Potted-plants Can Significantly Reduce Urban/Indoor Air Pollution

Potted-plants Can Significantly Reduce

Urban/Indoor Air Pollution

July 2012

Margaret D Burchett PhD,

Director, Plants and Indoor Environmental Quality (PIEQ) Group, and

Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Science  University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)

 

Summary statement

Urban buildings account for about one third of world energy use. International  research shows that plant installations could routinely be used to lower the energy load of city building air-conditioning, saving money and reducing the carbon footprint of the city, while improving health and wellbeing of building occupants. For example:

 

These results are in line with numerous other studies showing the capacity of indoor plants to remove urban/indoor air pollutants and improve wellbeing of building occupants.

 

A background and summary of examples of the growing world body of evidence, are presented below.

 

Indoor plants can remove all types of urban/indoor air pollution

International research shows that, like other plants, indoor potted-plants can remove all major types of urban/indoor air pollutants (90% of which come from fossil fuel emissions), including nitrogen oxides^9,43,49 sulfur oxides²⁴, ozone^30,33, carbon monoxide^12,20,26,43, carbon dioxide^4,7,8, ‘air toxics’ (i.e. VOCs)^6,44-48,50, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)¹⁹, and particulates²⁸.

 

And indoor air pollution is almost always from 2 to 10 times (and sometimes 100 times) higher indoors than outside^15,42, because of two main classes of air contaminant which are always in higher concentrations indoors, since they also arise from indoor sources. They are: more VOCs, from low, continuous emissions from plastic/synthetic furnishings, fittings and equipment^5,19; and higher CO₂, because of occupant respiration^1,16. The cocktail of air contaminants, even at imperceptible levels, can produce symptoms of sick building syndrome/ building-related illness (eg sore nose, eyes, throat, wheezing, loss of concentration, slight nausea and/or dizziness)^16,40.

 

Potted plants remove VOCs and CO₂ from indoor air

All biotechnology research needs a combination of complementary laboratory and real-world field studies, as presented below. Field studies report correlations (eg plant presence and lowered air pollution levels), while laboratory studies are needed to establish cause-effect and dose relationships (eg with different species, specific test VOCs, and measured concentrations and exposures). 

 

(a) VOC removal

(a.1)Field studiesThe US EPA has identified over 900 VOCs that have been found in indoor air³⁹, and in any one building it is common to find a mixture of between 10 and 300 different substances^5,47. As mentioned earlier, an initial UTS field study showed that plant treatments reduced TVOC loads by up to 75%, always to below 100 ppb; meanwhile, ambient (non-planted) indoor levels were sometimes as high as 350-500 ppb⁴⁷. However, a second UTS office study⁷, in two newer buildings, with similar plantings, recorded much lower removal rates (maxima of 5-10%) for either type of contaminant, because of the more up-to-date, hence efficient air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The results of the two studies, taken together, indicate that plant installations could be used to lower building ventilation needs, and hence reduce ‘building hyperventilation’.

 

(a.2)  Laboratory studies A range of test-chamber studies, including altogether over 200 species and 20 test VOCs, demonstrate conclusively that indoor plants have a universal, very high capacity to remove any type of VOCs^{3,6,23,27,44-48,50}. Several detailed studies at UTS (ie lasting weeks, rather than the more usual testing time of several hours), using a total of 16 species and four test VOCs, have been able to demonstrate conclusively that the main VOC removal agents are normal root-zone bacteria (functioning steadily in light and dark – 24/7); the plant is acting symbiotically to nourish and maintain its root-associated microorganisms, and influences small species-specific differences in VOC removal rates^{6,7,31,32,47,48}.  The fact that removal is primarily brought about by the substrate microorganisms explains why a robust capacity for VOC removal is to be found in every species tested, and with every VOC tested, which strongly suggests that most other species would share this ability.

 

This conclusion is also consistent with the results of a UTS comparative study of three species, using benzene as test VOC, in bench-top test chambers (216 L).  The rates of benzene removal in plants in 200 mm pots were identical with those of larger plants in 300 mm pots, and a batch of two to three smaller plants in 125 mm pots also worked just as fast⁶.  In all of the treatments, once the response had been induced by initial exposure to the VOC, repeated 5 ppm doses were completely removed in an average of 22 hours. (The dosage was chosen because 5 ppm benzene is equal to the maximum allowable occupational 8-hr averaged exposure concentration in Australia).  The findings are a further indication of the robust capacity of the substrate microorganisms to absorb and degrade VOCs. And the most recent UTS study shows that the indoor plant VOC removal system works in hydroculture as well as in standard potting mixtures²¹.

