Search
2022 Volume 7
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive

More Information
  • The present study evaluated the effect of Lithovit-Amino25 on the nutrient profile and heavy metal composition of Pleurotus ostreatus. The product was tested in two doses applied at three different timings: T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1/after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/after first harvest, and T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Compared to control (T1: non-treated substrate), mushrooms’ fibers and carbohydrates increased in all treatments, recording the highest values in T4 (4.16%) and T3 (18.42%), respectively. Protein content was higher in mushrooms of substrates treated at spawning, with a 0.33% improvement in T5. Fat content decreased in T3, T4, T6, and T5. Total sugars decreased in mushrooms of treated substrates, and glucose was the dominant sugar in mushrooms. Fructose increased in mushrooms of T3 and T4. Calcium, iron, and potassium decreased in mushrooms of treated substrates. Sodium decreased in T3, T5, and T7, magnesium increased in T2, and phosphorus increased only in T2 and T7. Copper content of all treated mushrooms was in the standard safe limit (< 40 ppm), and it decreased in T2, T4, and T5 by around 2.5, 6.6, and 5.1 ppm, compared to control. However, zinc content increased in mushrooms of all treated substrates, and nickel and lead, increased by respective ranges of 2.8−11.88 ppm and 9.1−21 ppm, higher than the safe limits. The product presented a risk of heavy metal bioaccumulation even with a low dose.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Abou Fayssal S, Alsanad MA, El Sebaaly Z, Ismail AIH, Sassine YN. 2020. Valorization of olive pruning residues through bioconversion into edible mushroom Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq. Ex Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871) of improved nutritional value. Scientifica 2020: 3950357

    doi: 10.1155/2020/3950357

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Alsanad MA, Sassine YN, El Sebaaly Z, Abou Fayssal S. 2021. Spent coffee grounds influence on Pleurotus ostreatus production, composition, fatty acid profile, and lignocellulose biodegradation capacity. CyTA - Journal of Food 19:11−20

    doi: 10.1080/19476337.2020.1845243

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    El Sebaaly Z, Abou Fayssal S, Shaban N, Sassine YN. 2018. Growing Agaricus bisporus on compost mixtures based on chicken manure and banana residues. Proceedings of the IX International Scientific Agriculture Symposium, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2018. Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Agrosym. pp. 1172−80

    [4]

    El Sebaaly Z, Alsanad MA, Seeman H, Rizkallah J, Shaban N, et al. 2020. Investigating the potential use of composted grape marc in the production of Agaricus bisporus. Acta Horticulturae 1287:329−36

    doi: 10.17660/actahortic.2020.1287.42

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    El Sebaaly Z, Alsanad MA, Hayek P, Kfoury L, Shaban N, et al. 2020. Using locally available chicken manure as a substitute to horse manure in compost formulas for growing Agaricus bisporus in Lebanon. Acta Horticulturae 1287:337−44

    doi: 10.17660/actahortic.2020.1287.43

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Medina E, Paredes C, Pérez-Murcia MD, Bustamante MA, Moral R. 2009. Spent mushroom substrates as component of growing media for germination and growth of horticultural plants. Bioresource Technology 100:4227−32

    doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.055

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Naim L, Alsanad MA, El Sebaaly Z, Shaban N, Fayssal SA, et al. 2020. Variation of Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq. Ex Fr.) P. Kumm. (1871) performance subjected to different doses and timings of nano-urea. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 27:1573−79

    doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.03.019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Sassine YN, Naim L, El Sebaaly Z, Abou Fayssal S, Alsanad MA, et al. 2021. Nano urea effects on Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value depending on the dose and timing of application. Scientific reports 11:5588

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85191-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Grimm D, Wösten HAB. 2018. Mushroom cultivation in the circular economy. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 102:7795−803

    doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-9226-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Chiu SW, Ching ML, Fong KL, Moore D. 1998. Spent oyster mushroom substrate performs better than many mushroom mycelia in removing the biocide pentachlorophenol. Mycological Research 102:1553−62

    doi: 10.1017/S0953756298007588

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Abd Rasib NA, Zakaria Z, Tompang MF, Abdul Rahman A, Othman H. 2015. Characterization of biochemical composition for different types of spent mushroom substrate in Malaysia. The Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences 19:41−45

    Google Scholar

    [12]

