Carbon Dioxide Uptake of Six Plant Species Under Different Light Intensities

Article information

J. People Plants Environ. 2025;28(3):297-305

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 June 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2025.28.3.297

Huong-Thi Bui ¹, Jihye Park ², Bong-Ju Park ³^,

¹Doctoral Candidate, Major in Horticulture, Graduate School, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea

²Master’s Degree, Major in Horticulture, Graduate School, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea

³Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea

^*Corresponding author: Bong-Ju Park, bjpak@chungbuk.ac.kr, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5511-4812

First authorHuong-Thi Bui, huongbuithi262@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-8319

Received 2025 April 2; Revised 2025 June 17; Accepted 2025 June 25.

Abstract

Background and objective

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a common indoor air pollutant that can lead to respiratory issues, impaired cognitive function, and increased absenteeism. Plants play a key role in CO₂ absorption through the process of photosynthesis, which is influenced by light intensity. This study aimed to assess the potential of plant species for CO₂ reduction under different light conditions, providing baseline data to optimize their effectiveness in improving indoor air quality.

Methods

Six plant species, including three evergreen broad-leaved plants (Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton, Camellia japonica L., Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl. ex Rümpler var. awabuki (K.Koch) Zabel ex Rümpler) and three foliage house plants (Alocasia sinuata, Monstera deliciosa, and Epipremnum aureum) were selected to evaluate their CO₂ reduction ability under four different light intensities (10, 40, 80, and 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹). The plants were exposed to light for 11 hours, followed by a 11 hour dark period. A CO₂ cylinder was used to introduce CO₂ into the test chamber, and the CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber was recorded every 10 minutes over a 22-hour period. Net photosynthesis was also measured for each plant species.

Results

The CO₂ reduction capacity varied among plant species and light intensities. All six plant species exhibited the highest CO₂ uptake at 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, with uptake decreasing as light intensity decreased. Light intensity had a significant impact on the plants’ CO₂ reduction ability, and CO₂ absorption continued during the dark period. Among the six species, Monstera deliciosa and Epipremnum aureum demonstrated the highest CO₂ uptake.

Conclusion

Plants require adequate light intensity for effective CO₂ uptake, making it crucial to examine their ability to assimilate CO₂, as plant species that emit CO₂ can have a negative impact on health. This will help identify which plant species can absorb CO₂ without raising CO₂ levels, especially in indoor environments where low light conditions are common. This study offers additional insights into the CO₂ absorption capacity of plants, enabling landscape researchers to select suitable species that contribute to balancing and reducing CO₂ concentrations in indoor environments. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal light levels and the right plant species for enhancing CO₂ reduction effects in plants.

Keywords: evergreen broad-leaved plants; foliage house plants; indoor air quality; photosynthesis

Introduction

Because of increasing urbanization and modern lifestyles, people now spend more than 80% of their time indoors (Tran et al., 2020). As a result, indoor air quality (IAQ) has become increasingly important. Poor IAQ has numerous adverse effects on humans in both the short and long term. Increasing air pollution, including CO₂, has been linked to an increased incidence of human diseases (Mannan and Al-Ghamdi, 2021; Mata et al., 2022). Exposure to indoor air pollutants such as CO₂ has been associated with an increased incidence of human diseases (Moya et al., 2019).

