SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
dert17

Spider plant vs Mother-in-Law's Tongue: Day vs Night

dert17
9 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago

I know that Spider plant and Mother-in-Law's Tongue produce oxygen at night. That's why they are very good in bedroom.

Do Spider plant and Mother-in-Law's Tongue produce oxygen at during the day?

Let me suggest that Spider plant produce A oxygen at night. How much oxygen does Spider plant produce at during day? A or 2*a or A/2?

Let me suggest that Mother-in-Law's Tongue produce B oxygen at night. How much oxygen does Mother-in-Law's Tongue produce at during day? B or 2*B or B/2?

Can you compare A and B? (Lets talk about plants in good shape and in good сondition, I mean adult plants)

Thank you.

Spider Plant for me is Vittatum

Mother-in-Law's Tongue for me is Sansevieria laurentii

I know that you can't write exact figures but you can write approximate figures. For example, A>B or something like that. I'd like to read any your supposition.


Comments (26)

  • MsGreenFinger GW
    9 years ago

    As far as I know plants produce Oxygen during day, at night they use it.
    O2 is a by-product of their metabolism, so probably a spider plant produce more as it grows faster and uses more water etc. than the Sans. How much more I don't know.
    About 12-16 good sized plants can increase the quality of air in your home.


    dert17 thanked MsGreenFinger GW
  • kwie2011
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Plants produce oxygen as a byproduct of phtosynthesis, the process of creating sugars. At night, when there is no sun, NO plant photosynthesises. Instead, they respire, USING oxygen to metabolize sugars.

    This confuses most people because they've heard of photosynethesis and know plants use CO2 and make oxygen, but they don't remember their high school biology class that only briefly touched on plant respiration, so you're not alone in your confusion.

    Here's a decent site with an explanation:

    http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html

    As to which plant makes more oxygen during photosynethesis, your best bet for a reasonable estimate is to compare the biomass and rate of growth of one plant to another. The faster the growth, the more O2 a plant makes, but obviously, the larger the growing mass, the more energy it needs, and thus the more O2 it will produce as a waste product of photosynethesis.

    Judging from the plants you've named, I will guess you've been reading about so-called "clean air" plants that are purported to remove toxins such as formaldehyde from the air. I haven't researched the mechanism of this, and I don't even know whether it is true, but it isn't the same thing as photosynthesis or respiration.

    I should add that growing conditions will have an enormous effect on the rate of growth of both plants. Sansevieria is touted as a low light plant, and for most people it isn't a fast-grower, but in bright light in a very warm climate, it grows very rapidly. I put heat pads under mine and suddenly my dormant Sans are growing like weeds. Chlorophytum grows quite well in cool temperatures, or warm. It isn't as particular as Sansevieria. Furthermore, Chloroohytum does most of its growing with the longer days or spring and summer. Sansevieria is a summer-dormant plant that, under conditions similar to its native habitat, stops growing during the long days of summer. However, the cool temperatures of most homes prevent Sans from growing in the winter, so as you can see, growing conditions are going to make an enormous difference, and you'll probably have to experiment a bit to see which plants work better for you.

    dert17 thanked kwie2011
  • Related Discussions

    spider plant adventures

    Q

    Comments (11)
    Thanks all for your wisdom. =) It has been a wild adventure but I feel so bad that all those little spiderlings died in the process. More to come, eventually. The survivors are doing well in a mix of perlite, potting soil, and bark chips. There's a little floor-dry in there, too, but emphasis on the little. They'd be doing even better if my cats didn't keep breaking into their grow space. I do have a few looking very happy in plain perlite, so yes, that works. One of the cats gnawed off a couple babies without much for roots that I could see. To see what would happen I put them on a plate tucked under some moist moss from the yard (frog moss maybe) and they grew roots! They're healthy and look neat with the moss, too. Back when this began, I had so many that keeping them outdoors was the best option. It was warm then, at first. The egg cartons were the recycled paper kind. I set them so that the base of one sat in the lid of another. I watered them enough to moisten the whole thing and then waited for it to dry before watering again, about every other day. As the roots grew they pushed the crowns up rather than growing much into the paper. Transplanted the tallest ones first. They did great until nights got cooler, and the floor-dry, and then the frost... Towards the end of the egg-carton stage, the cartons got spotty with a little mold. Expected mold earlier than it happened, though. While floor-dry seems alright as a mix-in, I think you're right about it not letting the roots breathe. The feel of it seemed gravelly enough but it stayed too damp and probably compacted more than I thought. Purpleinopp - Whenever my grandmother gives me a tour of her garden she shows off the bucket she uses to collect condensation from her wall-mounted AC unit. The water definitely makes a difference.
    ...See More

    Off topic - Florida vs NY Orchid Growing??