    Zhu H, Liu J, Sun L, Hu Z, Qiao J. 2013. Combined alkali and acid pretreatment of spent mushroom substrate for reducing sugar and biofertilizer production. Bioresource Technology 136:257−66

    doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.121

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Bellettini MB, Fiorda FA, Maieves HA, Teixeira GL, Àvila S, et al. 2019. Factors affecting mushroom Pleurotus spp. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 26:633−46

    doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.12.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Çağlarırmak N. 2007. The nutrients of exotic mushrooms (Lentinula edodes and Pleurotus species) and an estimated approach to the volatile compounds. Food Chemistry 105:1188−1194

    doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.02.021

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Chirinang P, Intarapichet KO. 2009. Amino acids and antioxidant properties of the oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus ostreatus and Pleurotus sajor-caju. ScienceAsia 35:326−31

    doi: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2009.35.326

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Baysal E, Peker H, Yalinkiliç MK, Temiz A. 2003. Cultivation of oyster mushroom on waste paper with some added supplementary materials. Bioresource Technology 89:95−97

    doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00028-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Royse DJ 2003. Cultivation of oyster mushrooms. College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 12 pp

    [18]

    Kurt S, Buyukalaca S. 2010. Yield performances and changes in enzyme activities of Pleurotus spp. (P. ostreatus and P. sajor-caju) cultivated on different agricultural wastes. Bioresource Technology 101:3164−69

    doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.011

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Sharma VP, Jandaik CL. 1985. Studies on recycling of Pleurotus waste. Mushroom Journal for the Tropics 6:13−15

    Google Scholar

    [20]

    Picornell-Buendía MR, Pardo-Giménez A, de Juan-Valero JA. 2015. Reuse of degraded Pleurotus ostreatus substrate through supplementation with wheat bran and Calprozime® quantitative parameters. Agronomía Colombiana 33:261−70

    doi: 10.15446/agron.colomb.v33n2.49760

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Sanchez JE, Huerta G, Montiel, E. 2002. Development of non-composted substrate for production of Agaricus bisporus. Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Mushroom Biology and Mushroom Products, Cuernavaca, Mexico, Autonomous University of the State of Morales, 2002. pp. 265−70

    [22]

    Naim L, Alsanad MA, Shaban N, El Sebaaly Z, Abou Fayssal S, et al. 2020. Production and composition of Pleurotus ostreatus cultivated on Lithovit®-Amino25 supplemented spent substrate. AMB Express 10:188

    doi: 10.1186/s13568-020-01124-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    El Sebaaly Z, Assadi F, Sassine YN, Shaban N. 2019. Substrate types effect on nutritional composition of button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus). Agriculture and Forestry 65:73−80

    doi: 10.17707/agricultforest.65.1.08

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Kumar V, Kumar P, Singh J, Kumar P. 2021. Use of sugar mill wastewater for Agaricus bisporus cultivation: prediction models for trace metal uptake and health risk assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:26923−34

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12488-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 14th edition. (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1984).

    [26]

    Dreywood R. 1946. Qualitative test for carbohydrate material. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Analytical Edition 18:499

    doi: 10.1021/i560156a015

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Bilal BA 2010. Lithovit®: An innovative fertilizer. The 3rd e-conference on agricultural biosciences (IeCAB 2010), 1st–15th June 2010. https://documen.site/download/lithovit-elewa-biosciences_pdf.

    [28]

    Reis FS, Barros L, Martins A, Ferreira ICFR. 2012. Chemical composition and nutritional value of the most widely appreciated cultivated mushrooms: An inter-species comparative study. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:191−97

    doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.10.056

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    ANKOM. 2008. Crude fiber analysis in feeds by filter bag technique. Technology method 7. AOCS Approved Procedure Ba 6a-05. www.ssco.com.tw/Ankom/PDF_file/Crude%20Fiber%20Method%20A200.pdf

    [30]

    AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 12th edtion. (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1975).

    [31]

    Chang ST, Miles PG. 2004. Mushrooms: Cultivation, Nutritional Value, Medicinal Effect and Environmental Impact. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC press. 480 pp.

