Content uploaded by Mehmet Çetin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehmet Çetin on Jan 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mehmet Çetin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehmet Çetin on Jan 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
Introduction
Due to increased construction and changes in
recent living conditions, people spend at least 80% of
their lives indoors [1-3]. This situation has led to many
studies on indoor air pollution and increased of CO2
levels in line with the metabolic activities of living
things. As a result of the increased carbon dioxide level
in the environment, fatigue, perception difculty, and
sleepiness are experienced. Carbon dioxide also causes
various problems that lead to poor performance – the
reason for which cannot be determined. When the CO2
level in an environment increases up to 1,000 ppm,
headache, vertigo, fatigue, concentration problems, and
smell disorders are experienced, while itchy nose and
throat, nasal discharge, cough, and eye discharge appear
when it exceeds 1,500 ppm [4-6].
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the maximum carbon dioxide level indoors
should be 1,000 ppm – even in crowded environments
such as schools and conference halls [5]. However,
relevant studies determined that the carbon dioxide level
indoors was higher than this maximum level in many
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. Vol. 27, No. 2 (2018), 1-6
Original Research
The Effect of Some Indoor Ornamental Plants
on CO2 Levels During the Day
Hakan Sevik1, Mehmet Cetin2*, Kerim Guney3, Nur Belkayali2
1Kastamonu University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Environmental Engineering,
37150 Kastamonu/Turkey
2Kastamonu University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture,
37150 Kastamonu/Turkey
3Kastamonu University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Engineering,
37150 Kastamonu/Turkey
Received: 18 June 2017
Accepted: 2 August 2017
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to determine the effect of yucca (Yucca elephantipes Regel),
dieffenbachia (Dieffenbachia amoena Gentil), and spathiphyllum (Spathiphyllum floribundum Schott) as
common types of indoor plants on CO2 levels in the environment. The study was conducted in a closed
environment where air inlet/outlet was absent. As a result, the plants were found to affect the level of CO2
in the environment to different extents; and while Dieffenbachia began to respire at around 13:00 hrs,
yucca and spathiphyllum continued to photosynthesize until 19:00. While dieffenbachia and spathiphyllum
could not lower the CO2 level in the environment to below 500 ppm, yucca could decrease it to 475 ppm
in a day. The results of the study demonstrated that CO2 levels in photosynthesis during the day were 8.3,
5.8, and 1.4 times more in yucca, spathiphyllum, and dieffenbachia, respectively, in comparison with CO2
levels released through respiration.
Keywords: indoor plants, CO2, leaf area, ornamental plants, photosynthesis, respiration
*e-mail: mcetin@kastamonu.edu.tr
DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/76243 ONLINE PUBLICATION DATE:
2
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
Sevik H., et al.
environments and even exceeded 1,900 ppm in student
residence halls [7]. It reached 3,700 ppm in exam rooms
[5] and 5,400 ppm [8] in classrooms.
Indoor plants are living things and have several
functions. For example, they reduce air pollution [9-
13], increase work productivity [14], relax people
psychologically, and reduce stress and negative feelings
[5-6, 15-16]. Another reason why people want to grow
plants indoors is that they have an effect on carbon dioxide
levels. Plants are known to photosynthesize and thus
reduce the level of CO2 in an environment [5-6]. However,
plants are living things and respire when the conditions are
not suitable for them to photosynthesize, thus increasing
the CO2 level in an environment. However, the number of
studies on how plants affect CO2 levels depending on the
conditions in the environment is limited.
This present study aims to determine how some
indoor plants affect the CO2 level in an environment at
different times of the day.
Material and Methods
The present study aims to determine the effect of
some indoor ornamental plants on the CO2 level in a
closed environment. Spathiphyllum (Spathiphyllum
floribundum Schott), yucca (Yucca elephantipes Regel),
and dieffenbachia (Dieffenbachia amoena Gentil) were
used in this study. These plants have different ecological
needs and physical characteristics (leaf area, type of
stem, etc.) and are the most common indoor plants around
the world.
