Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Vegetation: A Sink for Atmospheric Pollutants

A. Clyde Hill

To cite this article: A. Clyde Hill (1971) Vegetation: A Sink for Atmospheric Pollutants, Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association, 21:6, 341-346, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1971.10469535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1971.10469535

Published online: 15 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2243

View related articles

Citing articles: 247 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
 Vegetation: A Sink for Atmospheric Pollutants
A. Clyde Hill
Department of Biology,
University of Utah

The possibility of vegetation being an important sink for gaseous air pollutants During the winter dormant season the
was investigated. Plant pollutant uptake measurements were made utilizing a surfaces would consist primarily of
needles of conifers, branches and stems
typical vegetation canopy and chambers that were designed specifically for of deciduous trees and shrubs, stubble,
gaseous exchange studies. The data indicate that an alfalfa canopy removed litter, etc. During the growing season,
gases from the atmosphere in the following order: hydrogen fluoride (HF) > leaves would provide the major surface.
sulfur dioxide (SO2) > chlorine (CI2) > nitrogen dioxide (NO2) > ozone (O3) > The outer leaf surface area is usually
peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) > nitric oxide (NO) > carbon monoxide (CO). The many times the corresponding land sur-
face area, and the cellular surface area
absorption rate of NO was low, and no absorption of CO could be detected with surrounding the intercellular air spaces
the methods used. In the typical ambient concentration range uptake increased within the leaf is considerably higher
linearly with increasing concentration except for O3 and CI2 which caused partial than the leaf surface area. In addition,
stomatal closure at the higher concentrations. Wind velocity above the plants, the cellular surfaces provide an aqueous
height of the canopy, and light intensity were shown to affect the pollutant removal phase in which soluble gases can dis-
solve, and the many metabolic processes
rate. A relationship between the absorption rate and solubility of the pollutant within the cell provide opportunities
in water was also shown. It was concluded that vegetation may be an important for chemical reactions. Morphologi-
sink for many gaseous air pollutants. cally, the leaves of plants are structures
highly specialized for the most efficient
removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
It has often been observed that we know If most pollutants have a relatively The stomatal openings on the leaf sur-
much more about the sources, move- short half-life, what are the major face and the intercellular air spaces
ment, and effects of air pollutants than processes responsible for their removal provide direct access for the diffusion
we do about their fate. When we con- from the atmosphere? Meetham3 con- of gases such as CO2 to the surfaces of
sider, for example, that a large smelter cluded that 14% of the SO2 emitted in the individual cells. The uptake of
may emit as much as 2000 tons of SO2 Britain could be accounted for by CO2 by leaves has been studied ex-
a day, or that on a world-wide basis deposition in rain or by the settling of tensively; however, relatively little
emission of SO2 from all sources is particulates. Since an additional 22% study has been given to the absorption
estimated to be 146 X 106 tons per year,1 was accounted for by being blown out to of other gases by leaves. SO2, HF,
it is evident that we need to know more sea, the remaining 64% was assumed to and m I 2 absorption have been measured
about the removal of SO2 from the have been removed by reaction with usually in relation to studies of plant
atmosphere. Many express concern surfaces. Ignoring the portion blown injury or the accumulation of toxic
that air pollutants such as SO2 accum- to sea, since it will be removed from the substances.5"11 Use of green belts to
ulate in the atmosphere and that life atmosphere later, 82% of the loss could reduce gaseous and particulate air
will be threatened as soon as the limited be accounted for by reaction with sur- pollutants has been discussed,12 but
volume of air becomes sufficiently faces. quantitative data on rates of removal or
polluted. The available data, however, their effectiveness are lacking.
If reaction with surfaces is the major
indicate that most pollutants are re- sink for certain gaseous air pollutants, To provide a basis for evaluating
moved rather rapidly from the atmo- we might logically consider the surfaces vegetation as a sink for air pollutants,
sphere and that accumulation may be available for reaction. Since vegetation chamber studies were initiated to deter-
minimal. For example, Meetham2 covers 90% of the land area in the mine the uptake rate of the major air
calculated the half-life of SO2 in Britain United States,4 it appears logical to pollutants by typical vegetation can-
to be less than 9 hours. consider vegetation as a possible sink. opies. Canopies were used rather than