    [32]

    Dias Nunes M, Rodriguez da Luz JM, Albino Paes S, Oliveira Ribeiro JJ, Soares da Silva MDC, et al. 2012. Nitrogen supplementation on the productivity and the chemical composition of oyster mushroom. Journal of Food Research 1:113−19

    doi: 10.5539/jfr.v1n2p113

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Upadhyay RC, Verma RN, Singh SK, Yadav MC. 2002. Effect of organic nitrogen supplementation Pleurotus species, ed. Sánchez JE. Autonomus University of the State of Morelos. pp. 325−32. https://nanopdf.com/download/effect-of-organic-nitrogen-supplementation-in-pleurotus-spp_pdf

    [34]

    Slavin J, Carlson J. 2014. Carbohydrates. Advances in Nutrition 5:760−61

    doi: 10.3945/an.114.006163

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2005. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/

    [36]

    Bano Z, Rajarathnam S, Steinkraus KH. 1988. Pleurotus mushrooms. Part II. Chemical composition, nutritional value, post-harvest physiology, preservation, and role as human food. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 27:87−158

    doi: 10.1080/10408398809527480

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Stamets P, Chilton JS (Eds.). 1983. The Mushroom Cultivator. Washington: Agarikon Press. 415 pp.

    [38]

    Deepalakshmi K, Sankaran M. 2014. Pleurotus ostreatus: An oyster mushroom with nutritional and medicinal properties. Journal of Biochemical Technology 5:718−26

    Google Scholar

    [39]

    Khani R, Moudi M, Khojeh V. 2017. Contamination level, distribution and health risk assessment of heavy and toxic metallic and metalloid elements in a cultivated mushroom Pleurotus florida (Mont.) singer. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24:4699−708

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-8222-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Wan C, Li Y. 2012. Fungal pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnology Advances 30:1447−57

    doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.03.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    García MÁ, Alonso J, Melgar MJ. 2009. Lead in edible mushrooms. Levels and bioaccumulation factors. Journal of Hazardous Materials 167:777−83

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.058

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Vorland CJ, Stremke ER, Moorthi, RN, Hill Gallant KM. 2017. Effects of excessive dietary phosphorus intake on bone health. Current Osteoporosis Reports 15:473−82

    doi: 10.1007/s11914-017-0398-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Işiloğlu M, Merdivan M, Yilmaz F. 2001. Heavy metal contents in some macrofungi collected in the northwestern part of Turkey. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 41:1−7

    doi: 10.1007/s002440010215

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: Sixty-ninth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). WHO Technical Report Series, No. 952. Geneva. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44062.

    [45]

    Campos JA, Tejera NA, Sánchez CJ. 2009. Substrate role in the accumulation of heavy metals in sporocarps of wild fungi. BioMetals 22:835−41

    doi: 10.1007/s10534-009-9230-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Quarcoo A, Adotey G. 2013. Determination of heavy metals in Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom) and Termitomyces clypeatus (Termite mushroom) sold on selected markets in Accra, Ghana. Mycosphere 4:960−67

    doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/4/5/9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Tobin JM, Cooper DG, Neufeld RJ. 1990. Investigation of the mechanism of metal uptake by denatured Rhizopus arrhizus biomass. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 12:591−95

    doi: 10.1016/0141-0229(90)90132-A

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Širić I, Kasap A, Kos I, Mioč B, Pohleven F. 2016. Heavy metal bioaccumulation by wild edible saprophytic and ectomycorrhizal mushrooms. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23:18239−18252

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7027-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Spencer PS, Palmer VS. 2021. Direct and indirect neurotoxic potential of metal/metalloids in plants and fungi used for food, dietary supplements, and herbal medicine. Toxics 9:57

    doi: 10.3390/toxics9030057

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Sassine YN, Shuleva N, El Sebaaly Z. 2022. Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive. Studies in Fungi 7:12 doi: 10.48130/SIF-2022-0012
    Sassine YN, Shuleva N, El Sebaaly Z. 2022. Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive. Studies in Fungi 7:12 doi: 10.48130/SIF-2022-0012

Tables(3)

Article Metrics

Article views(3675) PDF downloads(536)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive

Studies in Fungi  7 Article number: 12  (2022)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: The present study evaluated the effect of Lithovit-Amino25 on the nutrient profile and heavy metal composition of Pleurotus ostreatus. The product was tested in two doses applied at three different timings: T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1/after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/after first harvest, and T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Compared to control (T1: non-treated substrate), mushrooms’ fibers and carbohydrates increased in all treatments, recording the highest values in T4 (4.16%) and T3 (18.42%), respectively. Protein content was higher in mushrooms of substrates treated at spawning, with a 0.33% improvement in T5. Fat content decreased in T3, T4, T6, and T5. Total sugars decreased in mushrooms of treated substrates, and glucose was the dominant sugar in mushrooms. Fructose increased in mushrooms of T3 and T4. Calcium, iron, and potassium decreased in mushrooms of treated substrates. Sodium decreased in T3, T5, and T7, magnesium increased in T2, and phosphorus increased only in T2 and T7. Copper content of all treated mushrooms was in the standard safe limit (< 40 ppm), and it decreased in T2, T4, and T5 by around 2.5, 6.6, and 5.1 ppm, compared to control. However, zinc content increased in mushrooms of all treated substrates, and nickel and lead, increased by respective ranges of 2.8−11.88 ppm and 9.1−21 ppm, higher than the safe limits. The product presented a risk of heavy metal bioaccumulation even with a low dose.

