Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Though the same caveat probably applies to all air purifiers too. So whatever reservations you have against plants as air purifiers apply verbatim to commercial air purifiers. Then why the bias against plants? Funny how you contradicted yourself, not to mention those downvoting me for speaking about plants and yet being enthusiastic about air filters!!
I didn't downvote you and I didn't contradict myself, I only posted a link that urges precise understanding of what the study does and does not show, and to what extent. I have no bias against plants or in favor of commercial air purifiers.
On one hand you say the focus on NASA study is on the word "sealed". That would directly mean that you believe that plants as indoor purification would not be helpful if there was no sealed environment
And then you say that "the same thing would apply to air purifiers"
You clearly have a bias against plants, as do the few who downvoted me. I know you didn't downvote because HN doesn't allow you to do that!
The study which you have linked says that "more research needs to be done to check air purification" and guess what? They are going to do a study in a sealed environment because if a plant can remove Benzene, Formaldehyde and Toulene in a sealed environment then it can do the same when its not in a sealed environment. You cant5 shrug the results of NASA study saying "it was done in a n atypical environment", of course it was done in a sealed room.
The NASA study would have been refuted if no amount of Benzene was removed by plants. That'd mean that it is a waste of time and space for air purification, but they are not. Peace lily and Orchids removed Benzene. Period. Whether it was a sealed environment or not doesn't matter because results matter.
When a plant that costs less than 100$ has proven to remove harmful gases in a sealed room, I can't wrap my head around the logic of "debunking", the myth and going for a commercial air purifier that is costly af.
And why I say you contradicted yourself is that you criticized plants for being in a sealed room for being effective and then at the end you said "the same things apply to a regular sir purifer too"
This is exactly the fallacy Mr Trump had spoken to in a rally. He had said "I'll build a 100foot wall", the Mexicans will climb the wall, sure but they won't jump, unless of course they use ropes"
Yeah, they will use ropes and they will cross if they want to cross. That's not contradicting, it's a stupid logic.
Same issue with your case against house plants. "Keyword is sealed"
Which study has proven that air purifiers available in the market have done well in an aerated environment? The recommended way to use a commercial air purifier is to close doors and windows. Same issue as plants so if you recommend commercial purifiers over plants despite them both facing same shortcomings then you are biased against plants. End of story.