Purification of formaldehyde-polluted air by indoor plants of Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae

Abstract

Thirty plant species from Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae families were tested for their abilities of removing formaldehyde in the air. Each plant was placed for seven days in a 1.0 m×1.0 m×0.8 m glass box filled with formaldehyde with the initial concentration as 15 mg m -3 . Species such as Aglaonema commutatum cv. White Rajah, Spathiphyllum floribundum cv. Clevelandii, A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry, Agave potatorum, Dracaena fragrans cv. Massa-Ngeana, D. reflexa, Cordyline fruticosa, Gasteria gracilis and D. angustifolia showed the most resistance to formaldehyde pollution damage; species such as D. sanderiana, D. deremensis cv. Compacta, Sansevieria trifasciata cv. Hahnii, A. commutatum cv. Silver Queen and Alocasia macrorrhiza showed the second most resistance; species such as S. trifasciata cv. Laurentii, Aloe nobilis, Scindapsus aureus, Dieffenbachia amoena cv. Camilla, A. commutatum cv. Treubii, Scindapsus pictus cv. Argyraeus, Philodendron sodiroi cv. Wendimbe and Syngonium podophyllum showed the third class resistance; species such as Asparagus setaceus, Aloe aristata, Chlorophytum comosum, Philodendron martianum cv. Con-Go, Zamioculcas zamiifolia and A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow showed the resistance to less extents. Philodendron selloum showed the worst resistance to formaldehyde pollution damage. The absorption of formaldehyde by plants in the glass box chamber was found especially apparent during the first three days. In conclusion, ten species of the plants recommendable to be used to apply for formaldehyde purification were Scindapsus aureus, Asparagus setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A. commutatum cv. White Rajah, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A. commutatum cv. Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, G. gracilis and P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe. These ten plants have high absorption ability to formaldehyde and receive less damage.

Full text

1012 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011
www.world-food.net
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.9 (3&4): 1012-1018. 2011
WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: info@world-food.net
Received 15 March 2011, accepted 28 September 2011.
Purification of formaldehyde-polluted air by indoor plants of Araceae, Agavaceae and
Liliaceae
Junhui Zhou 1*, Feifei Qin 2, 3, Jie Su 1, Jian-wu Liao 1 and Hui-lian Xu 2
1 College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225
China. 2 International Nature Farming Research Center, 5632 Hata, Matsumoto, Nagano 390-1401, Japan. 3 Shandong Peanut
Institute, SAAS, Qingdao, China. *e-mail: junhuizhou@163.com
Abstract
Thirty plant species from Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae families were tested for their abilities of removing formaldehyde in the air. Each plant was
placed for seven days in a 1.0 m×1.0 m×0.8 m glass box filled with formaldehyde with the initial concentration as 15 mg m-3. Species such as
Aglaonema commutatum cv. White Rajah, Spathiphyllum floribundum cv. Clevelandii, A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry, Agave potatorum,
Dracaena fragrans cv. Massa-Ngeana, D. reflexa, Cordyline fruticosa, Gasteria gracilis and D. angustifolia showed the most resistance to
formaldehyde pollution damage; species such as D. sanderiana, D. deremensis cv. Compacta, Sansevieria trifasciata cv. Hahnii, A. commutatum cv.
Silver Queen and Alocasia macrorrhiza showed the second most resistance; species such as S. trifasciata cv. Laurentii, Aloe nobilis, Scindapsus
aureus, Dieffenbachia amoena cv. Camilla, A. commutatum cv. Treubii, Scindapsus pictus cv. Argyraeus, Philodendron sodiroi cv. Wendimbe and
Syngonium podophyllum showed the third class resistance; species such as Asparagus setaceus, Aloe aristata, Chlorophytum comosum, Philodendron
martianum cv. Con-Go, Zamioculcas zamiifolia and A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow showed the resistance to less extents. Philodendron selloum
showed the worst resistance to formaldehyde pollution damage. The absorption of formaldehyde by plants in the glass box chamber was found
especially apparent during the first three days. In conclusion, ten species of the plants recommendable to be used to apply for formaldehyde
purification were Scindapsus aureus, Asparagus setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A. commutatum cv. White Rajah, A. commutatum
cv. Red Narrow, A. commutatum cv. Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, G. gracilis and P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe. These ten plants have high absorption
ability to formaldehyde and receive less damage.
