Accepted Manuscript

Phytoremediation of VOCs from indoor air by ornamental potted plants: A pilot

study using a palm species under the controlled environment

Hakimeh Teiri, Hamidreza Pourzamani, Yaghoub Hajizadeh

PII: S0045-6535(18)30086-9

DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.078

Reference: CHEM 20659

To appear in: Chemosphere

Received Date: 30 October 2017

Revised Date: 13 January 2018

Accepted Date: 15 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Hakimeh Teiri, Hamidreza Pourzamani, Yaghoub Hajizadeh,
Phytoremediation of VOCs from indoor air by ornamental potted plants: A pilot study using a palm
species under the controlled environment, Chemosphere (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2018.01.078

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Phytoremediation of VOCs from indoor air by ornamental potted plants: A
pilot study using a palm species under the controlled environment

Hakimeh Teiri, Hamidreza Pourzamani, Yaghoub Hajizadeh*

Faculty of Health and Environment Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan,
IRAN

* Corresponding author, Email: y_hajizadeh@hlth.mui.ac.ir

Abstract

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in indoor air have recently raised public concern
due to their adverse health effects. One of hazardous VOC is Formaldehyde which can cause
sensory irritation and induce nasopharyngeal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate
potted plant-soil system ability in formaldehyde removal from indoor air. We applied one of
common interior plant from the palm species, Chamaedorea elegans, inside a chamber under
the controlled environment. Entire plant, growing media and roots contribution in
formaldehyde were evaluated by continuously introduction of different concentrations of
formaldehyde into the chamber (0.66–16.4 mg m-3) each over a 48-h period. Our findings
showed that the plant efficiently removed formaldehyde from polluted air by 65-100%,
depending on the inlet concentrations, for a long time exposure. A maximum elimination
capacity of 1.47 mg/m2.h was achieved with an inlet formaldehyde concentration of 14.6 mg
m-3. The removal ratio of areal part to pot soil and roots was 2.45:1 (71%: 29%). The plants
could remove more formaldehyde in light rather than dark environment. Concentrations up to
16.4 mg m-3 were not high enough to affect the plants growth. However, a trivial decrease in
chlorophyll content, carotenoid and water content of the treated plants was observed
compared to the control plants. Thus, the palm species tested here showed high tolerance and
good potential of formaldehyde removal from interior environments. Therefore,
phytoremediation of VOCs from indoor air by the ornamental potted plants is an effective
method which can be economically applicable in homes and offices.

Keywords: Phytoremediation; Formaldehyde; potted plant; Indoor air pollution

1
1. Introduction

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a major contributor of indoor air pollution

that recently received appreciable attention due to their well-known adverse health

effects(Kabir and Kim, 2012). With the inception of energy crisis, a tight and confined space

for inhabitants is provided which results in an increase in the concentration of indoor air

pollutants , beside this most people spend up to 95 % of their time indoors (Aydogan and

Montoya, 2011; Jones, 1999; Wang et al., 2009; Wood et al., 2006a; Xu et al., 2011) . Indoor

air pollutants can be found at higher concentration than outdoor (Vazquez and Adams, 2014).

However, monitoring and regulating of indoor air pollutants has been neglected behind the

outdoor air pollutants.

One of the hazardous VOCs associated with indoor air pollution is formaldehyde, a

colorless and odorous gas, that can cause sensory irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer (HE

and ZHOU, 2014; Xu et al., 2011; Vazquez and Adams, 2014). The main indoor sources of

formaldehyde are from furniture, fiber board and laminated wood, carpets, curtains, rubber,

paint, adhesives, lubricants, cosmetics, electronic equipment, and paper products (Akbar-

Khanzadeh and Park, 1997; Aydogan and Montoya, 2011; Kim et al., 2010b). Different

studies have investigated formaldehyde concentrations in the air of homes and offices in

different countries. For instance, in Germany among 586 residences the formaldehyde

concentration ranged between 23.5 and 47.7 μg m-3. In Finland its average concentration in 23

office buildings was 11 μg m-3 and that in 64 bedrooms in Sweden was 23-29 μg m-3. In a

study, conducted in Japan/Korea throughout 292 new homes in first year, and 60 homes in

third year, average concentration of formaldehyde were 134 μg m-3 and 86 μg m-3,

respectively (Park and Ikeda, 2006; Salonen et al., 2009; Salthammer, 2013). The median

indoor formaldehyde concentration from 2002 to 2015 in 39 Chinese cities was 125 μg m-3

(Huang et al., 2017). Typically, in newly built or refurbished residences the levels of

2
formaldehyde are often higher than that in old buildings, and higher in summer than winter

(Kim et al., 2010a; Tang et al., 2009; Xiong et al., 2016). Formaldehyde levels generally

decrease with the product age and reach its minimum after 10 years (Aydogan and Montoya,

2011; Colls, 2002; Park and Ikeda, 2006) however, it is too much time to breath this

carcinogenic chemical into lungs (Wolverton and Wolverton, 1996).