The plants were placed in a glass wall (0.7 × 0.7 ×
1 m) with a volume of about 0.5 m3, which was not air-
permeable, and the measurements were taken using the
Extech Desktop Indoor Air Quality CO2 Datalogger. The
glass wall was placed in the south of the building so that
it received plenty of daylight. It received direct sunlight
between 07:00 and 11:00 and was illuminated until around
17:00. In the area where the study was conducted, the sun
rose at around 05:05 and went down at around 20:30.
After the plants were placed in the glass wall, a CO2
measuring device was set to measure the level of CO2
every ve minutes. The plants were placed in the glass
wall between 13:00 and 14:00, and the CO2 level within
the glass was increased. Data were obtained from this
time on; however, only those measurements taken after
04:00 were considered.
The plants were kept inside the glass wall for at least
ve days. This study was conducted June to July, when
daylight is longer. The results obtained were evaluated
using graphs.
Results and Discussion
To better evaluate the obtained data we used hourly
values, and graphs showing the effect of dieffenbachia on
the CO2 level during the day are presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 shows that the 1,868 ppm CO2 level at 05:02
quickly decreased during the day, and this decline
continued until 13:02. It went down from 1,868 to 766 ppm
at 13:02. After this point, the CO2 level kept increasing
until 05:02 the next day and reached 1,506 ppm. The
1,506 ppm CO2 level measured at 05:02 the second day
declined to 670 ppm at 12:02 the same day. This situation
indicates that dieffenbachia decreased the CO2 level very
quickly. The 1,868 ppm CO2 level at 05:02 on the rst day
declined to 766 ppm at 13:02. In other words, it decreased
by 1,102 ppm within eight hours. However, the increase
in CO2 level resulting from respiration during hours with
insufcient daylight was also fairly high. The 766 ppm
CO2 level measured at 13:02 reached 1,506 ppm at 05:02
the next day. In other words, it increased by 740 ppm
when the daylight was insufcient for photosynthesis.
When the results were evaluated, dieffenbachia was
found to decrease CO2 from 1,868 to 1,506 ppm within 24
hours. So the CO2 level declined by only 362 ppm in total
during the day. Out of the 1,102 ppm carbon dioxide used
during the day, 766 ppm (nearly 69% of it) was used when
daylight was insufcient for photosynthesis.
A graph showing the effect of spathiphyllum on CO2
level during the day is presented in Fig. 2, which shows
that spathiphyllum began to decrease the CO2 level in
the environment at 04:45, which continued until 18:45.
During this time, the CO2 level declined from 2,748 to
1,564 ppm; in other words, it declined by 1,184 ppm.
After that, the CO2 level initially took a horizontal course
and then increased, which continued until 05:45 the next
Fig. 1. Effect of dieffenbachia on CO2 levels during the day.
3
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
The Effect of Some Indoor Ornamental...
day, reaching 1,769 ppm. A graph showing the effect of
yucca on CO2 level during the day is presented in Fig. 3.
The starting CO2 level for Yucca was measured
at 3,322 ppm at 04:10, which declined quickly and hit
732 ppm at 19:10. In other words, a decline of
approximately 2,590 ppm was observed. The CO2 level
began to increase after 19:10 and continued until 06:10
the next day, reaching 1,036 ppm. Thus, the total increase
was 304 ppm. Considering the 24-hour performance
of the plant starting at 05:10, a decline from 3,310 to
732 ppm was seen and an increase from 732 to 1,042 ppm
was observed within a day. The CO2 level that declined
by 2,578 ppm during the day because of photosynthesis
increased by 310 ppm with respiration during hours when
sunlight was insufcient.