 

(b) CO₂ removal – findings

(b.1)Field studiesIt is well known that, with adequate light, any green plant will photosynthesise, in the process absorbing CO₂ and emitting equimolecular amounts of O₂ – a two-way air-freshener system for the planet. Indoor plants, being very shade-tolerant, can absorb CO₂ at very low light intensities, but even so, getting adequate light inside buildings can be problematic. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, in the first UTS office study the plantings used resulted in CO₂ reductions of from 10 to 25%³⁷. However, in the second study⁷, as with the VOCs, only very low reductions (~5%) were recorded. The two UTS office studies taken together show that plant installations could be used routinely to reduce the HVAC energy load of city buildings, saving money and lowering the carbon footprint of the city.

 

(b. 2) Laboratory studies  Precise light/shade tolerances and photosynthesis rates are species-specific³⁸; and even within any one species, CO₂ uptake rates depend not only on leaf area, but also on factors such as substrate moisture, surrounding humidity, etc. The interior planstscape industry has categorised species into grades of shade tolerance.  A recent UTS study of nine indoor species⁸, across three different industry-based grades of tolerance, found that the three potted-palm species trialled were the most tolerant of ‘normal’ (i.e. low) indoor light intensities (in the range 10 – 30 µmol PAR* m^-2 sec^-1, as found among spaces with or without windows) namely: Howea forsteriana, (Kentia palm); Chamaedorea elegans (Parlour palm); Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palm). It was also found that Aspidistra elator (Cast Iron Plant), Aglaonema commutatum (Chinese evergreen), and Dracaena deremensis ‘Compacta’ performed satisfactorily, as did Spathiphyllum ‘Petite’ in an earlier study⁴.

 (*PAR – quanta of photosynthetically active radiation – a slightly narrower spectrum range than that of visible light; intensity of full  sunlight is about 2000 µmol PAR m^-2 sec^-1,)

 

Conclusions

 Acknowledgements

Thanks to my PIEQ group colleagues, Dr Fraser Torpy, Jason Brennan and Peter Irga, who carried out most of the recent UTS work cited here.  Thanks also to numerous other UTS colleagues, past and present, many of whom participated in our office studies.  Thanks also to the funding bodies that have supported this research: the National Interior Plantscape Association (Australia), Ambius, Horticulture Australia Ltd, and UTS.

 

References

1) Apte GM, Fisk WJ and Daisey JM, 2000, Associations between CO2 concentrations and sick building syndrome symptoms: An analysis of the 1994-1996 BASE study data, Indoor Air, 10, 246-257.

2) ASHRAE, 2007, Standard 62.1 (2007) Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, accessed 10/01/2011.

3) Aydogan A and Montoya LD, 2011, Formaldehyde removal by common indoor plant species and various growing media, Atmospheric Environment, 45, 16, 2675-2682.

4) Brennan J, 2011, Do Potted Plants Improve the Indoor Environment? Masters Thesis (MSc), UTS.

5) Bernstein JA, Alexis N, Bacchus H, Bernstein IL, Fritz P, Horner E, Li N, Mason S, Nel A, Oullette J, Reijula K, Reponen T, Seltzer J, Smith A, Tarlo SM, 2008,The health effects of nonindustrial indoor air pollution. J. Allergy Clin. Immun. 121,585-591.

6)Burchett MD, Torpy, F, Brennan,2009, Towards Improving Indoor Air Quality With Potted -Plants – A Multifactorial Investigation,Fin. Rep.to Hort. Aust.Ltd. ,University of Technology. Sydney.

7)Burchett, MD, Torpy, F, Brennan, J, Craig, A, 2010,Greening the Great Indoors for Human Health and Wellbeing. Fin. Rep. to Hort. Aust. Ltd. University of Technology, Sydney.

8) Burchett MD, Torpy F, De Filippis LF, Brennan J, Irga PJ, 2011, Indoor Plant Technology for Health and Environmental Sustainability. Fin. Rep. to Hort. Aust. Ltd. University of Technology, Sydney.