Indoor air pollution includes particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and gaseous pollutants such as NOx and CO₂ (Vardoulakis et al., 2020). Major sources of indoor pollution include indoor activities (such as cooking, heating, and cooling systems), building materials, and the infiltration of outdoor air pollution (Soni and Dhankar, 2019). Among these pollutants, CO₂ is one of the most common indoor air contaminants (Torpy et al., 2014). CO₂ concentration is commonly used as a metric to assess the level of indoor pollution. The maximum safe exposure concentration of CO₂ is 1000 ppm (Moya et al., 2019). However, in environments where people are actively gathered, CO₂ concentration frequently rises to 2000 to 2500 ppm (Majumdar et al., 2021). Numerous studies have demonstrated that elevated CO₂ concentrations are associated with respiratory problems, reduced cognitive performance, and increased absenteeism (Liu et al., 2022). Indoor plants can effectively control and regulate CO₂ levels through the process of photosynthesis (Dumont and Héquet, 2017). During photosynthesis, plants absorb CO₂ and release oxygen (O₂) (Armijos-Moya et al., 2022; Deng and Deng, 2018; Ravindra and Mor, 2022). Additionally, plants transpire water from their roots to their leaves, subsequently releasing it into the environment (Liu et al., 2022). Thus, indoor plants not only reduce CO₂ levels but also contribute to an increase in relative humidity. However, the ability of plants to reduce CO₂ varies among different plant species (Bui et al., 2024). Moreover, environmental conditions such as water, light, nutrients, and air are essential for plant growth (Madiraju et al., 2020). Among these factors, light intensity serves as the primary driver of CO₂ uptake (Sugano et al., 2024). The net photosynthetic rate differs among plant species depending on light intensity (Chen et al., 2019; Hendrik and Negal, 2000; Matysiak et al., 2021).

Numerous studies have demonstrated that higher light intensities result in an increased net photosynthetic rate, thereby enhancing CO₂ uptake in plants (Dominici et al., 2021; Weerasinghe et al., 2023). However, indoor light levels (photosynthetic photon flux densities of 10–50 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹) are typically much lower than the levels required for optimal plant growth and development (Weerasinghe et al., 2023). Therefore, understanding the CO₂ reduction effects of indoor plants under different light levels is essential for optimizing their CO₂ removal potential. This study aimed to estimate the CO₂ removal effects of different plant species under varying light levels to establish baseline data that could enhance the CO₂ reduction potential of plants in indoor environments. of plants in the indoor environment.

Research Methods

Study plant species

Six different plant species were selected for this study, including three evergreen broad-leaved plants (Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton, Camellia japonica L., Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl. ex Rümpler var. awabuki (K.Koch) Zabel ex Rümpler) and three foliage house plants (Alocasia sinuata, Monstera deliciosa, and Epipremnum aureum) (Table 1). All testing plant species were cultivated under the same conditions to prepare for this study. Each plant species with the same height and size was selected for this study. Then, selected plants were cultivated under different light levels (10, 40, 80, and 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹) for three months to help plants adapt to the different light conditions. A portable photosynthesis system (LCpro+, ADC BioScientific Ltd., UK) was used to determine the photosynthetic rate of each plant species before testing.

Table 1

Characteristics of the six plant species used in this study

CO₂ test chamber setup

Acrylic chambers (550 mm × 600 mm × 800 mm, L × W × H) were used to model the indoor environment. LED white light source panel emitting four light intensities corresponding with 10, 40, 80, and 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ was placed on top of the test chamber to provide a light source for the study plant species. The light and dark time ratio was provided for each test chamber at 11:11 hours. All testing was conducted from February 2024 to June 2024. During this period, all test chambers were placed inside a controlled environment room, where the temperature was maintained at 25°C. All tests were conducted five times for each plant species and each light treatment. Plant species were placed simultaneously with a CO₂ concentration meter at the center of the test chamber. One potted plant of each species was positioned at the center of different chambers for the test. In this study, a CO₂ cylinder was used as the source of CO₂. The CO₂ was injected directly into the test chamber until the initial concentration of CO₂ reached 1000 ppm. Indoor Air Quality Meters (IAQ-CALC Indoor Air Quality Meter model 7545, TSI Inc., USA) were used to measure the CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber every 10 minutes for 22 hours (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for CO₂ reduction experiment.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, NC, USA) with analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). The significance level was set at 5%.

