Since it is Christmas, I thought it would be appropriate to write about the birth of a myth. Gardening information is full of myths–untruths that seem to take on a life of their own. As part of my effort to understand these myths, I also want to understand how myths get started. The history of most myths has been lost but every once in a while I am able to find evidence that clearly shows how a myth is born.
Understanding how a myth is born can be very educational. It provides insight into how the human mind works. It also trains you to spot future potential myths and to better evaluate the information you are reading. So let’s celebrate this holiday by peering into the start of a myth.

A Garden Myth is Born
A few posts ago I wrote about the Air Purifying Plants Myth. Almost every web site that discusses this topic refers to an earth shattering research paper that supports the idea that adding a few plants to the home will purify the air. The research work was done by NASA–what better reference can you have–maybe that is why everyone uses it? If NASA says it–it must be true.
The NASA paper must be the start of this myth and so it is a good place for me to start. Interestingly, virtually none of the web sites give a reference for the paper. What this usually means is that none of the authors have actually read the paper they are quoting. After a few clicks, I found the original research paper, 1989 (ref 1).
This study concludes:
“House plants along with activated carbon plant filters have demonstrated the potential for improving
indoor air quality by removing trace organic pollutants”
and
“the plant root-soil zone appears to be the most effective area for removing volatile organic chemicals”
There is nothing in the conclusion of this report that says houseplants will improve the air quality of our homes. In fact it specifically says plants + carbon filters. The reason for this is that much of the study centers around a special container that grows the plant in activated carbon instead of soil. We do not do this in our homes!
The second quote is also critically important. As I’ll discuss shortly, when soil was used, it was much more effective at removing pollutants than the plants themselves.
Neither of these conclusions are mentioned in any of the web sites that promote the use of plants to purify our air, but they do quote this reference as their primary source of information. Let’s look at several reasons why authors make this mistake.
For the rest of this blog I will only use data for plants growing in soil and ignore the experiments for plants growing in charcoal. If you are interested in the charcoal studies see reference #1.
Selective Reading
One of the biggest problems people have in understanding facts is selective hearing or in this case selective reading. They read everything, but they only pull out the facts that support their ideologies. In this case the use of carbon filtration, and the importance of soil were completely left out. It is a pretty big mistake since one of the main goals of the study, according to the introduction of the study, was to test the plant carbon filter combination.
The popular press also left out a very important word, “potential”. This is done all the time with scientific studies. The scientist finds some facts, and then proposes a possible future use of their findings. The popular press leaves out key words like ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and jumps to the futuristic positive conclusion. They turn possible future ideas into today’s fact.
Reported Facts
What are the reported facts? I’ve read through a number of web sites reporting on the NASA study and picked out a few facts that are commonly reported.
1) plants clean 90% of chemicals in 24 hours
2) Use 1 plant per 100 sq feet of home for most effective air purification
3) The best 10, 15, 17 or 20 plants are listed by name
It is interesting that most sites say nothing about how many plants you need, or what size they should be–a few do mention point #2 above. It kind of makes sense that if plants are going to be used as a cleaner of chemicals, the size and number of plants should be an important piece of information? I guess I am just being too logical.
Let’s have a look at each of these so-called facts.
Plants Remove 90% of Pollutants
That is quite a high number and clearly stated. With the right kind of plants your pollution should be 90% less than before you bought the plants. But what did the research find?
The NASA study only looked at 3 chemical pollutants. There are hundreds of chemical pollutants, so even if plants removed the 3 that were studied, it would be incorrect to report that plants removed 90% of pollutants – most pollutants were not studied.
For benzene the researchers reported a 50 to 90% removal rate in 24 hours. For trichloroethylene it was 9 to 23%. The study only reported the results for 7 of the 12 plants used. Preliminary testing for the other 5 plants had values so low that researchers felt it was not worth continuing the testing with them. The popular press decided to use the highest number in the report, namely 90%, or more correctly 89.9%.
The 90% was only found for one plant type out of 12, and for only 1 pollutant out of 3. And it was not 90% – it was a value somewhere between 50 and 90%.