Health effects associated with acute exposure to indoor formaldehyde include eye

irritation, eye redness, frequent blinking and irritation in the upper respiratory system

(Europe, 2010). Also, it can cause long-term effects such as cancer, leukemia in children,

premature birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genotoxicity, and Alzheimer's

disease. US-EPA considers formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen (Group B1) ( US-

HHS, 2005). It has been suggested that work-related exposure to formaldehyde may enhance

the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (Sandvik et al., 2014). There is no specific data

showing the limits of exposure to formaldehyde, however WHO suggested a threshold value

of 0.1 mg m-3 (100 μg m-3) for 30 minute average exposure.

Several techniques that have been applied to eliminate formaldehyde from indoor air

including biological methods, adsorption on activated carbon fibers (ACF), photo catalytic

oxidation (PCO) and ozonation (O3), are not fully satisfactory. Activated carbon is the most

commonly used adsorbent because of its large surface area and high adsorption capacity

(Huang et al., 2003). Application of ACF in a study showed 70-80% removal efficiencies for

a mixture of VOCs with concentrations in the rage of 20-30 ppb (Sidheswaran et al., 2012).

However, in order to avoid the re-emission of the already adsorbed compounds, adsorbents

should be replaced or regenerated regularly (Luengas et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are

numerous challenges related to the use of photo-catalyst system for indoor air purification due

to low concentration and volatile characteristic of VOCs. (Luengas et al., 2015). Also, in a

research applying 0.5 ppm ozone to remove formaldehyde from indoor air with a

3
concentration of 1.3-2.5 ppm, showed no reduction (Esswein and Boeniger, 1994). In

addition, ozone generators in homes promotes the formation of secondary organic aerosols

(Hubbard et al., 2005). Beside these, increasing the buildings ventilation rate to eliminate the

pollutant accumulation is difficult and not economical for public. Thus, phytoremediation has

attracted much consideration in recent decades probably due to its availability and

applicability, and environmental, economic and social benefits, and its potential to reach zero

emission. It has been proved that residence comfortable level, productivity and mental

functioning can be significantly improved as well as pain perception can be reduced when

plants are present in the room or workplace. (Lohr, 2010; Mudliar et al., 2010; Soreanu et al.,

2013; Xiaojing et al., 2006).

Different mechanisms such as static potted plant, microbial community and dynamic

botanical air filtration system contribute in formaldehyde removal, however the role of

microbial community is proven to be considerable (Wang et al., 2014). The results of a recent

study which used two plant species, Dieffenbachia maculata and Spathiphyllum wallisii, to

eliminate toluene and 2-ethylhexanol from indoor air showed that both the aerial parts and

potting soil without plants could substantially remove the VOCs (Hormann et al., 2017). The

capability of Syngonium podophyllum plant in simultaneous removing of CO2 and VOC

(benzene) from indoor air was investigated using both hydroculture and potting mix growing

media. The result indicate that hydroculture can eliminate more CO2 than potting mix media

especially with increased light intensity. However, the rate of VOC elimination by

hydroculture growing plant was more gradual than potting mix media plant (Irga et al., 2013).

The ability of four species of foliage plants in benzene and toluene removal from indoor air

during day and night has been evaluated. The result represented that the plants effectiveness

in the elimination of selected VOCs was different with species, day or night and kind of VOC.

4
Three of the species showed higher removal efficiency during the day rather than the night.

In contrast, one of them represented same results in day and night ( Yoo et al., 2006)

The objective of the present study was to assess formaldehyde removal efficiency of a

potted plant from indoor using a pilot scale Plexiglas chamber under controlled environment.

We also assessed the percentile contribution of aerial part of the plant and potted soil in the

pollutant removal. For this purpose, Chamaedorea elegans plant from palm species was used.

