Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 2603–2610 | Cite as

Factors affecting xylene-contaminated air removal by the ornamental plant Zamioculcas zamiifolia

  • Wararat Sriprapat
  • Phattara Boraphech
  • Paitip ThiravetyanEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Fifteen plant species—Alternanthera bettzickiana, Drimiopsis botryoides, Aloe vera, Chlorophytum comosum, Aglaonema commutatum, Cordyline fruticosa, Philodendron martianum, Sansevieria hyacinthoides, Aglaonema rotundum, Fittonia albivenis, Muehlenbeckia platyclada, Tradescantia spathacea, Guzmania lingulata, Zamioculcas zamiifolia, and Cyperus alternifolius—were evaluated for the removal efficiency of xylene from contaminated air. Among the test plants, Z. zamiifolia showed the highest xylene removal efficiency. Xylene was toxic to Z. zamiifolia with an LC50 of 3,464 ppm. Higher concentrations of xylene exhibited damage symptoms, including leaf tips turning yellow, holonecrosis, and hydrosis. TEM images showed that a low concentration of xylene vapors caused minor changes in the chloroplast, while a high concentration caused swollen chloroplasts and damage. The effect of photosynthetic types on xylene removal efficiency suggests that a mixture of Z. zamiifolia, S. hyacinthoides, and A. commutatum which represent facultative CAM, CAM, and C3 plants, is the most suitable system for xylene removal. Therefore, for maximum improvement in removing xylene volatile compounds under various conditions, multiple species are needed. The effect of a plant’s total leaf area on xylene removal indicates that at lower concentrations of xylene, a small leaf area might be as efficient as a large leaf area.

Keywords

Phytoremediation Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Xylene-contaminated air Zamioculcas zamiifolia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Thailand Research Fund for supporting this research through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (grant no. PHD/0284/2552).

References

  1. ATSDR (1995) Toxicological profile for xylenes (update). Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. ATSDR (2007) Toxicological profile for xylene. US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrese EJ, Kenyon EM (1991) Air toxics and risk assessment. Chelsea, MIGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassana FF, Falqueto AR, Braga EJB, Peters JA, Bacarin MA (2010) Chlorophyll a fluorescence of sweet potato plants cultivated in vitro and during ex vitro acclimatization. Braz J Plant Physiol 22(3):167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins C, Laturnus F, Nepovim A (2002) Remediation of BTEX and trichloroethene. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrejo JJ, Munoz FG, Ma CY, Stewart AJ (1999) Studies on the decontamination of air by plants. Ecotoxicology 8:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Guieysse B, Hort C, Platel V, Ondarts M, Revah S (2008) Biological treatment of indoor air for VOC removal: potential and challenges. Biotechnol Adv 26:398–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo YP, Guo DP, Zhou HF, Hu MJ, Shen YG (2006) Photoinhibition and xanthophylls cycle activity in bayberry (Myrica rubra) leaves induced by high irradiance. Photosynthetica 44:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holcomb LC, Seabrook BS (1995) Indoor concentrations of volatile organic compounds: implications for comfort, health and regulation. Indoor Environ 4:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holtum AMJ, Winter K, Weeks AM, Sexton RT (2007) Crassulacean acid metabolism in ZZ plant, Zamioculcas zamiifolia (Aeaceae). Am J Bot 94(10):1670–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCS (1997) Environmental health criteria 190. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. Jen MS, Hoylman AM, Edwards NT, Walton BT (1995) Gaseous deposition of 14C-toluene to soybean (Glycine max) foliage. Environ Expt Bot 35(3):389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keymeulen R, Schamp N, Van Langenhove H (1993) Factors effecting airborne monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon uptake by plants. Atmos Environ 27A(2):175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korte F, Kvesitadze G, Ugrekhelidze D, Gordeziani M, Khatisashvili G, Buadze O, Zaalishvili G, Coulston F (2000) Organic toxicants and plants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kvesitadze E, Sadunishvili T, Kvesitadze G (2009) Mechanisms of organic contaminants uptake and degradation in plants. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 55:458–468Google Scholar
  17. Lee JS (2010) Stomata opening mechanism of CAM plants. J Plant Biol 53:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Y, Mu Y, Zhu Y, Ding H, Arens N (2007) Which ornamental plant species effectively remove benzene from indoor air? Atmos Environ 41:650–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51(345):659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell CS, Zhang J, Sigsgaard T, Jantunen M, Lioy PJ, Samson R, Karol MH (2007) Current state of the science: health effects and indoor environmental quality. Environ Health Perspect 115(6):958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moeckel C, Thomas GO, Barber JL, Jones KC (2008) Uptake and storage of PCBs by plant cuticles. Environ Sci Technol 42(1):100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson M, Wolverton BC (2011) Plants + soil/wetland microbes: food crop systems that also clean air and water. Adv Space Res 47:582–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NIOSH (1988) Recommendations for occupational safety and health standards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 88–111Google Scholar
  24. Orwell RL, Wood RA, Burchett MD, Tarran J, Torpy F (2006) The potted-plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: II Laboratory study. Water Air Soil Pollut 177:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadunishvili T, Kvesitadze E, Betsiashvili M, Kuprava N, Zaalishvili G, Kvesitadze G (2009) Influence of hydrocarbons on plant cell ultrastructure and main metabolic enzymes. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 57:271–276Google Scholar
  26. Sriprapat W, Thiravetyan P (2013) Phytoremediation of BTEX from Indoor Air by Zamioculcas zamiifolia. Water Air Soil Pollut 224(3):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tarran J, Torpy F, Burchett M (2007) Use of living pot—plants to cleanse indoor air. Research Review, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  28. Treesubsuntorn C, Thiravetyan P (2012) Removal of benzene from indoor air by Dracaena sanderiana: effect of wax and stomata. Atmos Environ 57:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ugrekhelidze D, Korte F, Kvesitadz G (1997) Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 37:24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolverton BC, Johnson A, Bounds K (1989) Interior landscape plants for indoor air pollution abatement. Final Report. NASA Stennis Space Centre MS, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang DS, Pennisi SV, Son KC, Kays SJ (2009) Screening indoor plants for volatile organic pollutant removal efficiency. HortSci 44(5):1377–1381Google Scholar
  32. Zhou J, Qin F, Su J, J-w L, H-l X (2011) Purification of formaldehyde-polluted air by indoor plants of Araceae, Agavaceae and Liliaceae. J Food Agr Environ 9(3–4):1012–1018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wararat Sriprapat
    • 1
  • Phattara Boraphech
    • 1
  • Paitip Thiravetyan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Bioresources and TechnologyKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations