Potted plants do not improve indoor air quality: a review and analysis of reported VOC removal efficiencies

Abstract

Potted plants have demonstrated abilities to remove airborne volatile organic compounds (VOC) in small, sealed chambers over timescales of many hours or days. Claims have subsequently been made suggesting that potted plants may reduce indoor VOC concentrations. These potted plant chamber studies reported outcomes using various metrics, often not directly applicable to contextualizing plants’ impacts on indoor VOC loads. To assess potential impacts, 12 published studies of chamber experiments were reviewed, and 196 experimental results were translated into clean air delivery rates (CADR, m3/h), which is an air cleaner metric that can be normalized by volume to parameterize first-order loss indoors. The distribution of single-plant CADR spanned orders of magnitude, with a median of 0.023 m3/h, necessitating the placement of 10–1000 plants/m2 of a building’s floor space for the combined VOC-removing ability by potted plants to achieve the same removal rate that outdoor-to-indoor air exchange already provides in typical buildings (~1 h−1). Future experiments should shift the focus from potted plants’ (in)abilities to passively clean indoor air, and instead investigate VOC uptake mechanisms, alternative biofiltration technologies, biophilic productivity and well-being benefits, or negative impacts of other plant-sourced emissions, which must be assessed by rigorous field work accounting for important indoor processes.

Introduction

Inhabitants of developed countries spend up to 90% of their lives indoors [1]. As such, the quality of indoor air is critical to human exposure to pollution. Indoor pollution is composed of myriad constituents, which include oxidants and irritants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter (PM) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Much, though not all, of indoor pollution is sourced directly from the indoor environment itself. VOC concentrations particularly are driven by indoor emissions, traceable to building materials and furnishings [11], use of consumer products and air fresheners [12], and cooking [13], among others. VOCs may be a primary cause of many sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and other health problems associated with indoor air [14,15,16,17,18]. Oxidation of VOCs can also produce secondary organic aerosols [19,20,21,22,23,24,25], which compound the PM burden and may pose harmful health risks themselves [26,27,28].

To reduce VOCs and other indoor-sourced pollutants from the indoor environment, buildings traditionally make use of infiltration and natural or mechanical ventilation air exchange [29], which is the replacement of stale indoor air with fresh air from the outdoors. Higher ventilation rates have been correlated with lower absenteeism and SBS symptom incidences, reductions in perceptions of odors, and increased task performance [30,31,32,33,34,35]. However, increased ventilation may augment the indoor concentration of outdoor-sourced pollutants, such as ozone and PM [9, 10, 36,37,38]. Increased ventilation also typically uses more energy [39,40,41], as outdoor air must be conditioned to be thermally comfortable. To address these drawbacks, alternative means of purifying indoor air to replace or supplement ventilation air are being investigated.

Experiments have demonstrated the ability of potted plants to reduce airborne VOC concentrations within sealed chambers. Many studies which carried out these experiments subsequently draw conclusions that potted plants may improve indoor air quality, spurring a presence of nonacademic resources (predominantly online) touting the use of houseplants as a sustainable means of cleaning indoor air. However, the experimental results of the underlying scientific works are often reported in ways such that they cannot simply be extrapolated into impacts in real indoor environments. Typical for these studies, a potted plant was placed in a sealed chamber (often with volume of ~1 m3), into which a single VOC was injected, and its decay was tracked over the course of many hours or days [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. In contrast, building volumes are much larger than that of an experimental chamber, and VOC emissions are persistent. Also, indoor air is continuously exchanged with the outdoors. For instance, the median of measured residence times for air in US offices is about 50 min [53], and 80 min for US homes [19, 54, 55], corresponding to air exchange rates (AER) of 1.2 and 0.75 h−1, respectively, contrasting sharply with the long timescales needed for the chamber experiments to produce meaningful VOC reductions.

Some endeavors to minimize these differences between chambers and indoor environments have been pursued in studies, though not all issues have been resolved. For instance, Xu et al. [56] attempted to mirror more realistic conditions in what they referred to as a “dynamic” chamber, but no mention of air exchange was explicitly found in their work. Liu et al. [57] incorporated continuous airflow into their experiments, with constant upstream benzene concentrations of about 150 ppb. However, they maintained a very small chamber volume, inflating the relative influence of the plants. Sorption of VOCs onto the surfaces of the chamber is sometimes, but not always considered by these studies, which may be the cause of some of the observed VOC decay, rather than uptake by the plants. Other studies have proposed improvements to the design of plant chamber experiments, but they focused on conditions such as temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentrations (all of which may impact plant health), instead of parameters which affect pollutant-building interactions [58, 59].