Although the ability of some plant species has been tested for VOC removal, to the best of our

knowledge there is no research in the literature evaluating the formaldehyde removal

efficiency of Chamaedorea elegans species in a confined chamber under continuous pollutant

loading rate and limited air exchange rate at local metrological condition. This plant is

cultivated as a houseplant, tolerating low levels of humidity and light, though, it prefers

medium to high humidity and bright indirect light, and can be easily acclimatized with indoor

environment. In this work, formaldehyde was used as a common VOC contaminant in indoor

but these methods can be applicable to other VOCs (Salthammer et al., 2010).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Test chamber and experimental setup

Experiments were conducted using a test chamber with a volume of 375 liter (84 cm

length × 62 cm width × 72 cm height) for fumigating the plants, and a control chamber with

the same features for reference plants. As the majority of VOC source is indoor, the more the

air exchange rate (AER) the less the indoor VOC concentration. So, we applied this chamber

volume to work under limited AER to simulate confined indoor environment and rooms

having no air conditioner. However, two potted plant was used to increase plant biomass to

chamber ratio. We also calculated the mass of pollutant eliminated per unit leaf area at unit

time (EC). Using this we can predict the total leaf area (size and number of potted plant)

5
needed for known volume of indoor room.The chambers were made such a way to prevent

any leak during the tests. A door was provided in front of the chamber which was sealed by

adhesive foam-rubber insulation tape and adjustable metal clips. A leak test was carried out

for each chamber before use. Two PC fan (Model: 350 XA, 2.03P4) fixed inside each

chamber to provide complete mixing of the fumigated air. The temperature and relative

humidity of the chambers were controlled by digital hygro-thermometers (Figure 1). The light

intensity, supposed to be natural indoor environment light, was measured around the chamber

in five direction (west, east, north, sought and above the chamber) four times a day over the

experimental periods using an YF-170 digital light meter (Tenmars electronics co., ltd,

Taiwan).

Figure 1 shows 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 flowmeter 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, flowmeter, dual impingers containing liquid absorbent. Stainless

steel and silicon tubing were used to connect the system compartments.

6
Figure 1: Schematic of the experimental setup: (1) air pump, (2) activated carbon column, (3)
formaldehyde solution (37%) vessel, (4) humidifier vessel, (5) mixing vessel, (6) flow meter,
(7) gas sampling port, (8) test chamber, (9) air mixing fan, (10) temperature & humidity
sensor, (11) sampling impingers, (12) extraction.

2.2. Formaldehyde measurement

Formaldehyde vapor was provided by a gas bubbler containing a 37% formaldehyde

solution (Aydogan and Montoya, 2011). Air was provided by a vacuum pump (Model: ACO-

5504, 5w) and the air flows were measured by needle valve glass flowmeter (CT Platon,

France). Additionally, air stream was passed through an activated carbon column to adsorb

any potential contaminants before entering to the chambers. The formaldehyde concentration

was measured according to NIOSH-3500 method, a visible absorption spectrometry

technique, using a DR5000 Spectrophotometer (DOC022.53.00654- HACH, Co.USA). This

is the most sensitive formaldehyde analysis method suggested in the NIOSH manual of

analytical methods and is able to measure ceiling levels as low as 0.1 ppm which is best suited

for the determination of formaldehyde in area samples (Eller, 1994). According to the WHO

recommended limit of exposure to formaldehyde inside a building to avoid long-term

complications such as cancer ( 2 mg m-3), the concentration range for the experiments was

selected such a way to cover and be above this range (Europe, 2010).

7
2.3. Plant materials

In this research, one of the palm species from Arecaceae family, Chamaedorea

elegans, was used. This plant is one of the common indoor plants used in Iran and is

economical and easily accessible. Six pots of the plants were bought from commercial

distributors (flower market). Loamy soil was used as pot media comprising of approximately

30-percent sand, 30-percent silt, 15-percent clay and 25 percent humus. This soil is moist,

loose, with low level of acidity and full of microorganisms and nutrients suitable to grow

potted plants. The plants kept under laboratory condition at least a month for acclimatization

and watered whenever needed. Two pots of the plants were used for absorption tests by entire

plant, two pots for root and soil absorption tests and the remaining two pots were used as

reference.

2.4. Experimental procedure

In order 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 by humidity and chamber surfaces, photo-

degradation 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 and roots absorption test without areal part of the plants.

The chamber’s combined loss was tested with inlet formaldehyde concentration ranges

of 6 to 7 mg m−3 under two ranges relative humidity, 40% and 80%, for 6 days. Then, two

pots of the plants with an average height of 47.20 cm areal part and 16 cm of root part (pot

and soil) were placed inside the chamber, in order to provide sufficient leaf area for optimum

8
air purification. The plants were continuously exposed to formaldehyde vapors with inlet

concentrations ranging from 0.66 to 16.4 mg m−3 (Xu et al., 2011). The tests for each

concentration were carried out two 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.

Darkness test was taken place by covering whole the chamber (entire plants inside it)

with a black cloth. This test was also carried out for two days but only for one of the inlet

concentration which laid the median of tested concentrations range (e.g. 7.13 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 into the chamber, and then experiments were conducted for an inlet concentration of

8.72 mg m-3 for two days (Kim et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2011). A new set of plants were used in

this stage of experiments to avoid confounding errors as a result of prior formaldehyde

exposure. Samples from inlet and outlet of the chamber were also taken every early morning

and late evening to determine formaldehyde removal by root and soil part.