9)Coward M, Ross D, Coward S et al., 1996, Pilot Study to Assess the Impact of Green Plants on NO₂ Levels in Homes, Building Research Establishment Note N154/96, Watford, UK.

10)  Darlington A, Chan M, Malloch D, Pilger C & Dixon MA, 2000, The biofiltration of indoor air: implications for air quality,  Indoor Air, 10, 39-46.

11)  Darlington A, Dat FJ & Dixon MA, 2001, 2001, The biofiltration of indoor air: air flux and temperature influences the removal of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, Environ. Sci. Technology, 25, 240-246.

12)  Dekker J & Hargrove M, 2002, Weedy adaptation in Setaria spp. V. Effects of gaseous environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberii) (Poaceae) seed germination, Amer. J. Botany, 89 (3), 410-416.

13)  Dijkstra K, Pieterse ME & Pruyn A, 2008, Stress-reducing effects of indoor plants in the built healthcare environment: The mediating role of perceived attractiveness.Preventive Med. 47:279-283.

14)  Dravigne A., Waliczek TM, Lineberger RD &. Zaljicek JM, 2008, The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience 43:183-187.

15)  Environment Australia (EA), 2003, BTEX Personal Exposure Monitoring in Four Australian Cities, Technical Paper No. 6: EA, 2003. Canberra, ACT, Australia.

16)  Erdmann C& Apte MG, 2003, Associations of carbon dioxide concentrations and

environmental susceptibilities with mucous membrane and lower respiratory building- related symptoms in the BASE study: Analyses of the 100 building dataset, Indoor Air, Special Edition, Sept.

17)  Fjeld T, 2002, The effects of plants and artificial daylight on the well-being and health of office workers, school children and health-care personnel. Proc. Internat. Plants for People Symp. Floriade, Amsterdam, NL. pp. 25–27.

18)  Guieysse B, Hort C, Platel V, Munoz R, Ondarts & Revah S, 2008, Biological treatment of indoor air for VOC removal: Potential and challenges, Biotechnology Advances, 26,398–410.

19)  Hedge, A, 2009, Indoor work and living environments: Health,s and performance, in Indoor Air Quality, Health and Productivity, pp. 247-267. (Science publishers Inc: Ithaca, New York)

20)  Huang BK et al., 2006, Carbon monoxide alleviates salt-induced oxidative damage in wheat seedling leaves, Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 48 3, 249-254.

21)  Irga P, 2012, Development of Hydroculture Plants for the Improvement of Indoor Air Quality, Honours Thesis, UTS.

22)  Knight, C. and H.S. Alexander, 2010.  The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and productivity. J.Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16 2, 158-172.

23)  Kwang JK, Myeong IJ, Dong WL, Jeong SS, Hyoung DK, Eun HY, Sun J, Seung WH, Kays S, Young WL & Ho-Hyun K, 2010, Variation in formaldehyde removal efficiency among indoor plant species, HortScience, 45,10, 1489-1495.

24)  Lee J-H & Sim W-K, 1999, Biological absorption of SO₂ by Korean native indoor species, In, M.D. Burchett et al. (eds) Towards a New Millennium in People-Plant Relationships, Contributions from International People-Plant Symposium, Sydney, 101-108.

25)  Lim YW, Kim HH, Kim KJ et al., 2006, The health effect of houseplant on the symptoms of Sick Building Syndrome, Epidemiology, 17, 6, 16.

26)  Liu K et al., 2007, Carbon monoxide counteracts the inhibition of seed germination and alleviates oxidative damage caused by salt stress in Oryza sativa”, Plant Science (Oxf.), 172, 3, 544- 555.

27)  Liu Y-J, Mub Y-J, Zhub Y-G, Ding H, & Arens N C, 2007, Which ornamental plant species effectively remove benzene from indoor air?Atmospheric Environment, 41, 3, 650–654

28)  Lohr VI & Pearson-Mims CH, 1996, Particulate matter accumulation on horizontal surfaces in interiors: influence of foliage plants, Atmospheric Environment, 30, 2565-8.

29)  Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH & Goodwin GK, 1996., Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. J. Environ. Hort. 14, 97-100. .

30)  Omasa K, Tobe K, Hosomi M & Kobayashi M, 2000, Absorption of ozone and organic pollutants by Populus nigra and Camellia sasanqua, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2498-2500.