A few field campaigns have tried to measure the impact of plants within indoor environments, although Girman et al. [60] documented in detail the likely inaccuracies of the measuring equipment used in these studies. More importantly, none of them controlled or measured the outdoor air exchange rate. Conclusions can therefore not be drawn about the influence of plants versus the influence of VOC removal by air exchange. Of these studies, however, Dingle et al. [61] found no reduction in formaldehyde until plant density reached 2.44 plants/m2, at which point only a 10% reduction was seen. Wood et al. [62] claimed to observe VOC reductions of up to 75% within plant-containing offices at high VOC loadings, but they only sampled 5-min measurements once each week and neglected to report air exchange.

Only two publications were found that not only acknowledge these issues, but explicitly refute the notion that common houseplants improve indoor air quality. They were written by Girman et al. [60] and Levin [63]. Those works, authored by indoor air and building scientists, discuss in detail the history and limitations of the chamber and field studies, and provide a mass balance calculation that highlights the predicted ineffectiveness of using potted plants to remove VOCs from indoor air. Building upon that foundation, the work herein presents a review and impact analysis of removal rates reported by 12 cited works, most of which were conducted after the 1992 publication by Levin [63]. Among these works, the metrics used to report VOC removal are inconsistent, so comparisons and reproducibility are difficult to assess, as is predicting indoor air impacts. The present analysis thus first standardizes 196 experimental results into a metric useful for measuring indoor air cleaning, and then uses those standardized results to assess the effectiveness of using potted plants to remove VOCs and improve indoor air quality.

Methodology

Standardization of reported VOC removal

Within the building sciences, the indoor air-cleaning potential of a standalone device is parameterized with the clean air delivery rate (CADR). The CADR is the effective volumetric flow rate at which “clean” air is supplied to the environment, reflecting the rate at which the air cleaner removes pollutants. It is the product of the flow rate of air through the air cleaner (Qac., m3/h) and its removal efficiency (η), so CADR = Qacη (m3/h). The same air cleaner will have a greater impact in a smaller environment, so to gauge the impact of an air cleaner within the context of the indoor space it occupies, CADR must be normalized by the relevant indoor volume (V, m3). This CADR/V (h−1) parameter corresponds to a first-order loss rate constant (i.e., rate of pollutant removal is proportional to pollutant concentration).

Given that sufficient information is provided by a chamber study (e.g. physical chamber characteristics, experimental parameters), a CADR-per-plant (CADRp, m3 h−1 plant−1) can be computed using its results. The experimental procedures of the 12 considered studies used one of two general experimental setups. The first setup (setup I) assumes a perfectly sealed chamber with no VOC sources with uptake by the plant being the only loss mechanism, with a corresponding differential mass balance equation being:

$$V_{\mathrm{c}}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}C}}{{{\mathrm{d}}t}} = - {\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}}C,$$
(1)

where C represents the VOC concentration in the chamber; Vc (m3) is the volume of the chamber; and t (h) is time. By integrating Eq. 1:

$$C_t = C_0e^{ - \left( {\frac{{{\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}{{V_{\mathrm{c}}}}} \right)t},$$
(2)

where C0 is the initial concentration within the chamber; and Ct is the concentration chamber after t hours have elapsed. Using data provided by the chamber studies, the CADRp can be computed by rearranging Eq. 2:

$${\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}} = - \frac{{V_{\mathrm{c}}}}{t}\ln \left( {\frac{{C_t}}{{C_0}}} \right).$$
(3)

The second experimental setup (setup II) consists of steady state conditions in a flow-through chamber, instead of pollutant decay occurring in a sealed chamber. Equeations 13 no longer apply to this condition. In this case, the differential mass balance is described by the difference between the source terms (inlet flow) and loss terms (outlet flow + plant filtration):

$$V_{\mathrm{c}}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}C}}{{{\mathrm{d}}t}} = Q_{\mathrm{c}}C_{{\mathrm{inlet}}} - \left( {Q_{\mathrm{c}} + {\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}}} \right)C_{{\mathrm{outlet}}},$$
(4)

where Qc (m3/h) is the flow rate through the chamber; Cinlet is the VOC concentration entering the chamber through its inlet; and Coutlet is the VOC concentration exiting the chamber (where C = Coutlet). Solving for CADRp under steady state conditions yields:

$${\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}} = \frac{{Q_{\mathrm{c}}}}{{1 - \left( {C_{{\mathrm{outlet}}}/C_{{\mathrm{inlet}}}} \right)}} - Q_{\mathrm{c}}.$$
(5)

The biases produced by neglecting surface sorption (in both setups) and chamber leakage (in setup I) from the mass balance equations (Eqs. 1 and 4, respectively) implicitly favor the efficacy of the plant removal, thereby providing absolute best-case estimates of the CADRp for the reviewed chamber studies.