2.5 Plant morphology and physiology

Key characteristics of the plants including morphology and physiology (plant height,

leaf area, dry weight, fresh wet weight, chlorophyll content and carotenoid level) were

evaluated before and after fumigation to assess the effects of formaldehyde on these features

as plant growing indices. Chlorophyll content and carotenoid level were determined by

solvent purification and spectrophotometry method (Wellburn, 1994). For determination of

the individual leaf area, all plant leaves were categorized as large, medium or small and

counted. Six sample leaves were then taken from each category and measured by leaf area

meter (ΔT Area meter MK2). The average surface area value for each category was then

multiplied by the number of the leaves counted in each category and the total surface area was

9
calculated by adding all the individual leaf areas (Aydogan and Montoya, 2011). Also, plant

height was measured before and at the end of the experiments. Fresh wet weight of the leaves

was determined by analytical scale and reported in mg cm-2 of leaf area. Thereafter, the leaves

dry weight was measured by already weighing them with an analytical scale, drying them in

the oven under 80 ᵒC for 24 hours, then weighing out the dried leaves, calculating and

reporting in mg cm-2 of leaf area.

2.6 Data analysis

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 (Figure 1). The removal efficiency was calculated using

the formaldehyde concentrations entering and leaving the chamber as follow:

𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑅𝐸 = �1 − �𝐶 � × 100
𝑖𝑛

The elimination capacity (EC), the amount of formaldehyde vapor removed per unit surface

area of plant leaf (mg m-2.h-1), was calculated as follow:

𝐸𝐶 = 𝑄 ( 𝐶𝑖𝑛 − 𝐶 𝑜𝑢𝑡 )⁄ 𝑆𝐿

Where Cin is inlet and Cout is outlet concentration of formaldehyde (mg m-3), Q is inlet

polluted air flow (m3 h-1) to the chamber and SL is total leaf area (m2).

Finally, the statistical analyses such as averages of the data and standard deviation

(SD), drawing the graphs and tables were carried out under Excel environment.

10
3. Results and discussion

Table 1 shows the averages of physical environmental factors including temperature,

relative humidity and light intensity of both inside the chamber and surrounding environment

during the study period. Background light approaching to the chamber coordinates during

daytime was measured and their average at the measuring time and for whole the study period

were calculated and reported. There was a difference between the relative humidity inside and

that outside the chamber. For the temperature and light intensity the difference was negligible.

Table 1: Averages of Physical environmental parameters during the experiments

Parameters Temperature (˚C) RH (%) Average light

intensity (Lux)
inside surrounding inside surrounding

Average 30.54 29. 31 76.04 17.57 1928.6

SD 0.79 0.77 2.42 1.33 197.4

Table 2 represents the average outlet (Cout) formaldehyde concentrations achieved

during the experiments with Chamaedorea elegans plant under various inlet formaldehyde

concentrations (Cin). Total reduction of formaldehyde by entire plant (EP), and by root and

soil (RS) with and without considering chamber combined losses were also examined. The

empty chamber combined loss, tested with inlet formaldehyde concentration ranges of 6.37 to

6.71 mg m-3 under relative humidity of 40% and 80% was 7.06% and 15.2%, respectively.

Thus, beside reporting the whole removal efficiency, the loss of 15.2% was deducted from all

the results and the remaining amount was reported as net removal efficiency. Due to

limitation in flow rate for keeping the chamber air exchange rate (AER) near to 1 time per

11
 hour (1 n/h) it was impossible to reduce the chamber RH down to 75%, so, we tried to carry

out the experiments under a RH of 80±5%. Entire plant removal efficiency (RE) and the

elimination capacity (EC) was examined with ascending inlet formaldehyde concentrations

ranging from 0.66 to 16.37 mg m-3, each for 2 days and the averages of the results were

reported (Table 2).