Pollution Free in 24 Hours
Wow–in 24 hours your home is pollution free! Or at least for the 3 chemicals that were tested. Turns out even that is not an accurate statement. The NASA work was done in a lab using closed chambers. A plant was placed inside the chamber, and a chemical was injected. The amount remaining in the chamber was then measured over the next 24 hours.
Homes don’t work that way. In our home, the manufactured stuff we have (furniture, carpets, flooring, house cleaners etc) is constantly adding new chemicals to the air. As soon as some are removed, the stuff adds more. Think of it as a conveyor belt delivering chemicals. For you to be pollution free, you need to remove them as fast as they are being added.
None of the testing done by NASA looked at the home situation.
This is a very common source for the birthing of myths. It makes a lot of sense for researchers to use simple conditions that are well controlled in the lab. It is the best way to pin down certain facts. The problem is that most of the time the results of such tests can’t be applied to “the field”, a term used for real life situations, which in this case is our home.
Based on this report, and any report that I have seen on this subject, any statement about homes being pollution free in 24 hours is nonsense.
One Plant per 100 Square Feet
The statement about using 1 plant per 100 sq ft did not come out of the NASA report. I am not sure where the number originated, but the Associated Landscape Contractors of America (ALCA) does recommend this number.
How does this compare to the research?
The experiment used two different sized chambers, I assume for different size plants. One was 15 cu ft in volume and the other was 31 cu ft. A 100 sq ft room with 8 foot ceilings would be 800 cu ft in volume. If we are looking at removing pollutants from air it is important to look at volume, not the size of the floor space. This means that for you to mimic the research and get the same results, you need to have 50 small plants or 25 large plants for each 100 sq ft room.
It is clear that anyone who suggests 1 plant per room has not looked at the research.
Best Plants for Cleaning Air
One web site reports the following:
“Best air-filtering houseplants, according to NASA –If these plants are good enough
to filter the air of the space station, surely they’re good enough for your home.”
Are Plants Responsible For Removing The Pollutants?
One of the most interesting results from the study is the observation that plants are not responsible for removing most of the chemicals tested. Which means that any web site reporting that plants are cleaning the air are not reporting the facts.
The experiment was carried out as follows. A plant was placed in the test chamber, a chemical was added and the amount of chemical was measured for a 24 hr period. A few weeks later the same plant was retested but this time all of it’s leaves were removed before being put into the chamber. A similar pot with just fresh soil was also tested.
This is what the study found for the removal of benzene by Dracena marginata.
- Plant with leaves removed 58%
- Plant without leaves removed 50%
- Fresh soil (ie no plant or microbes) removed 20%
- Leak Test (nothing in the chamber) removed 7%
There is no indication in the study about the accuracy and repeatability of the numbers. Statistically 58% and 50% could be the same (ie not statistically different) in which case plants removed no benzene, but lets say the numbers are accurate.
Plants only removed 8% of the benzene, not 90% as reported by the popular press and Dracena is frequently on the best 10 plants lists.
The roots and microbes removed 30%, and more recent testing indicates it is the microbes, not the roots, that are responsible. The microbes are much more effective at removing chemicals from the air than the plants. Even fresh soil with no plant or microbes, at 13% (20-7), is better at removing benzene, than the plant.
The idea that microbes can remove VOCs has been exploited by Neoplants who has developed GMO microbes that are more efficient than regular microbes in removing VOCs. They are featured in their new product Neo Px
When a plant was exposed to benzene for a 6 week period, the % removal increased and so did the bacterial count in the soil, showing a correlation between the number of bacteria and benzene removed. The benzene was feeding the bacteria, and so they multiplied.
The NASA study was poorly done in a number of respects, and some of these issues are dealt with in more detain in references 2 and 3.
A Gardening Myth is Born
The NASA study shows that plants remove a small amount of certain chemicals from the air. A 1500 sq ft home would need around 400 large plants to remove most of the tested chemicals–something that is not practical. Reports that list the best plants for the job are probably not valid lists. The microbes in the soil of the pot are more efficient at removing chemicals than the plants themselves.
