Are you interested in learning more about formaldehyde plant? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!
Formaldehyde is a common hazardous indoor air pollutant which recently raised public concerns due to its well-known carcinogenic effects on human. The aim of this study was to investigate a potted plant-soil system ability in formaldehyde removal from a poor ventilated indoor air to promote dwellers health.
For this purpose, we used one of the common interior plants from the fern species (Nephrolepis obliterata), inside a Plexiglas chamber under controlled environment. Entire plant removal efficiency and potted soil/roots contribution were determined by continuously introducing different formaldehyde vapor concentrations to the chamber (0.6&#;11 mg/m3) each over a 48-h period. Sampling was conducted from inlet and outlet of the chamber every morning and evening over the study period, and the average of each stage was reported.
The results showed that the N. obliterata plant efficiently removed formaldehyde from the polluted air by 90%&#;100%, depending on the inlet concentrations, in a long time exposure. The contribution of the soil and roots for formaldehyde elimination was 26%. Evaluation of the plant growing characteristics showed that the fumigation did not affect the chlorophyll content, carotenoid, and average height of the plant; however, a decrease in the plant water content was observed.
According to the results of this study, phytoremediation of volatile organic compound-contaminated indoor air by the ornamental potted plants is an effective method which can be economically applicable in buildings. The fern species tested here had high potential to improve interior environments where formaldehyde emission is a health concern.
Keywords:
Formaldehyde, indoor air pollution, phytoremediation, potted plant
Nowadays, indoor air pollution has become a major concern due to its known harmful effects on human health.[1] With the onset of the energy crisis, changes in the building's design owing to energy-efficient strategy, a confined space for house and workplace is provided which reduce the air exchange rate (AER) and increase indoor air pollution.[2,3,4,5,6] The environmental protection agency (EPA) of the United States has mentioned that indoor air pollutants can be found at a higher concentration than outdoor.[7] However, monitoring and regulating of indoor air pollutants have been neglected behind the outdoor air pollutants.
One of the major indoor air pollutants is formaldehyde with a chemical formula of HCHO. It is one of the most well-known volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with indoor air pollution which is attracted public attention worldwide due to its adverse health effects.[3,8] Formaldehyde is a colorless gas with a strong odor which is soluble in water, as well as it can be smothering at room temperature.[7] The main indoor sources of formaldehyde are from furniture and materials which widely used in the construction of inside the house such as fiberboard and laminated wood, carpets, curtains, rubber, oil-based paint, adhesive materials, cosmetics, electronic devices, and paper products.[2,9,10] Furthermore, people are exposed to formaldehyde from combustion sources such as tobacco smoke, gas, petrol, and solid fuels.[11] Typically, in newly built or refurbished residences the levels of formaldehyde are often so high compared to old buildings.[12,13] Formaldehyde levels generally decrease with the product age,[2,11,14] however, according to Wolverton, 10 years is too much time to breath this carcinogenic chemical into lungs.[15]
The World Health Organization has reported that the health effects associated with acute exposure to indoor concentrations of formaldehyde include eye irritation, eye redness, frequent blinking, and irritation in the upper respiratory system.[16] Furthermore, it has been reported that formaldehyde can cause long-term effects such as cancer, leukemia in children, premature birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genotoxicity, and Alzheimer's disease. EPA considers formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen (Group B1).[2,7,17] It has been suggested that occupational exposure to formaldehyde may increase the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Thus, physician working in the operating theater remains alert to formaldehyde hazards among health-care workers.[18]
At present, there are some techniques for eliminating formaldehyde from the indoor air such as biological methods, adsorption on activated carbon fibers, photocatalytic oxidation, and biofiltration; nevertheless, none of them are fully satisfactory due to low concentrations as well as the volatile characteristic of this chemical.[19,20,21,22] Beside this, increasing the ventilation rate is difficult and not economical for public. Phytoremediation has attracted much consideration in recent decades probably due to it's environmental, economic and social benefits. In addition, it is potential to help zero emission in both traditional and new buildings.[23,24]