Table 2: Average reduction of formaldehyde vapors achieved by air and root part of
Chamaedorea elegans with and without combined chamber losses
Without combined chamber
With combined chamber losses Leaf
Inlet losses
Net surface
Type of test concentration C out Whole RE Whole EC C out Net EC
RE area
(mg/m3)
(m2)
(mg/m3) ( %) (mg/m2.h) (mg/m3) ( %) (mg/m2.h)
Chamber
loss at 40% 6.37 ±0.13 5.92 ±0.22 7.06 ±1.72 - 5.92 7.06 - -
RH
Chamber
loss at 80% 6.71 ±0.02 5.69 ±0.09 15.20 ±0.97 - 5.69 15.20 - -
RH
0.66 ±0.04 0.00±00 100.00 ±00 0.11 ±0.04 0.10 84.80 0.10 2.43
0.97 ±0.04 0.12± 0.02 87.63 ±1.17 0.15 ±0.03 0.27 72.43 0.12 2.43
1.63 ±0.05 0.26± 0.03 84.05 ±1.57 0.24 ±0.04 0.51 68.85 0.19 2.43
2.68 ±0.02 0.46± 0.03 82.84 ±1.06 0.38 ±0.01 0.87 67.63 0.31 2.43
Average
4.97 ±0.03 0.81± 0.05 83.70 ±0.88 0.72 ±0.02 1.57 68.50 0.59 2.43
entire plant
7.13 ±0.03 1.32± 0.06 81.49 ±0.72 1.00 ±0.04 2.40 66.29 0.82 2.43
11.72 ±0.06 2.61± 0.09 77.73 ±0.66 1.57 ±0.03 4.39 62.53 1.27 2.43
14.58 ±0.05 3.88± 0.06 73.39 ±0.30 1.85 ±0.03 6.10 58.19 1.47 2.43
16.37 ±0.07 5.77± 0.05 64.75 ±0.14 1.83 ±0.03 8.26 49.55 1.40 2.43
Effect of
7.13 ±0.03 1.86 ±0.11 73.91 ±1.48 0.91 ±0.01 2.94 58.71 0.72 2.43
darkness
Root zone,
8.72 ±0.10 4.84 ±0.07 44.50 ±0.13 12.16 ±0.10 6.17 29.29 8.02 0.134*
pot & soil

* Potted soil surface

Formaldehyde removal efficiency by the potted plant-soil system, with and without

chamber combined losses, as affected by different inlet formaldehyde concentrations are

shown in Figure 2. The entire plant net removal efficiencies were calculated by subtracting

12
the chamber combined losses from the whole removal percentages. Figure 3 shows the

formaldehyde elimination capacity (EC) of the entire plant without and with considering the

chamber losses. Results of the present study showed that the plant–soil system considerably

removed formaldehyde vapours from polluted air during continues long time fumigation. As

shown in Figure 2, about 65% to 100% of formaldehyde was removed from the polluted air

flown into the chamber with an inlet concentration range of 0.66-11.72 mg m-3. However,

increasing the inlet concentration to 14.58-16.37 mg m-3 within 48 h the removal efficiency

was decreased noticeably. This shows that the plant could not tolerate with concentrations

higher than about 12 mg m-3 and a reduction in the removal efficiency represented that the

plant removal capacity is filled (Mortensen and Ulsaker, 1985). By increasing the inlet

formaldehyde concentration and by extending the exposure time the elimination capacity was

increased. This might be occurred by attribution of plant and soil surface, roots, degradation

by microorganisms or bacterial adaption and uptake by the stomas of plant (Godish and

Guindon, 1989; Kim et al., 2008; Wellburn, 1994). Decomposition of formaldehyde into

harmless substances seems to be most desirable removal mechanism. It has been suggested

that when formaldehyde enters the plant through the leaves, it is firstly detoxified by

oxidation then transformed into CO2 and built into the plant material via the Calvin cycle.

(Salonen et al., 2009) Depletion of formaldehyde like other VOCs in the chamber which

results in slower diffusion rate into the plant is likely to be happened (Kim et al., 2008).

However in our study a breakpoint was attained with an inlet concentration of 14.58 mg m-3.

Whereas, doing experiments with an inlet concentration of 16.37 mg m-3, the elimination

capacity was not promoted.

Additional experiments were conducted under thoroughly dark environment in order

to compare the removal efficiency under light versus dark conditions. The plant was exposed

to a formaldehyde concentration of 7.13 mg m-3 for two days in dark environment. The

13
pollutant concentration in the effluent was measured in the early morning and late evening of

each day and the average of the results was reported in Table 2.

110
Removal efficiency (%)

100 Total RE % Net RE %

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Inlet concentration (mg/m3)

Figure 2: Formaldehyde removal efficiency by potted Chamaedorea elegans plant-soil

system with and without combined chamber losses, as affected by inlet formaldehyde
concentrations

The results of plant’s growing characteristics and their percentage changes after

contact with the pollutant were represented in Table 3. Leaf samples for each set of

experiments were collected from different branches and heights of the plants and mixed to

gain unite representative sample and analysed. The most important effects of formaldehyde on

the plant were a reduction in the plant fresh weight and water content which were reduced by

9.4% and 4.2%, respectively. However, the tested concentrations of formaldehyde could not

abort the plant growth, whereas, an increase in the total leaf area and plant height was

observed. Nevertheless, the chlorophyll content and carotenoid level were decreased by 13.5

%, 9.5 %, respectively, after the fumigation period.