    • Nowadays, a large amount of agro-industrial wastes are annually abandoned in the environment without any pre-treatment[1,2]. These wastes could be incorporated in mushroom production as a method to reduce their negative impacts on the environment which result from their hazardous disposal[35]. For instance, enormous amounts of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) resulting from mushroom cropping are discharged hazardously and need to be managed[6]. In parallel, researchers have long been utilizing SMS in mushroom production[7,8] taking advantage of its richness in lignocellulosic materials, availability, and low cost[9]. It is a nutritious substrate containing considerable amounts of minerals[10], protein and carbohydrates[11], and contains good amounts of cellulose (40%) and hemicellulose (20%)[12].

      Pleurotus ostreatus ranks as the second most cultivated mushroom in the world[13]. It is valued because it is rich in protein, fibers, vitamins and (C, D and B-complex), and amino acids, and is low in calories[14,15]. The mushroom can utilize available lignocellulosic materials[16,17], such as the SMS. Pleurotus spp. can biodegrade SMS by producing the enzymes cellulases, hemicellulases, and ligninases[18]. The subsequent utilization of the growing substrate will result in an SMS poor in nutrients and proteins[19]. As a result, such substrates are commonly being amended with protein-rich additives to ameliorate its nutritional profile, thus ensuring higher production and quality of mushrooms[20]. Furthermore, amino acids can increase the performance of the mushroom[21]. An improvement in the biological yield of oyster mushroom was found after supplementing the SMS with 3 g kg1 of a nanometric size nitrogen additive (nano-amino) applied twice during the production cycle[22]. Further, the supplement type, dose, and application timing had a major impact on the nutritional composition and heavy metal profile of P. ostreatus mushroom when the SMS substrate was supplemented with nano-urea[8].

      Eventually, the substrate nutrient composition and properties are factors determining the mushroom nutritional composition and heavy metal profile[1,8,23]. Studying the mushrooms heavy metal profile as affected by recycled substrates and its subsequent impact on human health is taking researchers interest nowadays[24]. Consequently, the present study will showcase the effect of applying nano-amino with different doses and at separate timings during the cropping cycle on the nutrient composition and heavy metals profile of oyster mushroom cultivated on a substrate containing SMS.

    • The substrate used was a 1:1, w/w mixture of wheat straw and spent mushroom substrate. The latter was procured by 'Gourmet' farm (at Byblos, Lebanon) and was previously used to grow oyster mushroom. It was subjected to a sun-drying process for 1 week and then shopped for size reduction. Thereafter, the mixture of SMS and wheat straw was pasteurized for 8 h using hot water (60–65 °C) and then allowed to cool to 25 °C for spawning. The substrate properties determined by a series of analytical tests were as follows: C:N ratio = 43:1 (determined by CHN Carlo-Erba elemental analyzer, Model 1106, Italy), moisture content: 85.6% (by Moisture Analyzer), organic matter: 82.8% dry weight (by loss of ignition over 24 h at 430 °C), pH (1:5, w/v): 5.2 (by pH meter: UltraBasic-UB10 Denver Instrument, USA), total proteins: 7.5% dry weight (by Micro-Kjeldahl method using N × 6.25[25], and total carbohydrates: 30.5% dry weight (using the Anthrone method)[26].

    • Supplementation of the growing substrate applied a nitrogen-rich fertilizer (Lithovit-Amino25), containing 16 water-soluble vegetable l-amino acids, composed of calcium carbonate (50.0%), calcium oxide (28.0%), silicon dioxide (9.0%), total nitrogen (3.0%), magnesium oxide (1.8%), iron (0.5%), and manganese (0.02%)[27]. It was used in two separate doses and at three different timings. The experimental design was carried out for full factorial testing of the effect of two factors: product dose and timing of product application, through the following treatments: T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1 /after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1 /spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/ after first harvest, and T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Each treatment was applied to 10 bags (10 replicates/treatment). To apply the nitrogenous additive at different timings, two solutions of two different concentrations (3 g L−1 and 5 g L−1) were prepared, and from each solution 0.5 l was sprayed on the substrate according to the corresponding treatment, keeping the substrate moisture content at 60%.