    Q

    Comments (37)
    Born and raised in northern IL, currently residing in central IL... we did pick up one gardening zone moving south a bit. I'd give anything to live in central coastal Cali, but I'd never get my husband to agree to moving. He claims to like the winters, and does have a good reason... the cold kills off a lot of bad things, and keeps nature genetically strong. I'll buy that, but I still don't enjoy the bone-chilling cold! I get chilled in fall and don't thaw until spring! And the older I get, the more the cold bothers me physically... I'm old enough to dislike winter! The only way we'd ever move to warmer climes would be if our children moved their families there first... only then would my husband agree to a move. So, it looks like I'm stuck gardening in IL... where I must emulate a warm climate to grow orchids and other tropicals, dragging them out for summer and back in for winter... but I do get to enjoy lilacs, peonies, tulips and other bulbs and plants that are deciduous or require a chill in order to bloom. I guess it's not so bad... we have white Christmases, germ killing cold, and can enjoy plants that need the lower temps... and summer brings all the warmth and humidity that makes the garden bloom so beautifully... It may make orchid growing a challenge... but real gardeners aren't afraid of a challenge, and in fact, we welcome the chance to prove our prowess! What the hey, my Epi is still alive... I must be doing something right! :-)
    ...See More

    What is worth it?! Canning vs. Freezing

    Q

    Comments (20)
    I think it's all a matter of personal preferences. First, if you don't have a pressure canner you are pretty much limited to canning fruit, pickles, relishes, jams and spreads. Low acid vegetables, dried beans, meats, those all need a pressure canner. I can a lot of things, including some beef, because I just don't have freezer space. I have two freezers and I'm not going to buy another one! I grow my own organic and grass fed beef and my own pork. I have free range chickens for eggs and have a huge organic garden, so I harvest a lot of different things. Some things I just don't like canned, like asparagus. That gets frozen. So does corn, blueberries, strawberries, sweet cherries and rhubarb. Pretty much everything else gets canned because the freezer space is precious and when I get a power outage here in the great white north, I won't lose the canned stuff. It's also very convenient to grab a jar of soup off the shelf to take to work for my lunch (yes, I have a full time job in addition to the farming and gardening, LOL). Canned beef with a jar of canned potatoes and carrots makes a "quick and dirty" stew by just thickening the broth from the beef, dumping everything into the gravy and heating it. I also dehydrate things and they take a lot less storage space. I put my dehydrator in the garage and dry hot peppers, I learned the hard way not to do that in the kitchen! I dried apples, zucchini chips for soup, shelled beans and beef jerky last year. There are several options for everything and one has to figure out how they use their finished product and what they like before deciding which processing method is best for any given item. As for "worth it", that's subjective also. I grow that big organic garden and can my harvest because I wanted to know what I was putting in my kids' mouths. Now I have grandkids and I still want to know what they are eating and what I'm eating, so the work and time and expense is "worth it" to me. Peaches now, that's something else. My peach tree is only three years old and has about a dozen peaches, the first time it's borne fruit. Peaches are $12 a half bushel here, usually, and I'll get a quarter bushel for the freezer for pies, but that's about it. Dad used to want peaches to can, even at $24 a bushel. He got between 36 and 38 pints from a bushel, so that makes the cost 63 cents a pint, plus 16 cents for a lid/flat to seal it and a few cents for sugar, gas to run the stove for the canner, water and electricity to run the pump, etc. Add several hours worth of time and those peaches are 80 or 85 cents per pint plus your time. Definitely not worth it for me because I don't LOVE peaches. Definitely worth it for Dad because he did and he found the commercially produced peaches stayed "too hard", he liked the softer consistency of home canned. It's all in your perspective.... Annie
    ...See More

    Better Boy vs Brandy Boy

    Q

    Comments (55)
    My first year growing Brandy boys. I am more than willing to overlook the catfacing and cracking on these lovely beefsteaks. Most have been just under 1b. Tonight's dinner was just shy of the 2lb mark and really hit the spot in terms of flavor and texture. I like them sliced with unrefined sea salt. My daughter ate 1/4 slices like a pizza. This Whopper has been harvested shortly after summer solstice, which may help explain the size. Growing in Israel where climate is similar to zone 10. I like these way better than the famous and excellent sungold cherry tomatoes in the same row. Thin skin, refined flavor and beefy interior.
    ...See More
  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This man don't agree with you.
    http://www.ted.com/talks/kamal_meattle_on_how_to_grow_your_own_fresh_air?language=en#t-74780

    Some 17 years ago, I became allergic to Delhi's air. My doctors told me that my lung capacity had gone down to 70 percent, and it was killing me. With the help of IIT, TERI, and learnings from NASA, we discovered that there are three basic green plants, common green plants, with whichwe can grow all the fresh air we need indoors to keep us healthy. We've also found that you can reduce the fresh air requirements into the building, while maintaining industry indoor air-quality standards.