14
 Table 3: Morphology & physiology changes of Chamaedorea elegans during the
experiments
Increase or
Parameter Before test After test
decrease* (%)
Plant height (cm) 47.20 47.50 0.64
Total leaf area (cm2) 23780.3 24807.8 4.32
Pot soil surface (cm2) 1345.4 1345.4 ND
Total soil & rote volume (L) 14.85 14.85 ND
Leaf fresh weight (mg/cm2) 11.50 10.51 -9.44
Leaf dry weight (mg/cm2) 3.34 3.32 -0.49
Leaf water content (%) 71.10 68.22 -4.23
Chlorophyll content (mg/g) 4.23 3.66 -13.47
Carotenoids content (mg/g) 8.14 7.62 -9.45

* Negative sign shows the decrease percentage

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 m-3 and at a

light intensity of 240 µmol m−2 s−1 in daytime. (Xu et al., 2011) It has been reported that the

elimination capacity by which formaldehyde is removed increases upon repeated exposure

which is in accordance with our results (Rezaei et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2006b). According

to Table 2, contributions of the potted soil along with roots in the formaldehyde removal

accounted for 29% of the total removal by entire plant. The capacity of potted soils and roots

for removal of formaldehyde in the present study was considerable similar to those have been

already reported in the literature (Godish and Guindon, 1989; Wolverton et al., 1984; Xu et

al., 2011). This achievement may be attributed to the high microbial activity in soil which is

stimulated by root exudates acting as nutrients for soil microorganisms (Salthammer, 2013).

Using a static chamber in dark and light conditions the removal of benzene from indoor air by

seven different species of potted plant has been investigated and reported major removal

15
capacity for plant/soil microorganism at both dark and light conditions (Orwell et al., 2004).

Furthermore, increasing exposed surface of potted soil upraises the formaldehyde removal

capacity (Xu et al., 2011).

2.0
Elimination capacity ( mg/m2.h)
Total EC (mg/m2.h) Net EC (mg/m2.h)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
inlet concentration ( mg/m3)

Figure 3: Formaldehyde elimination capacity in (m2) leaf area by potted Chamaedorea

elegans plant-soil system with and without combined chamber losses as affected by inlet
formaldehyde concentrations

The results also showed that similar to other studies with the same inlet formaldehyde

concentration, removal efficiency under natural daylight was higher than dark environment.

Furthermore, under the same condition but in the days with higher light intensity the

formaldehyde removal was higher (Kim et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2011). Both the stomata and

cuticle in the plant leaves could be the pathways for VOC removal. Moreover, some research

has shown that soil microorganisms are capable to degrade pollutants and the degradation can

be induced by root exudates (Korade and Fulekar, 2009; Saiyood et al., 2010; Sun et al.,

2010). When formaldehyde is absorbed, it is either oxidized into carbon dioxide in the Calvin

cycle or combined into the organics like amino acids, lipids, free sugars, organic acids, and

cell-wall components (Kim et al., 2010b; Xu et al., 2011). However, it probably depends on

the properties of the VOCs. Formaldehyde is a hydrophilic VOC , therefore could not diffuse

16
through cuticle easily because it consists of lipid (Huang et al., 2003; Sidheswaran et al.,

2012). It was therefore concluded that formaldehyde was largely taken up through the stomata

as they are open in light and closed in darkness(Esswein and Boeniger, 1994; Luengas et al.,

2015). Another explanation could be the occurrence of higher photosynthesis and metabolism

in plant in daytime which lead to more formaldehyde removal compared with night time

(Hubbard et al., 2005; Luengas et al., 2015).

It has been reported in some studies that the removal rate in the first hours is higher

and it decreases by the passage of time (Cruz et al., 2014). 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 entire plant 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 shorter

exposure period (Kim et al., 2010b). Increasing the amount of plant growing characteristics

during the fumigation tests in our study showed that formaldehyde with an inlet concentration

up to 16.4 mg m-3 could not stop the plant growth. This is likely to be ascribed to the high

resistant of the plant against formaldehyde.

4. Conclusion

Formaldehyde, one of a hazardous VOC, is mainly released to the indoor environment

from building materials, home furnishings and tobacco smoking. Botanical bio-filtration of

indoor formaldehyde was tested in this study using a real-world simulated and pilot scale set

of experiments. The potted Chamaedorea elegans plant–soil system examined in this study

showed high potential of removing formaldehyde from polluted air in a long time exposure.