    • Spawning of the substrate was carried out at the 5% rate using a grain spawn of the strain M2175, procured from Mycelia Company (Deinze, Belgium)[22]. Polyethylene bags filled by the spawned substrates were then incubated at 25 °C in dark conditions. Inside the incubation room, relative humidity was maintained around 80%−90% by an ultrasonic mist maker (Hotsale 7 L h−1) throughout the incubation period (14 d). At the end of the vegetative growth phase, fruit induction was triggered by reducing CO2 levels (to 900–2,300 ppm by ventilation), lighting (using 200 lx light source), and cooling the growing room to a temperature of 15 °C. At this stage, the relative humidity was 88–90%. Regulation of room temperature and relative humidity during incubation and fruit induction applied a humidity-temperature meter (Lutron HT-3007SD).

    • Several analytical tests served for determining the mushrooms’ chemical composition, using 100 g of fresh mushrooms (pileus and stipe) of each treatment. The macro-Kjeldahl method was used to determine the total protein content with the conversion factor N × 4.38[28]. Total carbohydrates were determined using the Anthrone method[26]. Fiber analysis was carried out by applying the Weende technique[29]. After extracting a known weight of powdered mushroom sample with ethyl ether, the analysis of fat content was performed using Aldrich® Soxhlet extraction apparatus Z556203. Mushroom samples were boiled in water for 30 min to analyze soluble sugars, and 20 μl of the filtrate was then used for normal phase extraction using High Performance Liquid Chromatography at 30 °C (column NH2 column: 250 mm × 4.5 mm ID, flow rate of 1.2 ml min–1). Sugar identification applied a refractive index detector (RID), mobile phase: mixture of polar-non-polar solution, calibration: using a 2 point concentration), comparing with standards prepared from stock solution of sugars to get concentrations approximate to the sample. Mineral composition (Ca, Mg, K, Mg, Na, Fe, and Mn) was determined by adding 2.8 ml of HNO3 (65%) to 5–6 g of samples, digesting at 150 °C for 1 h, filtrating with 100 ml of distilled water, and subjecting the filtrate to Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Phosphorus content was determined by spectrophotometry[30]. Nickel, copper, lead and zinc content were measured by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer, Model Analyst 400, USA) after digesting the mushroom samples with a mixture of HNO3, H2SO4, and H2O2 (4:1:1) (12 ml per 1 g of sample). The mixture was then boiled at 150 °C for 4 h, and diluted to 25 ml with deionized water. Similarly, a blank digest was prepared. For calibration, standard solutions were prepared by diluting stock solutions (1,000 mg L−1; Sigma and Aldrich, Burlington, USA) of each metal.

      Fresh samples of mushrooms were used for the analysis and results (mean values of 3 replicates ± standard deviation) were converted and expressed as percentage dry weight.

    • Data analysis applied the One-way ANOVA and means were compared by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05 using SPSS25 program.

    • Results in Table 1 show that the product application resulted in a significant reduction in fat content for mushrooms of T3, T4, T6, and T7, but a significant increase in this component in mushrooms of T2 (by around 0.05% compared with control). Fiber and carbohydrates content increased significantly (p < 0.05) in the majority of treatments compared with control. The product applied in a dose 3 g kg−1 caused a higher increase in fiber content of mushrooms compared with the dose 5 g kg−1; this effect was especially pronounced with the lowest product dose applied twice (T4), causing the highest fiber content in mushrooms (4.16%). Improvement in carbohydrates content was the highest with 3 g kg−1 nano-amino applied after first harvest (T3: 18.42%), followed by that obtained with 5 g kg−1 applied at spawning (T5: 10.56%). Protein content recorded a significant improvement (0.33%) in mushrooms of T5 compared to control. Total sugars including glucose and sucrose were lower in mushrooms of substrates subjected to nano-amino application. However, there was a punctual increase of fructose in mushrooms obtained in substrates treated with 3 g kg−1 after first harvest (T3), and at both tested timings (T4).

      Table 1.  Composition (%fw) of P. ostreatus obtained from supplemented substrates.

