On reducing CO2 concentration in buildings by using plants

Ondřej Franek; Čeněk Jarský

doi:10.14311/AP.2021.61.0617

Authors

Ondřej Franek Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Construction Technology, Thákurova 7, 160 00 Prague, Czech Republic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7248-5452
Čeněk Jarský Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Construction Technology, Thákurova 7, 160 00 Prague, Czech Republic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-3584

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14311/AP.2021.61.0617

Keywords:

carbon dioxide, climate change, indoor greening, indoor air quality, building ventilation

Abstract

The article deals with the implementation of plants in the indoor environment of buildings to reduce the concentration of CO₂. Based on a specified model representing the internal environment of an office space, it was studied whether the requirement for the total amount of ventilated air could be reduced by using plants, thereby achieving savings of operating costs in the building ventilation sector. The present research describes the effect of plant implementation according to different levels of CO₂ concentration of the supply air, specifically with values of 410 ppm corresponding to the year 2020, 550 ppm to the year 2050 and 670 ppm to the year 2100, as well as according to different levels of CO₂ concentration in the indoor environment, namely 1000 ppm and 1500 ppm, the illumination of plants in the indoor environment is constant in the model, PPFD equals to 200 μmolm⁻² s⁻¹. Based on the computational model, it was found that the implemented plants can positively influence the requirement for the total amount of ventilated air, the most significant effect is in the case of a low indoor environment quality, with the CO₂ concentration of 1500 ppm, and a high supply air quality 410 p˙pm. The simulation also showed that compared to 2020, by the year 2100, it will be necessary to increase the ventilation of the indoor environment by 25.1% to ensure the same quality of the indoor
environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

U. Satish, M. J. Mendell, K. Shekhar, et al. Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to- oderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(12):1671–1677, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104789.

J. G. Allen, P. MacNaughton, U. Satish, et al. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: A controlled exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environmental Health Perspectives 124(6):805–812, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037.

C.-Y. Lu, J.-M. Lin, Y.-Y. Chen, Y.-C. Chen. Buildingrelated symptoms among office employees associated with indoor carbon dioxide and total volatile organic compounds. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12(6):5833–5845, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120605833.

D.-H. Tsai, J.-S. Lin, C.-C. Chan. Office workers’ sick building syndrome and indoor carbon dioxide concentrations. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 9(5):345–351, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.675291.

L.-G. Hersoug, A. Sjödin, A. Astrup. A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity. Nutrition and Diabetes 2(3):e31, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/nutd.2012.2.

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Global Monitoring Laboratory: Earth system research laboratories. NOAA/GML and scripps institution of oceanography, 2021. [2021-04-07], https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html.

B. I. McNeil, T. P. Sasse. Future ocean hypercapnia driven by anthropogenic amplification of the natural CO2 cycle. Nature 529(7586):383–386, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16156.

C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, et al. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, chap. Human Health: Impacts, Adaptation, and Co-Benefits, pp. 709–754. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379.016.

D. Ürge-Vorsatz, L. F. Cabeza, S. Serrano, et al. Heating and cooling energy trends and drivers in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41:85–98, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.039.

M. Tuháček, O. Franek, P. Svoboda. Application of FMEA methodology for checking of construction’s project documentation and determination of the most risk areas. Acta Polytechnica 60(5):448–454, 2020. https://doi.org/10.14311/AP.2020.60.0448.

D. Tudiwer, A. Korjenic. The effect of an indoor living wall system on humidity, mould spores and CO2- concentration. Energy and Buildings 146:73–86, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.048.

C. Gubb, T. Blanusa, A. Griffiths, C. Pfrang. Can houseplants improve indoor air quality by removing CO2 and increasing relative humidity? Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 11(10):1191–1201, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0618-9.

J. A. Nelson, B. Bugbee, D. A. Campbell. Economic analysis of greenhouse lighting: Light emitting diodes vs. high intensity discharge fixtures. PLoS ONE 9(6):e99010, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099010.

J. A. Nelson, B. Bugbee, Z.-H. Chen. Analysis of environmental effects on leaf temperature under sunlight, high pressure sodium and light emitting diodes. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0138930, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138930.

ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1-2013: Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. Informative appendix C — Rationale for minimum physiological requirements for respiration air based on CO2 concenrtation. ASHRAE, Atlanta, 2013.