Description of considered chamber experiments

A CADRp dataset was developed using results of 12 published studies, comprising 196 potted plant chamber experiments. The experimental details of the 12 publications are summarily presented in Table 1, with further experimental detail and CADRp calculation results provided in the supplementary information (SI). All experiments measured VOC removal by a single plant within a controlled chamber, and one CADRp was computed for each experiment per plant per VOC species removed. However, the 12 studies reported their results in a variety of inconsistent metrics, as follows. Some studies only displayed plots of pollutant decay. Others included tables listing an initial concentration and the concentration after a certain amount of time (e.g. 24 h). Some reported drop in concentration per hour (in reality, the concentration reduction each hour will not be constant, because removal is likely first order, not linear). Furthermore, some normalized their results by surface area of plant leaf, while others did not measure leaf area at all—though if anything, large leaf surface areas may hinder VOC uptake, as the leaves serve to block air from passing over the growth substrate, which can dominate VOC removal [44, 64]. Table 1 broadly categorizes the studies into three groups based on their experimental setups and how their results were reported, each necessitating a different approach to determining CADRp values, including:

  1. (1)

    A sealed chamber (setup I) presenting only initial and final concentration measurements (or their ratios), for a certain duration of time.

  2. (2)

    A sealed chamber (setup I) presenting a timeseries of concentration measurements.

  3. (3)

    A flow-through chamber (setup II) presenting Cinlet and Coutlet measurements.

Table 1 List of studies which contributed to the reviewed CADRp dataset herein, with a summary of their experimental parameters

For the first category, Eq. 3 was used to compute CADRp values for the experiments. Aydogan and Montoya [42] tabulated the time taken for two-thirds of initial formaldehyde to be removed for four different plant species. Orwell et al. [47] tabulated average 24-h removal of benzene (C0Ct) from an initial dose (C0) for seven plant species, while Orwell et al. [48] tabulated the required time to reach Ct/C0 = 0.5 for various combinations of plant species, toluene, xylene. Wolverton et al. [49] tabulated percent removed after 24 h of formaldehyde, benzene, and trichloroethylene (TCE) for several plant species. Yoo et al. [51] reported removal per hour per leaf area (ng m−3 h−1 cm−2) for four plants removing benzene and toluene, providing initial concentrations and leaf surface areas. This CADRp calculation was carried out assuming their reported numbers corresponded to the first hour of the chamber experiment. Yang et al. [50] presented results similarly for five VOCs across several plant species organized qualitatively by performance (i.e., “superior,” “intermediate,” and “poor” performing plants). Zhang et al. [52] used a genetically modified version of Pothos Ivy, designed to enhance VOC uptake, and provided a percent reduction of concentration achieved over the timespan of days. The CADRp results for these studies are detailed in Table S1.

For the second category, a CADRp value was computed using Eq. 3 for each reported point in the timeseries. Their average was taken as the overall CADRp for that experiment. Irga et al. [43] plotted percent of benzene removed for two plant setups over the course of four days. Kim et al. [45] took hourly measurements over a 5-h period of cumulative concentration reduction of formaldehyde normalized by leaf area (µg m−3 cm−2) for dozens of plant species spanning four categories. Their 36 woody and herbaceous foliage plants were used for this dataset. Given the leaf area of all plant species and an initial concentration in the chamber, conversion to CADRp was possible. Kim et al. [46] plotted concentration over time for two distinct plant species removing three different VOCs. The CADRp results for these studies are detailed in Table S2.

For the third category, computing CADRp necessitated the use of Eq. 5. The Coutlet/Cinlet expression within Eq. 5 may equivalently be thought of as the fractional VOC removal, which Liu et al. [57] reported using setup II for benzene. Three of their plant species yielded 60–80% removal, 17 species yielded 20–40%, another 17 yielded 10–20%, 13 removed less than 10%, and 23 did not yield any benzene removal. These CADRp results are detailed in Table S3.

Assessing effectiveness of potted plants as indoor air cleaners

The most prominent way by which VOCs are removed from indoor spaces is by outdoor-to-indoor air exchange. Air flows through a building at a certain flow rate (Qb, m3/h), which may be a combination of mechanical ventilation, natural ventilation, and uncontrolled infiltration through the building envelope. Typically, Qb scales with building size, so the volume-normalized flow, which is the air exchange rate (called AER or λ, h−1), is used to parameterize building airflow, where λ = Qb/V. This metric, as with CADR/V, is a first-order loss rate constant. Consequently, λ and CADR/V can be directly compared to assess the relative efficacy of each removal type. For air cleaning to be considered effective, the loss rate due to the air cleaner (CADR/V) must be on the same order or higher as that of the air exchange (λ) loss rate. So, if λ CADR/V, most of the pollution removal is accomplished via air exchange alone. If λ CADR/V, the air cleaner is responsible for the most removal. If λ = CADR/V, the two loss mechanisms have the same influence.