      Fats
      Fiber
      Total
      carbohydrates
      Total
      proteins
      Total
      sugars
      Fructose
      Glucose
      Sucrose
      T10.16 ± 0.02d2.69 ± 0.25b4.36 ± 0.35a2.92 ± 0.13d0.18 ± 0.02e0.005 ± 0.00a0.17 ± 0.02d0.01 ± 0.00b
      T20.21 ± 0.01e3.56 ± 0.02d4.33 ± 0.07a2.95 ± 0.04d0.021 ± 0.00ab0.005 ± 0.00a0.011 ± 0.00ab0.005 ± 0.00a
      T30.05 ± 0.01a3.94 ± 0.02e18.42 ± 0.03e2.82 ± 0.03c0.047 ± 0.00d0.012 ± 0.00c0.03 ± 0.01c0.005 ± 0.00a
      T40.09 ± 0.02c4.16 ± 0.01f7.49 ± 0.02c2.24 ± 0.02a0.023 ± 0.00bc0.009 ± 0.00b0.009 ± 0.00ab0.005 ± 0.00a
      T50.17 ± 0.02d3.30 ± 0.16c10.56 ± 0.02d3.25 ± 0.01e0.021 ± 0.00ab0.005 ± 0.00a0.011 ± 0.00ab0.005 ± 0.00a
      T60.052 ± 0.01ab2.43 ± 0.02a7.10 ± 0.16b2.23 ± 0.01a0.025 ± 0.00c0.005 ± 0.00a0.015 ± 0.00b0.005 ± 0.00a
      T70.07 ± 0.02b2.81 ± 0.02b7.44 ± 0.01c2.64 ± 0.02b0.015 ± 0.00a0.005 ± 0.00a0.005 ± 0.00a0.005 ± 0.00a
      p-value
      Dose0.000.000.000.090.440.000.021.00
      Timing0.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.00
      Dose × Timing0.010.000.000.000.000.000.041.00
      T1: control, T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1/after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/after first harvest, T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.

      Findings in Table 2 showed that although it is a good source of calcium and iron, nano-amino couldn’t increase these nutrients in produced mushrooms. On the contrary, calcium, iron, and also potassium was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in mushrooms obtained from treated substrates than in control. Further, mushrooms obtained in treated substrate had a manganese content comparable (T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7) or significantly lower (T2) than that of mushrooms obtained in control substrate. Sodium content decreased by 0.0015%, 0.0012% and 0.0010% were noted respectively in the treatments T3, T5, and T7. Overall, zinc content increased in mushrooms of all treated substrates. Magnesium content increased punctually in T2 by around 0.003% compared to control. Phosphorus content increased in T2 and T7, by 0.22% and 0.15% respectively.

      Table 2.  Mineral composition of P. ostreatus mushrooms cultivated on supplemented substrates.

      Ca (%fw)K (%fw)Mn (ppm)Fe (ppm)Na (%fw)Mg (%fw)P (%fw)Zn (ppm)
      T10.0036 ± 0.00d0.36 ± 0.04d1.4 ± 0.00b22.0 ± 0.00f0.0080 ± 0.00c0.020 ± 0.00e0.68 ± 0.01c42.50 ± 0.1a
      T20.0018 ± 0.00c0.37 ± 0.00d0.9 ± 0.00a14.0 ± 0.00a0.0083 ± 0.00c0.023 ± 0.00f0.90 ± 0.16d65.28 ± 0.1b
      T30.0012 ± >0.00b0.29 ± 0.00c1.3 ± 0.00b20.0 ± 0.00d0.0065 ± 0.00a0.015 ± 0.00b0.64 ± 0.01bc71.22 ± 0.1c
      T40.0010 ± 0.00a0.24 ± 0.00a1.3 ± 0.00b18.0 ± 0.00c0.010 ± 0.00d0.014 ± 0.00a0.62 ± 0.01bc72.18 ± 0.1cd
      T50.0018 ± 0.00c0.31 ± 0.00c1.1 ± 0.00ab16.0 ± 0.00b0.0068 ± 0.00ab0.016 ± 0.00c0.46 ± 0.02a46.30 ± 0.2a
      T60.0013 ± 0.00b0.26 ± 0.00b1.1 ± 0.00ab21.0 ± 0.00f0.0079 ± 0.00c0.015 ± 0.00b0.57 ± 0.02b83.10 ± 0.2e
      T70.0014 ± 0.00b0.30 ± 0.00c1.1 ± 0.00ab20.0 ± 0.00e0.0070 ± 0.00b0.017 ± 0.00d0.83 ± 0.02d76.48 ± 0.1d
      p-value
      Dose0.010.040.410.000.000.000.000.46
      Timing0.000.000.090.000.000.000.000.00
      Dose × Timing0.010.000.150.000.000.000.000.00
      T1: control, T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1/after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/after first harvest, T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.