June 1971 Volume 21, No. 6 341


Figure 1. Isometric drawing of air circulation and conditioning com-
ponents of the chamber showing: fan (A), plenums (B and G), inlet
and outlet walls (C and F), plant area (D), plant canopy (E), water coils
(H and I), barriers (K and L), damper (J), cold and warm water tanks
(M and N), water pumps (O), water mixing valves (P), compressor (Q),
ballasts (S), control area (T), and separate light bank (R).
individual leaves because of the diffi-
culties in relating the results of leaf
measurements to the field. Environ-
mental variables such as wind velocity,
light, temperature, and relative
humidity were controlled since they
affect the uptake rate.
A knowledge of plant absorption
rates and factors affecting absorption
is not only important to an understand-
ing of the removal of pollutants from
the atmosphere, but it also relates
directl}' to their potential for inducing
plant injury and to the accumulation
of toxic substances in plants which
might affect man or animals. In
addition, it is likely that certain essential
nutrients (e.g., N and S) that are ab-
sorbed by plants from the atmosphere
are important in increasing plant growth
under certain circumstances.
Methods
Chambers in which temperature,
relative humidity, light, and wind
velocity could be controlled were de-
signed and constructed for these studies.
The temperature, relative humidity,
and wind velocity control systems have
been described.13 A pictorial view of
the chamber is shown in Figure 1. A
1.4-m2 plant canopy (E) was placed in
the plant area of the chamber. The
interior of the chambers was made of
stainless steel welded at the seams to
reduce surface reaction. About 10%
of the recirculating air was passed
through cold and hot water heat ex-
changers (I and H) for temperature
and humidity control. The temperature
342
of the water circulated through the
coils was controlled by a system consist-
ing of temperature and humidity-sensing
elements, bridge and proportional am-
plifier circuits, and three-way mixing
valves that mixed water from cold and
hot water tanks with return water from
the coils. Specially designed inlet and
outlet walls (C and F) controlled air
movement across the chamber above the
canopy.
Air was recirculated because the high
volume of air exchange (about 4000
cfm) required for a 3-5 mile per hour
(mph) wind velocity above the plants
precluded the possibility of a one-air-
pass system. It was not practical to
control the temperature, relative hu-
midity, and pollutant concentration of
this volume of air.
Gaseous exchange between the plant
canopy and the atmosphere was mea-
sured in the closed system by maintain-
ing a predetermined concentration of
the pollutant and determining the rate
at which the gas was removed by the
plants. The pollutant was added to the
chamber at the same rate that it was
removed to maintain a constant con-
centration so the rate of removal was
equal to and measured by the rate of
addition. The analyzer, controller, and
pollutant addition system varied with
the pollutant, but except for PAN and
HF, control was automatic (Figure 2).
Air in the chamber was monitored
continuously with the pollutant ana-
lyzer, and the recorder controller oper-
ated a solenoid valve which controlled
pollutant addition to the chambers.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
The times that the flow control valve
opened and closed were recorded by the
"Simplex" Time Event Recorder. De-
pending on the pollutant, the pollutant
flow rate into the chamber was recorded
by use of a Hastings massflowmeter or a
rotometer. From the flow rate and the
flow time data, the pollutant uptake
rates were calculated. When fumigating
with PAN, a gas chromatograph with
an electron capture detector was used
to measure the concentration,14 and
the pollutant addition rate was con-
trolled and recorded manually. HF in
the chamber was measured both with an
Orion electrode, after sampling with a
midget impinger, and by the method
described by Pack, et al.u SO2 was
measured with a Beckman Model 906
analyzer, and O3, CI2, and NO2 were
measured with calibrated Mast ozone
instruments. NO and CO were also
measured with the Mast instrument
after converting NO to NO2 with Na2-
Cr2O4-impregnatedfiberglasspapers and
after reacting CO with I2Os and measur-
ing the I2 that was released. CO2 was
measured with a Beckman IR 215
Analyser. The O3 concentration of the
gas mixture from the O3 generator was
measured after dilution with charcoal
filtered air so that the concentration of
the gas added to the chamber could be
calculated. HF was added by a method
previously described,16 and the other
gases were diluted with N2 in LPO
tanks before addition. The uptake
rate of HF was determined by measur-
ing the increase in the fluoride content
of the plants. Fluoride in the plant
material was measured by the method
of Willard and Winter.17 With the
other pollutants, about 20% of the
pollutant was removed by the chamber
rather than by the plants, so a blank
uptake rate was determined at the same
concentration without plants in the
chamber each time that measurements
were made. A chamber conditioning
period of several hours was required
before a stable chamber uptake blank
could be measured, and all conditions
had to be the same (e.g., water vapor
had to be added to the chamber at the
same rate that the plants added water
through transpiration). The plants
were put in the chamber after the blank
was constant. The rate that condensa-
tion water was collected in a solenoid-
activated collection tube was recorded
on an event recorder, and from these
data, transpiration was calculated.
To aid in developing a typical field
canopy, the plants were grown in large,
9-in. deep boxes (about Y2 m2) filled
with a soil mix. The charcoal filtered
air greenhouses, in which the plants
were grown to the test stage, were
designed to simulate the ambient en-
vironment during the growing season
so that plant growth and development
would not be atypical.16