Results and Discussion

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

The CO₂ concentration in the four test chambers showed a slight decrease during the light period and increased during the dark period (Fig. 2). During the light period, the CO₂ concentration increased in the three chambers and decreased in the remaining three. The net CO₂ increase was highest in the chamber containing V. odoratissimum var. awabuki, with a net CO₂ increase of approximately 102.60 ppm, corresponding to 10.26% of the initial 1000 ppm concentration. Chambers containing P. tobira and A. sinuata exhibited net CO₂ increases of 66.80 and 42.50 ppm, equivalent to 6.68 and 4.25%, respectively. In contrast, the net CO₂ concentration slightly decreased in chambers with E. aureum, C. japonica, and M. deliciosa. The largest decrease was observed in M. deliciosa (101.60 ppm, corresponding to a 10.16% reduction), followed by C. japonica (4.66 ppm) and E. aureum (2.10%). During the dark period, net CO₂ increased in all test chambers, ranging from 142.20 to 190.50 ppm, equivalent to 12.44 to 27.24% of the initial concentration. The net CO₂ increase exceeded the CO₂ uptake capacity of all six plant species tested. After 22 hours of testing, the CO₂ concentration was greater than the initial level in all chambers. The net CO₂ concentration increased by approximately 12.21% to 28.42% relative to the initial concentration.

Fig. 2

CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber of six plant species under a light intensity of 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

The net CO₂ concentration decreased during the light period in all test chambers, except in the chamber with P. tobira (Fig. 3). Net CO₂ increased from 50.20 to 362.40 ppm, corresponding to 5.02 to 36.24% relative to the initial 1000 ppm concentration. E. aureum exhibited the highest CO₂ uptake, followed by M. deliciosa and A. sinuata. The lowest CO₂ reduction was observed in V. odoratissimum var. awabuki, followed by C. japonica. In contrast, the net CO₂ concentration in the P. tobira chamber increased by approximately 79.80 ppm, equivalent to 7.98%, during the light period. During the dark period, net CO₂ concentration increased in all chambers, ranging from 120.80 to 284.80 ppm, or 12.08 to 28.48% relative to the initial concentration. Among the all chambers, A. sinuata and E. aureum exhibited the highest and lowest net CO₂ increases, respectively. After 22 hours of testing, CO₂ concentration decreased in the chambers containing M. deliciosa (10.14%) and E. aureum (24.48%), while it increased in the remaining chambers.

Fig. 3

CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber of six plant species under a light intensity of 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 80 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

During the light period, the CO₂ concentration decreased in all test chambers, while the chambers containing M. deliciosa and E. aureum showed a decrease of more than 50% compared with the initial CO₂ concentration (Fig. 4). Among the six plant species, the test chamber with E. aureum exhibited the highest CO₂ uptake, with a reduction of 706.20 ppm, equivalent to 70.62%, followed by M. deliciosa (62.86%), and C. japonica (41.45%). In contrast, the chamber with V. odoratissimum var. awabuki showed the lowest CO₂ uptake, with a reduction of 116.20 ppm (11.62%). Similar trends were observed under other light treatments, during which the CO₂ concentration increased in all test chambers. The net CO₂ increases ranged from 153.00 to 359.80 ppm, corresponding to 15.30 to 35.98%. The chamber with P. tobira showed the highest net CO₂ increase, followed by C. japonica and M. deliciosa, while the chamber with V. odoratissimum var. awabuki exhibited the lowest increase.

Fig. 4

CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber of six plant species under a light intensity of 80 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

In this light treatment, the CO₂ concentration inside both chambers was significantly reduced during the light period (Fig. 5). The uptake of CO₂ inside the all test chambers ranged from 324.20 to 871.60 ppm, corresponding to 32.42 to 87.16% relative to the initial concentration. Among the all chambers, the highest CO₂ reduction was observed in the chamber with M. deliciosa, followed by those with E. aureum and P. tobira, showing reductions of 76.15 and 75.15%, respectively. The chamber with V. odoratissimum var. awabuki exhibited the lowest CO₂ reduction at 32.42%. During the dark period, a similar trend to that observed in other light treatments was found, with CO₂ concentration increasing in all chambers. The net CO₂ increase ranged from 310.60 to 500.20 ppm, corresponding to 31.06 to 50.2% of the initial 1000 ppm concentration. The chamber with P. tobira showed the greatest net CO₂ increase, followed by C. japonica, while the chamber with E. aureum exhibited the lowest increase. After all test periods, the CO₂ concentration in all chambers was lower than the initial 1000 ppm. However, the net CO₂ decrease in the chamber with C. japonica and V. odoratissimum var. awabuki was only approximately 5%, showing little change from the initial concentration. In contrast, the net CO₂ decrease in the chambers with E. aureum and M. deliciosa was nearly 50%, with reductions of 48.84 and 46.00%, respectively.