      The heavy metal analysis of mushrooms (Table 3) revealed that the copper content of all treated mushrooms met the WHO standard safe limit (2009) (< 40 ppm). Compared to control, copper content of T2, T4 and T5 mushrooms was reduced by around 2.5, 6.6, and 5.1 ppm respectively. Despite the dose and timing of supplementation, mushrooms of treated substrates had increasing and dramatic values of nickel and lead, which increased by respective ranges of 2.8−11.88 ppm (2.8−11.88 mg kg−1) and 9.1−21 ppm (9.1−21 mg kg−1).

      Table 3.  Heavy metals in P. ostreatus mushrooms cultivated on supplemented substrates.

      Copper (ppm)Nickel (ppm)Lead (ppm)
      T113.90±0.1de8.80±0.2a6.20±0.1a
      T211.38 ± 0.1c14.70 ± 0.2e15.30 ± 0.2b
      T313.28 ± 0.1d16.30 ± 0.2f18.70 ± 0.2d
      T47.28 ± 0.1a12.86 ± 0.1c19.78 ± 0.1e
      T58.76 ± 0.1b20.68 ± 0.1g18.00 ± 0.2cd
      T614.00 ± 0.2de11.60 ± 0.2b27.20 ± 0.1f
      T714.22 ± 0.1e14.28 ± 0.1d17.66 ± 0.1c
      p-value
      Dose0.000.000.00
      Timing0.000.000.00
      Dose × Timing0.000.000.00
      T1: control, T2: 3 g kg−1/spawning, T3: 3 g kg−1/after first harvest, T4: 3 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest, T5: 5 g kg−1/spawning, T6: 5 g kg−1/after first harvest, T7: 5 g kg−1/spawning and after first harvest. Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.
    • Mushroom protein content was higher when substrates were supplemented at spawning rather than other timings. It could be that high nitrogen doses accumulating in the growing substrate could counteract the assimilation of amino acids and sugars from the substrates, causing a lower synthesis of proteins, sugars, and carbohydrates in mushrooms. The initial nitrogen level is a crucial factor for the microbiota development within the substrate[31]. When nitrogen is excessive in the substrate it plays a negative effect on the growth and development of the mycelium in the growing substrate. An increase of P. ostreatus protein content by 33.6% was found when the mushroom was cultivated on sugar cane bagasse supplemented with urea[32].

      The total carbohydrate content of the substrate usually decreases after the first harvest. This is because fungi consume them along with other nutrients during growth[33]. Therefore, the higher carbohydrate content contained in the mushrooms of T3 and T6 (supplementation after first harvest) in comparison with control cases could be explained by the fact that the product, with high nitrogen content, has boosted the degradation of the substrate lignocellulose hence facilitating carbohydrate metabolism. Improvement in mushroom carbohydrates could be linked to a better degradation of lignin in the growing substrate. The highest decrease in substrate lignin was reported after a low dose of nano-amino was applied at double timings during P. ostreatus production cycle[22].

      Further, to obtain the amino-acids from substrates, the mushroom needs first to degrade the substrate protein via extracellular enzymatic secretion. The mushroom could then synthesize proteins. The product applied in the present study is initially rich in amino-acids, providing a more easily available form of amino acids compared to those obtained after the biodegradation of substrate’ proteins. As a result, mushrooms treated with nano-amino at spawning had higher protein content than those treated at later stages of the production cycle. But, the double application of the product did not essentially ameliorate the protein synthesis in mushrooms, probably because of high nitrogen accumulating in the substrate and negatively affecting the mushroom growth and metabolism. Moreover, the application of nano-supplement (nano-urea) to spent mushroom substrate was reported to improve the protein content in produced mushrooms[8].

      Carbohydrate foods are important source of fiber, with positive physiological effects on human health[34]. In the human body, proteins and other nitrogenous compounds are constantly broken down and contribute to the amino acid/nitrogen pool, from which precursors and amino acids are reused to produce enzymes, hormones, immune- functioning proteins, and other essential compounds[35].

      Generally, mushrooms are known to have low total soluble sugar content[36]. As observed, glucose was the most abundant type of sugar found in produced mushrooms, but it was significantly reduced in all mushrooms of treated substrates compared to control. The substrate used to grow P. ostreatus is formed by wheat straw, containing around 36% cellulose, which, when broken down by the mushrooms’ enzymes, secretes simple sugars, like glucose[37]. A lower degradation of cellulose in substrates treated with nano-amino may have caused a lower assimilation of sugars from the substrates, causing lower sugar content in mushrooms. Nano-amino application caused a lower cellulose biodegradation[22]. Further, the sugar composition of P. ostreatus mushrooms obtained in the present study is close to that obtained after supplementing SMS with nano-urea[8].