Numerous plants can remove formaldehyde from indoor air.[2,25,26] Plant leaves uptakes formaldehyde through stomata and the cuticle, and younger leaves readily absorb the formaldehyde vapors.[3,27] Besides, some researches have shown that soil microorganisms are capable of degrading pollutants and this degradation is suggested to be encouraged by root exudates.[28,29,30] When Formaldehyde is absorbed, one part of it is oxidized into carbon dioxide in the Calvin cycle while the other is combined into the organism such as amino acids, lipids, free sugars, organic acids, and cell-wall components.[3,10]
This study was conducted with the aim of determination of formaldehyde removal efficiency from indoor air by a potted plant using a pilot scale chamber made of Plexiglas. For this purpose, Nephrolepis obliterata plant (sword fern) from Lomariopsidaceae's family was used. This plant is hugely available throughout Iran and can be acclimatized with the indoor environment. In this work, formaldehyde was used as a common VOC contaminant in indoor, but these methods can be practical to other VOCs.[31]
Experiments were conducted in a Plexiglas chamber with a volume of 375 L (84 cm length × 62 cm width × 72 cm height) which was made perfectly air-tight. A door was provided in front of the chamber which was sealed by adhesive foam-rubber insulation tape and adjustable metal clips. Two PC fan (Model: 350 XA, 2.03P4) fixed inside the chamber to provide complete mixing of fumigated air. The temperature and relative humidity (RH) of the chamber were controlled by a digital thermometer [ ]. The light intensity supposed to be natural indoor environment light which was measured around the chamber in five directions (west, east, north, south, and above the chamber) four times a day over experimental period using a YF-170 digital light meter (Tenmars Electronics Co., Ltd, Taiwan).
Open in a separate windowshows the experimental setup for this study. The system was consisted of three main parts including (I) the chamber for placement of plants to contact with air stream containing formaldehyde; (II) air pump connected to a flow meter and impingers system which supplies air, water vapor and formaldehyde gas mixture with desired concentration; and (III) sampling system from chamber inlet and outlet for analysis of formaldehyde concentration that include a vacuum pump, flow meter, dual impingers containing liquid absorbent. Stainless steel and silicon tubing were used to connect the system compartments.
Formaldehyde vapor was introduced to the chamber by a gas bubbler containing 37% formaldehyde solution.[2] Air was provided by a vacuum pump (Model: ACO-, 5w), and the air flows were measured by needle valve glass flow meter (CT Platon, France). In addition, air stream was passed through an activated carbon column to adsorb any potential contaminants. The formaldehyde concentration was measured according to the NIOSH- method, a visible absorption spectrometry technique, using a DR Spectrophotometer (DOC022.53.-HACH Lange, Co. USA). This is the most sensitive formaldehyde analysis method capable of detecting as low as 0.1 ppm which is best suited for the determination of formaldehyde in the environmental samples.[32]
In this research, one of the fern species from Lomariopsidaceae's family, Kimberly Queen Fern (N. obliterata) was used. This species was selected because they are one of the common indoor plants used in Iran as well as they are economical and easily accessible. Pots of the plants were bought from commercial distributors (flower market) and kept under laboratory condition at least for a month for acclimatization and watered every 2 days.
To investigate formaldehyde removal potential of the plants, experimental procedures were designed and carried out in four stages: (I) &#;empty chamber tests&#; without potted plants with a known amount of formaldehyde inlet to determine any combined chamber losses due to (e.g. leakage, absorption and chemical reactions); (II) &#;whole plant absorption tests&#; including soil and areal part of the plant by introducing different formaldehyde concentrations to the chamber; (III) &#;darkness test&#; to distinct light intensity effects on formaldehyde removal efficiency of the plants; and (IV) soil absorption test (including roots).
Empty chamber losses were assessed before the other above-mentioned experiments. The chamber's combined loss was tested with inlet formaldehyde concentration ranges of 4.5&#;7 mg/m3 under two different RH of 40% and 80% for 6 days. Then, two pots of the plants with an average height of 48.4 cm areal part and 17 cm of root part (pot and soil) were placed inside the chamber, to provide sufficient leaf area for optimum air purification. The plants were continuously exposed to formaldehyde vapors with inlet concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 12.0 mg/m3.[3] The tests for each concentration were carried out 2 days. Among the exposure periods, sampling from inlet and outlet of the chamber was performed every early morning and late evening (4 times for each inlet concentration), and the averages of them were reported. It should be noted that the plant rested for 24 h before starting the next concentration test.