    0:47 The three plants are Areca palm, Mother-in-Law's Tongue and money plant. The botanical names are in front of you. Areca palm is a plant whichremoves CO2 and converts it into oxygen. We need four shoulder-high plants per person, and in terms of plant care, we need to wipe the leavesevery day in Delhi, and perhaps once a week in cleaner-air cities. We had to grow them in vermi manure, which is sterile, or hydroponics, and take them outdoors every three to four months. The second plant is Mother-in-law's Tongue, which is again a very common plant, and we call it a bedroom plant, because it converts CO2 into oxygen at night. And we need six to eight waist-high plants per person. The third plant is money plant, and this is again a very common plant; preferably grows in hydroponics. And this particular plant removes formaldehydes and other volatile chemicals.

    1:51With these three plants, you can grow all the fresh air you need. In fact, you could be in a bottle with a cap on top, and you would not die at all,and you would not need any fresh air. We have tried these plants at our own building in Delhi, which is a 50,000-square-feet, 20-year-old building. And it has close to 1,200 such plants for 300 occupants. Our studies have found that there is a 42 percent probability of one's blood oxygengoing up by one percent if one stays indoors in this building for 10 hours. The government of India has discovered or published a study to showthat this is the healthiest building in New Delhi. And the study showed that, compared to other buildings, there is a reduced incidence of eye irritation by 52 percent, respiratory systems by 34 percent, headaches by 24 percent, lung impairment by 12 percent and asthma by nine percent.And this study has been published on September 8, 2008, and it's available on the government of India website.

    2:59 Our experience points to an amazing increase in human productivity by over 20 percent by using these plants. And also a reduction in energy requirements in buildings by an outstanding 15 percent, because you need less fresh air. We are now replicating this in a 1.75-million-square-feet building, which will have 60,000 indoor plants.

    3:24 Why is this important? It is also important for the environment, because the world's energy requirements are expected to grow by 30 percent in the next decade. 40 percent of the world's energy is taken up by buildings currently, and 60 percent of the world's population will be living in buildings in cities with a population of over one million in the next 15 years. And there is a growing preference for living and working in air-conditioned places. "Be the change you want to see in the world," said Mahatma Gandhi. And thank you for listening. (Applause)

    I can't believe that this man don't know about oxygen at nights . He wrote that The second plant is Mother-in-law's Tongue, which is again a very
    common plant, and we call it a bedroom plant, because it converts CO2
    into oxygen at night.
    He is not ordinary man. He is researcher and he used huge amouts plants. I can't believe that this man don't know this fact!!!

    He wrote that "Some 17 years ago, I became allergic to Delhi's air. My doctors told
    me that my lung capacity had gone down to 70 percent, and it was killing
    me".
    If he didn't have oxygen at nights he must have a lot of pain at night. How did he survive?

  • surixurient
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    it seems that when a CAM plant does photosynthesis it isn't releasing much oxygen because the stomata are closed. When they open at night some oxygen is released but it is negligible, most of the oxygen produced is used for the plant to breath. CAM is a type of life support mode and cant last forever, it pretty much breaks even on net oxygen and c02. (btw im no expert but i just did some searching around being this is so interesting and this is what i came away with)

    dert17 thanked surixurient
  • tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
    9 years ago

    Some plants do release a small amount of O2 at night, but volume is minute. In CAM photosynthesis stomata open at night. The CO2 that enters is stored in vacuoles as salts and esthers of malic acid formed by chains of C, H, and O (malite) . During the day, malite is metabolized to make CO2 available for photosynthesis. Leftover O2 from the light reaction can't exit the plant through stomata that are closed during the day, so it dissolves into the cell cystol. When stomata open and the plant cools, SOME tiny amount of O2 is freed and escapes through the same stomata through which it entered.


    Al


    dert17 thanked tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
  • kwie2011
    9 years ago

    Al and suriexurient, I was trying to find whether CAM is triggered by photoperiod or temperature, and whether the same applies to all CAM plants or if the trigger is different in different species. Do you know, or do you know where I can read about that aspect of it?

  • escolat
    9 years ago

    I illuminate my plants at night, mostly for enjoyment. Do house plants continue to produce oxygen at night under artificial light? Do plants require a 'resting period' of darkness each day to grow properly?

  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    kwie2011

    No
    need for multiple exclamation points. If you're going to be rude to
    people trying to help you here, perhaps you'd do better to address your
    questions to Mr. Meattle himself.

    I looked up Crassulacean acid metabolism, the process by which
    Sansevieria and many other arid-adapted plants use CO2 at night. The
    photosynethesis still takes place during the day, but these plants store
    CO2 collected at night in the form of specific polysaccharides in their
    tissues to be used during photosynthesis the next day. It allows them
    to keep their stomata closed to reserve moisture during the hot, dry
    days of their native habitats. So, the information Meattle bases his
    statements on doesn't contradict the information we gave you; it is just
    a variation in the metabolic pathway that I wasn't aware of.

    I hope in the future, if you believe you have information to
    which someone else isn't privy, you'll add the information to the
    conversation respectfully, without the emotional rant or multiple
    exclamation marks. Remember, we're all peers here, and laymen. No one is
    being paid to help you.


    kwie2011, I'm sorry that my message was rude for you. I will try to add the information to the conversation respectfully, without the emotional rant or multiple exclamation marks.