For the case of multiple indoor potted plants combining their individual CADRp to remove VOCs from an indoor environment, the net CADR/V loss rate may be computed given the density of plants in a given floor area (ρp, plants/m2), and the volume of the considered building in terms of the product of an average ceiling height (h, m) and the given floor area (A, m2) by:

$$\frac{{{\mathrm{CADR}}}}{V} = \frac{{\left( {{\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}}\rho _{\mathrm{p}}A} \right)}}{{\left( {hA} \right)}} = \frac{{{\mathrm{CADR}}_{\mathrm{p}}\rho _{\mathrm{p}}}}{h}$$
(6)

so that CADR/V depends on CADRp, ρp, and h. Since the ceiling height h is likely far less varied than CADRp or ρp throughout the US building stock, excluding atriums, it is taken as a constant h = 2.5 m ≈ 8 ft throughout the following analysis.

Comparisons of plant and AER loss mechanisms may be quantified by the effectiveness parameter (Γ), defined as the fraction of VOC removal by which plant-induced air cleaning alone is responsible:

$$\Gamma = \frac{{({\mathrm{CADR}}/V)}}{{\lambda + \left( {{\mathrm{CADR}}/V} \right)}}$$
(7)

Thus, Γ is bounded by 0 and 1. If Γ 0 (λ CADR/V), the air cleaner is wholly ineffective compared to air exchange loss; if Γ 1 (λ CADR/V), the air cleaner dominates removal; and if Γ = 0.5 (λ = CADR/V), the air cleaner and air exchange losses contribute equally to total removal. Substituting the right-hand-side of Eq. 6 into (CADR/V) in Eq. 7 facilitated a simulation-based parametric analysis of the effectiveness of VOC removal by potted plants indoors.

Results and discussion

CADR of potted plants in reviewed studies

In total, 196 CADRp values were computed from the 12 reviewed chamber studies. A histogram expressing this entire dataset is provided in Fig. 1a, which possesses a wide spread of nearly four orders of magnitude (ranging from 0.0004–0.2 m3 h−1 plant−1 at 10th and 90th percentiles), a median CADRp = 0.023 m3 h−1 plant−1, and a mean (standard deviation) of 0.062 (0.089) m3 h−1 plant−1. Even though these CADRp values represent best-case scenarios (as they were computed assuming negligible chamber sorption and leakage), their magnitudes are exceedingly small. For context, typical gas or particle air cleaners possess average CADR values on the approximate order of ~100 m3/h [65,66,67].

Fig. 1
figure1

a Histogram of the CADRp dataset assembled from the reviewed chamber studies outlined in Table 1. CADRp computations are detailed in the SI. b The CADRp data resolved by publication (labeled by first author and reference number) and measured VOC

Figure 1b resolves all 196 datapoints contributing to the Fig. 1a histogram by type of VOC measured, labeled by the study‘s first author and reference number. This figure thus explores the possibility of constraining CADRp for each VOC. Some of the data preliminarily indicates that certain VOCs may be more efficiently removed by potted plants; for instance, Kim et al. [44,45,46] observed better formaldehyde removal than for xylene, and Wolverton et al. [49] observed a much lower TCE removal than for formaldehyde and benzene. However, these trends are not consistent throughout all studies; for instance, Yang et al. [50] observed similar removal of TCE, benzene, and toluene. Also, not enough studies assessed the same combinations of VOCs sufficient for a definitive trend to be established. Furthermore, some results vary largely from study-to-study even for the same VOC.

More notably, however, the variance of CADRp values belonging to a particular study is much smaller than the variance of the dataset as a whole (intra-study values range 1–2 orders of magnitude, as compared to the total CADRp range of ~4 orders of magnitude). For example, of the 46 CADRp values calculated from Kim et al. [44,45,46], 32 of them (70%) reside above 0.1 m3 h−1 plant−1, making up 84% of the total 38 CADRp greater than 0.1 m3 h−1 plant−1. On the other end of this spectrum, all CADRp values belonging to Irga et al. [43] and Yang et al. [50] were less than 0.001 m3 h−1 plant−1, making up all but one other CADRp below 0.001 m3 h−1 plant−1. The one remaining CADRp existing in this lowest-performing interval belongs to Zhang et al. [52], who also conducted an experiment with chloroform, despite their use of genetically modified plants shown to enhance VOC uptake. We believe these trends suggest that the varying VOC removal performance among different research studies may be an indicator of differences among removal measurement methodologies, which should be further investigated. These perhaps include measurement techniques, plant and rhizosphere health, and other characteristics and relative sizes of the chamber, soil, pot, or the plant itself (e.g. VOC sorption onto competing surfaces).

Effectiveness in typical buildings

Using the entire CADRp dataset (Fig. 1a), Eq. 6 was used to compute four sets of total CADR/V loss rates, binned into four distinct plant density (ρp) cases separated at logarithmic intervals (0.1, 1, 10, and 100 plants/m2). In Fig. 2, these loss rates are compared directly to a distribution representing the AER typical of US residences [54, 55] and another representing AERs typical of US offices [53]. Again, these two types of loss rates can be directly compared to demonstrate their relative impacts on VOC removal. The two boxes corresponding to ρp values of 0.1 and 1 plants/m2 are barely visible, so their corresponding loss rates are almost certain to be negligible, even if plants exhibiting the highest plausible CADRp are used. For a ρp = 10 plants/m2, some of the loss rates due to VOC removal by the plants from the upper end of the CADRp distribution may comparable to air exchange losses in particularly tight buildings, but the median CADR/V is still negligible compared to the median AER for both residences and offices.