Figure 2. Pollutant concentration control and pollutant uptake mea-
suring system.
oo
1.2 - ^ 6 0 --
"c
-E
4
f /^
i! C02/
/ /
A
-"5.40
/ o
1t ii / /
-45 2 0 -
/ \t/ — Light
10
-A.M.-
o Time in hours
Figure 3. Diurnal variation in the uptake rate of NO2 by an oat canopy
in sunlight. CO2 uptake, transpiration, and light intensity are also
plotted.
Evaluation of Environmental Variables
A number of factors can influence
gaseous exchange between the atmo-
sphere and a plant canopy. The in-
fluence of several of these factors was
evaluated to help establish experimental
conditions under which reliable measure-
ments could be made.
Light
Because the chamber utilized artificial
lighting, uptake of CO2, O3, and NO2,
and transpiration under the artificial
light in comparison to sunlight was
evaluated. A chamber identical in size,
shape, and airflowcharacteristics to the
ones described was constructed of %-in.
ultraviolet—transmitting plexiglass and
aluminum angle. This chamber was
placed outside in the sun and connected
to the conditioning unit of one of the
other chambers by large air ducts. The
second chamber utilized artificial light.
In this way the plant area, temperature,
relative humidity, pollutant concentra-
tion, and wind velocity could be main-
tained the same in both chambers, and
the response of plants under sunlight
and artificial light compared. The 1.4
m2 light bank consisted of reflector,
high output T-10 fluorescent lights
(3465 watts) spaced 34-in. apart, and
incandescent lights totaling 1200 watts.
June 1971 Volume 21, No. 6
Chamber
Air
during the middle of the day. It started
decreasing about 1 hr before sunset,
and it continued to decrease until 2 hr
Flow meter after sunset when the measurements
were terminated. Measurements were
Solenoid") 7^3 Recorder Pollutant not made during the night in this study,
controller analyzer
but measurements made at other times
indicate that uptake in the. dark may
range from 20 to 35% of uptake during
lo Meter
transducer^ '
the daytime. Transpiration was mea-
sured during the last six hours of the
Flow rate Time event study, and the decrease in transpiration
recorder recorder
rate was similar to that of NO2 uptake.
The decrease in CO2 uptake followed the
light intensity curve closely.
Wind
The effect of varying the wind veloc-
ity above the canopy on gaseous ex-
change was also studied. The data pre-
-30 18
sented in Figure 4 show the effect of
E
wind velocity on the uptake of O3 by
16 in. alfalfa. These data indicate that
\ \\
Ic variation in wind velocity (measured
20 E 12^
6 in. above the canopy) up to 3 mph
•\\ can have a significant effect on uptake.
Subsequent uptake measurements were
\ , \\MO,"
X \ \i o made at wind velocities 3-5 mph.
6 %
Wind velocity also affected transpiration
\ \ { ' and CO2 uptake. For example, in sun-
^ -
\\\H 2 O-*V light, increasing the wind velocity from
\ 0.45 mph to 1.8 mph caused the trans-
12 4 6 8 10 piration rate of oats to double and CO2
— P.M.— uptake to increase 10-15%.
Canopy Height
Another variable affecting uptake is
height of the plant canopy. Figure 5
shows the variation in Cl2 uptake rate of
an alfalfa canopy at different heights.
Intensity under the artificial light aver- Plants growing in deep flats were cut
aged 42 klux and under sunlight 96 4 in. above the soil and the measure-
klux. ments were made during regrowth.
The uptake rates of CO2 and O3 by Measurements were also made for wet
alfalfa and oat canopies were much and dry soil without plants. Note that
lower under the artificial light than with uptake of dry soil was 7%, and uptake
sunlight, and smaller differences were by wet soil was 19% of the 24-in. alfalfa
measured in NO2 uptake. As a result canopy. In subsequent studies reported
of these studies, six 500 watt quartz in this paper an alfalfa canopy 16 ± 2
in. high was used since alfalfa is cut
iodide lights were added to the light
banks. Each light was enclosed in a several times during the growing season,
and this may roughly approximate an
recirculating water cooling system to
absorb infrared radiation and make the average height.
use of these lights feasible. These ad- Pollutant Concentration