Key words: Agavaceae, Araceae, formaldehyde purification, indoor plants, Liliaceae.
Introduction
Increasing uses of resins and solvents such as formaldehyde
(FDH) in construction and decoration materials have caused
severe pollution of indoor air. FDH is a kind of colourless chemical
with a strong pungent odour, especially steadily releasable for
three to fifteen years. FDH together with other chemicals such as
benzene causes serious hazards to human health. It is classified
as the first class of human carcinogens by International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) because it is capable of inducing
cancers and tumours. Interest in the indoor air quality has become
an earnest issue in China since there is a serious problem of
excessive use of FDH in housing construction, reformation and
decoration. Yu and Tang monitored more than fifty new decorated
bedrooms and found that the pollutants such as FDH, benzene
and other volatile organic compounds exceeded the limited
standards by 36.8%, 38.4% and 12%, respectively 1. The adoption
of energy-saving proposals to reduce releases of indoor pollutants
in homes has caused problems of inefficience in improvement of
indoor air quality. Consequently, it allowed potential health hazards
remaining. It is one of today’s hot research subjects that the air
pollutants from construction and decoration materials is absorbed
and removed by indoor plants. The early research was carried out
by Wolverton of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). The research group listed the top ten plants which were
effective in clearing and eliminating odour, purifying air, and
absorbing and decomposing FDH, benzene and other pollutants2,3.
These plants include spider plant (Chlorophytum comosum),
English ivy (Hedera nepalensis var. sinensis), Aloe vera, Dracaena
sanderiana, Dracaena marginata, Dracaena fragrans cv. Massa-
ngeana, mother-in-law’s tongue (Sansevieria trifasciata),
Gerbera jamesonii, Chinese evergreen (Aglaonema spp.), peace
lily (Spathiphyllum floribundum cv. Clevelandii) and Pritchardia
gaudichaudii. In recent years, many researchers and scientists
focused on selection of plant species that are effective in
absorbing or removing FDH from indoor air 4-9. Plants such as
Monstera deliciosa, Ficus elastica, Chlorophytum comosum and
Opuntia stricta have proved capable of absorbing FDH from air 9.
However, effective species are still limited. Noticeably, it is still
difficult to eliminate FDH, benzene and other indoor air pollutants
in low concentrations. The previous studies showed that many
potted plants had more or less abilities of absorbing and
decomposing FDH and benzene. Moreover, the pots, media and
microorganisms in the media also showed ability of absorbing
FDH to some extents. However, the purification effects of the
tested plants, such as Chlorophytum comosum and Scindapsus

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011 1013
aureus, were inconsistent with different researches. There is still
much work to do in selection of plants; not only with the good
performance to remove air pollutants, but also with less or no
damage to human. Therefore, in the present study, plants from
three families, Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae, were tested for
their abilities to absorb or remove indoor FDH and other pollutants
as well as the resistance to FDH damage, in order to provide
reference to the utilization of plants for indoor air purification.
Materials and Methods
Plant materials: Thirty plant species from the Araceae, Agavaceae
and Liliaceae families were used as experimental materials
(Table 1).
Experimental treatments: The tested plants were placed in a
glass box chamber with a wall 0.8 mm thick and inside volume of
0.8 m3 (1.0 m×1.0 m×0.8 m). Inside the chamber, a small fan and a
thermometer were placed. The probe of formaldehyde (FDH)
inspector (Ke Ernuo trading Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen) was inserted
into the chamber through a hole of 1 cm in diameter. The mouth of
the hole was removable and fitted with a rubber gasket and clamps
to provide an airtight seal 2. The initial concentration of
formaldehyde was set up to 15 mg m-3. The experimental
temperature was controlled at 20±1ºC. Three treatments were
designed as: 1) plant potted in the medium was placed in the
chamber with 15 mg m-3 FDH; 2) the pot with medium but without
plant was placed in the chamber with 15 mg m-3 FDH and 3) the
chamber only filled with 15 mg m-3 FDH as control.