Darkness tests were taken place by covering whole the chamber (entire plants [EPs] inside it) with a black cloth. This test was also carried out for 2 days but only for one of the inlet concentration which laid the median of tested concentrations range (e.g., 4.7 mg m-3). Hereafter, aboveground part of the two other plants with the same pot and areal sizes of those used in the previous tests was surgically removed and the pots containing only soil and roots were put back into the chamber, and then experiments were repeated for an inlet concentration of 5.23 mg/m3 for 2 days.[3,27] A new set of plants were used in this stage of experiments to avoid confounding errors as a result of prior formaldehyde exposure.
Key characteristics of the plants including morphology and physiology (plant height, leaf area, dry weight, fresh wet weight, chlorophyll content and carotenoid) were evaluated before and after fumigation to assess the effects of formaldehyde on these features as plant growing indices. Chlorophyll content and carotenoid were determined according to Lichtenthaler and Wellburn method.[33] For determination of the individual leaf area, the leaves were counted and categorized as large, medium, and small. Six samples were taken from each category, and their area was measured by a leaf area meter (ΔT Area meter MK2). The average surface area for each category was multiplied by the number of the leaves counted in each category, and the total surface area of each plant was calculated.[2] Furthermore, plant height was measured before and at the end of the experiments. The fresh wet weight of the leaves was determined by the analytical scale and reported in mg/cm2 of leaf area. Thereafter, the leaves dry weight was measured by drying them in the oven under 80°C for 24 h, weighing out by an analytical scale and reporting in mg/cm2 of leaf area.
The concentration of formaldehyde in the air flowing to the chamber (CT) was calculated using the following formula:
CT = ( C2 · Q2 ) / ( Q1 + Q2 )
Where C2 is formaldehyde concentration in the air bubbled from the impinger containing formaldehyde solution, Q1 is the air flow needs for dilution and Q2 is the air flow passing through the formaldehyde solution [ ]. The removal efficiency was calculated using the formaldehyde concentrations entering and leaving the chamber as follow:
The elimination capacity (EC), the amount of formaldehyde vapor removed per unit surface area of plant leaf (mg/m2/h), was calculated as follow:
EC = Q (Cin -Cout) / SL
Where Cin and Cout are the inlet and the outlet concentrations of formaldehyde (mg/m3), respectively, Q is the inlet polluted air flow (m3/h) to the chamber and SL is total leaf area (m2). Finally, the statistical analyses, drawing the graphs and tables were carried out under Excel software.
Averages of temperature inside and outside the reactor during the experiments were 26.99°C ± 0.84°C and 26.84°C ± 0.81°C, and those for RH were 78.94%±2.25% and 18.885 ± 1.54%, respectively. Background light approaching to the chamber coordinates during daytime was measured and their averages at the measuring time and for whole the study period were calculated. The light intensity was .56 ± 259.29 Lux. There was a difference between the RH inside and the outside the chamber. For the temperature and light intensity, the difference was negligible.
represents the average outlet (Cout) formaldehyde concentrations achieved during the experiment with N. obliterata plant under various inlet formaldehyde concentrations (Cin). Total reduction of formaldehyde by the EP, and by root and soil with and without considering chamber combined losses were also examined. The empty chamber's combined losses tested with inlet formaldehyde concentration ranges of 5.01&#;6.11 mg/m3 under two different RH of 40% and 80% were 5.11% and 14.04%, respectively. Thus, in spite of reporting whole removal efficiency, the loss of 14% was deducted from all the results achieved during the experiments and reported as net removal efficiency. Due to a limitation in flow rate for keeping the chamber AER near to 1 time per hour (1 n/h), it was impossible to reduce the chamber RH down to 75%, so we tried to carry out the experiments under an RH of 80% ±5%. EP removal efficiency was examined with ascending inlet formaldehyde concentrations ranging from 0.6 to 11.2 mg/m3, each for 2 days and the averages of the results were reported [ ].
Formaldehyde removal efficiency by potted N. obliterata plant-soil system with and without chamber combined losses, as affected by different inlet formaldehyde concentrations are shown in . About 81%&#;100% of formaldehyde was removed from the polluted air flown into the chamber. The EP net removal efficiencies were calculated by subtracting the chamber combined losses from the whole removal percentages. shows the formaldehyde EC of the EP without and with considering the chamber losses.
Open in a separate windowAdditional experiments were conducted under a thoroughly dark environment to compare the removal efficiency under light versus dark conditions. The plant was exposed to a formaldehyde concentration of 4.7 mg/m3 for 2 days in a dark environment. The effluent concentrations were measured in the morning and evening of each day, and the average of the results was reported in .