  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Let's talk about CAM photosynthesis. Someone wrote that spider plant gaves more oxygen during the day because spider plant (vittatum or green solid form) usually grows faster than Mother-in-Law's Tongue. Ok.

    Let's talk about nights. What plant do produce more oxygen at night, Spider plant or Mother-in-Law's Tongue? (CAM photosynthesis or something like that)

    kwie2011 wrote that "you'll probably have to experiment a bit to see which plants work better for you". How can I do this experiment?

  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    escolat

    I
    illuminate my plants at night, mostly for enjoyment. Do house plants
    continue to produce oxygen at night under artificial light? Do plants
    require a 'resting period' of darkness each day to grow properly?

    Of course I don't know sure but I think you need a fitolamp for plants. You can grow any plant with this special fitolamp. I think that plants need "resting period" because they have day and nights in nature. But you can use the fitolamp at nights (illuminate your plants) and to put them in a dark place at during the day.

    But it's interesting for me why do people use "bed plants" for example spider plant or Mother-in-Law's Tongue for bedrooms if these plants give so little oxygen at night? For example this man told "The second plant is Mother-in-law's Tongue, which is again a very
    common plant, and we call it a bedroom plant, because it converts CO2
    into oxygen at night. And we need six to eight waist-high plants per
    person."

    Why does this man need six or eight plans per person at nights for bedroom if they give almost zero oxygen at night?

  • kwie2011
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I doubt anyone here has expertise in these areas, so any information you're given will likely be things they've looked up for you, which means you can also find it yourself, and since only you know exactly what you're after, that would probably be more efficient.

    Are you searching for the best plants to remove toxins such as formaldehyde from "sick" indoor air, or do you feel your sleeping quarters lack oxygen, or is there another reason you're researching this?

    I'm not sure C. comosum uses CAM at all. A quick search with the species name and CAM didn't bring up any (English language) results either way. Based on that, and the more temperate native habitat of C. comosum than most CAM plants, I doubt CAM is a significant part of the plant's metabolism. Maybe you can dig deeper in your own research. Scholar.Google.com might be a better search engine for research.

    I did find some published research on formaldehyde removal by Chlorophytum bit bitchetii (not C. comosum) and S. trifasciata, and neither was nearly as efficient as the ferns used in the study. I don't know where you live, so I have no idea which plants would grow well in your home (or office, or whatever). Ferns and Sansevieria are pretty close to opposite ends of the spectrum as far as growing conditions. Here is the link to that research paper:

    http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/45/10/1489.full

    The experimentation I was thinking of that you'd do on your own would be VERY crude. Without knowing the kinds of metabolism of each plant, and the more technical aspects, I was only thinking of comparing growth rates and growing mass as a basis for estimating oxygen output. That may or may not be useful for oxygen output at night. I'd have to know a LOT more about the physiology of these two specific plants, and I just don't have to time or Internet connection to find that. I'd have to read numerous studies over several days to be even close to comfortable with it.

    For a crude experiment based solely on plant mass as a measure of oxygen output, I'd start with several of each plant of approximately equal mass, grow the for a period in the conditions in which they'll be used, and periodically measure the increase in mass. Presumably, the plant that increased its mass the most is using the most CO2 and making the most O2, but there are a LOT of assumptions made in that unscientific experiment, and it won't even hint at what time of day the most O2 is produced. It's extremely crude.

    Since Meattle lives in India, I'll presume he chose his plants for a hot, dry, sunny, Indian climate. If you're in the same climate, it'd make sense to choose the same plants. If you're in a more temperate climate, other plants might be a better choice.

    Sansevieria will grow very fast if it is kept very warm. If it's grown in average home temperatures in a temperate climate, it will not. It's also possible that in cooler or more humid conditions, it doesn't use CAM, but again, I'd have to do a lot more than an hour's research to determine that.

    I think most of your questions are just too big for this forum. They're more suited to a scholarly discussions, perhaps on a university forum dedicated to plant physiology, botany, or the like - if such a thing exists. If you look through the GardenWeb.com forums list, I believe you'll find a forum for more scholarly/scientific discussions. Last time I checked it, it really wasn't being used much, but maybe someone with the knowledge you seek checks it. It wouldn't hurt to post your question there.

    For your own research, a Scholar.Google.com search using criteria such as "Crassulacean acid metabolism in Chlorophytum comosum" (or in Sansevieria trifasciata) might yield some useful results. If you haven't read formal research before, you'll get the most information from the results and conclusions section(s) at the end, and the abstract and introduction sections at the beginning. You probably won't glean much useful information from the experimental design and protocol portions in the middle such as "materials and methods." Be prepared to take some notes. It'll be a lot of reading, much of which will be quite technical.

    Sorry I can't offer more help than that.

    dert17 thanked kwie2011
  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    MsGreenFinger GW(8 Ireland) wrote: "About 12-16 good sized plants can increase the quality of air in your home".