Measurement of chlorophyll: Leaf chlorophyll was extracted by
95% ethanol 10. The concentration of the extracted chlorophyll
was measured at 665 nm and 649 nm wavelengths using an UV-Vis
spectrophotometer (TU-1810 Model, General Analysis Instrument
Co., Ltd. of Beijing). Concentrations of chlorophyll a (CA),
chlorophyll b (CB) and the total chlorophyll (CT) were calculated
using equations as:
CA = 13.7D665 - 5.76D649
CB = 25.8D649 - 7.6D665
CT = CA + CB - 6.10D665 + 20.04D649
where D665 and D649 were the optical density (OD) values of
chlorophyll at 665 nm and 649 nm, respectively.
Measurement of leaf cell membrane permeability: The leaf
sample was rinsed 3 times with deionised water. The surface water
was absorbed with filter paper; twenty leaf discs each in 0.5 cm
diameter taken by hole puncher were immersed in 20 ml deionised
water for three hours. The electrical conductivity (EC) (recorded
as C1) of the water after the leaf immersion was measured. The leaf
sample was boiled for 15 min and the EC (C2) was measured again
after the water cooled down to the room temperature and
replenished to 20 ml with deionised water11. The leaf cell membrane
permeability (LC) was calculated as:
LC (%) = 100 × (C1/C2).
Other measurements: The formaldehyde concentration in the
chamber was measured every day after the experiment began. The
fresh above-ground part taken from the plant was weighed as
fresh mass. Then, these materials were dried in the microwave
oven for dry mass determination 12. The degree of the plant hurt
was scored from 0 through 1, 2 and 3 to 4 according to the extent
of damage caused by formaldehyde.
Results
Plant response caused by formaldehyde: The ranking for hurt
response of potted plants to formaldehyde (FDH) pollution was
made according to Ou et al. 13 and An et al. 14 as shown in Table 2.
In the present experiment, the degrees of the plant damage caused
by FDH were scored to five grades according to the different
capacities of removing FDH and plant resistance to FDH damage.
A plant growing normal without any or apparent damage was
defined as Grade 0. Grade 1 was for plants having three to five
black or water-colour spots on the surface of leaves. Grade 2 was
for plants with rotten spots in addition to black and water-colour
spots appearing on leaf surface or in the stem and with one to
three leaves etiolated. Grade 3 was for plants with the same
symptoms as in Grade 2 but leaves of the lower part showing
signs of etiolation or necrosis and rest half of leaves growing
normal. In Grade 2, plants could recover from the FDH damage.
Grade 4 was for plants deteriorating further to the stem with half
of the leaves rotten or dried. It was suggested that species such
as A. commutatum cv. White Rajah, S. floribundum cv. Clevelandii,
Table 1. Thirty species used for materials from the Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae families.
Araceae Agavaceae Liliaceae
Aglaonema commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry Agave potatorum Aloe aristata
Aglaonema commutatum cv. White Rajah Cordyline fruticosa Aloe nobilis
Aglaonema commutatum cv. Red Narrow Dracaena angustifolia Asparagus setaceus
Aglaonema commutatum cv. Silver Queen Dracaena deremensis cv. Compacta Chlorophytum comosum
Aglaonema commutatum cv. Treubii Dracaena fragrans cv. Massa-ngeana Gasteria gracilis
Alocasia macrorrhiza Dracaena reflexa
Dieffenbachia amoena cv. Camilla Dracaena sanderiana
Dieffenbachia amoena cv. Green Magic Sansevieria trifasciata cv. Hahnii
Philodendron martianum cv. Con-go Sansevieria trifasciata cv. Laurentii
Philodendron selloum
Philodendron sodiroi cv. Wendimbe
Scindapsus aureus
Spathiphyllum floribundum cv. Clevelandii
Scindapsus pictus cv. Argyraeus
Syngonium podophyllum
Zamioculcas zamiifolia

1014 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011
A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry, A. potatorum, D. fragrans cv.
Massa-Ngeana, D. reflexa, C. fruticosa, G. gracilis and D.
angustifolia showed the most resistance ability to FDH damage
and grouped into Grade 0. P. selloum showed the lowest resistance
to formaldehyde. The plants before (left in the frame) and after
(right in the frame) subjected to FDH pollution are shown in Fig.1.
The concentration of formaldehyde in the chamber was
decreased fast in the first three days. The fastest purification of
FDH was found in species such as A. potatorum, C. fruticosa, S.
trifasciata cv. Laurentii, A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry, A.
macrorrhiza, D. deremensis cv. Compacta and D. amoena cv. Green
Magic. The slowest one was found in species such as A. aristata,
P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe and P. selloum (Table 3).