Although, the areal part of the plant had substantial contribution in the removal of

formaldehyde, the influence of potted soil and roots was considerable which can be attributed

17
to the pollutant absorption and metabolism by the microorganisms in the soils. Formaldehyde

elimination capacity of the plant was increased with elevating the inlet concentrations and

reached plateau at 16.4 mg m-3. The entire plant showed more removal in day time rather

than night time and darkness. Examination of the plant morphology and physiology showed

that Chamaedorea elegans can perfectly tolerate to the formaldehyde exposure with a

concentration less than 14.6 mg m-3, whereas, long term exposure could not stop the plant's

growth. Thus, it is evident from our results that, phytoremediation can be one of the most

effective, economically and environmentally friendly indoor air purification methods.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the research deputy of Isfahan University of
Medical Sciences for support for this work via grant No. 3941031.

Conflicts of interest
There is no conflict of interest.

References
Akbar-Khanzadeh, F., Park, C. K., 1997. Field precision of formaldehyde sampling and analysis using
NIOSH Method 3500. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 58, 657-660.

Aydogan, A., Montoya, L. D., 2011. Formaldehyde removal by common indoor plant species and
various growing media. Atmospheric environment. 45, 2675-2682.

Colls, J., 2002. Air pollution,2nd ed. Clay's library of Health and the Environment.

Cruz, M. D., et al., 2014. Can ornamental potted plants remove volatile organic compounds from
indoor air?—a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 21, 13909-13928.

Eller, P. M., 1994. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. Diane Publishing.

Esswein, E. J., Boeniger, M. F., 1994. Effect of an ozone-generating air-purifying device on reducing
concentrations of formaldehyde in air. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 9, 139-146.

Europe, W., 2010. WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality. Selected pollutants. WHO Regional Office
for Europe Regional Publications, Copenhagen.

18
Godish, T., Guindon, C., 1989. An assessment of botanical air purification as a formaldehyde
mitigation measure under dynamic laboratory chamber conditions. Environmental pollution. 62, 13-
20.

HE, Q.-q., ZHOU, J.-h., 2014. Research Advance in Purification of Formaldehyde-polluted Indoor Air
by Potted Plants. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi. 2, 013.

Hörmann, V., et al., 2017. Suitability of Test Chambers for Analyzing Air Pollutant Removal by
Plants and Assessing Potential Indoor Air Purification. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 228, 402.

Huang, S., et al., 2017. Indoor formaldehyde concentrations in urban China: Preliminary study of
some important influencing factors. Science of The Total Environment. 590-591, 394-405.

Huang, Z.-H., et al., 2003. Breakthrough of methyethylketone and benzene vapors in activated carbon
fiber beds. Journal of hazardous materials. 98, 107-115.

Hubbard, H., et al., 2005. Effects of an ozone‐generating air purifier on indoor secondary particles in
three residential dwellings. Indoor air. 15, 432-444.

Irga, P., et al., 2013. Can hydroculture be used to enhance the performance of indoor plants for the
removal of air pollutants? Atmospheric environment. 77, 267-271.

Jones, A. P., 1999. Indoor air quality and health. Atmospheric environment. 33, 4535-4564.

Kabir, E., Kim, K.-H., 2012. A Review of Some Representative Techniques for Controlling the Indoor
Volatile Organic Compounds. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment. 6, 137-146.

Kim, K.-W., et al., 2010a. Formaldehyde and TVOC emission behaviors according to finishing
treatment with surface materials using 20L chamber and FLEC. Journal of hazardous materials. 177,
90-94.

Kim, K. J., et al., 2010b. Variation in formaldehyde removal efficiency among indoor plant species.
HortScience. 45, 1489-1495.

Kim, K. J., et al., 2008. Efficiency of volatile formaldehyde removal by indoor plants: contribution of
aerial plant parts versus the root zone. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 133,
521-526.

Korade, D. L., Fulekar, M., 2009. Rhizosphere remediation of chlorpyrifos in mycorrhizospheric soil
using ryegrass. Journal of hazardous materials. 172, 1344-1350.

Lohr, V.I., 2009. What are the benefits of plants indoors and why do we respond positively to them?.
In II International Conference on Landscape and Urban Horticulture 881, 675-682.

Luengas, A., et al., 2015. A review of indoor air treatment technologies. Reviews in Environmental
Science and Bio/Technology. 14, 499-522.

Mortensen, L. M., Ulsaker, R., 1985. Effect of CO2 concentration and light levels on growth,
flowering and photosynthesis of Begonia× hiemalis Fotsch. Scientia Horticulturae. 27, 133-141.