Reporters who write about the ability of plants to remove pollutants either have not read the reference they quote (most likely case) or they have cherry picked the data that suits their story. Most have probably just reported what previous reporters said. The original reporters made the following mistakes:
- ignored the lab conditions used to carry out the experiments
- used the very best number in the report, ie 90%, and extrapolated it to all plants and all chemicals
- extrapolated results for 3 chemicals to “all pollutants”
- completely ignored the scientists own conclusions, namely microbes and charcoal filters remove most of the chemicals
As reported previously in Air Purifying Plants – Do They Work?, further research by others, in field conditions (ie office buildings), have not shown any changes in chemical levels due to plants. The idea that plants can clean the air in your home is a myth and now you have some insight as to how such a gardening myth is born.
Kamal Meattle – Plants and Air Purification
Kamal Meattle presented a very convincing TED Talk video on line promoting the idea that plants purify air. You can see the video and read the full story at, Kamal Meattle – Plants and Air Purification.
Do Houseplants Increase Oxygen Levels in the Home?
Several people commented on my posts that houseplants were still valuable in the home because they increase oxygen levels and that makes us feel better.
I have now looked into this claim in Do Houseplants Increase Oxygen Levels?
references:
1) Plants Remove Air Pollutants: http://www.wolvertonenvironmental.com/NASA-Report-89.pdf
2) How Well Do House plants Clean Air?: http://www.buildingecology.com/articles/critical-review-how-well-do-house-plants-perform-as-indoor-air-cleaners/
3) Can House Plants Solve Indoor Air Quality Problems: http://www.practicalasthma.net/pages/topics/aaplants.htm





Cannot solely rely on using the NASA study to confirm or debunk as myth the benefits of plants to purify the air since this 1989 study in question used a close system for the purpose of determining whether to introduce plants in a close environment like a space station (future possible human migration to another host planet perhaps) and with limited number of plants that need low light requirement. The benefits of plants are many and whether or not we decide more studies are needed to validate this claim is up to the readers of this article. Personally, I think research studies have limitations depending on the purpose of the studies, samplings, controls, variables, etc., and the holistic benefits of plants surpass any limited study.
I’ve been a fan of science since I was a kid and now with over a half century experience I look first for the the money motivating every science article. The NASA house plant story is one of the worst cases where soft science writers, worn out trying to dummy down real science to make their readers feel “smart”, keep their jobs by writing up another version of this simple myth.
NASA didn’t undertake this study alone. . .it was a JOINT study, “jointly supported” by NASA and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America. No agenda there, right? This stupid myth has persisted now for THIRTY YEARS. When did people become so blindly ignorant?
I follow you from Colombia, my question, what are the advantages of having plants inside the house?
They have nothing beneficial but to be a decoration?
Just for decoration.
Decoration, yes. But also a way to connect with nature and an aid in improving ones mental health.
So, which plant was the one plant that cleaned the air, of that one chemical, up to 90%? Considering most of the plants didn’t do much… I’d very much like to know what that one effective plant was!
You missed the point of the article. There was no one plant that was effective at improving the air in a room. It only cleaned the air in an artificial small box that did not have constant gases added.
The plants are listed in the link to the research study.
-> “Yes the sponge removes bleach. But if more bleach is being poured on at the same time, the bleach is never removed from the counter. It is always there.”
I understand what you are saying but that logic just doesn’t hold up. Just because the chemical is still physically within the plant. A tree absorbs CO2 from the air, thereby removing and purifying the air from CO2. Does a tree release all that CO2 upon dying? Absolutely. But the question is it removed from the air? The NASA study and all the studies you have referenced all say yes.
Now again, the argument presented here jumps to the conclusion that the plants studied don’t purify household air. But you’re making that assessment based on your belief that the data is A) too small to be statistically relevant and B) that the findings in the NASA study could never possibly translate to the real-world. Again, I’m not sure you are qualified as an air quality specialist to be determining what is statistically relevant, or to say that future studies would prove this idea wrong.