ditional lights increased CO2 and O3 The effect on the pollutant uptake
uptake to an average of 86 and 93% of of varying pollutant concentration
full sunlight respectively, and they was studied. In the typical ambient
appeared to make the chambers practi- concentration range for each pollutant,
cal to use for simulating plant uptake uptake increased linearly with increasing
rates. concentration except for O3 and Cl2.
To determine how uptake varies A curve for Cl2 uptake of alfalfa is
during the day, the uptake rates of shown in Figure 6. The points on the
NO2 and O3 were measured in the sun- curve are averages of 7 replications.
light chamber during a 16-hr period. The Both Cl2 and O3 cause partial stomatal
diurnal changes in the uptake of NO2 and closure, and the stomatal closure ap-
CO2 by an oat canopy and in light inten- pears to reduce uptake at the higher
sity are shown in Figure 3. The measure- concentrations causing the deviation
ments were made during September, and from linearity. For example, following
they were started before daylight and a 75-min Cl2 fumigation of alfalfa at 15
ended after dark. NO2 uptake increased pphm the stomatal opening averaged
rapidly during the first 3 hr after sunrise, 2.1/i compared to 3.8 n for the plants
and then it leveled off for about 8 hr in the control chamber. In a study with
343
 80 r-
70
'c 60
£ The results are shown in Figure 7.
5 50
45
1 40
CO
"o
aj 30
E These data indicate that pollutant up-
" 20
43
10
1 2
Wind velocity, miles per hour
Figure 4. Relationship between O3 uptake
rate of a 16 inch alfalfa canopy and wind
velocity 6 inches above the canopy. O3
concentration, 5 pphm.
140 r
120
'.S100
E
M and transpiration 11-13 cc min"1 m~2.
'E 80
60
20
-Dry soil
0 4 8 12 16 20
Alfalfa height, inches
Figure 5. Relationship between Ch uptake
rate and height of an alfalfa canopy. Cb
concentration, 6 pphm.
barley at the same concentration the
decrease was from 1.3 to 0.5 n.
Comparison of Uptake in the Field
and in the Chambers
A study was conducted to compare
the uptake rates of SO2 by alfalfa in our
chambers with uptake in the field. The
field test was conducted at the National
Reactor Test Station, Atomic Energy
Commission. 35SO2 was released over
a ^-hour period adjacent to a field of
alfalfa. The radioactive SO2 was diluted
with inert SO2 to give typical atmo-
spheric concentrations. Air samples
were collected at 15 stations in the field
and at six stations total SO2 was also
measured. Three alfalfa samples were
collected adjacent to each air sampler.
The amount of 35S accumulated by the
alfalfa was determined by the method of
Willis, et al.,ls and the plant uptake rate
was calculated. The alfalfa averaged
1505 grams fresh weight per square
meter of ground area. Wind measure-
ments were made on portable and per-
manent towers. Following the field
study, SO2 uptake by alfalfa was mea-
sured in our chambers. Conditions in
the chambers were nearly the same as
measured in the field, except that the
344
wind velocity 6 in. above the canopy in
the field was 6 mph compared to 4.5
mph in the chamber. This appears to
be above the range where effects on up-
take are important.
Points plotted for the chamber studies
are averages of 4 measurements. SO2
uptake in the field was 20% lower than
uptake measured in our chambers.
take measurements made in the cham-
bers can approximate those measured
underfieldconditions.
Uptake Rates of Different Pollutants
3 An alfalfa canopy was used to com-
pare the uptake rates of eight pollutants.
Conditions of the study were as follows:
temperature, 74-76°F; RH, 45-50%;
wind velocity 8 in. above the canopy,
4-5 mph; light intensity, 40-45 klux;
canopy height, 14-18 in., dry weight,
300-380 g/sq m of canopy; leaf area,
8-11 sq m/sq m of canopy (leaf surface
area would be twice the leaf area),
stomatal density, 14,000-16,000/sq cm,
The data are summarized in Figure 8.
The measurements were made during a
1-2-hr exposure. They were made at
several different concentrations, and
they were replicated at each concentra-
tion. HF was taken up most rapidly
in this study. On a ground area basis,
24 28 the absorption rate was 22.5 fA min"1-