Fig. 2
figure2

Boxplots of VOC loss rates due to: (left) CADR/V over four cases of plant density (ρp); compared to (right) the VOC loss rates due to air exchange rates (AER, λ) in residences (Res.) or offices (Off.)

This assessment is in strong agreement with the conclusions of Girman et al. [60] and Levin [63]. Using similar mass balance calculations and the most generous selection of the early published Wolverton et al. [49] data, Levin [63] determined that a ~140 m2 house (1500 ft2) would require 680 houseplants (i.e., ρp = 4.9 plants/m2) for the removal rate of VOCs by plants indoors to just reach 0.096 h−1. Achieving these rates of plant density throughout a building is obviously not attainable. Even ρp = 1 plants/m2 would rule out any useful occupant-driven architectural programming being applied to a building, and it would take a theoretical ρp = 100 plants/m2 for the entire CADR/V loss rate distribution to be comparable to the AER distributions on a whole.

A parametric analysis was used to predict the required ρp necessary to achieve a desired effectiveness for various combinations of AER and representative CADRp. The analysis computed ρp required for varied Γ between 0 to 1 and AER between 0.1 and 10 h−1, thus exhausting all Γ possibilities and all reasonably expected indoor AERs in typical buildings. The CADRp was set at one of three discrete cases. The first was a low CADRp case, corresponding to the 10th percentile of the complete CADRp dataset (0.00014 m3 h−1 plant−1); the second used the median of the CADRp dataset (0.023 m3 h−1 plant−1); while the third used the 90th percentile (0.19 m3 h−1 plant−1). The ρp predictions are presented as contour plots in Fig. 3, which are binned at factor-of-ten intervals from ρp < 1 to ρp > 10,000 plants/m2.

Fig. 3
figure3

Contour plots displaying the results of a parametric analysis, where binned plant density (ρp) was computed over continuous and exhaustive ranges of effectiveness and AER, and three cases of plant performance as an air cleaner: a a weak case being the 10th percentile of the CADRp dataset (0.00014 m3 h−1 plant−1), b the median CADRp case (0.023 m3 h−1 plant−1), and c a strong case being the 90th percentile of the CADRp dataset (0.19 m3 h−1 plant−1)

At the strongest-case CADRp assumptions (Fig. 3c), an effectiveness of ~20% may be realized in an extremely low-AER building (e.g. λ < 0.2 h−1) if one potted plant is used per square meter of the indoor floor area. This effectiveness quickly falls off if an even slightly higher air exchange rate is experienced. But, as was stated, this ρp = 1 plants/m2 is too dense to be practical within a building, and it barely registers as effective under the most generous CADRp and AER assumptions. Under the more likely plant-removal characteristics (Fig. 3a, b), any legitimate effectiveness, even in buildings with the lowest air exchange, would require ρp values that are not only impractical or infeasible indoors, but are ludicrously large. Note again that the analyses in this section were carried out with a best-case CADRp dataset, which computed CADRp assuming neither chamber leakage nor surface sorption contributed to observed losses, so even these impossibly large ρp values essentially represent a lower bound.

Other considerations

The conditions within sealed chambers do not scale up to the conditions of real indoor environments, which have high AER, large volumes, and persistent VOC emissions. Our conclusion that plants have negligible impact on indoor VOC loads is consistent with the results of field studies that did not observe real VOC reductions when plants were placed in buildings. Despite potted plants not appreciably affecting indoor VOC concentrations, conducting chamber experiments on plants can remain a consequential effort. There is much to still be learned pertaining to the mechanisms of botanical uptake of VOCs. And, other applications of botanical filtration do exist (although passively cleaning indoor air is not one of them). Potential usefulness for further research perhaps lies in plant-assisted botanical bio-trickling purifiers (colloquially, “biowalls” or plant walls), which mechanically pull air through a porous substrate supporting plants and their root ecosystems [68,69,70]. These may create a more effective means of VOC removal because of their size, exposed rhizosphere, and controlled and continuous airflow. Some recent studies suggest that biowalls may yield CADRs on orders of 10–100 m3/h for certain VOCs [71, 72], with the potential to make worthy contributions to indoor VOC removal. However, more biowall field assessments and modeling endeavors are required to better hone our understanding of their true air cleaning and cost effectiveness.

Regardless of application, more rigor is required in future chamber experiments to remove methodological ambiguities. First-order loss must be used to interpret results, and chamber leakage and surface sorption (to the chamber walls as well as to the pot and soil) must be accounted for. A standardized metric to be used in mass balance calculations, such as the CADR, should also be a critical aspect of future experimental reporting. Research also suggests that the plant itself is less crucial to VOC removal than the microbial community which resides within the rhizosphere/soil system of the plant [73, 74].