You reference new studies that agree with your conclusion but again, they all show the plants removing impurities from the air. Your argument is it isn’t “enough”, which is an opinion. The fact is a plant removes common household VOCs from the air.
And finally you state “the blog is written for home gardeners. Agreed some liberties are taken in the title, which by necessity needs to rank high on Google.” – Is this not what this article is criticizing? That other gardening blogs are making conclusions they can’t make (that the NASA study translates to the house)? This article does the same thing while pointing out that other articles are wrong for doing this.
I appreciate taking a longer look at research, but words matter when you are interpreting the research for hundreds of other people. And by saying that plants don’t remove enough pollutants to be “relevant” is an opinion, not a factual statement. Every study you have referenced proves they do, to varying levels, remove pollutants from the air.
Can you provide a single study that shows a reduction of air pollutants in a home or office?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=HdOibycDIA4&feature=emb_logo
Hi Nicholas,
Thank you for your comment, which I agree with.
I founded a small company in 2015 that uses plants to purify the air in rooms. Of course, we also refer to the NASA study, but have interpreted it differently and, above all, made it practically usable for rooms on planet Earth. It looks like this: First we filter the room air in a special mineral substrate. And then this filter is continuously cleaned by the plant roots (in interaction with microorganisms). All this works without electricity or noise, looks good and only costs a little water from time to time. Measurements in the laboratory as well as in offices or private homes have shown good results with these biofilters. We make these studies available on our website (https://airy.green/en/pages/funktionsweise) and also offer our customers the opportunity to carry out their own monitor measurements with appropriate sensors. Because one thing is certain: air quality is highly complex and changes repeatedly, sometimes within seconds.
I had a look at your studies. none of the English ones measure a reduction of VOCs in a normal room.
If you have such a study, I would be interested in seeing it.
Also from your website:
Air purifying plants
The NASA study has confirmed it: Some of our popular houseplants are particularly talented specialists when it comes to air pollutants.
That is not true.
A previous response of yours: ”Maybe you did not read the article? I never said plants do not absorb gases from the air. What I did say is that they do not purify the air.“
“Absorbing” gases and/or chemicals from the air is another way of saying “removing” gases and/or chemicals from the air, as the substance would no longer be in the air, thus “purified” from the substance. The definition of “purify” is to remove impurities. Is a sponge being used to absorb bleach, for example, off of a counter top not removing the bleach from a surface, thereby “purifying” bleach from the surface?
Also, most peer-reviewed research studies something within a confined environment in hopes of applying the conclusion to the “real-world”, as you call it. Most, if not all, researchers never make a definitive statement, but say that their findings are important and should be studied further.
Additionally, you state many times that various statistics (such as the 8% difference between leaves and no leaves) in the study are too small to matter or be relevant to the real-world. I’m not sure you are qualified enough on indoor air quality to make a judgement on what numbers are statistically relevant. I would argue that a group of researchers and academics in the field would be better resources to determine what is statistically relevant.
Yes the sponge removes bleach. But if more bleach is being poured on at the same time, the bleach is never removed from the counter. It is always there.
The latest meta study on this subject came to the same conclusion I did.
Great read. Thx
Hello,
I think you did a good job with this blogpost. It is often a problem that media states studies incorrectly.
I came across this topic in the first time by watching the TED talk “How to grow fresh air” (https://www.ted.com/talks/kamal_meattle_on_how_to_grow_your_own_fresh_air) where he gives three plants that can do this. I mean, such a TED talk is much more serious than a fast written blog post on a average gardening page. What do you think of it?
And as I understand it, the soil and the microbes in it are a main factor in increasing the air by the system “plant”. Does this effect exist by using hydroponics?
You can read all about what I think of this TED talk here: https://www.gardenmyths.com/kamal-meattle-plants-air-purification/
Part of the NASA study was conducted using potted plants just in their pots, and a small portion of the paper presents results of the addition of the activated carbon filter. You’re suggesting all the results were with of plants with the carbon filter, which is not the case.
Not sure why you say that. The majority of the data in the report is for plants in soil, not in pots with carbon filters.