Based on these results, all the plants were observed
to photosynthesize between 06:00 and 12:00, when the
daylight was sufcient, and thus they decreased the CO2
level. However, each plant had a different effect on the
decline of CO2. Analysis of the relevant graphs could be
misleading because CO2 level is one of the factors affecting
the rate of photosynthesis, and ensuring that all the plants
were at the same CO2 level when the experiment started
was impossible. However, the graphs provide important
results about certain aspects.
Results from the study show that the plants began
to increase CO2 levels at different hours during the
day. Dieffenbachia began to increase the CO2 level, or
respire, at 13:00, while spathiphyllum and yucca did so at
19:00. All the plants were taken to the same place in the
experiment, and all the experiments were conducted in a
completely cloudless sunny weather. Thus, the duration
of illumination and daylight in the environment can be
considered the same (a difference of a few minutes was
noted as days became shorter or longer). However, the
durations of photosynthesis and respiration were fairly
different. Under uniform light conditions, dieffenbachia
respired while spathiphyllum and yucca photosynthesized.
Another striking point was the ratio of the CO2 level
used in photosynthesis during the day to the CO2 level
released during hours when daylight was insufcient.
In the evaluations conducted on one particular day,
dieffenbachia was found to cause a 1,102 ppm decrease
in CO2 level during the day but released 766 ppm when
daylight was insufcient. Spathiphyllum caused a
decrease of 1,184 ppm but released 205 ppm during hours
when daylight was insufcient. Yucca caused a decrease
of 2,578 ppm through photosynthesis during the day
but released 310 ppm during hours when daylight was
insufcient.
The ratio of the CO2 level used in photosynthesis
during the day to the CO2 level released through respiration
during hours when daylight was insufcient was 8.3 in
yucca, 5.8 in spathiphyllum, and 1.4 in dieffenbachia.
These gures demonstrate the importance of choosing
plants according to the conditions in the environment.
One of the most important factors affecting the rate of
photosynthesis is CO2 level. In this regard, several studies
have focused on agricultural plants [17]. In the present
Fig. 3. Effect of yucca on CO2 levels during the day.
Fig. 2. Effect of spathiphyllum on CO2 levels during the day.
4
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
Sevik H., et al.
study, the CO2 level was rst kept at 2,000 ppm and not
considered a determining factor. However, long-term
measurements were performed on the plants to determine
their behavior when CO2 level declined.
As we made a general evaluation of the plant types
used in the study, the CO2 level for dieffenbachia, which
was 1,868 ppm at 05:02, declined very quickly on the
rst day; however, it remained stable between 15:00 and
650 ppm during the last days. This indicates that the CO2
level in the environment affects the rate of photosyn-
thesis considerably. In spathiphyllum, the CO2 level was
2,977 ppm at 15:45 on the rst day and 1,699 ppm the
next day at the same hour. The CO2 level that continued
to decline in a regular course remained between 600 and
1,100 ppm during the last three days. With Yucca, the
2,782 ppm CO2 level at 10:30 on the rst day declined to
502 ppm at 10:30 the next day, within 24 hours, and fell to
its lowest level at 457 ppm. Then it remained at between
470 and 1,200 ppm. These levels indicate that yucca can
make the CO2 level much lower than other types of plants
can.
Fig. 2 illustrates that the CO2 level generally fluctuated
within a certain range during the day. A striking point
was the difference in the lowest CO2 levels. Although
they differed, the highest levels could be proportional
to the amount of leaves in plants. However, the lowest
CO2 level indicates that plants do not photosynthesize
under a certain level, depending on the type of plant. The
graph shows that the lowest CO2 level was that in yucca,
followed by spathiphyllum and dieffenbachia.
The results from the study demonstrate that all
the plants decreased the CO2 level in the environment
(depending on daylight conditions during the day)
and increased it when light was absent. However,
dieffenbachia was found to start increasing the CO2 level,
or photosynthesize, at 13:00, while spathiphyllum and
yucca started at 1900. This indicates that dieffenbachia
respires while spathiphyllum and yucca photosynthesize
under the same light conditions, and the latter two could
photosynthesize even in environments that have less
daylight. Besides, the ratio of the CO2 level used through
photosynthesis during the day to the CO2 level released
through respiration differed, which was 8.3 in yucca, 5.8
in spathiphyllum, and 1.4 in dieffenbachia.