Mudliar, S., et al., 2010. Bioreactors for treatment of VOCs and odours–a review. Journal of
Environmental Management. 91, 1039-1054.

Orwell, R. L., et al., 2004. Removal of benzene by the indoor plant/substrate microcosm and
implications for air quality. Water, air, and soil pollution. 157, 193-207.

19
Park, J., Ikeda, K., 2006. Variations of formaldehyde and VOC levels during 3 years in new and older
homes. Indoor air. 16, 129-135.

Rezaei, M., et al., 2015. Formaldehyde removal from airstreams using a biofilter with a mixture of
compost and woodchips medium. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 226, 2242.

Saiyood, S., et al., 2010. Bisphenol A removal by the Dracaena plant and the role of plant-associating
bacteria. Journal of hazardous materials. 178, 777-785.

Salonen, H., et al., 2009. Volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde as explaining factors for
sensory irritation in office environments. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. 6, 239-
247.

Salthammer, T., 2013. Formaldehyde in the ambient atmosphere: from an indoor pollutant to an
outdoor pollutant? Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 52, 3320-3327.

Salthammer, T., et al., 2010. Formaldehyde in the indoor environment. Chemical Reviews. 110, 2536-
2572.

Sandvik, A., et al., 2014. Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma following formaldehyde exposure in the
operating theatre. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 9, 43.

Sidheswaran, M. A., et al., 2012. Energy efficient indoor VOC air cleaning with activated carbon fiber
(ACF) filters. Building and Environment. 47, 357-367.

Soreanu, G., et al., 2013. Botanical biofiltration of indoor gaseous pollutants–A mini-review.
Chemical Engineering Journal. 229, 585-594.

Sun, T.-R., et al., 2010. Roles of abiotic losses, microbes, plant roots, and root exudates on
phytoremediation of PAHs in a barren soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 176, 919-925.

Tang, X., et al., 2009. Formaldehyde in China: Production, consumption, exposure levels, and health
effects. Environment international. 35, 1210-1224.

US-HHS, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. 2007. Case Studies in Envionmental medicin-Lead toxicity. ATSDR Publication ATSDR-
HE-CS-2001-0001, 2005.

Vazquez, K., Adams, L., 2014. The Level of Volatile Organic Compounds Exposure in New
Buildings: Can Adding Indoor Potted Plants Reduce Exposure? 2014 NCUR.Wang, L., et al., 2009.
Study of catalytic decomposition of formaldehyde on Pt/TiO 2 alumite catalyst at ambient
temperature. Journal of hazardous materials. 167, 399-405.

Wang, Z., et al., 2014. Experimental investigation of the formaldehyde removal mechanisms in a
dynamic botanical filtration system for indoor air purification. Journal of hazardous materials. 280,
235-243.

Wellburn, A. R., 1994. The Spectral Determination of Chlorophylls a and b, as well as Total
Carotenoids, Using Various Solvents with Spectrophotometers of Different Resolution. Journal of
Plant Physiology. 144, 307-313.

Wolverton, B., et al., 1984. Foliage plants for removing indoor air pollutants from energy-efficient
homes. Economic Botany. 38, 224-228.

20
Wolverton, B., Wolverton, J. D., 1996. Interior plants: their influence on airborne microbes inside
energy-efficient buildings. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences. 41, 99-105.

Wood, R. A., et al., 2006a. The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC
pollution: I. Office field-study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 175, 163-180.

Wood, R. A., et al., 2006b. The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC
pollution: I. Office field-study. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 175, 163-180.

Xiaojing, Z., et al., 2006. The Comparison of Ability of Adsorbing Formaldehyde Among 13 Species
of Indoor Ornamentals [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 12, 054.

Xiong, J., et al., 2016. Comprehensive influence of environmental factors on the emission rate of
formaldehyde and VOCs in building materials: Correlation development and exposure assessment.
Environmental Research. 151, 734-741.

Xu, Z., et al., 2011. Formaldehyde removal by potted plant–soil systems. Journal of hazardous
materials. 192, 314-318.
Yoo, M. H., et al., 2006. Efficacy of indoor plants for the removal of single and mixed volatile organic
pollutants and physiological effects of the volatiles on the plants. Journal of the American Society for
Horticultural Science. 131, 452-458.

21
Highlights
• The indoor VOCs removal potential of a plant, Chamaedorea elegans, was investigated.
• A confined chamber with continuous air flow was used under the controlled environment.
• The plant efficiently removed formaldehyde from air by 65-100% for a long time exposure.
• An elimination capacity of 1.47 mg/m2.h was achieved with 14.6 mg m-3 inlet formaldehyde.
• The plant showed high tolerance and potential of formaldehyde removal from indoor air.