Fig. 5

CO₂ concentration inside the test chamber of six plant species under a light intensity of 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

Photosynthesis of six plant species under different light intensities

Net photosynthesis varied among the six plant species and across different light intensities (Fig. 6). The net photosynthesis rate increased proportionally with light intensity, ranging from 10 to 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. At 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, net photosynthesis ranged from 0.38 to 1.74 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. The species with the highest and lowest rates were M. deliciosa and P. tobira, respectively. At 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, net photosynthesis ranged from 0.51 to 2.37 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, with M. deliciosa again showing the highest rate, followed by E. aureum. In contrast, P. tobira maintained the lowest photosynthetic activity. At 80 and 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, the net photosynthesis of six species ranged from 2.13 to 4.81 and from 4.83 to 6.06 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, respectively. At these light levels, C. japonica and M. deliciosa exhibited the highest net photosynthetic rates. The species with the lowest rate across all intensities was V. odoratissimum var. awabuki.

Fig. 6

Net photosynthesis rate of six plant species under different light intensities: A: 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, B: 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, C: 80 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, D: 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. Different letters indicate significant differences in net photosynthesis rate among the six plant species.

During photosynthesis, plants use energy from light to remove CO₂ and release O₂ into the atmosphere (Suhaimi et al., 2017). Many studies have demonstrated the role of different plant species in reducing CO₂ from the atmosphere (Torpy et al., 2014; 2017). Nowadays, more studies have focused on CO₂ removal in indoor environments such as schools, offices, and hospitals (Sevik et al., 2017). Several studies have shown that indoor plants can significantly reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (Dominici et al., 2021; Gubb et al., 2022; Weerasinghe et al., 2023).

Our preliminary study identified four different plant species (Neolitsea sericea, Coffea arabica, Photinia glabra, and Farfugium japonicum) as having highly effective CO₂ removal capacity (Bui et al., 2024). This finding aligns with the current results, in which all six plant species tested demonstrated effective CO₂ removal during the light period. Another study showed that the ability to remove CO₂ varied with light intensity (Suhaimi et al., 2017). Gubb et al. (2019) reported that Dracaena fragrans ‘Golden Coast’ removed CO₂ to 600 ppm under a very high light intensity of 22,000 lx. In this study, CO₂ removal by all plant species increased as light intensity increased from 10 to 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. Additionally, M. deliciosa reduced CO₂ concentration in the chamber 370 ppm and 125 ppm under 80 and 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, respectively. In the case of E. aureum, the CO₂ concentration decreased to 290 ppm and 229 ppm under the same light intensity.

The light level significantly influenced plant photosynthesis, which is closely related to the CO₂ reduction potential of plants (Sugano et al., 2024). Most plant species require high light intensity for efficient photosynthesis (Miao et al., 2023). Low light conditions in indoor environments are often insufficient for plant growth and development, particularly for photosynthetic activity (Gupta et al., 2016; Han and Ruan, 2020; Sugano et al., 2024). Under low light intensity, the photosynthetic rate of plants was lower than under higher light conditions (Cetin and Sevik, 2016). Other studies have indicated that plants can uptake CO₂ when provided with adequate light, but they are unable to do so under insufficient light conditions (Dominici et al., 2021). This observation is consistent with the results of our study. In this study, almost all plant species exhibited no CO₂ uptake under a light intensity of 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