The results of plant growing characteristics and their percentage changes after contact with the pollutant were represented in . The most important effects of formaldehyde on the plant were a reduction in the plant wet weight and water content which were reduced by 27% and 5%, respectively. However, the tested concentration of formaldehyde could not abort the plant growth, whereas the chlorophyll content, carotenoid level, and average height of the plants were increased by 9.58%, 21.79%, and 6.46%, respectively, during the fumigation.
The results of this study showed that N. obliterata plant-soil system considerably removed formaldehyde vapors from the polluted air during continues long time fumigation. As shown in , about 90%&#;100% of formaldehyde was removed from the polluted air flown into the chamber with an inlet concentration range of 0.63&#;9.73 mg/m3. However, increasing the inlet concentration to 11.09 mg/m3 within 48 h the removal efficiency was decreased. This shows that the plant could not tolerate with concentrations higher than about 10 mg/m3. By increasing the inlet formaldehyde concentration and by extending the exposure time the EC was increased. This increase in the elimination rate might be occurred by attribution of plant and soil surface, roots, degradation by microorganisms or bacterial adaption and uptake by the stomas of plant.[27,33,34] It has been suggested that when formaldehyde enters the plant through the leaves is firstly detoxified by oxidation then transformed into CO2 and built into the plant material via the Calvin cycle.[35] Depletion of formaldehyde like other VOCs in the chamber which results in slower diffusion rate into the plant is likely to be happened.[27] However, a breakpoint was attained with an inlet concentration of 9.7 mg/m3. Whereas experiments with an inlet concentration of 11.09 mg/m3, the EC was not promoted.
In a similar study but with different plants, Xu et al. reported formaldehyde removal efficiencies of about 95% for spider plant-soil system, 53% for Aloe vera-soil system, and 84% for golden pothos-soil system with an inlet concentration range of 1&#;11 mg/m3 and at the light intensity of 240 μmol/m2/s in daytime.[3] It has been reported that the EC by which formaldehyde is removed increases on repeated exposure which is in accordance with our results.[6,21,33] According to , contributions of the potted soil along with roots in the formaldehyde removal accounted for 26.39% of the total removal by EP. The capacity of potted soils for removal of formaldehyde in the present study was considerably similar to those has been already reported in the literature.[3,34,36] This achievement may be attributed to the abundance of soil microbial activity stimulated by root exudate which acts as nutrient for the soil microorganisms.[37] Furthermore, formaldehyde removal capacity increases by the increasing of exposed surface of potted plant.[3]
The results also showed that similar to other studies with the same inlet formaldehyde concentration, removal efficiency under natural daylight was higher than the dark environment. Furthermore, under the same condition but in the days with higher light intensity the formaldehyde removal was higher.[3,27] Both the stomata and cuticle in the plant leaves could be the pathways for VOC removal. However, it is probably upon on the properties of the VOCs. Formaldehyde is a hydrophilic VOC, therefore could not diffuse through cuticle easily because it consists of lipid.[38,39] It was, therefore, concluded that formaldehyde was taken up through the stomata as stomata are open in light and closed in darkness.[40,41] Another explanation can be the increase in the photosynthesis and metabolism rate in daytime leads to more formaldehyde removal compared to night time.[42,43]
It has been reported in some studies that the removal rate in the first ours is higher and decreases by the passage of time.[44] However, this is only accurate in the batch system not in continues flow system which we applied in our study. This could be an explanation for lower removal efficiency by the EP in higher inlet concentrations after prolonged exposure in our study compared to studies which showed good formaldehyde removal efficiency at high inlet concentration for this species plant-soil system after the shorter exposure period.[10] Increasing of the plant growing characteristics here in our study represented that formaldehyde with an inlet concentration up to 11 mg/m3 could not stop the plant growth during the fumigation tests. This is likely to be ascribed to the high resistant of the plant against formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is mainly released to the indoor environment from building materials, home furnishings, and tobacco smoking. The potted N. obliterata plant-soil system examined in this study was talented to the removal of formaldehyde from polluted air in a long time exposure. Although the EP had more contribution in the removal of formaldehyde, the influence of potted soil and roots was considerable which can be attributed to the pollutant absorption and metabolism by the microorganisms in the soils. Formaldehyde EC by the plant increased with elevating the inlet concentrations and reached a plateau with concentrations upper than 11 mg/m3. EP showed more removal in day time rather than night time and darkness. Examination of the plant morphology and physiology showed that N. obliterata is very resistant to the formaldehyde, whereas long-term exposure could not stop the plant's growth. It is evident from our results that, phytoremediation is one of the most effective, economically and environmental friendly indoor air purification methods which can help improve physical and psychological health.
