Next Article in Journal
Rv1899c, an HDAC1–ZBTB25-Interacting Protein of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Promotes Stress Resistance and Immune Evasion in Infected Macrophages
Previous Article in Journal
Hyaluronan-Based Hybrid Systems as Growth Factor Carriers in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Valorization of Mushroom Residues for Functional Food Packaging

1
Institute of Animal Science, Biotechnology and Nature Conservation, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Street 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
2
Doctoral School of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Street 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
3
Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
4
Plant Biotechnology Department, Biotechnology Research Institute, National Research Centre, 33 El Buhouth St., Dokki, Giza 12622, Egypt
5
Microbiology Department, Soil, Water and Environment Research Institute, Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Agriculture Research Center, Kafr El-Sheikh 33717, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(22), 10870; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262210870
Submission received: 17 October 2025 / Revised: 4 November 2025 / Accepted: 6 November 2025 / Published: 9 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Molecules from Food Waste in Food Packaging Applications)

Abstract

The mushroom industry generates a substantial amount of residues each year, encompassing materials such as processing residues and spent substrates. Much of this biomass is discarded, despite its richness in valuable compounds. Mushroom residues contain bioactive substances including β-glucans, phenolic compounds, proteins, and dietary fiber, all of which are well known for their antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. While fruit and vegetable residues have been extensively explored as raw materials for eco-friendly packaging, mushroom-derived residues remain a largely underutilized resource. Recent studies have highlighted their potential as a renewable source of functional ingredients for sustainable food packaging. By applying green extraction technologies such as ultrasound- or microwave-assisted methods, researchers can recover stable bioactive compounds and incorporate them into biodegradable polymers. Early results are promising: packaging films enriched with mushroom residue extracts demonstrate improved mechanical strength, enhanced barrier properties, and added bioactivity. This strategy aligns with the principles of the Circular Economy, simultaneously reducing environmental impact and adding value to materials that were previously discarded. Although further optimization is needed, particularly regarding extraction efficiency, compound stability, and scalability, the valorization of mushroom residues represents a promising pathway toward the next generation of sustainable, eco-friendly packaging materials.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The escalating global concern over plastic pollution, combined with growing environmental awareness, is prompting the packaging industry to transition toward sustainable, bio-based alternatives [1]. Although petroleum-based plastics continue to dominate the food packaging sector due to their affordability, versatility, and durability [2], their environmental persistence and role in microplastic contamination present serious ecological risks [3]. As regulatory pressure on single-use plastics intensifies and consumers increasingly seek eco-friendly solutions, both researchers and industries are shifting their focus to renewable feedstocks for biodegradable packaging materials [4].
At the same time, the food processing industry produces considerable quantities of underutilized residues, many of which hold untapped potential as raw materials [5]. Traditionally, these residues have been utilized in low-value applications, such as animal feed, compost, or energy recovery [6]. However, the transition toward a circular economy has brought renewed attention to their value, particularly for their rich content of functional compounds with applications in high-performance packaging [7]. By utilizing such residue streams, it becomes possible not only to reduce the environmental burden of disposal but also to develop biopolymeric films and coatings that can extend shelf life and lessen dependence on synthetic additives [8].
Among various agri-food sectors, the mushroom industry stands out due to its rapid global expansion and the significant amount of biomass it discards [9]. Global mushroom production exceeds 9 million tonnes annually, driven by consumer demand for their nutritional and health benefits. However, cultivation and processing result in substantial residues, such as spent mushroom substrate (SMS), degraded sporophores, stipes, and litter, that are often relegated to low-efficiency applications or left unutilized [10,11,12]. With residue generation surpassing 5 million tonnes per year, the industry faces a dual challenge and opportunity in managing and valorizing these materials [13].
Notably, mushroom residues are rich in bioactive compounds, including β-glucans, phenolics, proteins, chitin, and dietary fibers. These components are known for their antioxidant, antimicrobial, and health-promoting effects [12,14], and can enhance the functionality of biodegradable packaging. For example, β-glucans offer immunomodulatory and antioxidant benefits [15], phenolic compounds protect against oxidation, and proteins can improve the structural integrity of polymer films [16]. Together, these features make mushroom residues a promising source for active packaging solutions that can reduce environmental impact while maintaining food quality.
Valorizing mushroom residues supports circular economy goals by turning residue into value-added products, reducing reliance on landfills, and creating economic opportunities [17]. The application of green extraction techniques, such as ultrasound- and microwave-assisted methods, further contributes to sustainability by enabling efficient, low-impact recovery of bioactive compounds [18,19].
This review explores the potential of mushroom industrial residues as sources of functional compounds for food packaging. It highlights their antioxidant and antimicrobial capabilities, assesses their incorporation into biodegradable polymers, and addresses challenges such as compound stability, industrial scalability, and regulatory acceptance.

2. Mushroom Industry, and Characterization of Mushroom Residues

The global mushroom industry has experienced robust growth, driven by increasing consumer demand for nutritious, plant-based foods and their applications in functional foods and pharmaceuticals. According to FAOSTAT data, global production of mushrooms and truffles rose from about 0.5 million tons in 1961 to over 10.24 million tons by 2017, with further expansion continuing in recent years [20]. More recently, projections suggest global mushroom production is approaching ~44 million tons. China dominates production, accounting for over 90% of global output. This expansion, however, generates substantial residual streams, necessitating sustainable valorization strategies to mitigate environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions from improper disposal and resource loss [21].

2.1. Residue Types

Mushroom production yields diverse residual streams, primarily lignocellulosic residues rich in organic matter, nutrients, and residual mycelium. The predominant residue is spent mushroom substrate (SMS), the nutrient-depleted lignocellulosic material (e.g., composted straw, manure, or sawdust) remaining after multiple harvest flushes, which constitutes the bulk of post-cultivation residues [22]. Other key types include:
  • Trimming residues—Discarded stipes (stems), caps, and misshapen or undersized mushrooms, often from quality control during harvesting and packaging, representing 5–10% of fresh yield.
  • Extraction residues—Leftover solids from processing mushroom extracts for bioactive compounds (e.g., polysaccharides or beta-glucans), typically fiber-rich and low in soluble nutrients.
  • Mycelium residues—Excess fungal biomass from spawn production or failed cultivation batches, containing high protein and enzyme content.
These residues are generated across cultivation phases, with SMS being the most voluminous due to its role as the primary growth medium [22].

2.2. Quantitative Estimates (Global and Regional Volumes)

For every 1 kg of fresh mushrooms produced, approximately 4–5 kg of spent mushroom substrate is generated [23]; in certain cases, 5 to 6 kg SMS is observed per kg of mushrooms [24]. Using 2017 baseline global production of 10.24 million tons, this could translate to ~40–60 million tons of SMS generated globally [25]. Regionally, China alone accounts for a significant share of that SMS, in line with its dominance in mushroom production [26]. Trimming residues and extraction residues remain relatively small fractions compared to SMS [24]. These figures underscore the urgency of valorization, as traditional disposal methods (e.g., landfilling or incineration) incur high costs and environmental risks [21].

2.3. Physicochemical and Microbiological Characteristics Relevant to Valorization

SMS and related residues exhibit physicochemical profiles conducive to valorization as biofertilizers, animal feeds, bioenergy feedstocks, and bioremediation agents, owing to their lignocellulosic composition and residual nutrients [22,24]. Key characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Microbiologically, SMS harbors lignocellulolytic bacteria and fungi, supporting degradation, suppressing pathogens, and enabling recovery of bioactive compounds such as polysaccharides [22]. Trimming residues often have higher protein (15–25% for dry matter) and moisture (>80%), making them suitable for feed formulations, while extraction residues are fiber-rich and favor biochar or energy uses [24]. These traits position mushroom residues as assets in a circular economy, reducing disposal burdens while enabling high-value recovery [21,22].
Figure 1 shows the mushroom production and processing with focus on the mushroom residues stream and management, whereas Figure 2 suggests the pathway of using of SMS in packing recycling.

3. Molecular and Functional Constituents of Mushroom Residues

3.1. Major Bioactive Compounds (β-Glucans, Phenolics, Proteins, Chitin)

Mushroom residues have garnered growing scientific interest due to their rich molecular diversity and multifaceted functionality, with promising implications for both health-related applications and sustainable material development. These residues are a valuable source of bioactive compounds, including polysaccharides (notably β-glucans), phenolic compounds, proteins, peptides, chitin, chitosan, and minor components such as lipids, sterols, and terpenoids, each contributing unique biochemical and technological properties [27,28].

3.1.1. Polysaccharides

Among these, polysaccharides, particularly β-glucans, have been the subject of extensive research. Typically composed of β-(1→3)-D-glucans with β-(1→6) branches, their molecular weight and structure vary depending on fungal species and extraction methodology. β-glucans are well recognized for their immunomodulatory, antitumor, and genoprotective activities [15,29]. For example, Boulaka et al. (2020) demonstrated that β-glucans derived from edible mushrooms exhibited genoprotective effects following in vitro fermentation by human gut microbiota, reinforcing their prebiotic potential [30]. In a complementary study, Hasan and Abdulhadi (2023) characterized β-glucans extracted from wild Pleurotus ostreatus, identifying key structural features and functional derivatives relevant to both biopackaging and health-supportive innovations [31].
Chitin and its deacetylated derivative chitosan, integral components of fungal cell walls, are especially valued for their film-forming ability and antimicrobial effects. The degree of deacetylation (DDA) plays a critical role in determining solubility and biological activity [32]. Mushroom-derived chitosan, often characterized by high DDA, is therefore well-suited for creating biodegradable films with intrinsic pathogen-inhibiting properties [33,34].

3.1.2. Phenolic Compounds

Phenolic compounds, such as phenolic acids and flavonoids, also significantly enhance the antioxidant profile of mushroom residues. These molecules occur in free, conjugated, or bound forms, often requiring targeted fractionation for effective isolation and characterization [35]. For instance, Erbiai et al. (2023) investigated two wild edible mushrooms from Morocco and identified syringic acid as the predominant phenolic, while rutin and quercetin were absent. Their findings highlighted the potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of these phenolics, underscoring their potential for integration into active packaging systems designed to extend shelf life and enhance food safety [36].

3.1.3. Proteins and Peptides

Proteins and peptides retained in mushroom residues often maintain bioactivity even after processing. These include antioxidant peptides and residual enzymes with hydrolytic capabilities [37]. Supporting this, Hasan and Abdulhadi (2023) elucidated the biochemical complexity of Pleurotus ostreatus, detecting protein fragments with both antimicrobial and antioxidative properties, attributes particularly pertinent to the development of next-generation bioactive packaging materials [38].
These peptides can be obtained from agricultural mushroom residues, offering an effective way to add value to what would otherwise be residue. One notable example is copsin, a naturally occurring defensin produced by Coprinopsis cinerea. Copsin has attracted attention for its strong antibacterial properties and its remarkable stability even under challenging conditions such as high temperatures or acidic environments. It targets lipid II, a key component of bacterial cell wall synthesis, and has proven particularly effective against Gram-positive bacteria [39,40].
Because it originates from fungi, copin may also integrate more naturally with other fungal-based materials, such as chitin or β-glucans [41], potentially enhancing the cohesion and performance of composite biopolymer films [42]. The main bioactive compounds can be extracted from mushroom residue (with their molecular structures) and are responsible for packaging potential, as shown in Figure 3.

3.2. Minor Components and Synergistic Effects

Although present in smaller quantities, minor constituents such as lipids, sterols (e.g., ergosterol), and terpenoids also contribute to the overall bioactivity of mushroom residues. These molecules exhibit antioxidant and antimicrobial functions and, as reported in several studies [43], may act synergistically with major compounds to enhance the functional performance of bio-based packaging materials.
Although direct applications remain rare, the known bioactivity of ergosterol and sterol derivatives from mushrooms (e.g., ergosterol peroxide) supports their candidacy as minor synergistic enhancers in composite films [44]. In packaging contexts more broadly, active compounds (including volatile terpenoids) have been shown to improve antioxidant capacity demonstrably, slow microbial growth, and enhance barrier properties when blended with polymer matrices [45]. Field-specific examples include the active packaging of Agaricus bisporus with antioxidant extracts, which yields slower browning, improved water retention, and extended shelf life [46]. While empirical evidence is limited, these data suggest promising potential for minor fungal compounds to act synergistically in bio-based packaging systems.