Plant respiration is a fundamental process that complements photosynthesis, determining the net accumulation of carbon in plants and playing a vital role in the carbon balance of individual cells. (Jones et al., 2024). This process produces CO₂ as a by-product (O’Leary et al., 2016). The respiration of plants depended on the species, leaf age, CO₂ concentration and light intensity (Gonzalez-Meler et al., 2004; Villar et al., 1995). Under 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹, we suggest that all plant species emitted CO₂ through respiration, which was the main reason leading to increasing CO₂ in Fig. 2 and in the dark conditions of other light conditions. A similar result was observed at 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. In indoor environments, such low light levels may be at or near the photosynthetic compensation point of many plant species, which may explain the limited CO₂ reduction observed under 10 and 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. Among the six plant species, M. deliciosa and E. aureum showed greater CO₂ uptake and net photosynthesis rates than others under 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. We suggest that their greater acclimatization to low light levels may be a key factor contributing to their higher CO₂ uptake. Many plant species possess physiological mechanisms that allow them to adapt to low light conditions and maintain photosynthesis for growth and development (Liu et al., 2022). Torpy et al. (2017) reported that E. aureum and three other plant species maintained efficient photosynthesis under 6.8 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. This plant species also exhibited the highest CO₂ uptake under the 80 and 90 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹.

In this study, M. deliciosa and E. aureum were the most effective species for CO₂ reduction. In contrast, C. japonica and V. odoratissimum var. awabuki showed the lowest CO₂ reduction across all light levels, and P. tobira also exhibited low CO₂ reduction at all intensities except 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. This study further found that the three woody species showed lower CO₂ uptake efficiency than the three herbaceous species. Although the net photosynthesis rate of woody species was higher, this result suggests that CO₂ uptake is influenced by multiple factors beyond photosynthesis, including species-specific characteristics. Deng et al. (2022) also indicated that herbaceous plants are better suited than woody plants to achieve rapid carbon fixation. In addition to environmental conditions, inherent traits of plant species must be considered when selecting species for indoor CO₂ reduction (Honour et al., 2009; Mulenga et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2018). All six plant species emitted CO₂ during the dark period, although the rate of emission varied among species and was influenced by light intensity. Under low light conditions, CO₂ emission sometimes exceeded uptake, indicating that some plants may become net CO₂ producers under such conditions. Therefore, the careful selection of plant species is essential to maximize the CO₂ reduction potential in indoor environments.

Conclusion

In this study, six plant species effectively removed CO₂, and the ability to remove CO₂ varied among species and across different light intensities. The CO₂ reduction potential of all six species increased with rising light intensity and was highest at 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹. The three woody species exhibited lower CO₂ reduction efficiency than the three herbaceous species, and a similar trend was observed in their net photosynthetic rates. The species that demonstrated the highest CO₂ removal efficiency were M. deliciosa and E. aureum, compared to the other species tested. Under low light conditions (10 and 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹), CO₂ emissions exceeded CO₂ uptake, indicating a net release of CO₂. Plants require suitable light intensity to ensure CO₂ uptake, so studying their ability to assimilate CO₂ is essential for determining which plant species can effectively absorb CO₂ without enhancing its levels, particularly in indoor environments where low light conditions often prevail. This study provides additional insights into the CO₂ absorption capacity of plants, enabling landscape researchers to select suitable plants that contribute to balancing and reducing CO₂ concentrations in indoor environments. Therefore, selecting appropriate plant species is crucial for enhancing CO₂ reduction and improving indoor environmental quality. Further research is needed to determine optimal light conditions and suitable species for maximizing the CO₂ reduction capacity of indoor plants.

Notes

This work was carried out with the support of the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. Rs-2022-RD010280)”, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

References

Armijos-Moya T., de Visser P., Ottelé M., van den Dobbelsteen A., Bluyssen P.M.. 2022;Air cleaning performance of two species of potted plants and different substrates. Applied Sciences 12:284. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12010284.

Bui H.T., Jeong M., Kim S.Y., Park B.J.. 2024;Evaluating the particulate matter and carbon dioxide reduction of four broad-leaved evergreen plants. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment 27(2):95–102. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2024.27.2.95.

Cetin M., Sevik H.. 2016;Measuring the impact of selected plants on indoor CO₂ concentrations. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 25(3):973–979. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/61744.

Chen L., Tarin M.W.K., Huo H., Zheng Y., Chen J.. 2021;Photosynthetic responses of Anthurium × ‘red’ under different light conditions. Plants 10:857. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050857.

Deng L., Deng Q.. 2018;The basic roles of indoor plants in human health and comfort. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25(36):36087–36101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3554-1.