The issue of bringing plant life into the indoor environment is also a complex one, not settled by a potted plant’s (in)ability to reduce airborne VOCs. Indoor plants, by helping to create a more biophilic indoor environment, may have a positive impact on occupant well-being [75], which may also translate into productivity improvements for businesses. However, plant introduction may also come with certain costs or trade-offs. One potential associated downside of plants indoors may be increased humidity. Also, plants have been shown to produce certain VOCs under particular conditions [76, 77]. So even if a potted plant works to slightly reduce, for instance, the persistence of formaldehyde indoors, its net impact on total VOC concentrations and overall indoor air quality is less clear. Spores and other bioparticle emissions may also be produced by plants, which have been observed from biowall systems [65, 74, 75]. Continued rigorous laboratory and field studies are required to develop a more complete and nuanced understanding of the interplay between plants and indoor environmental outcomes.

References

  1. 1.

    Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, et al. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2001;11:231–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Weschler CJ. Ozone’s impact on public health: contributions from indoor exposures to ozone and products of ozone-initiated chemistry. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1489–96.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wallace L. Indoor particles: a review. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996;46:98–126.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wallace L. Indoor sources of ultrafine and accumulation mode particles: size distributions, size-resolved concentrations, and source strengths. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2006;40:348–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Weschler CJ, Shields HC. Production of the hydroxyl radical in indoor air. Environ Sci Technol. 1996;30:3250–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW. Semivolatile organic compounds in indoor environments. Atmos Environ. 2008;42:9018–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brown SK, Sim MR, Abramson MJ, Gray CN. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in indoor air—a review. Indoor Air. 1994;4:123–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Morawska L, Afshari A, Bae GN, Buonanno G, Chao CYH, Hänninen O, et al. Indoor aerosols: from personal exposure to risk assessment. Indoor Air. 2013;23:462–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Johnson AM, Waring MS, DeCarlo PF. Real-time transformation of outdoor aerosol components upon transport indoors measured with aerosol mass spectrometry. Indoor Air. 2017;27:230–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Avery AM, Waring MS, DeCarlo PF. Seasonal variation in aerosol composition and concentration upon transport from the outdoor to indoor environment. Environ Sci: Process Impacts. 2019;21:528–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Uhde E, Salthammer T. Impact of reaction products from building materials and furnishings on indoor air quality—a review of recent advances in indoor chemistry. Atmos Environ. 2007;41:3111–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ. Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos Environ. 2004;38:2841–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Huang Y, Ho SSH, Ho KF, Lee SC, Yu JZ, Louie PKK. Characteristics and health impacts of VOCs and carbonyls associated with residential cooking activities in Hong Kong. J Hazard Mater. 2011;186:344–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brinke JT, Selvin S, Hodgson AT, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ, Koshland CP, et al. Development of new volatile organic compound (VOC) exposure metrics and their relationship to “sick building syndrome” symptoms. Indoor Air 1998;8:140–52.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jones AP. Indoor air quality and health. Atmos Environ. 1999;33:4535–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wallace LA. Human exposure to volatile organic pollutants: implications for indoor air studies. Annu Rev Energy Environ. 2001;26:269–301.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wieslander G, Norbäck D, Edling C. Airway symptoms among house painters in relation to exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—a longitudinal study. Ann Occup Hyg. 1997;41:155–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yu C, Crump D. A review of the emission of VOCs from polymeric materials used in buildings. Build Environ. 1998;33:357–74.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Waring MS. Secondary organic aerosol in residences: predicting its fraction of fine particle mass and determinants of formation strength. Indoor Air. 2014;24:376–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Youssefi S, Waring MS. Predicting secondary organic aerosol formation from terpenoid ozonolysis with varying yields in indoor environments. Indoor Air. 2012;22:415–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Waring MS, Wells JR. Volatile organic compound conversion by ozone, hydroxyl radicals, and nitrate radicals in residential indoor air: Magnitudes and impacts of oxidant sources. Atmos Environ (1994). 2015;106:382–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cummings BE, Waring MS. Predicting the importance of oxidative aging on indoor organic aerosol concentrations using the two-dimensional volatility basis set (2D-VBS). Indoor Air 2019;29:616–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Youssefi S, Waring MS. Indoor transient SOA formation from ozone+α-pinene reactions: Impacts of air exchange and initial product concentrations, and comparison to limonene ozonolysis. Atmos Environ. 2015;112:106–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Youssefi S, Waring MS. Transient secondary organic aerosol formation from limonene ozonolysis in indoor environments: impacts of air exchange rates and initial concentration ratios. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:7899–908.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yang Y, Waring MS. Secondary organic aerosol formation initiated by α-terpineol ozonolysis in indoor air. Indoor Air. 2016;26:939–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rohr AC. The health significance of gas- and particle-phase terpene oxidation products: a review. Environ Int. 2013;60:145–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hallquist M, Wenger JC, Baltensperger U, Rudich Y, Simpson D, Claeys M, et al. The formation, properties and impact of secondary organic aerosol: current and emerging issues. Atmos Chem Phys. 2009;9:5155–236.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lin Y-H, Arashiro M, Clapp PW, Cui T, Sexton KG, Vizuete W, et al. Gene expression profiling in human lung cells exposed to isoprene-derived secondary organic aerosol. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:8166–75.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wargocki P, Sundell J, Bischof W, Brundrett G, Fanger PO, Gyntelberg F, et al. Ventilation and health in non-industrial indoor environments: report from a European multidisciplinary scientific consensus meeting (EUROVEN). Indoor Air. 2002;12:113–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mendell MJ, Eliseeva EA, Davies MM, Spears M, Lobscheid A, Fisk WJ, et al. Association of classroom ventilation with reduced illness absence: a prospective study in California elementary schools. Indoor Air. 2013;23:515–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Fanger PO. The performance and subjective responses of call-center operators with new and used supply air filters at two outdoor air supply rates. Indoor Air. 2004;14 Suppl 8:7–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Haverinen‐Shaughnessy U, Moschandreas DJ, Shaughnessy RJ. Association between substandard classroom ventilation rates and students’ academic achievement. Indoor Air 2011;21:121–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Carrer P, Wargocki P, Fanetti A, Bischof W, De Oliveira Fernandes E, Hartmann T, et al. What does the scientific literature tell us about the ventilation–health relationship in public and residential buildings? Build Environ. 2015;94:273–86.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fisk WJ, Mirer AG, Mendell MJ. Quantification of the association of ventilation rates with sick building syndrome symptoms. Berkeley, CA, USA: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL); 2009. Report No.: LBNL-2035E. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/962711