3.3. Implications for Packaging Functionality

The molecular and functional diversity of mushroom residues offers a promising foundation for developing novel bio-based materials, particularly in sustainable food packaging. The integration of polysaccharides, phenolics, proteins, and minor bioactives can impart multifunctionality to packaging films, enhancing both food preservation and environmental sustainability [47]. As research progresses, optimizing extraction techniques, enhancing compound stability, and scaling up production will be crucial to realizing the full potential of these bioresources [48,49].

4. Functional Properties of Extracts and Derivatives

4.1. Overview of Functional Roles in Food Packaging

Transforming mushroom residues into valuable packaging components exemplifies the potential of sustainable material science. Functional packaging today goes beyond passive containment to actively preserve and protect food, extending shelf life and maintaining quality [50]. Bioactive compounds, such as antioxidants, antimicrobials, and barrier enhancers are incorporated into packaging materials to achieve these effects [51].
Mushroom-derived compounds have emerged as potent multifunctional additives. These include natural polymers like chitin and chitosan, phenolic compounds, and polysaccharides, which naturally evolved as protective agents in fungi [52]. These natural polymers and secondary metabolites, evolved over millions of years to protect fungal organisms from environmental stresses, now offer similar protective benefits when incorporated into packaging systems [53]. For example, chitin-chitosan complexes offer structural support and antimicrobial action, while phenolics contribute antioxidant and UV-absorbing properties [54]. β-glucans, another key component, enhance film formation and maintain bioactivity, making them ideal for packaging systems requiring integrated functional performance [55].
Unlike synthetic additives, mushroom-based bioactives can simultaneously provide multiple benefits within a single formulation [56]. Unlike synthetic additives that typically target single functions, mushroom extracts can provide antioxidant, antimicrobial, and barrier properties within the same formulation [57]. This multifunctionality simplifies design and minimizes additive load, aligning with clean-label trends and consumer preferences for natural food packaging [58].

4.2. Antioxidant Properties

The antioxidant prowess of mushroom-derived compounds lies in their sophisticated molecular architecture, fine-tuned by evolutionary pressures to combat oxidative stress in natural environments [59]. Mushroom polysaccharides, particularly β-glucans, demonstrate remarkable radical-scavenging activities through multiple mechanisms [60]. Petraglia et al. [61] reported that polysaccharide fractions from Pleurotus eryngii exhibited DPPH IC50 values of 0.52 ± 0.02 mg·mL−1, superoxide IC50 of 1.15 ± 0.09 mg·mL−1, and hydroxyl radical IC50 of 0.89 ± 0.04 mg·mL−1, demonstrating potent multi-radical scavenging capacity. The structure-function relationships governing antioxidant activity are remarkably precise [62]. Muñoz-Castiblanco et al. [63] demonstrated that Lentinula edodes crude polysaccharides (LECP) containing α/β glycosidic bonds showed EC50 values ranging from 0.51 to 3.59 mg·mL−1 across various radical scavenging assays, with the structural configuration directly influencing activity levels. The presence of (1→3;1→6) β-D-glucan linkages particularly enhances radical scavenging and reducing power capabilities [64].
β-glucans deserve special attention for their unique antioxidant mechanisms [65]. Yehia [66] reported that isolated β-glucan fractions from L. edodes at optimal doses of 3.5 mg·mL−1 produced 75.3% radical scavenging activity, 80.9% peroxyl radical inhibition, and 88% reduction of aflatoxin B1, demonstrating dose-dependent antioxidant and detoxifying effects. Unlike simple phenolic compounds that work primarily through direct radical scavenging, β-glucans can chelate metal ions that catalyze oxidative reactions, effectively preventing the initiation of lipid peroxidation cascades [67].
When compared to other natural antioxidants from plant, algal, or bacterial sources, mushroom-derived compounds often demonstrate superior stability and broader pH tolerance [68]. The molecular weight of these polysaccharides, typically ranging from 111.3 kDa to several hundred kDa, contributes to their stability and prolonged antioxidant activity [69]. Additionally, the synergistic interactions between different mushroom compounds can create antioxidant effects that exceed the sum of their individual contributions [70].

4.3. Antimicrobial, Antifungal, and Antiviral Effects

The antimicrobial arsenal within mushroom residue reflects nature’s sophisticated defense strategies, offering packaging developers bioactive compounds with diverse modes of action [71]. The primary mechanisms through which mushroom-derived compounds exert their antimicrobial effects include membrane disruption, enzyme inhibition, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, each targeting different aspects of microbial physiology [72]. Chitosan, derived from mushroom chitin, demonstrates its antimicrobial activity primarily through electrostatic interactions with negatively charged bacterial cell walls [73]. Khubiev et al. [74] reported that chitosan-based films achieved significant antimicrobial efficacy, with the degree of deacetylation directly influencing antimicrobial potency. The mechanism involves disruption of membrane integrity, leading to leakage of intracellular contents and eventual cell death [75]. Bajrami et al. [76] demonstrated that chitosan and its methylated derivatives showed enhanced antimicrobial efficiency against Lentilactobacillus parabuchneri biofilms, with the antimicrobial spectrum extending beyond bacteria to include fungi and some viruses.
Phenolic compounds from mushroom residue operate through different mechanisms, often targeting specific enzymes essential for microbial metabolism [77]. Singh et al. [78] reported that phenolic acids in active packaging systems can inhibit key enzymes in bacterial respiratory chains, effectively starving microorganisms of energy. Shiitake (L. edodes) residue extracts showed minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica of 15, 7.5, and 7.5 mg·mL−1, respectively [79].
The synergistic effects among mushroom-derived compounds represent one of their most valuable characteristics for packaging applications [80]. Zhang et al. [81] demonstrated that ultrasonically functionalized chitosan-gallic acid films showed enhanced antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus through envelope disruption under UVA light exposure, with the combination effect exceeding individual component activities. Hao et al. [82] reported that antimicrobials immobilized on packaging films create coordinated antimicrobial mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of resistance development.
Real-world applications have demonstrated the practical value of these antimicrobial properties [83]. Packaging films incorporating mushroom extracts have successfully extended the shelf life of fresh produce, dairy products, and meat products by 30–50% compared to conventional packaging, showcasing not only efficacy but also compatibility with food contact applications and consumer safety requirements [84].

4.4. Barrier and UV-Protective Properties

The barrier properties of mushroom-derived compounds stem from their natural role as protective barriers in fungal cell walls and fruiting bodies [84]. Phenolic compounds, with their conjugated aromatic systems, provide excellent UV absorption properties, effectively filtering harmful wavelengths that can degrade food nutrients and packaging materials [85].
Gennaro et al. [86] demonstrated that UV-shielding biopolymer coatings loaded with bioactive compounds from natural sources significantly improved UV protection in food packaging applications. The extended conjugation in compounds like ferulic acid and vanillic acid allows them to absorb UV radiation across both UVA and UVB ranges, providing comprehensive photoprotection [87].
The recovery of industrial mushroom-based residues is part of the zero-residue circular economy. Lentil seed coats are generally considered residue. However, this low-value residue is rich in bioactive compounds and may be considered an eco-friendly source of health-promoting phytochemicals. For the first time, a sustainable microwave-assisted extraction technique was applied, and a solvent screening was conducted to enhance the bioactive compound content and antioxidant activity of green and red lentil hull extracts [88].
Furthermore, chitosan films impregnated with natural extracts showed enhanced UV-shielding properties, with UV transmittance reduced by up to 90% compared to control films, while maintaining transparency in the visible light range. Chitosan contributes to barrier properties by forming dense, well-ordered films with low free volume [87]. Hydrogen bonding between chitosan chains forms a tight network that restricts the movement of water vapor and gases [89]. Santos and Martins [90] demonstrated that multifunctional films blended with polyphenol-rich extracts showed improved barrier properties, with water vapor permeability reduced by 40–60% compared to neat polymer films.
The effects on water vapor permeability are significant for food packaging applications [91]. Dang et al. [92] reported that chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol films enhanced with natural extracts demonstrated selective permeability, allowing controlled moisture transfer that prevents both dehydration and excessive moisture accumulation. This selective barrier behavior is crucial for maintaining optimal humidity levels around fresh produce and preventing condensation that could promote microbial growth [93]. Light stability represents another critical barrier property enhanced by mushroom compounds [94].
The natural pigments and phenolic compounds in mushroom extracts can absorb and dissipate light energy harmlessly, protecting both the packaging material itself and the enclosed food products from photodegradation [95]. This photoprotective effect can significantly extend product shelf life, particularly for light-sensitive nutrients like vitamins and essential fatty acids [96].

4.5. Multifunctional and Synergistic Effects

The true power of mushroom-derived packaging materials emerges when their various functional properties work in concert, creating multifunctional systems that address multiple preservation challenges simultaneously [97]. This multifunctionality is not merely additive but often synergistic, with different bioactive compounds enhancing each other’s effectiveness through complementary mechanisms [98]. The combination of antioxidant, antimicrobial, and barrier properties creates a comprehensive preservation system that targets the primary causes of food deterioration [99]. Ordoñez et al. [100] demonstrated that biodegradable active materials containing phenolic acids for food packaging applications showed enhanced performance when multiple bioactive compounds were present, with preservation effects exceeding what any single approach could achieve. Extraction and modification processes play crucial roles in determining the multifunctional profile of mushroom-derived materials [101]. Mild extraction conditions may preserve the native structure and activity of bioactive compounds, while more intensive processing can create new functional properties through chemical modifications [102]. Controlled processing techniques are essential for achieving desired functional balances without compromising bioactivity [103].
One of the most significant challenges in developing multifunctional mushroom-based packaging is balancing mechanical strength and bioactivity retention [104]. High concentrations of bioactive compounds may compromise the mechanical properties of packaging films, while processing conditions that optimize mechanical strength might degrade sensitive bioactive molecules [105]. Successful formulations require careful balance, often achieved through innovative processing techniques like microencapsulation or layer-by-layer assembly [106].

4.6. Structure–Function Insights

Understanding the relationship between molecular structure and functional performance is essential for optimizing mushroom-derived packaging materials [107].
The correlation between molecular composition and functional performance follows predictable patterns that can guide material design and processing decisions [108]. Flores et al. [109] reported that the degree of branching in β-glucan polysaccharides directly influences their film-forming properties and mechanical strength, while hydroxyl content determines hydrophilicity and barrier characteristics. Polymer compatibility emerges as a critical factor determining the ultimate performance of mushroom-derived packaging materials [110]. The molecular weight, polarity, and functional group distribution of mushroom compounds must complement those of the base polymer matrix to achieve uniform dispersion and optimal property development [111]. Incompatible systems often exhibit phase separation, leading to heterogeneous properties and reduced performance [112]. Particle size and dispersion quality significantly impact bioactivity retention and mechanical properties [113]. Nanoscale dispersion of mushroom-derived compounds can enhance their surface area and bioavailability, potentially improving functional performance [114]. However, achieving and maintaining nanoscale dispersion requires careful control of processing conditions and may require the use of dispersing agents or surface modifications [115].
The integration of these functional properties into practical packaging systems requires careful consideration of processing conditions, storage stability, and end-use requirements [116]. The multifunctional nature of mushroom-derived compounds offers unique opportunities to develop packaging materials that address multiple preservation challenges while supporting sustainability goals through residue valorization and biodegradability [117].
Functional properties of mushroom extracts in packaging films can be summarized in Table 2, whereas Figure 4 summarizes the bioactive compounds derived from mushroom residues and their functional property and packaging performance.

5. Extraction, Fractionation, and Modification Techniques

5.1. Green Extraction Methods

The recovery of bioactive compounds from mushrooms residues through green extraction strategies stands out because plant-derived substances retain their stability after extraction, allowing for longer sustainability in food packaging [18]. These approaches help preserve the structural stability and functional properties of plant- and fungus-derived substances, thereby supporting longer-term sustainability in food packaging applications [118]. Compared to conventional extraction, green methods significantly reduce extraction time and energy consumption [119]. Extraction techniques such as ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), pressurised liquid extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, enzyme-assisted extraction, and pulsed electric field extraction have been employed for the recovery of antioxidants from plant residues [19]. The most extensively used procedures in the emerging industry for solid substrates are MAE and UAE. Their key operational features, advantages, and applications are summarized in Table 3.