Deng L., Yuan H., Xie J., Ge L., Chen Y.. 2022;Herbaceous plants are better than woody plants for carbon sequestration. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 184:106431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106431.

Dominici L., Fleck R., Gill R.L., Pettit T.J., Irga P.J., Comino E., Torpy F.R.. 2021;Analysis of lighting conditions of indoor living walls: Effects on CO₂ removal. Journal of Building Engineering 44:102961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102961.

Dumont É, Héquet V.. 2017;Determination of the clean air delivery rate (CADR) of photocatalytic oxidation (PCO) purifiers for indoor air pollutants using a closed-loop reactor. Part I: Theoretical considerations. Molecules 22:407. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22030407.

Gonzalez-Meler M.A., Taneva L., Trueman R.J.. 2004;Plant respiration and elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentration: Cellular responses and global significance. Annals of Botany 94:647–656. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch189.

Gubb C., Blanusa T., Griffiths A., Pfrang C.. 2019;Interaction between plant species and substrate type in the removal of CO₂ indoors. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 12:1197–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00736-2.

Gubb C., Blanusa T., Griffiths A., Pfrang C.. 2022;Potted plants can remove the pollutant nitrogen dioxide indoors. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 15:479–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-022-01171-6.

Gupta G.P., Kumar B., Kulshrestha U.C.. 2016;Impact and pollution indices of urban dust on selected plant species for green belt development: mitigation of the air pollution in NCR Delhi, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9:136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2226-4.

Han K.T., Ruan L.W.. 2020;Effects of indoor plants on air quality: a systematic review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:16019–16051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08174-9.

Hendrik P., Nagel O.. 2000;The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO₂, nutrients and water: A quantitative review. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27:595–607. https://doi.org/10.1071.PP99173.

Honour S.L., Bell J.N.B., Ashenden T.W., Cape J.N., Power S.A.. 2009;Responses of herbaceous plants to urban air pollution: Effects on growth, phenology and leaf surface characteristics. Environmental Pollution 157:1279–1286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.11.049.

Jones S., Mercado L.M., Bruhn D., Raoult N., Cox P.M.. 2024;Night-time decline in plant respiration is consistent with substrate depletion. Communications Earth and Environment 5:148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01312-y.

Liu F., Yan L., Meng X., Zhang C.. 2022;A review on indoor green plants employed to improve indoor environment. Journal of Building Engineering 53:104542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104542.

Madiraju S.V.H., Raghunadh P.V.S.G.n, Kumar K.R.. 2020;Prototype of eco-friendly indoor air purifier to reduce concentrations of CO₂, SO₂ and NO₂. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 19(2):747–753. https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2020.V19I02.030.

Majumdar D., Sahoo J., Chintada A.. 2021;Determination of PM₁, PM_2.5, PM₅, CO and CO₂ emission rates and emission factors of mosquito coils by a chamber experiment. MAPAN 36:533–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-021-00474-w.

Mannan M., Al-Ghamdi S.G.. 2021;Indoor air quality in buildings: A comprehensive review on the factors influencing air pollution in residential and commercial structure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18:3276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063276.

Mata T.M., Martins A.A., Calheiros C.S.C., Villanueva F., Alonso-Cuevilla N.P., Gabriel M.F., Silva G.V.. 2022;Indoor air quality: A review of cleaning technologies. Environments 9:118. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9090118.

Matysiak B., Kaniszewski S., Dyśko J., Kowalczyk W., Kowalski A., Grzegorzewska M.. 2021;The impact of LED light spectrum on the growth, morphological traits, and nutritional status of ‘Elizium’ romaine lettuce grown in an indoor controlled environment. Agriculture 11:1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111133.

Miao C., Yang S., Xu J., Wang H., Zhang Y., Cui J., Zhang H., Jin H., Lu H.P., He L., Yu J., Zhou Q., Ding X.. 2023;Effects of light intensity on growth and quality of lettuce and spinach cultivars in a plant factory. Plants 12:3337. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183337.

Moya T.A., van den Dobbelsteen A., Ottelé M., Bluyssen P.M.. 2019;A review of green systems within the indoor environment. Indoor and Built Environment 28(3):298–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X18783042.