    -----

    It's not so easy to do that.

    We have different views.

    1. Plants have little benefit.

    A critical review of results of both laboratory chamber studies and
    field studies leads to the conclusion that indoor plants have little, if
    any, benefit for removing indoor air of VOC in residential and
    commercial buildings.

    Source:

    Critical Review: How Well Do House Plants Perform as Indoor Air Cleaners? http://www.buildingecology.com/articles/critical-review-how-well-do-house-plants-perform-as-indoor-air-cleaners/

    2. Plants have a lot of benefit.

    Sourse:

    With these three plants, you can grow all the fresh air you need. In
    fact, you could be in a bottle with a cap on top, and you would not die
    at all,and you would not need any fresh air. We have tried these plants
    at our own building in Delhi, which is a 50,000-square-feet, 20-year-old
    building. And it has close to 1,200 such plants for 300 occupants. Our
    studies have found that there is a 42 percent probability of one's blood
    oxygengoing up by one percent if one stays indoors in this building for
    10 hours. The government of India has discovered or published a study
    to showthat this is the healthiest building in New Delhi. And the study
    showed that, compared to other buildings, there is a reduced incidence
    of eye irritation by 52 percent, respiratory systems by 34 percent,
    headaches by 24 percent, lung impairment by 12 percent and asthma by
    nine percent.And this study has been published on September 8, 2008, and
    it's available on the government of India website.


  • MsGreenFinger GW
    9 years ago

    I didn't base my post on scientific research. But I did look up articles about 'air purifying plants based on a NASA research' which are actually the most common house plants. (Palm, spider plant, Sans., english ivy, peace lily, boston fern etc)
    Maybe it does matter what kind of plant one has, how many, what size and how fast they grow. But I am sure, having a dozen large specimens in your home will make the air quality better, just as they make the life quality better.


  • kwie2011
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There are innumerable variables here, and I don't know what measures Kamal Meattle's team used to standardize them. That's why research is published in scientific journals for peer review and replication. In order for the conclusions of any research to be considered legitimate, it needs to be replicated by other researchers. Otherwise, one never knows what outside influences might've affected the research.

    I think these articles also aren't talking about the same thing. We know for a fact that plants produce oxygen, and given enough plants in an airtight environment, they can indeed produce enough oxygen to support animal life. Plants are responsible for the air you breathe.

    Reducing indoor toxins is different though. Formaldehyde, for example, can be removed from indoor air by some plants. That doesn't mean those plants produce more oxygen than others, or that oxygen levels are higher when these plants are used to remove formaldehyde.

    Meattle doesn't offer research to backup his statements, so I don't know what he used. I don't even know what he's comparing blood oxygen to when he says it'll rise 1% after 10 hours in one of his buildings. What was his control? Does it rise 1% over a person who spent the same amount of time sitting on a Delhi street, or does it rise 1% from when the person first walked into the building, or compared to the blood oxygen of people doing comparable work in other buildings? I don't know. Also, one has to consider the source. If Meattle stands to gain by demonstrating these results, for example, if he is then hired by property owners, businesses, etc. to make their buildings "healthier," then he might be motivated to interpret his results more favorably. That's one reason it isn't ever safe to trust "clinical research" and so on that is conducted by, or on behalf of, anyone who might profit from a certain outcome of that research. The research must be published and repeated by others first. Lots of so-called "research" makes it into the news without peer review or replication, and later it's discovered that the study wasn't replicable, or was somehow flawed. It's a big problem. One such flawed study is why many Americans still think childhood vaccinations have been linked to autism, and as a result, we're having outbreaks of preventable diseases because parents aren't vaccinating their children - all because of one erroneous "study" that no one has ever been able to replicate.

    I'm not saying Meattle's finding isn't legitimate. I'm just saying I don't have enough information to make that determination.

  • kwie2011
    9 years ago

    Escolat,


    About photoperiod, artificial light, and rest periods:


    Different plants have different requirements for different functions. Lots of plants survive and even thrive entirely under 24-hour artificial light in office buildings, and so on, but few bloom. Most plants need the photoperiod to change in a certain way in order to trigger things like blooming, but it isn't as simple as "increased day length causes flowering," for example. There are plants that are triggered to bloom by the length of the day, and others that use the length of the night, and those arent the same thing in artificial light where a "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours. In other words, a plant that depends on the length of the night to bloom, might not bloom if the night is interrupted by just an hour of artificial light, whereas a plant that normally blooms at the same time of year but depends on the day lento the rather than the night length won't care if it's night is briefly interrupted. This is the science behind forcing bulbs, and forcing blooms.


    Most plants that evolve in temperate regions benefit from longer days. People living very far north, where the summer sun doesn't ever really set, can grow some amazing flowers, and some of the largest vegetables - like giant cabbages, but even if kept from freezing, I don't know whether those plants would thrive like that year after year, and I don't have time to look it up for you. You can do your own internet search though.