5.2. Process Optimization and Scalability

Scaling up the use of mushroom-derived bioactive compounds in sustainable packaging requires more than just efficient extraction; it demands careful refinement at every stage. After extraction, fractionation, and stabilization steps, which help isolate valuable compounds such as polysaccharides, phenolics, and proteins while protecting their functional integrity [124,125]. Techniques such as membrane separation and chromatography are especially effective for this purpose [126].
To make these bioactives compatible with packaging polymers, chemical and physical modifications, such as blending, grafting, and crosslinking, are commonly employed [118]. These adjustments improve material strength, water resistance, and shelf-life performance [122]. However, moving from lab to industry is not straightforward. Challenges around throughput, energy costs, and reproducibility make process optimization essential [119]. Emerging solutions, such as modular setups and semi-continuous systems, offer more flexibility for scale-up [88].
Green extraction technologies, particularly UAE and MAE, stand out for their speed, low energy consumption, and retention of compound bioactivity [127,128]. These approaches significantly contribute to the development of efficient and environmentally friendly bio-packaging systems. The process, illustrated in Figure 5, begins with the extraction of bioactive compounds from residual mushroom biomass, which is rich in antioxidants, polysaccharides, and phenolic compounds [129]. As depicted, the workflow proceeds through several key stages: conventional extraction, fractionation, and green stabilization to obtain functional materials suitable for sustainable packaging applications.
These compounds are then subjected to conventional extraction and fractionation steps, during which they are isolated and separated based on their unique properties [130]. As shown in the diagram, stabilization is achieved through a two-step process: first, traditional methods are employed, followed by a transition to green stabilization, highlighted in green to emphasize its eco-friendly nature. This final step ensures the compounds remain effective while minimizing environmental impact [131]. Altogether, the process not only gives new life to agricultural residue but also leads to biodegradable packaging solutions that are safer for both consumers and the planet.

6. Integration into Biopolymers and Packaging Films/Coatings

6.1. Incorporation Strategies (Blending, Coating, Grafting)

The methods for incorporating biopolymers into packaging films and coatings play a crucial role in determining their performance characteristics, as summarized in Table 4. Each strategy —blending, coating, grafting, and in situ polymerization—offers distinct advantages in terms of distribution, interaction, and structural modification.
These modifications are primarily determined by the quantity and nature of the biopolymer, allowing adjustments to mechanical, thermal, barrier, and optical properties [136].

6.2. Effects on Packaging Properties

The incorporation of biopolymers, such as essential oils, polysaccharides, and proteins, via these strategies results in significant changes in the physical and functional properties of packaging films. Mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, can either decrease or increase depending on the biopolymer and method used. For instance, polyvinyl alcohol films blended with chitosan, gelatin, and citrate exhibit a reduction in tensile strength of approximately 15%, whereas grafting polycaprolactone onto gregory bark has been shown to enhance tensile strength by 127% [137].
Changes in optical properties also vary with the incorporation technique. Blending tends to result in minimal alterations, often maintaining transparency, whereas surface deposition or chemical grafting can render the films more opaque due to scattering effects from the added materials [138].

6.3. Bioactivity Retention and Safety Aspects

A critical advantage of incorporating biopolymers is the retention of their bioactive properties, which can contribute to extended shelf life and enhanced safety of packaged goods. Biopolymers can facilitate sustained release of active compounds when stably incorporated into the polymer matrix, thereby preserving their functional efficacy over time [139].
However, the introduction of biopolymers also raises safety concerns, particularly regarding their biodegradability and interactions with food products. Unlike inert synthetic polymers, biopolymers may degrade during storage, potentially releasing harmful byproducts. Additionally, migration of additives, especially during sterilization or contact with liquids, poses risks that are closely monitored by regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [140]. Packaging materials must thus ensure structural integrity, prevent microbial contamination, and resist degradation throughout the product’s shelf life [141]. Formulations typically include polyethylene or polypropylene as the matrix, along with plasticizers, colorants, and active agents [142]. While functional additives enhance bioactivity, their stability and safety must be rigorously assessed to meet regulatory standards and consumer expectations for safety [143].

7. Case Studies and Emerging Applications

Among fungal-based packaging technologies, mycelium composites are the most commercially advanced. Ecovative’s molded foams, developed from mycelium and agricultural residues, have been validated at an industrial scale, including use by Dell and IKEA, making them strong candidates to replace expanded polystyrene [144]. In contrast, active and edible films, such as oyster mushroom–based antioxidant coatings [145] and shiitake pullulan oxygen-barrier films [146], remain largely experimental. Their functional promise is clear, but issues of stability, storage, and scalability continue to prevent market readiness. Mushroom leather analogs, pioneered by MycoWorks and Bolt Threads, demonstrate flexibility and durability comparable to that of animal leather; however, their current impact is concentrated in fashion and luxury applications rather than the food system. High production costs remain a barrier to wider use [147]. Hybrid systems, such as chitosan–starch blends, offer improved tensile strength and barrier performance compared to single-component fungal films. However, they complicate regulatory approval processes since multi-polymer formulations require additional validation [148]. These examples are summarized in Table 5, which outlines key case studies, their respective applications, features, and potential impact across the fungal packaging landscape.
Overall, the field shows uneven maturity. While some technologies (e.g., mycelium foams) are already operating at a commercial scale [18], others (e.g., edible and active films) remain at the pilot or laboratory stage [146,147]. This divergence underscores that functionality alone does not guarantee adoption; cost-effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and consumer perception are equally decisive factors. The contrast highlights the uneven maturity of fungal packaging technologies, where market success depends not only on bioactivity but also on cost-efficiency, regulatory acceptance, and consumer perception.
Additionally, new directions are emerging at the intersection of fungal biotechnology and circular economy models [149]. Recent studies have investigated the valorization of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) as a feedstock for biodegradable films, potentially lowering raw material costs and diverting residue streams from landfills [11]. Similarly, fungal-derived nanocellulose and β-glucan composites are being explored for their advanced barrier and mechanical properties, indicating potential applications in next-generation smart packaging [150]. Pilot projects integrating fungal coatings with conventional biodegradable polymers (e.g., PLA) also show potential to enhance moisture resistance without compromising compostability [151].
Despite these innovations, scaling remains a bottleneck. Start-ups and research groups demonstrate technical feasibility, yet few have bridged the gap to mass production due to high manufacturing costs, processing variability, and limited regulatory precedents [151,152]. The translation of fungal-based packaging from niche applications (e.g., electronics, luxury fashion) to mainstream food systems will likely depend on further cost optimization, harmonized safety standards, and strategies to build consumer trust in bio-based alternatives [153].

8. Challenges, Trade-Offs, and Knowledge Gaps

Although mushroom residues hold significant promise for sustainable packaging, several challenges must be resolved before large-scale adoption and commercial viability can be achieved. These barriers encompass issues of compatibility, stability, regulatory compliance, economic feasibility, and consumer perception, all of which shape the integration of mushroom-derived bioactives into food packaging systems. A visual overview of these critical factors is provided in Figure 6.

8.1. Technical and Stability Challenges

Compatibility and dispersion remain key hurdles when incorporating mushroom-derived compounds such as polysaccharides, proteins, and phenolics into existing polymer matrices. Achieving homogeneity is vital to ensure consistent mechanical and barrier properties [154]. Hernando et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of optimized blending and processing methods to enhance integration, while variations in solubility and polarity necessitate customized compatibilization strategies to achieve stable formulations [155].
Another critical limitation is stability. Bioactive compounds are prone to leaching and degradation during storage, resulting in a shortened shelf life and compromising their functional reliability [156,157]. As noted by Silva et al. (2020), maintaining the stability of phenolics and β-glucans throughout film formation and storage is fundamental to long-term effectiveness. Strategies such as encapsulation, cross-linking, and controlled release are currently under investigation to address these weaknesses [158].
Furthermore, scalability of these stability solutions is a challenge in itself [34,159,160,161]. High-energy processing methods may degrade thermally sensitive compounds, whereas low-energy alternatives may fail to provide sufficient polymer dispersion [162]. Addressing these trade-offs requires advanced engineering approaches, such as integrating nanocomposites or blending with other natural polymers, to balance functionality with stability [163].
While laboratory-scale formulations demonstrate promising results, transferring these strategies to industrial processes often results in inconsistent film morphology and reduced reproducibility. For instance, Optical and mechanical properties are usually sensitive to microstructural nonuniformities. The same irregularities that originate from dispersion instability or drying artifacts can produce local stress concentrations or weak points. In “Morphological Characteristics of Biopolymer Thin Films,” Băbuțan et al. (2024) emphasize that defects or uneven film thickness degrade barrier and mechanical metrics [164].

8.2. Regulatory and Safety Barriers

From a regulatory perspective, the introduction of novel bio-based materials into food-contact applications must comply with strict safety standards. Despite promising bioactivities, mushroom-derived extracts may require extensive toxicological validation [165]. Grimm’s standards further complicate the commercialization process [166]. While some jurisdictions provide clear frameworks for evaluating natural biopolymers, others remain ambiguous, leading to delays in approval processes [167]. This regulatory uncertainty may deter investment and slow innovation [168]. Moreover, the heterogeneous composition of mushroom residues makes it challenging to establish uniform safety benchmarks, as variability in fungal species, cultivation methods, and extraction protocols can yield different toxicological profiles [150].
Emerging research also highlights the importance of life-cycle safety assessments [42]. Beyond initial food-contact toxicity evaluations, long-term studies on biodegradation, environmental release of metabolites, and interactions with other food packaging components remain limited [169]. Without comprehensive data, regulators may adopt a precautionary stance, imposing stricter compliance barriers that hinder the adoption of materials derived from mushrooms [170].

8.3. Economic Feasibility and Consumer Acceptance

Economic aspects remain a critical factor in the development and implementation of mushroom-derived materials. Although mushroom residues are low-cost feedstocks, the associated processes of extraction, purification, and formulation often entail significant expenses [2]. Sevigné-Itoiz et al. (2021) emphasize that robust life-cycle assessments (LCAs) are crucial for capturing both the environmental and economic implications of such materials [171]. In contrast, Grimm and Wösten (2018) argue that incorporating these residues into a circular economy model can enhance overall cost efficiency. By valorizing residue and reducing reliance on virgin raw materials, this approach could offset processing costs and contribute to sustainable resource management [172].
Beyond the technical and financial challenges, consumer perception also significantly influences market viability. Mushroom-based films may exhibit atypical sensory attributes, such as unusual colors, textures, or odors—that could discourage consumer adoption [173,174,175]. Kirtil et al. (2025) note similar concerns in the context of alternative proteins, where off-flavors, astringency, and undesirable aromas hinder acceptance. They advocate for advanced molecular and biochemical processing strategies to mitigate these sensory drawbacks [176].
At the same time, Cottet et al. (2020) observe that the field of microbial biomass-based bioplastics is rapidly evolving. They suggest that for mushroom-derived materials to remain competitive, they must carve out a unique position by emphasizing their multifunctional properties and ecological benefits [177].
In summary, while mushroom residues hold substantial promise for eco-friendly packaging solutions, their practical application hinges on overcoming a series of complex barriers, ranging from technical feasibility and regulatory compliance to consumer perception and economic scalability. Interdisciplinary research and targeted innovation will be pivotal in bridging these gaps. If successfully addressed, these efforts could establish mushroom-based materials as a cornerstone of the emerging circular, bio-based packaging paradigm (Figure 7).
Advancements in biofabrication and synthetic biology enable the tailoring of mushroom strains for high-yield production of compounds [153]. Controlled cultivation can enhance the properties of derived materials [178]. Smart packaging technologies integrating sensors or indicators with biodegradable mushroom polymers allow real-time monitoring of food quality [179]. Artificial intelligence can optimize extraction and logistics in circular systems [180]. Digital platforms improve coordination between residue generators and users [181].
More challenges and opportunities in mushroom residue valorization can be listed in Table 6, whereas Figure 8 summarizes circular economy pathway for mushroom residue valorization: from residue generation to sustainable food packaging and nutrient recovery.
The valorization of mushroom residue for packaging applications embodies a powerful intersection of environmental urgency and economic opportunity [182]. This review has demonstrated that mushroom-derived packaging materials offer a viable solution to multiple sustainability challenges by uniting functional performance, ecological impact reduction, and resource efficiency [183].
To fully realize this potential, strategic priorities must align across three core domains:
  (i).
technological innovation to enhance functionality and cost-effectiveness;
 (ii).
infrastructure development to enable scalable, efficient processing; and
(iii).
regulatory support to foster market readiness and consumer acceptance [184].
A successful transition toward mushroom-based packaging requires collaborative engagement across the value chain—from cultivation and residue management to material processing and final packaging deployment [185]. Building reliable supply chains, ensuring consistent product quality, and delivering measurable environmental and economic benefits will be critical to stakeholder adoption [186]. The insights presented throughout this section underscore the transformative potential of mushroom residue valorization as a cornerstone of sustainable packaging innovation [187].

