Factors affecting xylene-contaminated air removal by the ornamental plant Zamioculcas zamiifolia
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.
KeywordsPhytoremediation Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Xylene-contaminated air Zamioculcas zamiifolia
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).
- ATSDR (1995) Toxicological profile for xylenes (update). Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- ATSDR (2007) Toxicological profile for xylene. US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, USAGoogle Scholar
- Calabrese EJ, Kenyon EM (1991) Air toxics and risk assessment. Chelsea, MIGoogle Scholar
- Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- IPCS (1997) Environmental health criteria 190. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Wolverton BC, Johnson A, Bounds K (1989) Interior landscape plants for indoor air pollution abatement. Final Report. NASA Stennis Space Centre MS, USAGoogle Scholar
- Yang DS, Pennisi SV, Son KC, Kays SJ (2009) Screening indoor plants for volatile organic pollutant removal efficiency. HortSci 44(5):1377–1381Google Scholar
- 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