  35. 35.

    Rackes A, Ben‐David T, Waring MS. Outcome-based ventilation: a framework for assessing performance, health, and energy impacts to inform office building ventilation decisions. Indoor Air. 2018;28:585–603.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Quang TN, He C, Morawska L, Knibbs LD. Influence of ventilation and filtration on indoor particle concentrations in urban office buildings. Atmos Environ. 2013;79:41–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Weschler CJ. Ozone in indoor environments: concentration and chemistry. Indoor Air. 2000;10:269–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ben-David T, Wang S, Rackes A, Waring MS. Measuring the efficacy of HVAC particle filtration over a range of ventilation rates in an office building. Build Environ. 2018;144:648–56.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Benne K, Griffith B, Long N, Torcellini P, Crawley D, Logee T. Assessment of the energy impacts of outside air in the commercial sector. 2009. Report No.: NREL/TP-550-41955, 951796. http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/951796-l2ErYY/

  40. 40.

    Rackes A, Waring MS. Alternative ventilation strategies in U.S. offices: Comprehensive assessment and sensitivity analysis of energy saving potential. Build Environ. 2017;116:30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ben-David T, Rackes A, Waring MS. Alternative ventilation strategies in U.S. offices: Saving energy while enhancing work performance, reducing absenteeism, and considering outdoor pollutant exposure tradeoffs. Build Environ. 2017;116:140–57.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Aydogan A, Montoya LD. Formaldehyde removal by common indoor plant species and various growing media. Atmos Environ. 2011;45:2675–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Irga PJ, Torpy FR, Burchett MD. Can hydroculture be used to enhance the performance of indoor plants for the removal of air pollutants? Atmos Environ. 2013;77:267–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kim KJ, Kil MJ, Song JS, Yoo EH, Son K-C, Kays SJ. Efficiency of volatile formaldehyde removal by indoor plants: contribution of aerial plant parts versus the root zone. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 2008;133:521–6.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kim KJ, Jeong MI, Lee DW, Song JS, Kim HD, Yoo EH, et al. Variation in formaldehyde removal efficiency among indoor plant species. HortScience 2010;45:1489–95.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kim KJ, Kim HJ, Khalekuzzaman M, Yoo EH, Jung HH, Jang HS. Removal ratio of gaseous toluene and xylene transported from air to root zone via the stem by indoor plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:6149–58.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Orwell RL, Wood RL, Tarran J, Torpy F, Burchett MD. Removal of benzene by the indoor plant/substrate microcosm and implications for air quality. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2004;157:193–207.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Orwell RL, Wood RA, Burchett MD, Tarran J, Torpy F. The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: II. Laboratory study. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2006;177:59–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wolverton BC, Johnson A, Bounds K. Interior landscape plants for indoor air pollution abatement. 1989. Report No.: NASA-TM-101766. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930073077

  50. 50.

    Yang DS, Pennisi SV, Son K-C, Kays SJ. Screening indoor plants for volatile organic pollutant removal efficiency. HortScience 2009;44:1377–81.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Yoo MH, Kwon YJ, Son K-C, Kays SJ. Efficacy of indoor plants for the removal of single and mixed volatile organic pollutants and physiological effects of the volatiles on the plants. J Am Soc Horticultural Sci 2006;131:452–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zhang L, Routsong R, Strand SE. Greatly enhanced removal of volatile organic carcinogens by a genetically modified houseplant, pothos Ivy (Epipremnum aureum) expressing the mammalian cytochrome P450 2e1 gene. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:325–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Rackes A, Waring MS. Do time-averaged, whole-building, effective volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions depend on the air exchange rate? A statistical analysis of trends for 46 VOCs in U.S. offices. Indoor Air 2016;26:642–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Weisel CP, Zhang J, Turpin BJ, Morandi MT, Colome S, Stock TH, et al. Relationship of indoor, outdoor and personal air (RIOPA) study: study design, methods and quality assurance/control results. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2005;15:123–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Turpin BJ, Weisel CP, Morandi M, Colome S, Stock T, Eisenreich S, et al. Relationships of indoor, outdoor, and personal air (RIOPA): part II. Analyses of concentrations of particulate matter species. Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2007;130 Pt 2:1–77. discussion 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Xu Z, Wang L, Hou H. Formaldehyde removal by potted plant–soil systems. J Hazard Mater. 2011;192:314–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Liu Y-J, Mu Y-J, Zhu Y-G, Ding H, Crystal Arens N. Which ornamental plant species effectively remove benzene from indoor air? Atmos Environ. 2007;41:650–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Cruz MD, Müller R, Svensmark B, Pedersen JS, Christensen JH. Assessment of volatile organic compound removal by indoor plants—a novel experimental setup. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2014;21:7838–46.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hörmann V, Brenske K-R, Ulrichs C. Suitability of test chambers for analyzing air pollutant removal by plants and assessing potential indoor air purification. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017;228:402.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Girman J, Phillips T, Levin H. Critical review: how well do house plants perform as indoor air cleaners? 2009;5.

  61. 61.

    Dingle P, Tapsell P, Hu S. Reducing formaldehyde exposure in office environments using plants. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2000;64:302–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Wood RA, Burchett MD, Alquezar R, Orwell RL, Tarran J, Torpy F. The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: I. Office field-study. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2006;175:163–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Levin H. Can house plants solve IAQ problems?. Indoor Air Bull. 1992;2:1–7.

  64. 64.

    Wood RA, Orwell RL, Tarran J, Torpy F, Burchett M. Potted-plant/growth media interactions and capacities for removal of volatiles from indoor air. J Horticult Sci Biotechnol. 2002;77:120–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Waring MS, Siegel JA, Corsi RL. Ultrafine particle removal and generation by portable air cleaners. Atmos Environ. 2008;42:5003–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Kim H-J, Han B, Kim Y-J, Yoon Y-H, Oda T. Efficient test method for evaluating gas removal performance of room air cleaners using FTIR measurement and CADR calculation. Build Environ. 2012;47:385–93.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Chen W, Zhang J, Zhang ZB. Performance of air cleaners for removing multi-volatile organic compounds in indoor air. ASHRAE Trans. 2005;111:1101–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Russell JA, Hu Y, Chau L, Pauliushchyk M, Anastopoulos I, Anandan S, et al. Indoor-biofilter growth and exposure to airborne chemicals drive similar changes in plant root bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:4805–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Darlington AB, Dat JF, Dixon MA. The biofiltration of indoor air: air flux and temperature influences the removal of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35:240–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Alraddadi O, Leuner H, Boor B, Rajkhowa B, Hutzel W, Dana M. Air cleaning performance of a biowall for residential applications. International High Performance Buildings Conference. 2016. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ihpbc/185

  72. 72.

    Wang Z, Zhang JS. Characterization and performance evaluation of a full-scale activated carbon-based dynamic botanical air filtration system for improving indoor air quality. Build Environ. 2011;46:758–68.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Soreanu G, Dixon M, Darlington A. Botanical biofiltration of indoor gaseous pollutants—a mini-review. Chem Eng J. 2013;229:585–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Mikkonen A, Li T, Vesala M, Saarenheimo J, Ahonen V, Kärenlampi S, et al. Biofiltration of airborne VOCs with green wall systems—microbial and chemical dynamics. Indoor Air. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ina.12473. 2018.

  75. 75.

    Bringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG. The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. J Environ Psychol. 2009;29:422–33.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Peñuelas J, Llusià J. Plant VOC emissions: making use of the unavoidable. Trends Ecol Evolution. 2004;19:402–4.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Holopainen JK, Gershenzon J. Multiple stress factors and the emission of plant VOCs. Trends Plant Sci. 2010;15:176–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Waring.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cummings, B.E., Waring, M.S. Potted plants do not improve indoor air quality: a review and analysis of reported VOC removal efficiencies. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 30, 253–261 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0175-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Empirical/statistical models
  • Volatile organic compounds
  • Exposure modeling