Nil.
There are no conflicts of interest.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the research chancellery of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for supporting this work. Grant No: .
It takes a lot of plants to clean the air.
A NASA study in found some interesting results when exposing plants to the air pollution chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It seemed that the plants in combination with the soil and soil microbes could reduce the amount of VOCs in the air. The findings were exciting because plants are more attractive, sustainable, and self-replicating than any air cleaning technology we could imagine.
However, looking closer at this study from more than 30 years ago it appears that the authors of the NASA study, and a few researchers since then, may have overstated the impact indoor potted plants have on air quality. More recent research has been indicating that you would need an impractical number of houseplants to make any difference.
Apparently we need to be outnumbered by plants indoors just the same as we are outdoors. From a visual perspective, much more than 20% visible vegetation can be distracting or overwhelming, so using plants to clean the air might just not be efficient. But let&#;s take a look at the available research on how plants interact with different pollutants and how many plants are needed to purify air.
Do plants remove VOCs?
An infamous review article in Nature from titled &#;Potted plants do not improve indoor air quality: a review and analysis of reported VOC removal efficiencies&#; by Bryan Cummings and Michael Waring at Drexel University looked at 196 different VOC removal tests with plants across 12 different published papers. Cummings and Waring pointed out several problems with the methods of the papers they reviewed, including using sterile sealed chambers just large enough to fit the plant alone and injecting the VOCs once and allowing the plant to sit with them. In the real world, indoor plants are in large rooms with people, furniture, building materials, and continuous sources of VOCs.
The term VOC refers to a very wide variety of substances that tend to become gasses at room temperature. The pungent smells of paints, glues, lacquers, and similar products represent high concentrations of VOCs in the air, as do other strong smells like alcoholic beverages, essential oils, or new synthetic materials. Most homes have constant low levels of VOCs from new clothing, furniture, building materials, or cleaning products. In general VOCs do not have an immediate impact, but exposure over time is linked to asthma in children and formation of potentially more harmful particle pollution. Some VOCs, such as benzene in gasoline, are considered carcinogens, so there is a lot of interest in finding ways to reduce them in the home.
Cummings and Waring found a very wide range of VOC removal rates. The impact of different VOCs was inconsistent across studies, as was the performance of different plant species. But they said that in 196 experiments, plants were able to clean an average of 0.062 cubic meters of air per plant per hour, which is only about 13% of the half a cubic meter we breathe at the same time.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website polypropylene carbonate.
A plant would need to clean many times the amount of air a person breathes to effectively provide air that has less pollution. But plants do have some impact, depending on their size, leaf shape, and individual characteristics, so let&#;s look at the studies on a few specific species.
How much pollution do arrowhead plants remove?
In one study, enough benzene to raise the concentration to 250 times the safe limit was injected into a tiny chamber with an arrowhead plant. The chamber was then sealed for eight days. The arrowhead plant in addition to its soil was able to purify about 1% of a cubic foot or a little more than a third of a liter of air an hour. The rate dropped by half when the arrowhead plant was in just water, showing that much of the removal was due to the soil and microorganisms in the soil.
By comparison in one test our Molekule Mini air purifier was able to clear toluene, a close relative of benzene, at a lower concentration but a larger amount in a much larger chamber more than 100,000 times faster.
*Removed 99.7% toluene in a 30 cubic meter chamber in 8 hours from an initial concentration of μg/m3
How much pollution do Ficus plants remove?
One researcher subjected Ficus to formaldehyde about ten times the safe limit for five hours and a relatively safe amount of toluene and xylene for 24 hours. The plants were in a medium-sized (one square meter) chamber. Interestingly, the different Ficus species did admirably at removing the large amount of formaldehyde, getting to the neighborhood of 10 cubic feet or 300 liters per hour. It is not clear if those results translate to the much lower levels typical of households or if it is sufficient to reduce the impact of formaldehyde.
Mini was able to remove formaldehyde more than 25 times faster, but Ficus plants just might be able to remove enough formaldehyde to matter. Plants can use airborne formaldehyde in their metabolisms, possibly because formaldehyde is extremely simple and small. So putting a few potted Ficus or other plants around may lower the concentration of formaldehyde, but primarily during the day when they are photosynthesizing.