Absorption of formaldehyde by potted plants: As it is shown in
Table 4, the top ten plants which had high FDH absorption per
dry weight were S. aureus, A. setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii,
C. comosum, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A. commutatum cv.
Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, P. selloum, P. sodiroi cv.
Wendimbe and A. commutatum cv. White Rajah. The hurt response
of potted plants to FDH pollution was divided into 10 scores. The
9-10 scores were in Grade 0; 7-8.9 scores in Grade 1; 5-6.9 scores in
Grade 2; 3-4.9 scores in Grade 3 and 1-2.9 scores in Grade 4. The
score of the FDH absorption per dry mass was multiplied by 10
with each relative value. In the integrated score, the fraction of
hurt response took 20% and the absorption per dry mass took
80%.
The integrated evaluation on the FDH purification effect of
potted plants was shown in Table 5. The top ten plants for FDH
purification effect according to their integrated evaluation are listed
as S. aureus, A. setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A.
commutatum cv. White Rajah, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A.
commutatum cv. Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, G. gracilis and
P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe.
Changes in total chlorophyll concentration and cell membrane
permeability: According to changes in cell membrane permeability
(CMP), plants were divided into three groups. The first group,
with change of more than 10%, includes species such as A. nobilis,
D. angustifolia, P. selloum, S. trifasciata cv. Laurentii, A. aristata,
S. podophyllum, A. commulatum cv. Silver Queen, C. fruticosa, A.
commutatum cv. White Rajah, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus and A.
potatorum. The second group, with CMP change between 5%
and 10%, includes species such as A. setaceus, G. gracilis, S.
aureus, D. amoena cv. Camilla, A . commutatum cv. Treubii and D.
fragrans cv. Massa-ngeana. The third group, with CMP changes
less than 5%, includes species such as D. reflexa, A. macrorrhiza,
A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry, S. floribundum cv. Clevelandii,
Table 2. Damage response and grade for 30 kinds of potted plants after formaldehyde treatment.
Species Plant response Grade
A. commutatum cv. White Rajah No damage 0
S. floribundum cv. Clevelandii No damage 0
A. commutatum cv. Golden Jewelry No damage 0
D. reflexa No apparent damage 0
D. fragrans cv. Massa-ngeana No apparent damage 0
D. angustifolia No apparent damage 0
C. fruticosa No apparent damage 0
G. gracilis No apparent damage 0
A. potatorum No apparent damage 0
D. sanderiana 3 to 5 black spots on leaves 1
D. deremensis cv. Compacta 3 to 5 black spots on leaves 1
S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii 3 to 5 black spots on leaves 1
A. commutatum cv. Silver Queen 3 water spots on leaf surface 1
A. macrorrhiza Several small spots on leaf surface 1
S. aureus 3 to 5 black spots on one or two leaves with 1 or 2 rotten spots 2
D. amoena cv. Camilla 2 small black spots and 4 white rotten spots on leaves without colour change 2
A. commutatum cv.Treubii One etiolated leaf with 5 black spots 2
S. pictus cv. Argyraeus 3 etiolated leaf blades with 10 black spots. A 2 cm long black rotten spot on stem 2
S. podophyllum 3 etiolated leaf blades with 10 black round spots 2
D. amoena cv. Green Magic 2 etiolated leaf blades and 1-2 yellow leaves with rotten spots 2
P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe 2 etiolated leaf blades with 5 black spots 2
S. trifasciata cv. Laurentii Most leaves were normal. The plant had 1 or 3 completely etiolated lower leaves
with several rotten spots on other leaves
2
A. nobilis Most leaves were normal. The plant had 1 or 3 completely etiolated lower leaves
with several rotten spots on other leaves
2
P. martianum cv. Con-go The plant had 4 to 5 etiolated leaves and 1 or 2 small spots on other leaves 3
Z. zamiifolia The tip of one-third leaves of the plant turned colour to black. Black spots
appeared on part of the surface of a few leaves with dotted rot on the stem 3
A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow 5 etiolated leaves of which one was going to fall off 3
A. setaceus More than 3 completely etiolated or dying leaves in the lower part, but half of
leaves grew normal. The plant would recover from the formaldehyde damage
3
A. aristata
The plant had more than 3 completely etiolated or dying leaves in the lower part,
but half of leaves grew normal. The plant would recover from the formaldehyde
damage
3
C. comosum
More than 3 completely etiolated or dying leaves in the lower part. Water-colour
spots and black spots appeared on stem, but half of leaves grew normal. The
plant would recover from the formaldehyde damage
3
P. selloum Half of the leaves and the stem got rotten or dried 4