9. Sustainability, Circular Economy, and Valorization Pathways

9.1. Positioning Mushroom Residue in the Circular Bioeconomy

Positioning Mushroom Residue in the Circular Bioeconomy The mushroom industry exemplifies circular bioeconomy principles by transforming residue into valuable inputs for further production cycles [188]. In recent years, valorizing residue and cascading resource use has gained importance as a way to address environmental issues and generate economic value from agricultural residues [189]. Mushroom farming generates large amounts of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and non-marketable fruiting bodies, typically 5–7 kg of residue per kg of fresh mushrooms [190].
This shift from a linear “take-make-dispose” model to regenerative systems represents a key part of the circular economy [190]. Initiatives such as the FUNGUSCHAIN EU project have shown how mushroom offcuts can be systematically valorized to extract various useful components [191]. This approach aligns with circular economy principles by extending material use, maximizing value, and enabling recovery and regeneration at end-of-life [192]
Mushroom-derived materials are particularly well-suited for biodegradable packaging due to their natural degradability and environmental compatibility [193]. Unlike petroleum-based packaging, mushroom-based materials can break down in controlled settings and return nutrients to the soil, closing the material loop [194]. As such, valorizing mushroom residue supports sustainable packaging solutions that tackle both environmental and residue management goals [195].

9.2. Cascading Valorization Strategies

Mushroom residue can be used to sequentially recover bioactives, biopolymers, and composites, which maximizes its utility [196]. For example, non-marketable edible mushrooms have been used in biorefineries to produce chitin (2.1% yield), citric acid (15.2%), and ethanol (0.31 g/g glucose), demonstrating economic viability alongside environmental benefits [197]. Pilot-scale applications have validated these multi-product systems [198]. One such model integrated mushroom cultivation with ethanol production and co-product recovery, such as animal feed biomass and lignin-rich soil enhancers [199].
Another commercial-scale model proposes a zero-residue biorefinery that includes cellulase production, bioethanol generation, and bio-fertilizer creation [200]. These systems can extract various compounds from mushroom residue before final conversion to compost or biogas [201].
A cascading use strategy has shown that SMS can yield biogas (0.25 m3/kg volatile solids), vermicompost (68% efficiency), and biochar (32% yield), with total returns surpassing traditional disposal methods by 340% [202].

9.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Footprint

LCA studies comparing mushroom-based and petroleum-based packaging reveal significant advantages for the former [203]. For instance, Agaricus bisporus production emits 2.55 × 104 kg CO2-equivalent per 23,000 kg substrate [203]. Optimization could cut emissions by 5%, mainly through better energy use and substrate efficiency [204]. For shiitake mushrooms, GHG emissions are 2.38 kg CO2-equivalent per kg of product, with energy consumption being the primary contributor (72.87%) [205]. Beyond carbon emissions, mushroom residue as fertilizer significantly reduces environmental impacts across various categories, including land use (45%), fossil fuel use (38%), ecotoxicity (52%), and climate change effects (28%) compared to synthetic fertilizers [205].

9.4. Industrial Symbiosis and Cross-Sector Integration

Integrating mushroom residue with other agricultural residues can support regional biorefineries [206]. One example is composting mushroom residue with other materials to create bioenergy pellets (18.2 MJ/kg energy, <10% moisture) [207]. This enables regional processing hubs for mixed residue streams and standardized bio-products.
Field studies in Vietnam revealed 20 active valorization pathways in mushroom production, from direct land application to complex bioactive extraction [208]. These diverse strategies highlight the adaptability of mushroom residue utilization.
Scaling up such systems requires infrastructure and policy support, such as collection and transport systems, processing facilities, and quality control [209]. Coordinated policy, recognition of bio-based materials, financial incentives, and industry standards are all essential. Programs like the EU Circular Economy Action Plan are paving the way for this transition [210].

9.5. Economic and Social Dimensions

Economic analyses consistently show strong returns from mushroom residue valorization when multiple outputs are considered [211]. For example, integrated biorefineries can achieve net present values of $2.85 million over 10 years, with a payback period of 4.2 years and IRR > 25% [197].
Scalability depends on achieving economies of scale while maintaining quality and demand [212]. Facilities serving 500–1000 farms are considered optimal, with transportation accounting for 15–20% of costs [213]. Centralized systems offer efficiency, while decentralized models provide flexibility.
Social benefits include job creation in processing, logistics, and marketing. These systems support rural economies and local agriculture [214]. Surveys indicate high consumer interest in sustainable packaging, with 68% willing to pay more for bio-based options [173]. However, market success still depends on packaging performance, durability, and cost competitiveness [215].