      In general, the mineral composition of mushrooms is normally affected by the substrate’s mineral profile[38]. Also, the substrates' pH may affect the heavy metal bioaccumulation and favor the absorption of certain minerals at the expense of others[39]. The product applied, initially rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3: 50%) could increase the substrate pH, resulting in a variable mineral profile of mushrooms obtained in the different treatments. The effects of nitrogen supplementation on mineral uptake levels is directly related to the substrate composition[32].

      Further, it is well known that high lignin decomposition by P. ostreatus could be linked to a high MnP liberation in the substrate[40]. This liberation may have enhanced the MnP enzymatic activity in treated substrates richer in Mn due to nano-amino application. Manganese content in treated substrates may have been completely used by MnP at the stage of mycelial run which inhibited its translocations to mushrooms in a further stage. The substrate supplemented at spawning with a product dose of 3 g kg−1 showed higher lignin degradation compared to non-treated substrate[22]. A reduction of food sodium content is favored for blood pressure control[1] (https://meadowmushrooms.co.nz/storage/wysiwyg/files/final-nutritional-analysis-of-meadow-mushrooms-a-summary.pdf).

      The competition between metals in soil affects the absorption of some of these metals by wild mushrooms[41]. This may suggest a serious metal competition occurring in treated substrates and favoring the absorption of zinc at the expense of calcium and iron from the substrates. P. ostreatus is rich in phosphorus and phosphorus-rich foods are good contributors in human nutrition[14]. However, high levels may inhibit calcium absorption causing weak bones, itchy skin, and joints pain that can lead to mineral bone disorders in chronic kidney disease[42]. Foods rich in protein and carbohydrates were associated with zinc accumulation[43]. In the current study, all treated mushrooms with nano-amino showed high zinc levels above the safe level (60 ppm) set by the WHO[44] except when the growing substrate was supplemented at spawning with a dose of 5 g kg−1 (T5).

      Heavy metal concentrations in edible and non-edible mushrooms are associated with mineral substrates or heavily contaminated areas such as large cities and industrial sites[45]. Oyster mushroom absorbs heavy metals from the substrate through its spacious mycelium[46]. Certain metals, such as Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, and Zn are biologically active in fungi[47]. High nickel levels in mushrooms could lead to serious toxicity[48]. Effectively, the levels of nickel detected in mushrooms from treated substrates were higher than the safe range of 0.05–5 ppm given for plant foods (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/20096/chapter/2 ). Moreover, lead content in control mushrooms was higher than that previously reported by Quarcoo & Adotey[46] (0.04 mg kg1) and the values recommended by the EU commission (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0466:20060701:EN:PDF) and WHO[44] (0.3 mg kg–1 and 2 mg kg–1, respectively). Ca, Fe, K, Mn, and P are required for normal human physiological function, but prolonged overexposure to Cu and Pb may cause neurological dysfunction or overt disease. High levels of Zn, Ni, and Cu are for instance neurotoxic and may lead to seizures[49]. The mushrooms’ heavy metals profile obtained in treated substrates is of concern. The exceptional reduction in Cu content in a few cases of treated mushrooms might have occurred because of the competition posed by Ni, Pb, and Zn, as suggested previously by Sassine et al.[8].

    • Investigating the nano-amino effect on P. ostreatus nutritional attributes showed that such a treatment could be beneficial causing a general improvement of proteins, carbohydrates, and fiber content, reduction in total sugars, coupled with punctual phosphorus increase and sodium decrease in mushrooms. Using the product once in low or high dose seems to be more advantageous than twice for carbohydrates and protein metabolism. However, even with the lowest dose applied, a risk of nickel and lead accumulation was observed suggesting that the product may have been better tested in lower doses.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2022 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Table (3) References (49)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Sassine YN, Shuleva N, El Sebaaly Z. 2022. Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive. Studies in Fungi 7:12 doi: 10.48130/SIF-2022-0012
    Sassine YN, Shuleva N, El Sebaaly Z. 2022. Changes in Pleurotus ostreatus nutritional value and heavy metal profile as a result of supplementation with nano-additive. Studies in Fungi 7:12 doi: 10.48130/SIF-2022-0012

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return