Similar results were obtained from studies that
aimed to determine the effect of plants on the CO2 level
in an environment. Cetin and Sevik [6] indicated that
Ficus elastica caused a decrease of 2,216 ppm, Yucca
massengena 2,579 ppm, Ocimum basilicum 401 ppm,
Sinningia speciosa 725 ppm, and Codiaeum variegatum
401 ppm. Another study found that Schefera arboricola
caused a decrease of 1,252 ppm, Fuchsia magellanica 252
ppm, and Ficus benjamina 657 ppm [18].
Cetin and Sevik [6] pointed out that Codiaeum
variegatum, Ficus elastica, and Yucca massengena
decreased the CO2 level even with little light in the
environment, while Sinningia speciosa and Ocimum
basilicum increased the CO2 level during the same
time. Similarly, Sevik et al. [19] stated that Fuchsia
magellanica started to respire at 15:28, while
Ficus elastica and Yucca massengena continued to
photosynthesize until around 17:00. This phenomenon
could be associated with the anatomy of the plants [20-
21]. Kacar et al. [22] indicated that the amount of light
needed for photosynthesis changes according to type
of plant. For example the rate of photosynthesis in
Asarum caudatum reached its highest level when the
light condition was 200 µmol m-2s-1, while the highest
photosynthesis rate in Atriplex triangularis was reached
with a light condition of 1,700 µmol m-2s-1.
The results from the study demonstrate that plants
kept in the same environment react to conditions in
the environment in different ways. While they cannot
decrease the CO2 level in the environment to below
500 ppm during the day, yucca can decrease it to lower
degrees (up to 475 ppm) compared with other plant
types. However, this number is above the CO2 level in the
atmosphere [6, 20, 23-24]. Nevertheless, a study found
that a CO2 level of around 391 ppm during the day and
422 ppm at night in the winter months remained at 148
ppm during the day and 229 ppm at night in the summer
months [21, 23-25].
That plants affect the CO2 level in an environment,
besides being used for aesthetic purposes – especially
in landscaping – is a known fact [25]. Relevant studies
indicate that a beech tree with a leaf area of 1,600 m2 can
meet the oxygen needs of 10 people [18, 26]. Tarran et al.
[27] stated that the presence of plants in the environment
decreases the CO2 level in ofces with air conditioners
by 10%, and in environments with natural ventilation by
25%. However, determining the plants to be utilized with
respect to the conditions of the environment is necessary
for more effective use. Studies on this subject are still
very limited.
The present study aimed to nd out the effects of
certain plants on the CO2 level in an environment. It is
known that green plants photosynthesize with sufcient
light and that the CO2 level in an environment declines
as a result of photosynthesis [27]. However, the effect
of plants on the quality of air in an environment is not
limited to regulation of CO2 levels. Several studies
have demonstrated that plants decrease the sulfur level
in indoor air [28] and increase the quality of air by
ltering pollutants that are harmful to living things, such
as dust, ash, pollen, smoke, particles, and the like [29-
30]. Nevertheless, increasing the number of studies on
this subject and repeating the existing ones elaborately
is necessary so that plants can be used effectively in
decreasing indoor CO2 levels.