10. Conclusions

Harnessing mushroom residues offers a promising route to creating sustainable, functional food packaging. These residues, rich in bioactive compounds such as β-glucans, phenolics, proteins, and chitin, offer a range of beneficial properties, improving the strength, barrier function, and bioactivity of biodegradable films and coatings. Through green extraction techniques, these often-overlooked materials can be efficiently repurposed into high-value ingredients, supporting both environmental goals and circular economy principles. However, key challenges must be overcome before such packaging becomes mainstream. Stability of the compounds, compatibility with polymers, scalability of the extraction process, regulatory hurdles, and consumer perception remain critical obstacles. Progress in these areas will require interdisciplinary collaboration, linking food science, materials engineering, and life-cycle assessment, alongside comparative evaluations with other agricultural residues.
Ultimately, turning mushroom residue into functional packaging is both a sustainable imperative and a technological opportunity. It enables the mushroom industry to reduce plastic use, generate new income streams, and support the transition toward a circular bioeconomy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.; methodology, G.T.; formal analysis, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, G.T., H.E.-R., N.A., and T.E.; Writing and editing, H.E.-R., N.A., and T.E.; Supervision, J.P.; Visualization, H.E.-R., N.A., and T.E.; Revision, H.E.-R., N.A., T.E., and J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The University of Debrecen provides open-access financing, and the University of Debrecen Program for Scientific Publication supported the study. This research was also supported by the University of Debrecen Scientific Research Bridging Fund (DETKA).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Hungary) through the project “Development of innovative food raw materials based on Maillard reaction by the functional transformation of traditional and exotic mushrooms for food and medicinal purposes” (Grant No. 2020-1.1.2-PIACI-KFI-2020-00100). The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. To enhance the linguistic quality of the manuscript, Grammarly Pro (an AI-based grammar and style checking tool) was employed. All suggestions were critically reviewed and incorporated only after professional human revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ferreira-Filipe, D.A.; Paço, A.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.; Patrício Silva, A.L. Are Biobased Plastics Green Alternatives?—A Critical Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roselló-Soto, E.; Parniakov, O.; Deng, Q.; Patras, A.; Koubaa, M.; Grimi, N.; Boussetta, N.; Tiwari, B.K.; Vorobiev, E.; Lebovka, N.; et al. Application of Non-Conventional Extraction Methods: Toward a Sustainable and Green Production of Valuable Compounds from Mushrooms. Food Eng. Rev. 2016, 8, 214–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Syberg, K.; Khan, F.R.; Selck, H.; Palmqvist, A.; Banta, G.T.; Daley, J.; Sano, L.; Duhaime, M.B. Microplastics: Addressing Ecological Risk through Lessons Learned. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dilucia, F.; Lacivita, V.; Conte, A.; Del Nobile, M.A. Sustainable Use of Fruit and Vegetable By-Products to Enhance Food Packaging Performance. Foods 2020, 9, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Socas-Rodríguez, B.; Álvarez-Rivera, G.; Valdés, A.; Ibáñez, E.; Cifuentes, A. Food By-Products and Food Wastes: Are They Safe Enough for Their Valorization? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramirez, J.; McCabe, B.; Jensen, P.D.; Speight, R.; Harrison, M.; Van Den Berg, L.; O’Hara, I. Wastes to Profit: A Circular Economy Approach to Value-Addition in Livestock Industries. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 61, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kacprzak, M.; Attard, E.; Lyng, K.; Raclavska, H.; Singh, B.; Tesfamariam, E.; Vandenbulcke, F. (Eds.) Biodegradable Waste Management in the Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities, 1st ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; ISBN 978-1-119-67984-4. [Google Scholar]
  8. Selvam, T.; Rahman, N.M.M.A.; Olivito, F.; Ilham, Z.; Ahmad, R.; Wan-Mohtar, W.A.A.Q.I. Agricultural Waste-Derived Biopolymers for Sustainable Food Packaging: Challenges and Future Prospects. Polymers 2025, 17, 1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kumla, J.; Suwannarach, N.; Sujarit, K.; Penkhrue, W.; Kakumyan, P.; Jatuwong, K.; Vadthanarat, S.; Lumyong, S. Cultivation of Mushrooms and Their Lignocellulolytic Enzyme Production Through the Utilization of Agro-Industrial Waste. Molecules 2020, 25, 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baptista, F.; Almeida, M.; Paié-Ribeiro, J.; Barros, A.N.; Rodrigues, M. Unlocking the Potential of Spent Mushroom Substrate (SMS) for Enhanced Agricultural Sustainability: From Environmental Benefits to Poultry Nutrition. Life 2023, 13, 1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berglund, L.; Rosenstock Völtz, L.; Gehrmann, T.; Antonopoulou, I.; Cristescu, C.; Xiong, S.; Dixit, P.; Martín, C.; Sundman, O.; Oksman, K. The Use of Spent Mushroom Substrate as Biologically Pretreated Wood and Its Fibrillation. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 372, 123338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Törős, G.; El-Ramady, H.; Béni, Á.; Peles, F.; Gulyás, G.; Czeglédi, L.; Rai, M.; Prokisch, J. Pleurotus ostreatus Mushroom: A Promising Feed Supplement in Poultry Farming. Agriculture 2024, 14, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Adegbeye, M.J.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Reddy, P.R.K.; Elghandour, M.M.M.; Oyebamiji, K.J. Residue Recycling for the Eco-Friendly Input Use Efficiency in Agriculture and Livestock Feeding. In Resources Use Efficiency in Agriculture; Kumar, S., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1–45. ISBN 978-981-15-6952-4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tör\Hos, G.; El-Ramady, H.; Prokisch, J.; Velasco, F.; Llanaj, X.; Nguyen, D.H.; Peles, F. Modulation of the Gut Microbiota with Prebiotics and Antimicrobial Agents from Pleurotus Ostreatus Mushroom. Foods 2023, 12, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cerletti, C.; Esposito, S.; Iacoviello, L. Edible Mushrooms and Beta-Glucans: Impact on Human Health. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brito, J.; Hlushko, H.; Abbott, A.; Aliakseyeu, A.; Hlushko, R.; Sukhishvili, S.A. Integrating Antioxidant Functionality into Polymer Materials: Fundamentals, Strategies, and Applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 41372–41395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, P.; Yadav, R.; Erfani, H.; Jabin, S.; Jadoun, S. Revisiting the Modern Approach to Manage Agricultural Solid Waste: An Innovative Solution. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 16337–16361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yusoff, I.M.; Mat Taher, Z.; Rahmat, Z.; Chua, L.S. A Review of Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction for Plant Bioactive Compounds: Phenolics, Flavonoids, Thymols, Saponins and Proteins. Food Res. Int. 2022, 157, 111268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. López-Salazar, H.; Camacho-Díaz, B.H.; Ocampo, M.L.A.; Jiménez-Aparicio, A.R. Microwave-Assisted Extraction of Functional Compounds from Plants: A Review. BioResources 2023, 18, 6614–6638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Royse, D.J.; Baars, J.; Tan, Q. Current Overview of Mushroom Production in the World. In Edible and Medicinal Mushrooms; Diego, C.Z., Pardo-Giménez, A., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 5–13. ISBN 978-1-119-14941-5. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vinci, G.; Prencipe, S.A.; Pucinischi, L.; Perrotta, F.; Ruggeri, M. Sustainability Assessment of Waste and Wastewater Recovery for Edible Mushroom Production through an Integrated Nexus. A Case Study in Lazio. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 903, 166044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martín, C.; Zervakis, G.I.; Xiong, S.; Koutrotsios, G.; Strætkvern, K.O. Spent Substrate from Mushroom Cultivation: Exploitation Potential toward Various Applications and Value-Added Products. Bioengineered 2023, 14, 2252138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vasilakis, G.; Rigos, E.-M.; Giannakis, N.; Diamantopoulou, P.; Papanikolaou, S. Spent Mushroom Substrate Hydrolysis and Utilization as Potential Alternative Feedstock for Anaerobic Co-Digestion. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Leong, Y.K.; Ma, T.-W.; Chang, J.-S.; Yang, F.-C. Recent Advances and Future Directions on the Valorization of Spent Mushroom Substrate (SMS): A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Malakar, S.; Sutaoney, P.; Singh, P.; Shah, K.; Chauhan, N.S. Systems Biology for Mushroom Cultivation Promoting Quality Life. Circ. Agric. Syst. 2025, 5, e010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bijla, S.; Sharma, V.P. Status of Mushroom Production: Global and National Scenario. Mushroom Res. 2023, 32, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mannaa, M.; Mansour, A.; Park, I.; Lee, D.-W.; Seo, Y.-S. Insect-Based Agri-Food Waste Valorization: Agricultural Applications and Roles of Insect Gut Microbiota. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2024, 17, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Guo, J.; Zhang, M.; Fang, Z. Valorization of Mushroom By-products: A Review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 5593–5605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaur, R.; Sharma, M.; Ji, D.; Xu, M.; Agyei, D. Structural Features, Modification, and Functionalities of Beta-Glucan. Fibers 2019, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boulaka, A.; Christodoulou, P.; Vlassopoulou, M.; Koutrotsios, G.; Bekiaris, G.; Zervakis, G.I.; Mitsou, E.K.; Saxami, G.; Kyriacou, A.; Zervou, M.; et al. Genoprotective Properties and Metabolites of β-Glucan-Rich Edible Mushrooms Following Their In Vitro Fermentation by Human Faecal Microbiota. Molecules 2020, 25, 3554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hasan, G.Q.; Abdulhadi, S.Y. Molecular Characterization of Wild Pleurotus ostreatus (MW457626) and Evaluation of β-Glucans Polysaccharide Activities. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 2022, 8, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, W.; Xue, C.; Mao, X. Chitosan: Structural Modification, Biological Activity and Application. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 164, 4532–4546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yadav, D.; Prashanth, K.V.H.; Negi, P.S. Low Molecular Weight Chitosan from Pleurotus ostreatus Waste and Its Prebiotic Potential. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 267, 131419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pantic, M.; Lazic, V.; Kozarski, M. Mushroom Chitosan: A Promising Biopolymer in the Food Industry and Agriculture. Hrana I Ishr. 2023, 64, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ayar-Sümer, E.N.; Verheust, Y.; Özçelik, B.; Raes, K. Impact of Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation Based on Biotransformation of Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Capacity of Mushrooms. Foods 2024, 13, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Erbiai, E.H.; Maouni, A.; Pinto Da Silva, L.; Saidi, R.; Legssyer, M.; Lamrani, Z.; Esteves Da Silva, J.C.G. Antioxidant Properties, Bioactive Compounds Contents, and Chemical Characterization of Two Wild Edible Mushroom Species from Morocco: Paralepista flaccida (Sowerby) Vizzini and Lepista nuda (Bull.) Cooke. Molecules 2023, 28, 1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Landi, N.; Clemente, A.; Pedone, P.V.; Ragucci, S.; Di Maro, A. An Updated Review of Bioactive Peptides from Mushrooms in a Well-Defined Molecular Weight Range. Toxins 2022, 14, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mohammed, L.D.H.A. Comparative Study between Mini Open and All Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Full Thickness Tear Repair in Iraqi Patients. Tex. J. Med Sci. 2023, 23, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Essig, A.; Hofmann, D.; Münch, D.; Gayathri, S.; Künzler, M.; Kallio, P.T.; Sahl, H.-G.; Wider, G.; Schneider, T.; Aebi, M. Copsin, a Novel Peptide-Based Fungal Antibiotic Interfering with the Peptidoglycan Synthesis. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 34953–34964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pérez De La Lastra, J.M.; González-Acosta, S.; Otazo-Pérez, A.; Asensio-Calavia, P.; Rodríguez-Borges, V.M. Antimicrobial Peptides for Food Protection: Leveraging Edible Mushrooms and Nano-Innovation. Dietetics 2025, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bleackley, M.R.; Dawson, C.S.; Payne, J.A.E.; Harvey, P.J.; Rosengren, K.J.; Quimbar, P.; Garcia-Ceron, D.; Lowe, R.; Bulone, V.; van der Weerden, N.L.; et al. The Interaction with Fungal Cell Wall Polysaccharides Determines the Salt Tolerance of Antifungal Plant Defensins. Cell Surf. 2019, 5, 100026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Arroyo, J.; Farkaš, V.; Sanz, A.B.; Cabib, E. ‘Strengthening the Fungal Cell Wall through Chitin-Glucan Cross-Links: Effects on Morphogenesis and Cell Integrity’: Fungal Chitin-Glucan Transglycosylases. Cell. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moussa, A.Y.; Fayez, S.; Xiao, H.; Xu, B. New Insights into Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effects of Edible Mushrooms. Food Res. Int. 2022, 162, 111982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kobori, M.; Yoshida, M.; Ohnishi-Kameyama, M.; Shinmoto, H. Ergosterol Peroxide from an Edible Mushroom Suppresses Inflammatory Responses in RAW264.7 Macrophages and Growth of HT29 Colon Adenocarcinoma Cells. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2007, 150, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liufang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Qu, H.; Yang, H. Recent Advances in the Application of Natural Products for Postharvest Edible Mushroom Quality Preservation. Foods 2024, 13, 2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hanula, M.; Pogorzelska-Nowicka, E.; Pogorzelski, G.; Szpicer, A.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I.; Wierzbicka, A.; Półtorak, A. Active Packaging of Button Mushrooms with Zeolite and Açai Extract as an Innovative Method of Extending Its Shelf Life. Agriculture 2021, 11, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Alimi, B.A.; Pathania, S.; Wilson, J.; Duffy, B.; Frias, J.M.C. Extraction, Quantification, Characterization, and Application in Food Packaging of Chitin and Chitosan from Mushrooms: A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 237, 124195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sharma, S.K.; Kumar, R.; Yadav, S.K.; Saneja, A. Development of a Multifunctional and Sustainable Pterostilbene Nanoemulsion Incorporated Chitosan-Alginate Food Packaging Film for Shiitake Mushroom Preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 293, 139241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, A.; Berglund, L.; Rosenstock Völtz, L.; Swamy, R.; Antonopoulou, I.; Xiong, S.; Mouzon, J.; Bismarck, A.; Oksman, K. Fungal Innovation: Harnessing Mushrooms for Production of Sustainable Functional Materials. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025, 35, 2412753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahmed, M.; Bin Nabi, H.; Mia, S.; Ahmad, I.; Zzaman, W. Valorization of Plant-Based Agro-Waste into Sustainable Food Packaging Materials: Current Approaches and Functional Applications. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 101368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ramos, M.; Jiménez, A.; Peltzer, M.; Garrigós, M.C. Characterization and Antimicrobial Activity Studies of Polypropylene Films with Carvacrol and Thymol for Active Packaging. J. Food Eng. 2012, 109, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cheung, P.C.K. The Nutritional and Health Benefits of Mushrooms. Nutr. Bull. 2010, 35, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wasser, S.P. Medicinal Mushrooms as a Source of Antitumor and Immunomodulating Polysaccharides. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 60, 258–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rinaudo, M. Chitin and Chitosan: Properties and Applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2006, 31, 603–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Reis, F.S.; Martins, A.; Vasconcelos, M.H.; Morales, P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Functional Foods Based on Extracts or Compounds Derived from Mushrooms. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 66, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sung, S.-Y.; Sin, L.T.; Tee, T.-T.; Bee, S.-T.; Rahmat, A.R.; Rahman, W.A.W.A.; Tan, A.-C.; Vikhraman, M. Antimicrobial Agents for Food Packaging Applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 33, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sharma, C.; Dhiman, R.; Rokana, N.; Panwar, H. Nanotechnology: An Untapped Resource for Food Packaging. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ramos, M.; Valdés, A.; Beltrán, A.; Garrigós, M. Gelatin-Based Films and Coatings for Food Packaging Applications. Coatings 2016, 6, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Barros, L.; Cruz, T.; Baptista, P.; Estevinho, L.M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Wild and Commercial Mushrooms as Source of Nutrients and Nutraceuticals. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 2742–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, M.; Cui, S.W.; Cheung, P.C.K.; Wang, Q. Antitumor Polysaccharides from Mushrooms: A Review on Their Isolation Process, Structural Characteristics and Antitumor Activity. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ahmad, N.; Mahmood, F.; Khalil, S.A.; Zamir, R.; Fazal, H.; Abbasi, B.H. Antioxidant Activity via DPPH, Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Antimicrobial Potential in Edible Mushrooms. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2014, 30, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moradali, M.-F.; Mostafavi, H.; Ghods, S.; Hedjaroude, G.-A. Immunomodulating and Anticancer Agents in the Realm of Macromycetes Fungi (Macrofungi). Int. Immunopharmacol. 2007, 7, 701–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Muñoz-Castiblanco, T.; Mejía-Giraldo, J.C.; Puertas-Mejía, M.Á. Lentinula Edodes, a Novel Source of Polysaccharides with Antioxidant Power. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Petraglia, T.; Latronico, T.; Fanigliulo, A.; Crescenzi, A.; Liuzzi, G.M.; Rossano, R. Antioxidant Activity of Polysaccharides from the Edible Mushroom Pleurotus eryngii. Molecules 2023, 28, 2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, J.; Seviour, R. Medicinal Importance of Fungal β-(1→3), (1→6)-Glucans. Mycol. Res. 2007, 111, 635–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yehia, R.S. Evaluation of the Biological Activities of β-Glucan Isolated from Lentinula Edodes. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 75, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Novak, M.; Vetvicka, V. β -Glucans, History, and the Present: Immunomodulatory Aspects and Mechanisms of Action. J. Immunotoxicol. 2008, 5, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ferreira, I.; Barros, L.; Abreu, R. Antioxidants in Wild Mushrooms. Curr. Med. Chem. 2009, 16, 1543–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pandey, S.; Tiwari, S. Facile Approach to Synthesize Chitosan-Based Composite—Characterization and Cadmium(II) Ion Adsorption Studies. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 134, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Palacios, I.; Lozano, M.; Moro, C.; D’Arrigo, M.; Rostagno, M.A.; Martínez, J.A.; García-Lafuente, A.; Guillamón, E.; Villares, A. Antioxidant Properties of Phenolic Compounds Occurring in Edible Mushrooms. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 674–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alves, M.J.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Froufe, H.J.C.; Abreu, R.M.V.; Martins, A.; Pintado, M. Antimicrobial Activity of Phenolic Compounds Identified in Wild Mushrooms, SAR Analysis and Docking Studies. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gao, Y.; Tang, W.; Dai, X.; Gao, H.; Chen, G.; Ye, J.; Chan, E.; Koh, H.L.; Li, X.; Zhou, S. Effects of Water-Soluble Ganoderma lucidum Polysaccharides on the Immune Functions of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer. J. Med. Food 2005, 8, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kong, M.; Chen, X.G.; Xing, K.; Park, H.J. Antimicrobial Properties of Chitosan and Mode of Action: A State of the Art Review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 144, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khubiev, O.M.; Egorov, A.R.; Lobanov, N.N.; Fortalnova, E.A.; Kirichuk, A.A.; Tskhovrebov, A.G.; Kritchenkov, A.S. Novel Highly Efficient Antibacterial Chitosan-Based Films. BioTech 2023, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rabea, E.I.; Badawy, M.E.-T.; Stevens, C.V.; Smagghe, G.; Steurbaut, W. Chitosan as Antimicrobial Agent: Applications and Mode of Action. Biomacromolecules 2003, 4, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bajrami, D.; Fischer, S.; Barth, H.; Hossain, S.I.; Cioffi, N.; Mizaikoff, B. Antimicrobial Efficiency of Chitosan and Its Methylated Derivative against Lentilactobacillus parabuchneri Biofilms. Molecules 2022, 27, 8647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gyawali, R.; Ibrahim, S.A. Natural Products as Antimicrobial Agents. Food Control 2014, 46, 412–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Singh, A.K.; Kim, J.Y.; Lee, Y.S. Phenolic Compounds in Active Packaging and Edible Films/Coatings: Natural Bioactive Molecules and Novel Packaging Ingredients. Molecules 2022, 27, 7513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Camilleri, E.; Blundell, R.; Karpiński, T.M.; Panda, J.; Nath, P.C.; Mohanta, Y.K.; Aruci, E.; Atrooz, O.M. The Therapeutic Potential of Shiitake Mushrooms (Lentinula edodes). Next Res. 2025, 2, 100632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nazzaro, F.; Orlando, P.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R. Microencapsulation in Food Science and Biotechnology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, X.; Qiu, H.; Ismail, B.B.; He, Q.; Yang, Z.; Zou, Z.; Xiao, G.; Xu, Y.; Ye, X.; Liu, D.; et al. Ultrasonically Functionalized Chitosan-Gallic Acid Films Inactivate Staphylococcus aureus through Envelope-Disruption under UVA Light Exposure. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 255, 128217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, L.; Tao, N.; Li, L.; Zhu, W.; Xu, C.; Deng, S.; Wang, Y. Mechanism of Antimicrobials Immobilized on Packaging Film Inhabiting Foodborne Pathogens. LWT 2022, 169, 114037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Campos, C.A.; Gerschenson, L.N.; Flores, S.K. Development of Edible Films and Coatings with Antimicrobial Activity. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 4, 849–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hubbe, M.A.; Ferrer, A.; Tyagi, P.; Yin, Y.; Salas, C.; Pal, L.; Rojas, O.J. Nanocellulose in Thin Films, Coatings, and Plies for Packaging Applications: A Review. BioResources 2017, 12, 2143–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Costa, R.C.; Leite, J.C.; Brandão, G.C.; Ferreira, S.L.C.; Dos Santos, W.N.L. A Method Based on Digital Image Colorimetry for Determination of Total Phenolic Content in Fruits. Food Anal. Methods 2023, 16, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gennaro, M.; Büyüktaş, D.; Carullo, D.; Pinto, A.; Dallavalle, S.; Farris, S. UV-Shielding Biopolymer Coatings Loaded with Bioactive Compounds for Food Packaging Applications. Coatings 2025, 15, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dutta, P.K.; Tripathi, S.; Mehrotra, G.K.; Dutta, J. Perspectives for Chitosan Based Antimicrobial Films in Food Applications. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cavalluzzi, M.; Lamonaca, A.; Rotondo, N.; Miniero, D.; Muraglia, M.; Gabriele, P.; Corbo, F.; De Palma, A.; Budriesi, R.; De Angelis, E.; et al. Microwave-Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Lentil Wastes: Antioxidant Activity Evaluation and Metabolomic Characterization. Molecules 2022, 27, 7471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rhim, J.-W.; Hong, S.-I.; Park, H.-M.; Ng, P.K.W. Preparation and Characterization of Chitosan-Based Nanocomposite Films with Antimicrobial Activity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 5814–5822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Santos, L.G.; Martins, V.G. Multifunctional Alginate Films Blended with Polyphenol-Rich Extract from Unconventional Edible Sources: Bioactive Properties, UV-Light Protection, and Food Freshness Monitoring. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 262, 130001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Coma, V. Bioactive Packaging Technologies for Extended Shelf Life of Meat-Based Products. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dang, T.T.; Nguyen, L.A.T.; Dau, D.T.; Nguyen, Q.S.; Le, T.N.; Nguyen, T.Q.N. Improving Properties of Chitosan/Polyvinyl Alcohol Films Using Cashew Nut Testa Extract: Potential Applications in Food Packaging. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2024, 11, 241236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Suppakul, P.; Miltz, J.; Sonneveld, K.; Bigger, S.W. Active Packaging Technologies with an Emphasis on Antimicrobial Packaging and Its Applications. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Benbettaïeb, N.; Debeaufort, F.; Karbowiak, T. Bioactive Edible Films for Food Applications: Mechanisms of Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activity. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 3431–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. López-de-Dicastillo, C.; Gómez-Estaca, J.; Catalá, R.; Gavara, R.; Hernández-Muñoz, P. Active Antioxidant Packaging Films: Development and Effect on Lipid Stability of Brined Sardines. Food Chem. 2012, 131, 1376–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Vilela, C.; Kurek, M.; Hayouka, Z.; Röcker, B.; Yildirim, S.; Antunes, M.D.C.; Nilsen-Nygaard, J.; Pettersen, M.K.; Freire, C.S.R. A Concise Guide to Active Agents for Active Food Packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 80, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Realini, C.E.; Marcos, B. Active and Intelligent Packaging Systems for a Modern Society. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Otoni, C.G.; Espitia, P.J.P.; Avena-Bustillos, R.J.; McHugh, T.H. Trends in Antimicrobial Food Packaging Systems: Emitting Sachets and Absorbent Pads. Food Res. Int. 2016, 83, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bastarrachea, L.; Dhawan, S.; Sablani, S.S. Engineering Properties of Polymeric-Based Antimicrobial Films for Food Packaging: A Review. Food Eng. Rev. 2011, 3, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ordoñez, R.; Atarés, L.; Chiralt, A. Biodegradable Active Materials Containing Phenolic Acids for Food Packaging Applications. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe 2022, 21, 3910–3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Salgado, P.R.; López-Caballero, M.E.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Mauri, A.N.; Montero, M.P. Sunflower Protein Films Incorporated with Clove Essential Oil Have Potential Application for the Preservation of Fish Patties. Food Hydrocoll. 2013, 33, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Benavides, S.; Villalobos-Carvajal, R.; Reyes-Parra, J.E. Physical, Mechanical and Antibacterial Properties of Alginate Film: Effect of the Crosslinking Degree and Oregano Essential Oil Concentration. J. Food Eng. 2012, 110, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jouki, M.; Yazdi, F.T.; Mortazavi, S.A.; Koocheki, A. Quince Seed Mucilage Films Incorporated with Oregano Essential Oil: Physical, Thermal, Barrier, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties. Food Hydrocoll. 2014, 36, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sánchez-González, L.; Vargas, M.; González-Martínez, C.; Chiralt, A.; Cháfer, M. Use of Essential Oils in Bioactive Edible Coatings: A Review. Food Eng. Rev. 2011, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Atarés, L.; Chiralt, A. Essential Oils as Additives in Biodegradable Films and Coatings for Active Food Packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 48, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pires, C.; Ramos, C.; Teixeira, G.; Batista, I.; Mendes, R.; Nunes, L.; Marques, A. Characterization of Biodegradable Films Prepared with Hake Proteins and Thyme Oil. J. Food Eng. 2011, 105, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cha, D.S.; Chinnan, M.S. Biopolymer-Based Antimicrobial Packaging: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 44, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cagri, A.; Ustunol, Z.; Ryser, E.T. Antimicrobial Edible Films and Coatings. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 833–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Flores, G.A.; Cusumano, G.; Venanzoni, R.; Angelini, P. The Glucans Mushrooms: Molecules of Significant Biological and Medicinal Value. Polysaccharides 2024, 5, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shankar, S.; Teng, X.; Li, G.; Rhim, J.-W. Preparation, Characterization, and Antimicrobial Activity of Gelatin/ZnO Nanocomposite Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2015, 45, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Leceta, I.; Guerrero, P.; Ibarburu, I.; Dueñas, M.T.; De La Caba, K. Characterization and Antimicrobial Analysis of Chitosan-Based Films. J. Food Eng. 2013, 116, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hosseini, M.H.; Razavi, S.H.; Mousavi, M.A. Antimicrobial, Physical and Mechanical Properties of Chitosan-Based Films Incorporated with Thyme, Clove and Cinnamon Essential Oils. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2009, 33, 727–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ruiz-Navajas, Y.; Viuda-Martos, M.; Sendra, E.; Perez-Alvarez, J.A.; Fernández-López, J. In Vitro Antibacterial and Antioxidant Properties of Chitosan Edible Films Incorporated with Thymus moroderi or Thymus piperella Essential Oils. Food Control 2013, 30, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kumar, H.; Bhardwaj, K.; Kuča, K.; Sharifi-Rad, J.; Verma, R.; Machado, M.; Kumar, D.; Cruz-Martins, N. Edible Mushrooms’ Enrichment in Food and Feed: A Mini Review. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 2022, 57, 1386–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pranoto, Y.; Salokhe, V.M.; Rakshit, S.K. Physical and Antibacterial Properties of Alginate-Based Edible Film Incorporated with Garlic Oil. Food Res. Int. 2005, 38, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Balaguer, M.P.; Gómez-Estaca, J.; Gavara, R.; Hernandez-Munoz, P. Biochemical Properties of Bioplastics Made from Wheat Gliadins Cross-Linked with Cinnamaldehyde. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 13212–13220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tian, F.; Decker, E.A.; Goddard, J.M. Controlling Lipid Oxidation of Food by Active Packaging Technologies. Food Funct. 2013, 4, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; Kaveh, M.; Fatemi, H.; Aziz, M. Combined Hot Air, Microwave, and Infrared Drying of Hawthorn Fruit: Effects of Ultrasonic Pretreatment on Drying Time, Energy, Qualitative, and Bioactive Compounds’ Properties. Foods 2021, 10, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Islam, M.; Malakar, S.; Rao, M.V.; Kumar, N.; Sahu, J.K. Recent Advancement in Ultrasound-Assisted Novel Technologies for the Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Herbal Plants: A Review. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 32, 1763–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Seyyedi-Mansour, S.; Donn, P.; Carpena, M.; Chamorro, F.; Barciela, P.; Perez-Vazquez, A.; Jorge, A.O.S.; Prieto, M.A. Utilization of Ultrasonic-Assisted Extraction for Bioactive Compounds from Floral Sources. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2024, 40, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Shen, L.; Pang, S.; Zhong, M.; Sun, Y.; Qayum, A.; Liu, Y.; Rashid, A.; Xu, B.; Liang, Q.; Ma, H.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction (UAE) for Bioactive Components: Principles, Advantages, Equipment, and Combined Technologies. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2023, 101, 106646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bagade, S.B.; Patil, M. Recent Advances in Microwave Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Complex Herbal Samples: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2021, 51, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Laina, K.T.; Drosou, C.; Stergiopoulos, C.; Eleni, P.M.; Krokida, M. Optimization of Combined Ultrasound and Microwave-Assisted Extraction for Enhanced Bioactive Compounds Recovery from Four Medicinal Plants: Oregano, Rosemary, Hypericum, and Chamomile. Molecules 2024, 29, 5773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Carreira-Casais, A.; Otero, P.; Garcia-Perez, P.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Pereira, A.G.; Carpena, M.; Soria-Lopez, A.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Prieto, M.A. Benefits and Drawbacks of Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction for the Recovery of Bioactive Compounds from Marine Algae. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Aliaño-González, M.J.; Barea-Sepúlveda, M.; Espada-Bellido, E.; Ferreiro-González, M.; López-Castillo, J.G.; Palma, M.; Barbero, G.F.; Carrera, C. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Total Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity in Mushrooms. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Plazzotta, S.; Manzocco, L. Effect of Ultrasounds and High Pressure Homogenization on the Extraction of Antioxidant Polyphenols from Lettuce Waste. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 50, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Melikoglu, M. Microwave-Assisted Extraction: Recent Advances in Optimization, Synergistic Approaches, and Applications for Green Chemistry. Sustain. Chem. Clim. Action 2025, 7, 100122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wong, J.C.J.; Nillian, E. Microwave-Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Sarawak Liberica Sp. Coffee Pulp: Statistical Optimization and Comparison with Conventional Methods. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 11, 5364–5378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Afonso, T.B.; Marçal, S.; Vale, P.; Sousa, A.S.; Nunes, J.; Pintado, M. Exploring the Bioactive Potential of Mushroom Aqueous Extracts: Antimicrobial, Antioxidant, and Prebiotic Properties. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Parí, S.M.; Saldaña, E.; Rios-Mera, J.D.; Quispe Angulo, M.F.; Huaman-Castilla, N.L. Emerging Technologies for Extracting Antioxidant Compounds from Edible and Medicinal Mushrooms: An Efficient and Sustainable Approach. Compounds 2025, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Herrero, M. Towards Green Extraction of Bioactive Natural Compounds. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2024, 416, 2039–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Maitra, J.; Bhardwaj, N. Development of Bio-Based Polymeric Blends—A Comprehensive Review. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2025, 36, 102–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Khuntia, A.; Prasanna, N.S.; Mitra, J. Technologies for Biopolymer-Based Films and Coatings. In Biopolymer-Based Food Packaging; Kumar, S., Mukherjee, A., Dutta, J., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 66–109. ISBN 978-1-119-70225-2. [Google Scholar]
  134. Galvin, C.J.; Genzer, J. Applications of Surface-Grafted Macromolecules Derived from Post-Polymerization Modification Reactions. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dutta, D.; Sit, N. A Comprehensive Review on Types and Properties of Biopolymers as Sustainable Bio-based Alternatives for Packaging. Food Biomacromol. 2024, 1, 58–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Gigante, V.; Panariello, L.; Coltelli, M.-B.; Danti, S.; Obisesan, K.A.; Hadrich, A.; Staebler, A.; Chierici, S.; Canesi, I.; Lazzeri, A.; et al. Liquid and Solid Functional Bio-Based Coatings. Polymers 2021, 13, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Trodtfeld, F.; Tölke, T.; Wiegand, C. Developing a Prolamin-Based Gel for Food Packaging: In-Vitro Assessment of Cytocompatibility. Gels 2023, 9, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Mayrhofer, A.; Kopacic, S.; Bauer, W. Extensive Characterization of Alginate, Chitosan and Microfibrillated Cellulose Cast Films to Assess Their Suitability as Barrier Coating for Paper and Board. Polymers 2023, 15, 3336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Giotopoulou, I.; Fotiadou, R.; Stamatis, H.; Barkoula, N.-M. Development of Low-Density Polyethylene Films Coated with Phenolic Substances for Prolonged Bioactivity. Polymers 2023, 15, 4580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Abdullah; Cai, J.; Hafeez, M.A.; Wang, Q.; Farooq, S.; Huang, Q.; Tian, W.; Xiao, J. Biopolymer-Based Functional Films for Packaging Applications: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1000116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Gururani, P.; Bhatnagar, P.; Dogra, P.; Chandra Joshi, H.; Chauhan, P.K.; Vlaskin, M.S.; Chandra Joshi, N.; Kurbatova, A.; Irina, A.; Kumar, V. Bio-Based Food Packaging Materials: A Sustainable and Holistic Approach for Cleaner Environment—A Review. Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 7, 100384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Turan, D.; Keukens, B.M.; Schifferstein, H.N.J. Food Packaging Technology Considerations for Designers: Attending to Food, Consumer, Manufacturer, and Environmental Issues. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe 2024, 23, e70058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Upadhyay, P.; Zubair, M.; Roopesh, M.S.; Ullah, A. An Overview of Advanced Antimicrobial Food Packaging: Emphasizing Antimicrobial Agents and Polymer-Based Films. Polymers 2024, 16, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wang, Y.; Hausner, G.; Rout, P.R.; Yuan, Q. Investigation of Fungal Mycelium-Bound Bio-Foams from Agricultural Wastes as Sustainable and Eco-Conscious Packaging Innovations. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 501, 145206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hernández-García, E.; Chiralt, A.; González-Martínez, C. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Films for Sustainable Food Packaging Based on Mushroom Waste Biomass. Food Hydrocoll. 2026, 171, 111836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Dewan, F.; Islam, N. Pullulan-Based Films: Unveiling Its Multifaceted Versatility for Sustainability. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2024, 2024, 2633384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Amobonye, A.; Lalung, J.; Awasthi, M.K.; Pillai, S. Fungal Mycelium as Leather Alternative: A Sustainable Biogenic Material for the Fashion Industry. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2023, 38, e00724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Shi, B.; Hao, Z.; Du, Y.; Jia, M.; Xie, S. Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Chitosan-Based Composite Film as Food Packaging: A Review. BioResources 2024, 19, 4001–4014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Cvetković, K.; Karabegović, I.; Dordevic, S.; Dordevic, D.; Danilović, B. Valorization of Food Industry Waste for Biodegradable Biopolymer-Based Packaging Films. Processes 2025, 13, 2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Rezghi Rami, M.; Forouzandehdel, S.; Aalizadeh, F. Enhancing Biodegradable Smart Food Packaging: Fungal-Synthesized Nanoparticles for Stabilizing Biopolymers. Heliyon 2024, 10, e37692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Jahangiri, F.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Sustainable Biodegradable Coatings for Food Packaging: Challenges and Opportunities. Green Chem. 2024, 26, 4934–4974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bitting, S.; Derme, T.; Lee, J.; Van Mele, T.; Dillenburger, B.; Block, P. Challenges and Opportunities in Scaling up Architectural Applications of Mycelium-Based Materials with Digital Fabrication. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Meyer, V.; Basenko, E.Y.; Benz, J.P.; Braus, G.H.; Caddick, M.X.; Csukai, M.; De Vries, R.P.; Endy, D.; Frisvad, J.C.; Gunde-Cimerman, N.; et al. Growing a Circular Economy with Fungal Biotechnology: A White Paper. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2020, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ruthes, A.C.; Smiderle, F.R.; Iacomini, M. Mushroom Heteropolysaccharides: A Review on Their Sources, Structure and Biological Effects. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 136, 358–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hernando, A.V.; Sun, W.; Abitbol, T. “You Are What You Eat”: How Fungal Adaptation Can Be Leveraged toward Myco-Material Properties. Glob. Chall. 2024, 8, 2300140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Papoutsis, K.; Grasso, S.; Menon, A.; Brunton, N.P.; Lyng, J.G.; Jacquier, J.-C.; Bhuyan, D.J. Recovery of Ergosterol and Vitamin D2 from Mushroom Waste—Potential Valorization by Food and Pharmaceutical Industries. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Londoño, C.R.; Gil, A.G.; Moreno, A.; Alvarado, P.N. Valorization of Spent Mushroom Compost Through a Cascading Use Approach. Energies 2024, 17, 5458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Silva, R.C.; Trevisan, M.G.; Garcia, J.S. β-Galactosidase Encapsulated in Carrageenan, Pectin and Carrageenan/Pectin: Comparative Study, Stability and Controlled Release. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2020, 92, e20180609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Negrete-Bolagay, D.; Guerrero, V.H. Opportunities and Challenges in the Application of Bioplastics: Perspectives from Formulation, Processing, and Performance. Polymers 2024, 16, 2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Paliwal, R.; Babu, R.J.; Palakurthi, S. Nanomedicine Scale-up Technologies: Feasibilities and Challenges. AAPS PharmSciTech 2014, 15, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Avila, L.B.; Schnorr, C.; Silva, L.F.O.; Morais, M.M.; Moraes, C.C.; Da Rosa, G.S.; Dotto, G.L.; Lima, É.C.; Naushad, M. Trends in Bioactive Multilayer Films: Perspectives in the Use of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Carbohydrates with Natural Additives for Application in Food Packaging. Foods 2023, 12, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Pielichowski, K.; Njuguna, J.; Majka, T.M. Thermal Degradation of Polymer (Nano)Composites. In Thermal Degradation of Polymeric Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 251–286. ISBN 978-0-12-823023-7. [Google Scholar]
  163. Kuperkar, K.; Atanase, L.; Bahadur, A.; Crivei, I.; Bahadur, P. Degradable Polymeric Bio(Nano)Materials and Their Biomedical Applications: A Comprehensive Overview and Recent Updates. Polymers 2024, 16, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Băbuțan, M.; Botiz, I. Morphological Characteristics of Biopolymer Thin Films Swollen-Rich in Solvent Vapors. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kim, J.H.; Tam, C.C.; Chan, K.L.; Mahoney, N.; Cheng, L.W.; Friedman, M.; Land, K.M. Antimicrobial Efficacy of Edible Mushroom Extracts: Assessment of Fungal Resistance. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Jayakumar, A.; Radoor, S.; Siengchin, S.; Shin, G.H.; Kim, J.T. Recent Progress of Bioplastics in Their Properties, Standards, Certifications and Regulations: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 878, 163156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Nizamuddin, S.; Baloch, A.J.; Chen, C.; Arif, M.; Mubarak, N.M. Bio-Based Plastics, Biodegradable Plastics, and Compostable Plastics: Biodegradation Mechanism, Biodegradability Standards and Environmental Stratagem. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2024, 195, 105887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Venkatesan, R.; Alrashed, M.M.; Vetcher, A.A.; Kim, S.-C. Next-Generation Food Packaging: Progress and Challenges of Biopolymer-Based Materials. Polymers 2025, 17, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. de Souza, A.M.N.; Avila, L.B.; Contessa, C.R.; Valério Filho, A.; de Rosa, G.S.; Moraes, C.C. Biodegradation Study of Food Packaging Materials: Assessment of the Impact of the Use of Different Biopolymers and Soil Characteristics. Polymers 2024, 16, 2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Leal Filho, W.; Barbir, J.; Venkatesan, M.; Lange Salvia, A.; Dobri, A.; Bošković, N.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P.; Ingram, I.; Dinis, M.A.P. Policy Gaps and Opportunities in Bio-Based Plastics: Implications for Sustainable Food Packaging. Foods 2025, 14, 1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Sevigné-Itoiz, E.; Mwabonje, O.; Panoutsou, C.; Woods, J. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Informing the Development of a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20200352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Grimm, D.; Wösten, H.A.B. Mushroom Cultivation in the Circular Economy. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 7795–7803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H.; Partanen, A.; Meeusen, M. Consumer Perception of Bio-Based Products—An Exploratory Study in 5 European Countries. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 77, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lignou, S.; Oloyede, O.O. Consumer Acceptability and Sensory Profile of Sustainable Paper-Based Packaging. Foods 2021, 10, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Lin, J.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Jaiswal, S. A Critical Review of Consumer Perception and Environmental Impacts of Bioplastics in Sustainable Food Packaging. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kirtil, E. Molecular Strategies to Overcome Sensory Challenges in Alternative Protein Foods. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2025, 18, 6964–6996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Cottet, C.; Ramirez-Tapias, Y.A.; Delgado, J.F.; De La Osa, O.; Salvay, A.G.; Peltzer, M.A. Biobased Materials from Microbial Biomass and Its Derivatives. Materials 2020, 13, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Cairns, T.C.; Nai, C.; Meyer, V. How a Fungus Shapes Biotechnology: 100 Years of Aspergillus niger Research. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2018, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Vanderroost, M.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F.; De Meulenaer, B. Intelligent Food Packaging: The next Generation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 39, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Pagoropoulos, A.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; McAloone, T.C. The Emergent Role of Digital Technologies in the Circular Economy: A Review. Procedia CIRP 2017, 64, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy through Digital Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Luthin, A.; Traverso, M.; Crawford, R.H. Circular Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: An Integrated Framework. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024, 28, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Peña, C.; Civit, B.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Druckman, A.; Pires, A.C.; Weidema, B.; Mieras, E.; Wang, F.; Fava, J.; Canals, L.M.I.; et al. Using Life Cycle Assessment to Achieve a Circular Economy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. De Jesus, A.; Mendonça, S. Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-Innovation Road to the Circular Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Kirchherr, J.; Piscicelli, L.; Bour, R.; Kostense-Smit, E.; Muller, J.; Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.; Hekkert, M. Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Ritzén, S.; Sandström, G.Ö. Barriers to the Circular Economy—Integration of Perspectives and Domains. Procedia CIRP 2017, 64, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How Do Scholars Approach the Circular Economy? A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Phan, C.-W.; Sabaratnam, V. Potential Uses of Spent Mushroom Substrate and Its Associated Lignocellulosic Enzymes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 96, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Ravlikovsky, A.; Pinheiro, M.N.C.; Dinca, L.; Crisan, V.; Symochko, L. Valorization of Spent Mushroom Substrate: Establishing the Foundation for Waste-Free Production. Recycling 2024, 9, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Stahel, W.R. The Circular Economy. Nature 2016, 531, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Haneef, M.; Ceseracciu, L.; Canale, C.; Bayer, I.S.; Heredia-Guerrero, J.A.; Athanassiou, A. Advanced Materials from Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Properties. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Houette, T.; Maurer, C.; Niewiarowski, R.; Gruber, P. Growth and Mechanical Characterization of Mycelium-Based Composites towards Future Bioremediation and Food Production in the Material Manufacturing Cycle. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Appels, F.V.W.; Camere, S.; Montalti, M.; Karana, E.; Jansen, K.M.B.; Dijksterhuis, J.; Krijgsheld, P.; Wösten, H.A.B. Fabrication Factors Influencing Mechanical, Moisture- and Water-Related Properties of Mycelium-Based Composites. Mater. Des. 2019, 161, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Cherubini, F. The Biorefinery Concept: Using Biomass Instead of Oil for Producing Energy and Chemicals. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 1412–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Lazaro-Molina, B.; Lopez-Arenas, T. Design and Technical-Economic-Environmental Evaluation of a Biorefinery Using Non-Marketable Edible Mushroom Waste. Processes 2024, 12, 2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. FitzPatrick, M.; Champagne, P.; Cunningham, M.F.; Whitney, R.A. A Biorefinery Processing Perspective: Treatment of Lignocellulosic Materials for the Production of Value-Added Products. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8915–8922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Ramamoorthy, N.K.; Vengadesan, V.; Pallam, R.B.; Sadras, S.R.; Sahadevan, R.; Sarma, V.V. A Pilot-Scale Sustainable Biorefinery, Integrating Mushroom Cultivation and in-Situ Pretreatment-Cum-Saccharification for Ethanol Production. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2023, 53, 954–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Vemuri, V.S. A Commercial-Scale, Circular-Economical Bio-Refinery Model for Sustainable Yields of Mushrooms, Cellulase-Complex, Bio-Priming Agents, Bio-Ethanol, and Bio-Fertilizer. Kavaka 2023, 59, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Maheshwari, D.K.; Dubey, R.C.; Aeron, A.; Kumar, B.; Kumar, S.; Tewari, S.; Arora, N.K. Integrated Approach for Disease Management and Growth Enhancement of Sesamum Indicum L. Utilizing Azotobacter Chroococcum TRA2 and Chemical Fertilizer. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 28, 3015–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Kumar, K.; Yadav, A.N.; Kumar, V.; Vyas, P.; Dhaliwal, H.S. Food Waste: A Potential Bioresource for Extraction of Nutraceuticals and Bioactive Compounds. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2017, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Hottle, T.A.; Bilec, M.M.; Landis, A.E. Sustainability Assessments of Bio-Based Polymers. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 1898–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Ta, T.Y.; Nguyen, K.L.P.; Nguyen, T.H.T.; Le, D.T.; Nguyen, M.T.; Nguyen, Q.L.; Nguyen, H.-Q.; Bui, T.-K.L. Integrated Life Cycle Assessment with the ReSOLVE Framework for Environmental Impacts Mitigation in Mushroom Growing: The Case in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam. Environ. Dev. 2024, 51, 101024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent Developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Chertow, M.R. “Uncovering” Industrial Symbiosis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2007, 11, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Chia, W.; Chew, K.; Le, C.; Chee, C.; Ooi, M.; Show, P. Aerobic Compression Composting Technology on Raw Mushroom Waste for Bioenergy Pellets Production. Processes 2022, 10, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Martin, M.; Harris, S. Prospecting the Sustainability Implications of an Emerging Industrial Symbiosis Network. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Neves, A.; Godina, R.; Azevedo, S.G.; Matias, J.C.O. A Comprehensive Review of Industrial Symbiosis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Kalmykova, Y.; Sadagopan, M.; Rosado, L. Circular Economy—From Review of Theories and Practices to Development of Implementation Tools. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Morseletto, P. Targets for a Circular Economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Blomsma, F.; Brennan, G. The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing Around Prolonging Resource Productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.; Ashworth, P.; Laycock, B.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P. Public Attitudes towards Bioplastics—Knowledge, Perception and End-of-Life Management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Mushroom production and processing: residues stream and management.
Figure 1. Mushroom production and processing: residues stream and management.
Ijms 26 10870 g001
Figure 2. Circular valorization pathways of mushroom industry residues, highlighting the reuse of spent mushroom substrate, mushroom trimmings, wash water, and packaging materials through composting, recycling, and treatment processes.
Figure 2. Circular valorization pathways of mushroom industry residues, highlighting the reuse of spent mushroom substrate, mushroom trimmings, wash water, and packaging materials through composting, recycling, and treatment processes.
Ijms 26 10870 g002
Figure 3. Bioactive Compounds in Mushroom Residues.
Figure 3. Bioactive Compounds in Mushroom Residues.
Ijms 26 10870 g003
Figure 4. Bioactive compounds derived from mushroom residues and their functional property and packaging performance.
Figure 4. Bioactive compounds derived from mushroom residues and their functional property and packaging performance.
Ijms 26 10870 g004
Figure 5. Process flow: conventional vs. green extraction techniques.
Figure 5. Process flow: conventional vs. green extraction techniques.
Ijms 26 10870 g005
Figure 6. Critical Barriers to the Application of Mushroom-Derived Biopolymers.
Figure 6. Critical Barriers to the Application of Mushroom-Derived Biopolymers.
Ijms 26 10870 g006
Figure 7. Critical Barriers to the Application of Mushroom-Derived Biopolymers in Food Packaging: (A) Before (starter products-spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and after manufacturing packaging materials (final products); (B) Factors affecting the packaging manufacturing process.
Figure 7. Critical Barriers to the Application of Mushroom-Derived Biopolymers in Food Packaging: (A) Before (starter products-spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and after manufacturing packaging materials (final products); (B) Factors affecting the packaging manufacturing process.
Ijms 26 10870 g007
Figure 8. Circular economy pathway for mushroom residue valorization: from residue generation to sustainable food packaging and nutrient recovery.
Figure 8. Circular economy pathway for mushroom residue valorization: from residue generation to sustainable food packaging and nutrient recovery.
Ijms 26 10870 g008
Table 1. Physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of spent mushroom substrate and their Relevance to valorization.
Table 1. Physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of spent mushroom substrate and their Relevance to valorization.
CharacteristicTypical Values
(SMS Basis)
Relevance to Valorization
Moisture content60–70% (wet basis)High water-holding capacity is ideal for composting or soil amendment; it requires drying for bioenergy use.
Organic matter40–60% dry weight
(DW)
Supports biodegradation and biogas production (e.g., yields 200–300 mL/g volatile solids)
pH6.5–8.0Neutral to slightly alkaline conditions facilitate nutrient availability in soil amendments and microbial fermentations
Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),
potassium (K)
N: ~1–2%; P: 0.3–1.0%; K: 0.5–2.0% (DW)Nutrient-rich for fertilizer use; can improve crop performance
Lignocellulose
(cellulose, hemicellulose,
lignin)
Lignin fraction often > 15%Lignin and cellulose fractions can be used for bioenergy, biochar, or material production.
Microbial load106–108 CFU/gContains diverse decomposers (bacteria, fungi) useful in composting, bio-augmentation, and enzyme recovery
Sources: [22,24].
Table 2. Functional Properties of Mushroom Extracts in Packaging Films.
Table 2. Functional Properties of Mushroom Extracts in Packaging Films.
Compound ClassPrimary FunctionQuantitative PerformanceKey MechanismsRefs.
ChitosanAntimicrobial, Barrier90–99% microbial reduction; 40–60% barrier improvementMembrane disruption, Film formation[73,74,75,76]
β-glucansAntioxidant, Film-formingIC50: 0.52–3.59 mg·mL−1; 75–88% radical scavengingRadical scavenging, Metal chelation[63,64,66]
Phenolic compoundsAntioxidant, UV protectionMIC: 7.5–15 mg·mL−1; 90% UV reductionElectron donation, UV absorption[78,79,86]
Polysaccharide fractionsMultifunctional82–94% antioxidant activity; Enhanced tensile propertiesMultiple radical scavenging mechanisms[94]
Table 3. Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted and Microwave-Assisted Extraction Techniques.
Table 3. Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted and Microwave-Assisted Extraction Techniques.
AspectUltrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE)Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE)
Driving PrincipleAcoustic cavitation (formation and collapse of microbubbles)Dielectric heating (direct microwave energy absorption by solvents and samples)
Mechanism of ActionCell disruption via fragmentation, pore formation, and sonoporationRapid heating of intracellular moisture, disrupting compound–matrix bonds
Effect on Plant Cell WallsDamages the polysaccharide network; enhances the release of intracellular compounds.Heat enhances the solubility and diffusion of compounds.
EfficiencyHigh mass transfer and solvent penetration; fast releaseQuick and uniform heating; high extraction efficiency
Temperature ControlGenerally moderate; no need for high temperaturesCan exceed the solvent boiling point in closed vessels without decomposition
ApplicationsFruit, vegetable, and mushroom residues for bioactive compound recoveryBroad use for thermally stable bioactives; efficient for high-value extracts
Solvent InteractionMechanical effects enhance solvent penetrationSolvents absorb microwave energy for direct heating
AdvantagesEco-friendly, energy-efficient, effective at room temp, enhances yieldHigh-speed, energy-efficient, enhanced extraction at controlled high temps
References[120,121][122,123]
Table 4. Overview of Biopolymer Incorporation Methods into Packaging Films and Coatings.
Table 4. Overview of Biopolymer Incorporation Methods into Packaging Films and Coatings.
MethodDescriptionAdvantagesRef.
BlendingPhysical mixing of a bio-based additive with the polymer matrix. The additive is mixed into the melt or solvent-blended before the film is formed.Uniform distribution of the additive retains the base polymer structure.[132]
CoatingApplication of a biopolymer layer onto the surface of an existing film. Spraying or spreading a layer on the film surface.Modifies only the surface layer; does not affect the film core.[133]
GraftingChemical modification of polymer chains to enable bonding with the film surface. Covalent bonding through chain-end or side-chain functionalization.Stable and durable attachment; improves interfacial properties.[134]
In situ polymerizationPolymerization of bio-based molecules directly within the packaging matrix. Monomers are dispersed in the medium and polymerize in place during matrix formation.Ensures homogeneous integration; strong interaction between the biopolymer and the matrix.[135]
Table 5. Innovative Applications in the Field of Residue Valorization.
Table 5. Innovative Applications in the Field of Residue Valorization.
Application AreaCase Study/ExampleKey FeaturesImpact/PotentialRef.
Mycelium
composites
Ecovative Design packaging for electronicsMolded foam-like structures from mycelium
+ agri-residue
Biodegradable replacement for EPS foams[144]
Mushroom leather analogsMycoWorks, Bolt ThreadsFlexible, leather-like fungal matsPremium, sustainable alternative to leather/plastics[147]
Active packagingOyster mushroom-based filmsAntioxidant + antimicrobial activityShelf-life extension for fruits
& vegetables
[145]
Edible coatingsShiitake pullulan filmsTransparent, oxygen-barrier edible filmsReduced food residue, no secondary packaging needed[146]
Hybrid biopolymer systemsChitosan-starch blendsStronger tensile and barrier propertiesExpanded functional range of biofilms[148]
Table 6. Challenges and opportunities in mushroom residue valorization.
Table 6. Challenges and opportunities in mushroom residue valorization.
Challenge CategorySpecific IssuesPotential SolutionsEconomic Impacts
TechnicalProcessing efficiency, Product standardizationAdvanced extraction technologies, Quality control systems15–25% cost reduction
EconomicScale-up costs, Market developmentRegional processing hubs, Policy incentives$2.85 M NPV over 10 years
EnvironmentalEnergy consumption, Water usageRenewable energy integration, Process optimization28% GHG reduction
SocialConsumer acceptance, Skill developmentEducation programs, Training initiatives68% consumer willingness to pay premium
RegulatoryStandards development, CertificationHarmonized regulations, Industry standardsReduced compliance costs
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Törős, G.; El-Ramady, H.; Abdalla, N.; Elsakhawy, T.; Prokisch, J. Valorization of Mushroom Residues for Functional Food Packaging. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 10870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262210870

AMA Style

Törős G, El-Ramady H, Abdalla N, Elsakhawy T, Prokisch J. Valorization of Mushroom Residues for Functional Food Packaging. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025; 26(22):10870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262210870

Chicago/Turabian Style

Törős, Gréta, Hassan El-Ramady, Neama Abdalla, Tamer Elsakhawy, and József Prokisch. 2025. "Valorization of Mushroom Residues for Functional Food Packaging" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 22: 10870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262210870

APA Style

Törős, G., El-Ramady, H., Abdalla, N., Elsakhawy, T., & Prokisch, J. (2025). Valorization of Mushroom Residues for Functional Food Packaging. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(22), 10870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262210870

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