Mulenga C., Clarke C., Meincken M.. 2020;Physiological and growth responses to pollutant-induced biochemical changes in plants: A review. Pollution 6(4):827–848. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2020.303151.821.

O’Leary B.M., Plaxton W.C.. 2016;Plant Respiration. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences October. :1–11. https://doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0001301.pub3.

Ravindra K., Mor S.. 2022;Phytoremediation potential of indoor plants in reducing air pollutants. Frontiers in Sustainable Cieties 4:1039710. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.1029710.

Sevik H., Cetin M., Guney K., Belkayali N.. 2017;The influence of house plants on indoor CO₂. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 26(4):1643–1651. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/68875.

Soni R., Dhankar R.. 2019. Indoor air pollution and tolerance index of indoor plant in urban homes. In : Conference: Environmental and Ecological Sustainability. p. 443–451.

Sugano S., Ishii M., Tanabe S.I.. 2024;Adaptation of indoor ornamental plants to various lighting levels in growth chambers simulating workplace environments. Scientific Reports 14:17424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67877-y.

Suhaimi M.M., Leman A.M., Afandi A., Hariri A., AIdris A.F., Dzulkifli S.N.M., Gani P.. 2017;Effectiveness of indoor plant to reduce CO₂ in indoor environment. MATEC Web of Conferences 10(3):05004. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710305004.

Torpy F.R., Irga P.J., Burchett M.D.. 2014;Profiling indoor plants for the amelioration of high CO₂ concentrations. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13:227–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.12.004.

Torpy F., Zavattaro M., Irga P.. 2017;Green wall technology for the phytoremediation of indoor air: a system for the reduction of high CO₂ concentrations. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 10:575–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-016-0452-x.

Tran V.V., Park D., Lee Y.C.. 2020;Indoor air pollution, related human diseases, and recent trends in the control and improvement of indoor air quality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17:2927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082927.

Vardoulakis S., Giagloglou E., Steinle S., Davis A., Sleeuwenhoek A., Galea K.S., Dixon K., Crawford J.O.. 2020;Indoor exposure to selected air pollutants in the home environment: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17:8972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238972.

Villar R., Held A.A., Merino J.. 1995;Dark leaf respiration in light and darkness of an evergreen and a deciduous plant species. Plant Physiology 107:421–427. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.2.421.

Weerasinghe N.H., Silva P.K., Jayasinghe R.R., Abeyrathna W.P., John G.K.P., Halwatura R.U.. 2023;Reducing CO₂ level in the indoor urban built environment: Analysing indoor plants under different light levels. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 14:100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100645.

Zheng Y., Li F., Hao L., Shedayi A.A., Guo L., Ma C., Huang B., Xu M.. 2018;The optimal CO₂ concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species. BMC Plant Biology 18:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3.

Article information Continued

This is a Peer-Reviewed Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Species	Type	Height (cm)
Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton	Evergreen broad-leaved	45.2 ± 5.9
Camellia japonica L.	Evergreen broad-leaved	56.3 ± 3.6
Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl. ex Rümpler var. awabuki (K.Koch) Zabel ex Rümpler	Evergreen broad-leaved	39.0 ± 5.4
Alocasia sinuata	Foliage house plant	41.3 ± 1.5
Monstera deliciosa	Foliage house plant	46.3 ± 5.9
Epipremnum aureum	Foliage house plant	12.8 ± 0.9

Article information

Abstract

Background and objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Research Methods

Study plant species

CO2 test chamber setup

Statistical analysis

Results and Discussion

CO2 reduction under a light intensity of 10 μmol m−2 s−1

CO2 reduction under a light intensity of 40 μmol m−2 s−1

CO2 reduction under a light intensity of 80 μmol m−2 s−1

CO2 reduction under a light intensity of 160 μmol m−2 s−1

Photosynthesis of six plant species under different light intensities

Conclusion

Notes

References

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Table 1

CO₂ test chamber setup

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 10 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 40 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 80 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹

CO₂ reduction under a light intensity of 160 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