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011 1015
D. deremensis cv. Compacta, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, P.
sodiroi cv. Wendimbe, Z. zamiifolia, C. comosum, P. martianum
cv. Con-go, D. amoena cv. Green Magic, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii
and D. sanderiana. However, there were no obvious relations of
the FDH absorption ability with both the changes in total
chlorophyll concentration and the changes in cell membrane
permeability. It is suggested that the lower the changes in cell
membrane permeability are, the stronger is the FDH absorption
ability (Table 6).
Discussion
Currently, it seems a bit confusing in ranking of the ability of
plants to absorb and purify formaldehyde (FDH). We suggested
A. commutatum cv. Treubii
(Right lower shows the water-colour and sympto m spots)
S. pictus cv. Argyraeus
(Right lower shows the water-colour and symptom s pots)
G. gracilis
P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe
S. aureun (Right lower shows the water-colour and
symptom sp ots)
A. setaceus
S. trifasciata cv, Hahnii
C. comosum
A. commutatum cv. White Rajah
Figure 1. Photos of the plants before (left in the frame) and after (right in the frame) subjected
to FDH pollution.
top ten species in purification of formaldehyde as S. aureum, A.
setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A. commutatum
cv. White Rajah, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A. commutatum
cv. Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, G. gracilis and P. sodiroi cv.
Wendimbe. Surprisingly, there were three Aglaonema spp. in the
top ten plants; outstanding for their low hurt response and high
absorption ability. Wolverton 3 also found three species of plants
(C. comosum, S. trifasciata and Aglaonema spp.) showing strong
FDH absorption ability. We could not compare our results with
other researchers such as Zhou et al. 5, Li 4, Wang et al.15, Huang
et al. 6, Cao et al. 7, Xiong et al. 8 and Tian et al. 16. Although they
tried to give the ranking of FDH purification ability, the number of
tested potted plants were both few and insystemic, or there were

1016 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011
some ploblems in their experiment designs. For example, they
wraped or sealed the pot, media and the bottom of the tested
plants with plastic bags or films 5, 17, 18 without enough number of
plants; in turn, without enough tillers or shoots, which could not
ensure high FDH absorption. There may be three ways for potted
plants to react to FDH air pollution: the first one with high
absorption but weak resistance to FDH damage, showing obvious
hurt morphology; for example, in plants such as P. selloum and A.
setaceus. The second one shows weak absorption but strong
resistance with normal morphology by taking avoidance strategy
to protect itself. Plants such as A. macrorrhiza, A. potatorum, S.
Table 3. Formaldehyde concentration per day
(mg m-3) in the chamber.
Species -----------Day after being treated-------------
1d 2d 3d 4d 5d 6d 7d
A. commutatum 14.8 14.1 5.3 1.65 0.58 0.14 0.01
(cv. White Rajah)
S. floribundum 14.1 9.7 3.12 1.22 0.24 0.15 0.12
(cv. Clevelandii)
A. commutatum 14.1 10.2 1.22 1.03 0.79 0.05 0.03
(cv. Golden Jewelry)
A. commutatum 13.4 12.8 2.40 1.07 0.23 0.01 0.01
(cv. Silver Queen)
A. macrorrhiza 14.7 11.4 1.23 1.21 1.09 1.03 0.74
S. aureus 14.7 14.2 5.65 2.87 1.38 0.24 0.12
D. amoena 14.1 8.8 2.55 1.58 0.15 0.11 0.08
(cv. Camilla)
A. commutatum 14.9 10.2 2.59 0.91 0.39 0.14 0.11