Conclusions
The results from our study can provide signicant
clues on choosing plants according to the conditions of
the environment and the amount of time these plants
spend in the environment. For example, dieffenbachia
starts to respire at a slight decline in the amount of light
5
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
The Effect of Some Indoor Ornamental...
in the environment, while yucca and spathiphyllum
can continue to photosynthesize even under poor light
conditions. Considering that these plants are used indoors
and that the amount of light is limited indoors for the
majority of a day, dieffenbachia should not be chosen as
an indoor plant. The results from the study also indicate
that CO2 levels during the day were 8.3, 5.8, and 1.4
times more in yucca, spathiphyllum, and dieffenbachia,
respectively, compared with the CO2 levels released
through respiration. Accordingly, the most suitable plant
for indoor use to reduce the CO2 level is yucca. However,
as mentioned before, studies on this subject are still very
limited, and increasing the number of studies on this topic
or elaborately replicating the existing ones is required
so that plants can be used effectively to reduce the CO2
level indoors. In this regard, studies on different plants
should continue, and plants that can photosynthesize at
a faster rate indoors should be searched. Another point
that should be studied is the opportunity to increase
the photosynthesis rate of plants by changing indoor
conditions. Here, light intensity and type of light should
be studied because the effect of plants on the quality of
indoor air depends on photosynthesis, and light that comes
in is one of the conditions that affect photosynthesis.
Acknowledgements
This study is funded by the Scientic and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
as project number 114Y033. We all thank TUBITAK for
the support.
References
1. CETIN M. Determining the bioclimatic comfort in
Kastamonucity. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187(10), 640, 2015.
2. CETIN M. Using GIS analysis to assess urban green space
in terms of accessibility: case study in Kutahya. Int. J. Sust.
Dev. World. 22(5), 420, 2015.
3. CETIN M. Evaluation of the sustainable tourism potential
of a protected area for landscape planning: a case study of
the ancient city of Pompeipolis in Kastamonu. Int. J. Sust.
Dev. World. 22(6), 490, 2015 doi: 10.1080/13504509.2015.1
081651,2015.
4. CETIN M., SEVIK H., ISINKARALAR K. Changes in
the particulate matter and CO2 concentrations based on the
time and weather conditions: the case of Kastamonu, Oxid.
Commun. 40 (1-II), 477, 2017.
5. CETIN M. A Change in the Amount of CO2 at the Center of
the Examination Halls: Case Study of Turkey. Studies on
Ethno-Medicine, 10 (2), 146, 2016. Retrieved from http://
krepublishers.com/02-Journals/S-EM/EM-10-0-000-16-
Web/S -EM-10-2-16-Abst-PDF/S -EM-10 -2-146-16- 444 -
Cetin-M/S-EM-10-2-146-16-444-Cetin-M-Tx[7].pdf
6. CETIN M., SEVIK H. Measuring the impact of selected
plants on indoor CO2 concentrations. Pol J Environ Stud.
25 (3), 973, 2016.
7. ISINKARALAR K., CETIN M., ICEN H.B., SEVIK H.
Indoor quality analysis of CO2 for student living areas.
The International Conference on Science, Ecology and
Technology I (Iconsete’2015 – Vienna) Abstract Book, ,
123, 2015. August 25-28, 2015, Vienna, Austria.
8. BULGURCU H., ILTEN N., COSGUN A. Indoor air quality
problems and solutions in schools. Journal of Installation
Engineering, 96, 59, 2006, [In Turkish].
9. CETIN M., SEVIK H. Evaluating the recreation potential
of Ilgaz Mountain National Park in Turkey. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 188 (1), 52, 2016.
10. AYDOGAN A., MONTOYA L.D. Formaldehyde removal
by common indoor plant species and various growing
media. Atmos. Environ. 45 (16), 2675, 2007.
11. PAPINCHAK H., HOLCOMB E.J., ORENDOVICI B.T.,
DECOTEAU D.R. Effectiveness of houseplants in reducing
the indoor air pollutant ozone. HortTechnol. 19 (2), 286,
2009.
12. TANI A., HEWITT C.N. Uptake of aldehydes and ketones
at typical indoor concentrations by houseplants. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 43 (21), 8338, 2009.
13. YANG D.S., PENNISI S.V., Son K.-C., Kays S.J. Screening
indoor plants for volatile organic pollutant removal
efciency. HortScience, 44 (5), 1377, 2009.