31)  Orwell, R, Wood R, Burchett M, Tarran J & Torpy F, 2006, The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: II. Laboratory study, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 177, 59-80.

32)  Orwell, R, Wood R, Tarran J, Torpy F & Burchett M, 2004, Removal of benzene by the indoor plant/substrate microcosm and implications for air quality, Water, Soil and Air Pollution, 157, 193–207.

33)  Papinchak H, Holcomb EJ, Orendovici BT Decoteau DR, 2009, Effectiveness of houseplants in reducing the indoor air pollutant ozone, HortTechnol. 19, 2, 286-290.

34)  Raanaas RK, Horgen Evensen K, Rich D, Sjostrom G& Patil G, 2011, Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting, J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 1, 99-105.

35)  Seppänen O, Fisk WJ and Lei QH, 2006, Ventilation and performance in office work, Indoor Air, 16, 28-36.

36)  Shibata S & Suzuki N, 2004, Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood, Scand. J. Psychol. 45, 373-381.

37)  Tarran J, Torpy F and Burchett M, 2007, Use of living pot-plants to cleanse indoor air – research review, Proceedings Of 6^th Internat. Conf. On Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation & Energy Conservation, – Sustainable Built Environment, Sendai, Japan, Oct., Vol III, pp249-256.

38)  Thompson WA, Huang  LK, & Kriedemann  PE, 1992, Photosynthetic response to light and nutrients in sun-tolerant and shade-tolerant rainforest trees. II. Leaf gas exchange and component processes of photosynthesis, Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 19,1, 19 – 42.

39)  US EPA, 1989, Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Vol II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air: Effects of Individual Pollutants, Volatile Organic Compounds, p. 3-6,

40)US EPA, 2000, Healthy Buildings, Healthy People: A Vision For The 21^st Century, Office of Air and Radiation. Air: VOCs, 3-6, 29.

41)US EPA, 2009, Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings Resource Bank, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, http://www.iaqscience.lbl.gov/, viewed  17/09/09.

42)US EPA 2012, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ voc.html, viewed 04/07/2012.

43)  Wolverton BC, McDonald RC & Mesick HH, 1985, Foliage plants for the indoor removal of the primary combustion gases carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, J. Mississippi Acad. Sci., 30, 1-8.

44)Wolverton BC, Johnson A & Bounds K, 1989, Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollution Abatement, Final Report, NASA Stennis Space Centre MS, USA.

45)Wolverton Environmental Services Inc., 1991, Removal of Formaldehyde from Sealed Experimental Chambers, by Azalea, Poinsettia and Dieffenbachia, Res. Rep. No. WES/100/01-91/005.

46)Wolverton BC and Wolverton JD, 1993, Plants and soil microorganisms: removal of formaldehyde, xylene, and ammonia from the indoor environment, J. Mississippi Acad. Sci., 38, 2, 11-15.

47)Wood, RA, Burchett, MD, Alquezar, R, Orwell, RL, Tarran, J & Torpy, F, 2006, The potted- plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: I. Office field-study. Water, Soil and Air Pollution 175, 163-180.

48)Wood, RA, Orwell, RL, Tarran, J, Torpy, F, 2002, Potted plant-growth media: interactions and capacities in removal of volatiles from indoor air. J. Environ. Hort. & Biotech. 77, 120-129.

49)Yoneyama T, Kim HY, Morikawa H & Srivastava HS, 2002. Metabolism and detoxification of nitrogen dioxide and ammonia in plants. In, Omasa K, Saji H, Youssefian SY and Kondo N, (Eds.), Air Pollution and Plant Biotechnology – Prospects for Phytomonitoring and Phytoremediation, Springer, Tokyo, pp. 221-234.34.

50)  Yoo, MH, Kwon, YJ, Son, K-C & Kays, SJ, 2006, Efficacy of indoor plants for the removal of single and mixed volatile organic pollutants and the physiological effects of the volatiles on the plants. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 131, 452-458.51)  Daly J, Burchett M, Torpy F, 2010, Plants in the classroom can improve student performance, http://www.interiorplantscape.asn.au/plants-in-schools-full-report/viewed 04/04/2012.

52)  Daly J, Burchett M, Torpy F, 2012 (Paper in prep.)