m~2pphm~1. In terms of fluoride con-
centration in the alfalfa, the rate of
accumulation was 2.4 ppm pphm" 1 ^" 1 .
This compares favorably with 2.1 and
2.5 ppm pphm^hr" 1 calculated from
previously published uptake data for
alfalfa with lower HF concentration
exposures, and it can be compared with
0.1 ppm pphm^hr""1 calculated from
exposures to particulate fluoride.19 In
this study 89% of the particles were
below 3 fi in diameter.
SO2 was absorbed at a rate of 17 /A
min~1m~2pphm~1. This is compared
to 6 fA min~1m~2pphm~1 calculated
from data reported by Thomas et al5
for SO2 uptake. The difference would
be expected because the rate of air
exchange in the Thomas study was
much lower.
NO2 and CI2 uptake were about 12 jul
min~1m~2pphm~1. Above about 8
pphm, the uptake rate for Cl2 tended to
curve. During the NO2 uptake studies,
there was a tendency for NO to build up
in the chamber. The source of the NO
was not determined, but it is probably
due to the conversion of some of the
NO2 to NO in the plant and loss back
into the atmosphere because of the low
solubility of NO. To overcome this,
sheets of H2SO4—Na2Cr204 impregnated
fiberglass papers were placed in the
chambers to convert NO back to NO2.
If NO was being formed in the plant
and released back into the atmosphere,
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
5 10 15
Chlorine concentration, pphm
Figure 6. Relationship between Ch uptake
rate of a 16 inch alfalfa canopy and Ch con-
centration.
the uptake rate measured would be low,
but since NO is converted to NO2 in the
atmosphere as well as in our chamber,
the data would probably still represent
a true sink.
Ozone was removed by the alfalfa
canopy at a rate of 10 fA min""1 m~2-
pphm"1. Ozone uptake may deviate
from linearity above about 10 pphm
because of stomatal closure; but in this
study, the plants developed injury when
exposed to concentrations above 10
pphm, and the effect of the injury on
uptake precluded evaluation of this
effect. Data previously reported20 show
that partial stomatal closing occurred
during fumigation with high O3 con-
centrations, and unpublished data for
oats show that ozone-induced stomatal
closure can reduce O3 uptake.
PAN was absorbed at a rate of 3.7 /A
min~1m~2pphm~1 and NO uptake was
0.6 /A min~1m~2pphm~1. No evidence
of CO uptake could be measured by the
methods used, and based on measure-
ments made with barley leaves at 60%
CO (Krall and Tolbert26) the uptake
rate of CO in the pphm concentration
range would be expected to be extremely
low and far below our limits of detection.
Because of the complicating influence
of respiration, CO2 uptake could not be
measured in the pphm concentration
range. Apparent CO2 uptake was
measured at several concentrations in
the 100-400 ppm range to determine
the slope of the curve, and the extrap-
olated and transposed line was included
in Figure 8 for comparison. The hypo-
thetical line indicates an uptake rate
Table I. Solubility in water and uptake
rate of pollutants.
Uptake Rate
alfalfa at Solubility
5 pphm at 20°C
Pollutant Ml/min/m2 cc gas/cc H2O
CO 0 0.02
NO 3 0.05
CO2 10 0.88
O3 50 0.26
NO2 57 Decomposes
Cl 2 62 2.30
SO2 85 39.4
HF 113 446
 of 2 /jl min xm 2pphm~x which is the pphm range and the uptake is 400
relatively low considering the biological probably determined by the concentra-
importance of CO2. The data indicate tion of HNO3 and HN0 2 in the leaf
that the growth rate and therefore the tissue. This would be influenced by the h
amount of vegetation should increase as rates of NO3~ and NO2~ reduction, the c
the concentration of CO2 in the atmo- E
rate NC>3~ is taken up by the roots, etc. 300
/ /
sphere (and ocean) increases. Vegeta- Because of its low solubility, NO is E - /
' /
/
Chamber /
tion may have a limited buffering capac- probably released back into the atmo- /
ity against an increase in atmospheric sphere while NO2 is taken up. i0
/ /Field
//f
CO2 concentrations, however, because It is evident that a model for gaseous c
co //
the rate of plant decomposition would exchange between the atmosphere and
0
// //
£200
also increase if there was more plant a vegetation canopy must include