(cv. Treubii)
S. pictus 14.7 11.5 5.21 1.90 0.18 0.27 0.01
(cv. Argyraeus)
S. podophyllum 14.9 8.8 2.37 0.83 0.31 0.15 0.01
D. amoena 13.4 9.1 1.35 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.38
P. sodiroi 13.4 12.7 8.09 3.63 1.72 0.44 0.18
(cv. Wendimbe )
P. martianum 14.9 12.5 5.63 2.61 1.18 0.50 0.22
(cv. Con-go)
Z. zamiifolia 14.7 5.6 1.52 0.55 0.19 0.11 0.08
A. commutatum 14.1 5.8 3.86 2.27 1.14 0.95 0.51
(cv. Red Narrow)
P. selloum 14.1 13.1 7.57 2.53 1.02 0.22 0.08
D. reflexa 14.9 12.0 4.72 2.09 0.85 0.62 0.32
D. sanderiana 13.4 7.7 2.52 1.14 0.36 0.26 0.11
D. deremensis 14.1 10.7 1.30 0.50 0.15 0.04 0.01
(cv. Compacta )
D. angustifolia 14.1 7.5 1.72 0.54 0.26 0.12 0.03
A. nobilis 14.7 12.1 3.06 0.42 0.09 0.07 0.03
S. trifasciata 14.9 7.1 1.18 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.01
(cv. Laurentii)
G. gracilis 13.4 7.3 1.89 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.01
C. fruticosa 14.1 4.8 0.72 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.01
S. trifasciata 14.9 12.9 3.22 2.05 1.06 0.58 0.05
(cv. Hahnii)
A. aristata 13.4 12.5 7.68 3.77 2.64 1.62 0.93
A. setaceus 14.1 12.8 1.43 0.48 0.28 0.12 0.08
D. fragrans 14.7 12.6 3.32 1.18 0.30 0.15 0.03
(cv. Massa-ngeana)
A. potatorum 14.1 2.4 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03
C. comosum 14.1 7.8 2.49 1.02 0.42 0.31 0.00
trifasciata cv. Laurentii and D. angustifolia belong to this group.
The third one shows absorption and transforming ability with
more or less hurt responses. This group are of high applying
value and include plants such as S. aureun, A. setaceus, S.
trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A. commutatum cv. White
Rajah, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A. commutatum cv. Treubii,
S. pictus cv. Argyraeus and so on.
Plant DM, plant dry mass (g); dcr in FDH, decrease in FDH (mg m-3);
FDH absor., actual FDH absorption (mg m-3); FDHAB per DM, actual
FDH absorption per dry mass.
Table 4. The formaldehyde absorption and content
per dry matter of species.
Species Plant Decr FDH FDHAB
DM in FDH absor per DM
S. aureus 4.76 14.62 4.35 0.92
A. setaceus 4.12 14.01 3.75 0.91
S. trifasciata 5.80 14.82 4.55 0.79
(cv. Hahnii)
C. comosum 5.21 14.09 3.83 0.73
A. commutatum 5.55 13.59 3.32 0.60
(cv. Red Narrow)
A. commutatum 9.86 14.76 4.50 0.46
(cv. Treubii)
S. pictus 9.99 14.72 4.46 0.45
(cv. Argyraeus)
P. selloum 8.53 14.01 3.75 0.44
P. sodiroi 7.10 13.22 2.96 0.42
(cv.Wendimbe)
A. commutatum 11.53 14.86 4.60 0.40
(cv. White Rajah)
D. amoena 9.47 14.01 3.75 0.40
(cv. Camilla)
Z. zamiifolia 12.06 14.66 4.39 0.36
P. martianum 12.74 14.66 4.39 0.35
(cv.Con-go)
G. gracilis 9.54 13.38 3.12 0.33
A. aristata 7.30 12.47 2.21 0.30
A. commutatum 12.94 14.07 3.80 0.29
(cv. Golden Jewelry)
S. floribundum 12.76 13.97 3.71 0.29
(cv. Clevelandii)
C. fruticosa 14.16 14.08 3.82 0.27
S. podophyllum 17.36 14.86 4.60 0.26
A. nobilis 19.89 14.71 4.45 0.22
D. amoena 14.25 13.02 2.76 0.19
(cv. Green Magic)
D. deremensis 20.27 14.08 3.82 0.19
(cv. Compacta)
A. commutatum 17.68 13.38 3.12 0.18
(cv. Silver Queen)
D. sanderiana 27.42 13.29 3.03 0.11
D. reflexa 39.84 14.55 4.29 0.11
D. fragrans 44.20 14.71 4.45 0.10
(cv. Massa-ngeana)
A. macrorrhiza 52.00 14.00 3.74 0.07
D. angustifolia 57.55 14.07 3.80 0.07
(cv. Laurentii)
S. trifasciata 106.91 14.86 4.60 0.04
A. potatorum 132.72 14.07 3.80 0.03

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011 1017
Table 5. Integrated evaluation for the
purification effect of potted plants
on formaldehyde pollution.