14. SEVIK H., AHMAIDA E.A, CETIN M. Chapter 31:
Change of the Air Quality in the Urban Open and Green
Spaces: Kastamonu Sample. Eds: Irina Koleva, Ulku
Duman Yuksel, Lahcen Benaabidate. Ecology, Planning
and Design. St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, ISBN:
978-954-07-4270-0, 409, 2017.
15. CETIN M., SEVIK H. Chapter 5: Assessing Potential
Areas of Ecotourism through a Case Study in Ilgaz
Mountain National Park. Eds: Leszek Butowski. Tourism-
From Empirical Research Towards Practical Application.
InTech, ISBN:978-953-51-2281-4, 81, 2016.
16. CETIN M., MOSSI M.M.M., AKBUDAK K.Y. Chapter
35: Visual Examination of Natural and Cultural Landscape
Values in Kastamonu City Center for Sustainable Spatial
Development. Eds: Irina Koleva, Ulku Duman Yuksel,
Lahcen Benaabidate. Ecology, Planning and Design. St.
Kliment Ohridski University Press, ISBN: 978-954-07-
4270-0, 465, 2017.
17. CETIN M., ADIGUZEL F., KAYA O., SAHAP A. Mapping
of bioclimatic comfort for potential planning using GIS in
Aydin. Environ Dev Sustain. 1, 2016, doi:10.1007/s10668-
016-9885-5
18. SEVIK H., CETIN M., ISINKARALAR K. Effects of
some indoor ornamental plants on the amount of indoor
Carbondioxide. Duzce University. The Journal of Science
and Technology. 4 (2), 493, 2015. [In Turkish].
19. SEVIK H., CETIN M., BELKAYALI N. Determination
of characteristics factors of grafted natural varieties in
landscaping: a case study of Black Pine (Pinus nigra) clone.
Oxid. Commun. 39 (3), 2820, 2016.
20. SEVIK H., CETIN M. Effects of water stress on seed
germination for select landscape plants. Pol J Environ Stud.
24 (2), 689, 2015.
21. SEVIK H., CETIN M., GUNEY K., BELKAYALI N. The
influence of house plants on indoor CO2, Pol. J. Environ.
Stud. 26 (4), 1-9, 2017. DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/68875
22. KACAR B., KATKAT V., ÖZTÜRK Ş. Plant Physiology
(4. Edition). Ankara: Nobel Publication distribution 2010
[In Turkish].
23. SEVIK H., CETIN M., BELKAYALI N. Effects of forests
on amounts of CO2: case study of Kastamonu and Ilgaz
Mountain National Parks. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 24 (1), 253,
2015.
6
Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy • Author Copy
Sevik H., et al.
24. CETIN M. 2016. Sustainability of urban coastal area
management: a case study on Cide. J Sustainable For. 35
(7), 527, 2016.
25. CETIN M. Changes in the amount of chlorophyll in some
plants of landscape studies. Kastamonu University Journal
of Forestry Faculty. 16 (1), 239, 2016.
26. CETIN M. Consideration of permeable pavement in
landscape architecture. J Environ Prot Ecol. 16 (1), 385,
2015.
27. TARRAN J., TORPY F., BURCHETT M. Use of living pot-
plants to cleanse indoor air – research review. Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality, Ventilation and Energy Conservation in Buildings
– Sustainable Built Environment, 3, 249, 2017.
28. CETIN M., SEVIK H. Indoor quality analysis of CO2 for
Kastamonu University, Conference of the International
Journal of Arts & Sciences, 9 (3), 71, 2016.
29. CETIN M. Determination of bioclimatic comfort areas in
landscape planning: A case study of Cide Coastline. Turkish
Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology. 4 (9),
800, 2016.
30. CETIN M. Change in amount of chlorophyll in some
interior ornamental plants. Kastamonu University Journal
of Engineering and Sciences 3 (1), 11, 2017.