    Standard fluorescent light is a wide enough spectrum for many plants to grow, but daylight bulbs work better, and some are designed with the specific spectrum that plants use, but again you'll have to look that information up on your own. It's readily available on the web.

  • ellenr22 - NJ - Zone 6b/7a
    9 years ago

    another option would be to not pollute the earth, the air.

    dert17 thanked ellenr22 - NJ - Zone 6b/7a
  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    MsGreenFinger GW(8 Ireland)

    I
    didn't base my post on scientific research. But I did look up articles
    about 'air purifying plants based on a NASA research' which are actually
    the most common house plants. (Palm, spider plant, Sans., english ivy,
    peace lily, boston fern etc)
    Maybe it does matter what kind of plant one has, how many, what size and
    how fast they grow. But I am sure, having a dozen large specimens in
    your home will make the air quality better, just as they make the life
    quality better.

    Ok, I respect your opinion. Of course NASA made great thing with this study. But it's really complex task to clean bad air.

    This is from wikipedia:

    Since high humidity is associated with increased mold growth, allergic responses, and respiratory responses, the presence of additional moisture from houseplants may not be desirable in all indoor settings

    Houseplants together with the medium in which they are grown can reduce components of indoor air pollution, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as benzene, toluene, and xylene. Plants remove CO2 and release oxygen and water, although the quantitative impact for house plants is small. Most of the effect is attributed to the growing medium alone, but even this effect has finite limits associated with the type and quantity of medium and the flow of air through the medium.[24] The effect of house plants on VOC concentrations was investigated in one study, done in a static chamber, by NASA for possible use in space colonies.[25] The results showed that the removal of the challenge chemicals was roughly equivalent to that provided by the ventilation that occurred in a very energy efficient dwelling with a very low ventilation rate, an air exchange rate of about 1/10 per hour. Therefore, air leakage in most homes, and in non-residential buildings too, will generally remove the chemicals faster than the researchers reported for the plants tested by NASA. The most effective household plants reportedly included aloe vera, English ivy, and Boston fern for removing chemicals and biological compounds.[26]

    Plants also appear to reduce airborne microbes, molds, and increase humidity.[27] However, the increased humidity can itself lead to increased levels of mold and even VOCs.[28]

    When CO2 concentrations are elevated indoors relative to outdoor concentrations, it is only an indicator that ventilation is inadequate to remove metabolic products associated with human occupancy. Plants require CO2 to grow and release oxygen when they consume CO2. A study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology considered uptake rates of ketones and aldehydes by the peace lily (Spathiphyllum clevelandii) and golden pothos (Epipremnum aureum.) Akira Tani and C. Nicholas Hewitt found "Longer-term fumigation results revealed that the total uptake amounts were 30−100 times as much as the amounts dissolved in the leaf, suggesting that volatile organic carbons are metabolized in the leaf and/or translocated through the petiole."[29] It is worth noting the researchers sealed the plants in Teflon bags. "No VOC loss was detected from the bag when the plants were absent. However, when the plants were in the bag, the levels of aldehydes and ketones both decreased slowly but continuously, indicating removal by the plants".[30] Studies done in sealed bags do not faithfully reproduce the conditions in the indoor environments of interest. Dynamic conditions with outdoor air ventilation and the processes related to the surfaces of the building itself and its contents as well as the occupants need to be studied.

    While results do indicate house plants may be effective at removing some VOCs from air supplies, a review of studies between 1989 and 2006 on the performance of houseplants as air cleaners, presented at the Healthy Buildings 2009 conference in Syracuse, NY, concluded "...indoor plants have little, if any, benefit for removing indoor air of VOC in residential and commercial buildings."[31]

    Since high humidity is associated with increased mold growth, allergic responses, and respiratory responses, the presence of additional moisture from houseplants may not be desirable in all indoor settings.[32]


    ellenr22

    another option would be to not pollute the earth, the air.

    Agree

  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    kwie2011


    This is from wikipedia. "Plants remove CO2 and release oxygen and water, although the quantitative impact for house plants is small."


    I hoped that houseplants will give me a lot of oxygen, but it seems that this is not an easy task for them too.



  • kwie2011
    9 years ago

    Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. I'm sorry you weren't able to find what you'd hoped for. Still, unless your home is very damp and subject to mold problems already, it won't likely hurt to bring in some houseplants. If nothing else, they are a joy to look at and care for.

  • dert17
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    kwie2011

    Yes, mold is a problem.


    This is Wolverton' opinion. This man made the study for NASA.


    Will houseplants in a bedroom remove the oxygen at night?

    No. Do the animals underneath the dense, tropical canopy of the rain forest die at night from lack of oxygen? I don't think so. It is true that some plants use a small amount of oxygen at night. However, others such as succluents, orchids and bromeliads actually add oxygen to the air at night. The Sanseviera (Snake Plant or Mother-In-Law's Tongue), a common easy to grow plant, also gives off oxygen at night. The only effect one should receive from filling a bedroom with plants is a feeling of breathing healthy indoor air. The only caveat is to make sure the soil's surface is covered to prevent mold spore growth.
    Sourse: http://www.wolvertonenvironmental.com/airFAQ.htm


    Do I need cover the soil's surface? How can I do that?

  • kwie2011
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    C. comosum and Sansevieria are both tolerant of dry conditions, so if watered sparingly, the soil shouldn't grow as much fungus as some other plants. Because of the growth habit of sansevieria, and it's adaptation to conserve water in dry conditions, it shouldn't release much water into the air, if any, and therefore shouldn't raise the humidity in your home.


    If mold is still a concern for you, you might consider growing in grit instead of soil. Grit is a soil-free growing medium, usually composed of course inorganic materials with a consistency something like cat litter. It doesn't hold water like soil does, and therefore is less prone to mold. To find information on grit, search for posts by Tapla here on GardenWeb. He posts recipes and explanations of how it works and the benefits to plants. I'm under the impression you aren't in the US, so getting the ingredients might be a challenge for you, but I'm sure there are suitable substitutes almost anywhere. Search 'Al's Gritty Mix.' It is made of equal parts of Turface (or commercial spill absorbent made from coarse diatomaceous earth), crumbled granite or #2 cherry stone (often sold here in the US as chicken scratch or chicken grit), and uncomposted pine bark broken into the same size pieces as the rest. My grit leaves out the bark.

    There are drawbacks to grit. It's very heavy, so hanging plants need very good anchors and hangers. It drains so fast that most plants must be watered a couple of times per week, or even more often in the growing season. It spills easy. It is very loose, so tall plants like sansevieria usually need to be held in place until the roofs are established enough to hold them vertically. Grit also requires a fertilizer that includes calcium and magnesium, or you have to add these yourself in the form of something like Epsom salts and gypsum because standard fertilizers don't include these. Grit isn't for everyone or every situation, but it should substantially reduce mold spores in growing medium, and might be worth the trouble for you.


    Just covering the soil surface with something like plastic wrap that's impenetrable to dissolved gases could lead to anaerobic conditions in your soil which can cause serious problems and might kill the plants. Roots need air. Organisms in soil produce some gases, but without exposure to air, I don't know whether that's enough. Also, covering the soil holds in moisture which will increase fungal growth, and thus release more mold spores when you disturb the cover to water the plant. But, mold spores are bigger than dissolved gasses, so something that isn't air-tight, but doesn't let microbes through might work. Maybe a piece of dense fabric spread tightly across the pot an inch or so above the soil, or maybe even paper. Just a thought. It's fraught with problems though - like how to water without disturbing it. You might have to wash or replace it weekly. A layer of top dressing like small river stones, pea gravel, other nonporous material, or even something like grit might reduce surface mold while still allowing roots to breathe. My feeling is that the difference will be negligible, but that is speculation only.

    For photos of my grit, and some comments from Tapla (Al is his name), read my post titled something like "diatomaceous earth vs. fired clay in gritty mix." Most of the thread won't be very helpful to you, but scroll down and you will see photos I posted of my own grit. That'll give you an idea of the type of medium. It can be made of many things besides what I mentioned above, including pumice, or even plain, clay cat litter. The particle size is important, and that is easily seen in that thread.


    If you choose to grow spider plants, in most climates they will grow very well, apparently indefinitely, in plain water. I keep a dish pan full of them. They have no soil. I just keep about 1/2 to 1 inch of water in the pan. They are growing and flowering and producing pups like mad, and have been for at least a year and a half. You'll have to fertilize if you do this, but to avoid mold growth, just keep a couple of pans or containers and transfer them from one to the other every week or 2 or 3 while you wash the pans and replace the water with fresh. I'm sure you can find more attractive containers than dish pans. They container needs to be wide so that the water is shallow and has lots of surface area for gas exchange with the air. Tall containers that don't have enough surface area will eventually deplete the water of dissolved gasses and kill the plants, but wide, shallow water doesn't have that problem. Spider plants are so tolerant of weird conditions that you almost can't fail. I think you have 'Vittatum', which isn't as tolerant as the plain green type, but I think it'll also grow that way. I'll post a couple photos of my tub full of spiders for you.

    Hope that helps you find what will work for you.




    dert17 thanked kwie2011
  • dert17
    Original Author
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    MsGreenFinger GW(8 Ireland)

    I
    didn't base my post on scientific research. But I did look up articles
    about 'air purifying plants based on a NASA research' which are actually
    the most common house plants. (Palm, spider plant, Sans., english ivy,
    peace lily, boston fern etc)
    Maybe it does matter what kind of plant one has, how many, what size and
    how fast they grow. But I am sure, having a dozen large specimens in
    your home will make the air quality better, just as they make the life
    quality better.

    You also can read this interesting aticle:

    Can House Plants Solve IAQ Problems?

    The idea of common plants solving IAQ problems is attractive. Most
    people like having plants in their homes and offices and in the hotels,
    stores, and public buildings they visit. However, important questions
    exist as to whether plants can actually affect indoor air sufficiently
    to warrant their use as air cleaners.

    Can House Plants Solve IAQ Problems-2.pdf
    (PDF document
    38Kb)

    This is from this article:
    To date, advocates have not reported the results from actual field tests. One field study was begun and failed, according to a strong advocate of the interiorscape approach to IAQ control. Stuart Snyder is the president of Aqua/Trends of Boca Raton, Florida, a firm that sells irrigation systems for interiorscapes. He offered his explanation as part of a 13-page letter to Robert Axelrad, Director of EPA's Indoor Air Division. Responding to what he calls EPA's criticism of the NASA work, Snyder wrote, “In many ways small systems are better able to isolate factors, and more clearly define mechanisms at work.... Larger environments are too subject to conflicting variables. Real life, field studies with their complex dynamics are also valuable, and should be implemented at later stages of research -- they are however, more difficult to accurately stage and evaluate” Snyder continued, “Scaled up studies must be made at some point. Associated Landscape Contractors of America have already attempted a controlled study in an office building. It failed as a study because of these difficulties.” The office-building study was done for over a year under realistic conditions and with as much control as can be achieved in a field study, There was no indication that the presence of plants had any measurable effect. HBI Inc., which conducted the study, reported virtually no effect of plants on the VOC concentrations.

    John R. Girman (Chief of the Analysis Branch at EPA's Indoor Air Division) has prepared a memo that details some shortcomings of the NASA study's claims for the efficacy of plants. The memo was included in correspondence between Axelrad and Snyder. Girman's memo responds to some of the technical issues presented by Snyder and other advocates of IAQ control with house plants. The memo's title is “Comment on the Use of Plants as a Means to Control Indoor Air Pollution,” (undated.) Girman analyzes the notion that NASA research shows plants are effective at removing indoor air pollutants at realistic concentrations and time frames. He calculates that at the most favorable conditions, it would take 680 plants in a typical house to achieve the same pollutant removal rate Wolverton and his colleagues reported they achieved in the test chamber.

    However, scale-up considerations are also important. It appears that the average chamber volume used in Wolverton's tests was 0.5 m3. This means the results must be appropriately scaled-up for use in a larger environment to allow for differences in volumetric loading (the number of plants per volume of space). This does not appear to have been done. The volume of a typical house in the U.S. is 340 m3 with a floor area of 139 m2 (1500 ft2). Thus, the recommendation that one plant be used per 100 ft2 implies the use of 15 plants in a typical house. [ALCA recommends 1 plant per 100 ft2. Wolverton recently told us he now recommends 2 or 3 plants/100 ft2, but he says “he is “just throwing a dart."] This would provide for 340 m3/15 plants or 23 m3 per plant, not 0.5 m3 per plant as in the chamber. This means that each plant would have to clean 46 times more volume than it did in the test chamber or, as would actually happen, it will clean the larger volume less effectively. To be more precise, each plant will have a pollutant removal rate which is only 1/46 of the rate it would have in the chamber, i.e., only 0.002 h-1. Thus, plants at the volumetric loading recommended would be expected to contribute relatively little to pollutant removal in any indoor environment with typical ventilation


    To achieve the same pollutant removal rate as realized in the test chamber, one would need to have the same volumetric loading, i.e., 680 plants in a typical house (340 m3 divided by 0.5 m3 per plant). This does not seem practical and this forms the basis for concern that adequate and realistic scale-up considerations are necessary before the use of plants can be recommended as a means to control IAQ. Similar concerns apply to the use of plants to control IAQ in office environments. It is hardly surprising that the attempt to validate the test chamber results by Associated Landscape Contractors of America did not provide measurable success

    ellenr22 - NJ - Zone 6b/7a(6b/7a)

    another option would be to not pollute the earth, the air.

    I agree with you but people need to vote for the right people in the elections to do that.

  • star stern
    8 years ago

    The three plants Areca palm, Mother-in-Law's Tongue and money plant. are best for clean the air produce oxygen better then spider plant ?

  • kwie2011
    8 years ago

    Star stern, since plants produce oxygen as a waste product of photosynthesis, it's almost certainly proportional to the mass of the plant's living tissues, and the speed at which it is growing. Spider plants are very fast growers, so my semi-educated guess is that pound-for-pound, they produce more O2 than the other comparatively slow-growing plants. I'd also guess that all-green spider plants produce more O2 than variegated spider plants of equal size. I'm just making an educated guess though.


    As for purportedly cleaning the air of formaldehyde and other such toxins, I don't know the biological mechanism for this, so I can't even guess what plant(s) do the best job.

  • tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
    8 years ago

    I think if anyone has the impression that having a dozen or so plants, all purported to be top notch at cleaning the air or producing O2 and all in one room, is going to make a difference any average person can quantify, they've been misled.

    Al

Sponsored
Ronald J. Smith Interiors, LLC
Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars4 Reviews
Veteran Interior Designer Serving Clients in Upper Marlboro