Species HR AF IS
S. aureus 6.8 9.2 8.72
A. setaceus 4.8 9.1 8.24
S. trifasciata 7.6 7.9 7.84
(cv. Hahnii)
C. comosum 3.3 7.3 6.50
A. commutatum 9.8 4.0 6.04
(cv. White Rajah)
A. commutatum 2.8 6.0 5.36
(cv. Red Narrow)
A. commutatum 6.2 4.6 4.92
(cv. Treubii)
S. pictus 6.0 4.5 4.80
(cv. Argyraeus)
G. gracilis 9.6 3.3 4.56
P. sodiroi 5.7 4.2 4.50
(cv. Wendimbe)
D. amoena
(cv. Camilla) 6.4 4.0 4.48
A. commutatum 9.8 2.9 4.28
(cv. Golden Jewelry)
S. floribundum 9.8 2.9 4.28
(cv. Clevelandii)
C. fruticosa 9.6 2.7 4.08
P. selloum 2.0 4.4 3.92
Z. zamiifolia 4.9 3.6 3.86
P. martianum 4.9 3.5 3.78
(cv. Con-go)
S. podophyllum 6.0 2.6 3.28
D. deremensis 8.6 1.9 3.24
(cv. Compacta)
A. aristata 3.5 3.0 3.10
A. commutatum 7.8 1.8 3.00
(cv. Silver Queen)
A. nobilis 5.7 2.2 2.90
D. reflexa 9.6 1.1 2.80
D. fragrans 9.6 1.0 2.72
(cv. Massa-ngeana)
D. amoena 5.8 1.9 2.68
(cv. Green Magic)
D. sanderiana 8.6 1.1 2.60
D. angustifolia 9.6 0.7 2.48
A. macrorrhiza 8.6 0.7 2.28
A. potatorum 9.6 0.3 2.16
S. trifasciata 7.2 0.4 1.76
(cv. Laurentii)
HR: Hurt response; AF: Absorption fraction; IS: Integrated score.
Table 6. Changes in the total chlorophyll
content and cell membrane
permeability (CMP) of potted plant
species.
Species Change in Change in
chlorophyll cell MP
(g kg
-1
FW) (%)
A. commutatum 0.41 12.90
(cv. White Rajah)
S. floribundum 0.50 3.84
(cv. Clevelandii)
A. commutatum 0.07 3.96
(cv. Golden Jewelry)
D. reflexa 0.31 4.70
A. potatorum 0.07 11.34
D. angustifolia 1.25 21.86
G. gracilis 0.23 9.39
C. fruticosa 1.22 13.70
D. fragrans 0.27 5.22
(cv. Massa-ngeana)
A. commutatum 0.69 14.70
(cv. Silver Queen)
A. macrorrhiza 1.29 4.28
D. sanderiana 0.17 0.10
D. deremensis 0.53 3.43
(cv. Compacta)
S. trifasciata 0.65 1.17
(cv. Hahnii)
S. aureus 0.14 7.83
D. amoena 0.17 6.35
(cv. Camilla)
A. commutatum 0.19 5.92
(cv. Treubii)
S. pictus 0.53 11.93
(cv. Argyraeus)
S. podophyllum 0.42 14.93
D. amoena 0.61 1.89
(cv. Green Magic)
P. sodiroi 0.51 2.41
(cv. Wendimbe)
A. nobilis 0.26 22.28
S. trifasciata 0.32 17.87
(cv. Laurentii)
P. martianum 0.70 2.15
(cv. Con-go)
Z. zamiifolia 0.25 2.30
A. commutatum 0.67 3.39
(cv. Red Narrow)
A. aristata 0.21 17.76
A. setaceus 1.33 9.70
C. comosum 0.13 2.30
P. selloum 0.83 19.29
Conclusions
In conclusion, ten species of the plants which could be
recommendable to be used for formaldehyde purification were S.
aureun, A. setaceus, S. trifasciata cv. Hahnii, C. comosum, A.
commutatum cv. White Rajah, A. commutatum cv. Red Narrow, A.
commutatum cv. Treubii, S. pictus cv. Argyraeus, G. gracilis and
P. sodiroi cv. Wendimbe.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the Technology and Information
Bureau of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.The authors
thank Mr. Yi-pin Zhou, Dr. Xiao-rong Wan, Ms. Wan-feng Zhang
and Ms. Jie-ping Liu from Zhongkai University of Agriculture and
Engineering, for their generous help and technical assistance.

