b0.175 b0.568 b0.160 b4.20 b0.568 b0.164 b0.170 b0.165 b0.176 b0.170 b0.172 b8.85 b
FT204.94 a0.255 a1.46 b0.0471.45 a0.252 a0.937 a0.255 a8.12 a2.384 a0.275 a0.256 a0.265 a0.238 a0.255 a0.244 a21.6 a
System2n d flush
Control0.010 b0.010 ebDL cbDL0.010 b0.010 b0.010 b0.010 b0.013 d0.010 b0.010 b0.010 c0.010 b0.010 b0.010 b0.010 b0.144 e
FT10.022 b0.022 dbDL cbDL0.021 b0.023 b0.026 b0.023 b0.137 cd0.023 bc0.023 b0.027 c0.020 b0.025 b0.019 b0.024 b0.433 de
FT50.064 b0.025 cbDL cbDL0.023 b0.031 b0.028 b0.029 b0.292 c0.024 bc0.022 b0.032 c0.037 b0.018 b0.027 b0.030 b0.685 d
FT100.098 b0.042 b0.112 bbDL0.098 b0.044 b0.043 b0.042 b0.619 b0.127 bc0.046 b0.042 c0.040 b0.043 b0.044 b0.043 b1.49 c
FT151.41 a0.273 a0.718 abDL0.736 a0.272 a0.279 a0.276 a1.35 a0.915 a0.277 a0.279 a0.276 a0.278 a0.274 a0.276 a7.88 a
FT200.289 b0.046 b0.159 bbDL0.116 b0.043 b0.040 b0.033 b1.31 a0.231 b0.048 b0.144 b0.050 b0.043 b0.049 b0.045 b2.65 b
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test; bDL—below the detection limit.
Table 6. Content of platinum group elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 6. Content of platinum group elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control0.150 c0.010 b0.323 e0.010 b0.010 a
FT10.237 b0.010 b0.486 e0.010 b0.010 a
FT50.247 b0.010 b0.803 d0.010 b0.010 a
FT100.283 ab0.010 b1.22 c0.010 b0.010 a
FT150.277 ab0.010 b1.65 a0.010 b0.010 a
FT200.323 a0.077 a1.42 b0.090 a0.010 a
System1st flush
Control0.023 d0.010 b0.087 e0.010 b0.010 f
FT10.160 cd0.030 b0.278 d0.030 b0.030 e
FT50.360 cd0.040 b0.366 d0.040 b0.040 d
FT100.407 c0.050 b0.612 c0.050 b0.050 c
FT151.18 b0.060 b1.02 b0.060 b0.060 b
FT202.79 a0.150 a1.67 a0.210 a0.090 a
System2nd flush
Control0.227 a0.010 a0.032 c0.010 a0.010 a
FT10.197 a0.010 a0.032 c0.010 a0.010 a
FT50.073 bc0.010 a0.122 bc0.010 a0.010 a
FT100.073 bc0.010 a0.155 b0.010 a0.010 a
FT150.050 c0.010 a0.288 a0.010 a0.011 a
FT200.110 b0.010 a0.351 a0.010 a0.010 a
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 7. Content of nutritionally non-essential elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Table 7. Content of nutritionally non-essential elements [mg kg−1 dry weight] in compost with flotation tailings before the experiment and fruit bodies from particular flushes.
Compost without/with Flotation Tailings
Control26.7 f0.187 d0.024 e0.010 a0.010 a0.013 d0.033 c0.013 c0.012 e3.43 c0.010 b
FT132.0 e0.357 c0.045 e0.010 a0.013 a0.027 cd0.047 bc0.027 c0.072 d5.90 b0.023 b
FT547.0 d0.427 c0.079 d0.010 a0.020 a0.048 c0.060 abc0.064 b0.267 c6.80 b0.077 a
FT1052.5 c0.633 b0.104 c0.010 a0.023 a0.089 b0.063 abc0.082 ab0.433 b7.10 b0.077 a
FT1562.5 b0.727 ab0.134 b0.010 a0.027 a0.093 b0.077 ab0.084 ab0.452 b7.59 b0.100 a
FT2068.5 a0.777 a0.198 a0.011 a0.030 a0.198 a0.087 a0.099 a0.936 a10.9 a0.110 a
System1st flush
Control0.203 d0.757 c0.013 c0.010 c0.017 c0.016 c0.010 a0.026 d0.013 b0.013 d0.013 c
FT10.642 c1.14 a0.037 b0.016 b0.037 c0.049 bc0.019 a0.161 c0.105 b0.037 cd0.037 bc
FT50.779 bc0.343 e0.036 b0.019 a0.025 c0.095 ab0.019 a0.218 b0.161 b0.057 c0.050 abc
FT100.779 bc0.580 d0.036 b0.019 a0.037 c0.116 a0.019 a0.273 a0.125 b0.109 b0.069 ab
FT150.931 a1.01 b0.044 a0.019 a0.243 b0.133 a0.019 a0.264 a0.175 b0.228 a0.094 a
FT201.035 a0.231 f0.057 a0.019 a0.511 a0.155 a0.020 a0.285 a1.240 a0.264 a0.094 a
System2n d flush
Control0.313 b0.073 d0.013 c0.010 a0.023 b0.064 b0.010 a0.058 b0.011 d0.011 c0.010 a
FT10.343 b0.147 d0.024 bc0.010 a0.020 b0.070 b0.010 a0.061 b0.256 a0.032 c0.010 a
FT50.363 b0.277 c0.030 bc0.010 a0.010 c0.096 b0.010 a0.095 a0.010 d0.061 bc0.027 a
FT100.407 b0.293 c0.037 b0.010 a0.010 c0.062 b0.010 a0.096 a0.093 c0.031 c0.030 a
FT150.417 b0.420 b0.043 b0.012 a0.053 a0.202 a0.011 a0.099 a0.144 b0.086 b0.010 a
FT201.32 a1.15 a0.092 a0.012 a0.047 a0.195 a0.013 a0.098 a0.078 c0.195 a0.059 a
n = 3; identical superscripts (a, b, c…) denote non-significant differences between means in columns determined in compost with flotation tailings and fruit bodies separately according to the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Budzyńska, S.; Siwulski, M.; Budka, A.; Kalač, P.; Niedzielski, P.; Gąsecka, M.; Mleczek, M. Mycoremediation of Flotation Tailings with Agaricus bisporus. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 883.

AMA Style

Budzyńska S, Siwulski M, Budka A, Kalač P, Niedzielski P, Gąsecka M, Mleczek M. Mycoremediation of Flotation Tailings with Agaricus bisporus. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(8):883.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Budzyńska, Sylwia, Marek Siwulski, Anna Budka, Pavel Kalač, Przemysław Niedzielski, Monika Gąsecka, and Mirosław Mleczek. 2022. "Mycoremediation of Flotation Tailings with Agaricus bisporus" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 8: 883.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop