4.7 Article

Experimental investigation of the formaldehyde removal mechanisms in a dynamic botanical filtration system for indoor air purification

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 280, 期 -, 页码 235-243

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.07.059

关键词

Plant; Air cleaning; Microorganism; Formaldehyde

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51308382]
  2. NYSERDA
  3. Syracuse COE
  4. Phytofilter Technologies Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Botanical filtration has been proved to be effective for indoor gas pollutant removal. To understand the roles of different transport, storage and removal mechanism by a dynamic botanical air filter, a series of experimental investigations were designed and conducted in this paper. Golden Pothos (Epipremnum aureum) plants was selected for test, and its original soil or activated/pebbles root bed was used in different test cases. It was found that flowing air through the root bed with microbes dynamically was essential to obtain meaningful formaldehyde removal efficiency. For static potted plant as normally place in rooms, the clean air delivery rate (CADR), which is often used to quantify the air cleaning ability of portable air cleaners, was only similar to 5.1 m(3)/h per m(2) bed, while when dynamically with air flow through the bed, the CADR increased to similar to 233 m(3)/h per m(2) bed. The calculated CADR due to microbial activity is similar to 108 m(3)/h per m(2) bed. Moisture in the root bed also played an important role, both for maintaining a favorable living condition for microbes and for absorbing water-soluble compounds such as formaldehyde. The role of the plant was to introduce and maintain a favorable microbe community which effectively degraded the volatile organic compounds adsorbed or absorbed by the root bed. The presence of the plant increased the removal efficiency by a factor of two based on the results from the bench-scale root bed experiments. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据