1018 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.9 (3&4), July-October 2011
References
1Yu, G. L. and Tang, H. Y. 2005. Investigation and analysis of the indoor
environment of the new building in Guangzhou city. Chinese J. Health
Inspection 15(3):350-364 (in Chinese).
2Wolverton, B. C., Donald, R. C. and Mesick, H. H. 1985. Foliage plants
for the indoor removal of the primary combustion gases carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides. J. Mississippi Acad. Sci. 30:1-8.
3Wolverton, B. C. 1997. How to Grow Fresh Air. Penguin Books, New
York, pp. 18-19.
4Li, Q. J. 2006. The Ornamentals Absorb Formaldehyde in the Room.
Master thesis, Northeast Forestry University, pp. 15-19 (in Chinese).
5Zhou, X. J., Liang, S. Y., Jin, Y. J., Wang, J. and Zhao, H. E. 2006. The
comparison of ability of absorbing formaldehyde among 13 species of
indoor ornamentals. Chinese Agri. Sci. Bulletin 22(12):229-231 (in
Chinese).
6Huang, A. K., Li, N. and Tang, G. G. 2008. Capability to absorb high
concentration benzene and formaldehyde of four indoor potted plants.
J. Environ. Health 25(12):1078-1080 (in Chinese).
7Cao, S. J., Pan, B. H., Tian, Y. C. and Wang, G. W. 2009. Comparison of
ability of absorbing formaldehyde among 6 species of indoor
ornamentals. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 18(5):1798-1801 (in Chinese).
8Xiong,Y. and Su, Z. G. 2009. A research on the ability of absorbing
formaldehyde among five species of indoor ornamentals. Environ. Sci.
Manage 34(1):45-47 (in Chinese).
9Wu, P. 2006. Study on the Indoor Pollution Air - Formaldehyde
Purification Ability with Several Plants. Master thesis, Nanjing
Forestry University, Nanjing, pp. 12-16 (in Chinese).
10Wang, X. Q. 2006. Principles and Techniques for Plant Physiology and
Biochemical Experiment. 2nd edn. High Education Press, Beijing,
pp.134-136 (in Chinese).
11Huang, X. L., Chen, R. Z. and Zhang, B. Z. 1990. Seed Physiology
Laboratory Manual. Agriculture Press, Beijing, pp. 122-124 (in
Chinese).
12Yu, Y., Yang, Y., Liu, X. D. and Zheng, D. C. 2007. Probe on the
resistant ability of plants to formaldehyde. Sci. Technol. Inform. 16:40-
59 (in Chinese).
13Ou, J., Xue, Y. and Wu, H. Y. 2008. Experiment study on the ornamental
plants absorption the indoor formaldehyde. Resources Inhabitant
Environ. 11:68-70 (in Chinese).
14An, X., Li, X., Pan, H., Luo, J. and Zhang, Q. X. 2010. The capacity of
16 ornamental plants on purifying indoor formaldehyde pollution and
their physiological response to formaldehyde stress. Ecol. Environ.
Sci. 19(2):379-384 (in Chinese).
15Wang, Y. L., Yang, Z. D., Deng, R. Y. and Qin, S. Y. 2007. Study on
response of several garden plants to formaldehyde pollution. Guangxi
Sci. 14(2):163-166 (in Chinese).
16Tian, Y. C., Pan, B. H. and Cao, S. J. 2011. Research of eight kinds of
indoor foliage plants to formaldehyde purification. Northern Hort.
2:82-84 (in Chinese).
17Achkor, H., Díaz, M., Fernández, M. R., Biosca, J. A., Parés, J. and
Martínez, M. C. 2003. Enhanced formaldehyde detoxification by
overexpression of glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase
from Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 132(8):2248-2255.
18Song, J. E., Kim, Y. S. and Sohn, J. Y. 2007. A study on reduction of
volatile organic compounds in Summer by various plants. J. South
China Univ. Tech. Natural Sci. Ed. 35(Suppl.):219-222.