ilta
•/ / °
material produced. solubility and reaction rate parameters. "o
CO / /
Relationship Between Solubility Discussion 15
and Uptake <u
/ /
Calculations based on the uptake
Space will not permit a discussion of rates measured for alfalfa will probably iioo
3

the many factors affecting pollutant be high on the average because the wind 0
CM

uptake, but the apparent relationship velocity in the field would be lower than en //
between the uptake data and solubility that used in the chamber part of the
in aqueous media should be mentioned. time, and the pollutant concentration Js°°
0 r \ 1 1 1 1
The more readily soluble the pollutant above the canopy in the field would be 0 5 10 15 20 25
is in the cellular or extracellular solution, lower than the concentration measured Pollutant concentration, pphm
the more rapidly it may be expected to at a typical sampling station because of Figure 7. Comparison of the SO2 uptake
be absorbed under non-steady state flux into the canopy. Also, during rates of an alfalfa canopy measured in the
conditions. The steady state absorption periods of moisture stress or low hu- field and in the chamber. • chamber mea-
surements, O field measurements.
rate depends upon the plants ability midity, stomates may close for part of
to metabolize, translocate, or otherwise the day reducing uptake. Uptake by
remove the active pollutant species from alfalfa would be higher than uptake by
the absorbing solution, however, a smaller or less dense plants, but a forest
higher concentration of pollutant in or corn canopy for example, would be
solution may be expected to result in expected to remove pollutants at a
greater chemical activity due to mass higher rate. Calculations based on
action. Table I lists the solubility and alfalfa and the conditions of our mea-
the uptake rate of the pollutants for surements will be used however, to
which solubility data could be found. attempt to evaluate vegetation as a
In general, the plant uptake rate in- possible sink.
creases as the solubility of the pollutant Dreisinger and McGovern,22 mea-
in water increases^ The unstable com- sured SO2 concentrations at ten stations
pounds, O3 and PAN, break down in a 2181 mi2 area near Sudbury, Can-
rapidly so the relatively high uptake ada, and from these data they calculated
rates of these pollutants in relation to the area in different average concentra-
their solubility might be expected. "H 0
tion ranges. A hypothetical rate of •2 0 2 4 6 8 10
(PAN is relatively insoluble, but data SO2 removal by vegetation (assuming a =5 Pollutant concentration, pphm
for Table I are lacking.) NO2 dis- continuous cover of alfalfa) in this area
sociates in water as shown in the follow- was calculated from their data and the Figure 8. Uptake rates of different pol-
ing equations: lutants by an alfalfa canopy.
uptake rate from Figure 8. The data,
which are shown in Table II, indicate