*Removed 56.2% toluene in a 30 cubic meter chamber in 8 hours from an initial concentration of μg/m3
Toluene and xylene were less impressive, however, and Mini was about 600 times faster.
*Removed 99.7% toluene in a 30 cubic meter chamber in 8 hours from an initial concentration of ug/m3
The plants&#; metabolisms either did not have a use for the larger and more complex toluene, xylene, or benzene molecules, or could not remove them as quickly for some other reason.
Plants and particle pollution
VOCs are just one aspect of air pollution. Plants have also been tested on their ability to remove particles, like from smoke or exhaust. Particle pollution is different from VOC and other gaseous pollution because particles are typically larger than individual gas molecules and can carry more free radicals and other reactive substances that react with your body and cause damage.
A plant can&#;t absorb particles and use them like they can with formaldehyde. Instead, they remove particles by just holding them on the surface of their leaves. Most research into plants and particle removal are concerned with the total surface area of a plant&#;s leaves. Other factors are also important, for example leaves with more wax or that have rougher textures can hold more particles.
A medium sized fern or spider plant with their many long leaves have a lot of surface areas for houseplants at around 1,200 square centimeters total. By comparison our lungs have an internal surface area of 50 to 75 square meters, or around 500 times as much, and our lungs are constantly pulling in air with the power of our diaphragm muscles, which plants do not have. Similarly, the dense forest of fibers in an air filter offers a lot of surface area to trap particles.
How much pollution do spider plants remove?
An experiment placing spider plants in different occupied rooms for 2 months found the leaves accumulated about 2-4 times the weight of particles by area than aluminum plates in the same rooms, which means they are better than nothing. We don&#;t know what the air quality was like in these rooms, but the maximum amount of particles each spider plant accumulated was around 20 micrograms per square centimeter of leaf. A spider plant has somewhere around 2,000 square centimeters of leaves, which makes for 50,000 micrograms per plant in 2 months (an aspirin tablet weighs 300,000-500,000 micrograms, in comparison).
When the AQI is moderate at 100, there are about 9,000 micrograms of inhalable particles (PM10) in a small 250 square foot room. If the source of pollution is outside, particle pollution will be replaced at most once an hour or every fifteen minutes if the window is open.
*Estimated assuming an 8.5×11 inch aluminum plate
**Removed 89% of an initial airborne dust (0.5 um to 10 um) concentration of approximately 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter was removed from a 30 cubic meter chamber in 20 minutes.
Compared to the overall amount of particles in the air, a spider plant doesn&#;t make much of a meaningful difference. It&#;s just a little less than the fraction of smaller particles that are deposited in your lungs, and around 1% of what is coming into a home from outside. Molekule Air Mini, by comparison, was able to remove 89% of dust particles in a small chamber in about 20 minutes.
Spider plants do look nice and are very easy to propagate so there&#;s no reason not to spread them around your home, and as long as the soil isn&#;t moldy they do not make air quality worse. They also have been shown to remove formaldehyde in one study, though the authors have not made the full data public.
We can use the particle deposition data above to get an idea of how the presence of other plant species might remove particles.
How much pollution do aloe vera and other succulents remove?
The same study that tested spider plants and formaldehyde also mentioned that spider plants were better at removing formaldehyde than aloe vera but without seeing the data we cannot know to what extent.
We can estimate how many particles might fall on it, however. A mature 6-month old aloe vera plant in normal soil has about 12 long leaves with about 600 square centimeters per leaf. The leaves stick straight up so let&#;s assume all 7,200 square centimeters capture particles. Plants vary widely in the ability to capture particles, with the most effective being able to capture around 75 micrograms per cubic centimeter. Let&#;s give aloe vera the benefit of the doubt and assume it captures particles as well as the best.
**Removed 89% of an initial airborne dust (0.5 um to 10 um) concentration of approximately 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter was removed from a 30 cubic meter chamber in 20 minutes.
Even if aloe vera was particularly skilled at capturing particles, it doesn&#;t quite remove enough pollution to have a significant impact. At best it would remove particles similarly to a person who is out of breath.
Plants are great to have around and offer many benefits, including a tiny amount of air cleaning, but they don&#;t compare to an air purifier or proper ventilation. Keep an eye on this blog and our Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts for more on the science of clean air.
For more information, please visit MMA Plant.