6NO2 + 3H2O ^± that 562 tons of SO2 daily could be
3HNO3 + 3HNO2 (1) removed by alfalfa in this area. The Average NO2 concentrations mea-
3HNO2 ;=± HNO3 + 2NO + H2O (2) fact that uptake in the dark would be sured August through October, 1968, for
reduced due to stomatal closure was three widely separated locations in the
Plants take up relatively large amounts ignored because ground level SO2 result- Los Angeles basin were 8.5 pphm at
of NO3- from the soil, and NO3~ is ing from smelter emissions are usually Long Beach, 6.5 pphm at Azusa,23 and
reduced to NO2~ by the enzyme nitrate very low at night. Most of the SO2 3.1 pphm at Riverside.24 If we assume
reductase. Therefore, the solubility in emitted from the smelters would be the average (6.0 pphm) for the basin,
carried beyond the area where the NO2 uptake at a rate of 68 ixl m^min" 1
samplers were located before coming in for 12 hr out of 24, and a continuous
Table II. Estimated absorption of SO2 by contact with vegetation, but the re- cover of alfalfa, removal of NO2 is
vegetation near Sudbury, Canada. moval of SO2 calculated in this limited calculated to be 560 Ib/mi2/day. Since
area is still significant. Sulfur dioxide there are several thousand square
Calculated Calcu-
Average S02 lated concentrations averaging 50 pphm for miles affected by air pollutants in the
S02 uptake sink one hour were not uncommon in their South Coastal Basin, removal of NO2
Area concen- rateb (tons study and under these conditions, our by vegetation could be significant even
(sq tration (lbs/mile2 SO2/ data indicate that alfalfa could remove though only part of the land area is in
mi)a (pphm) /day) day)
SO2 at a rate of 830 Ib/mi2/hr. During home landscaping, forest, crops, etc.,
989 .75 300 148 the growing season, cleansing of the and the concentration used in the cal-
946 1.5 600 284 atmosphere by vegetation may reduce culation may be high for average vegeta-
246 2.5 1000 116
20 3.5 1400 14 our SO2 exposure singificantly in residen- tion exposure. Also, within or imme-
Total 562 tial areas where a significant amount diately above the canopy, removai of
a
of the area is in trees and other types NO2 in preference to that of NO and
Data from Dreisinger and McGovem."
*> Based on Figure 8—data for alfalfa. of landscape vegetation. possible emission of NO by the plants

June 1971 Volume 21, No. 6 345

could affect the O3 concentration since
O3 is determined by the NO2/NO ratio.25
Since nitrogen is often a limiting
factor in plant growth it is interesting
to note that uptake by alfalfa on an
acre basis in the Los Angeles area could
average as much as 34 lb N/day. NO2
dissociates in water forming HNO3 and
HNO2 so one would expect the nitrogen
absorbed from the atmosphere as NO2
to be metabolized. The amount of
nitrogen absorbed over a year could be
significant.
Calculations can also be made for
HF, CI2, etc., which indicate that
vegetation could be a significant sink
when compared to emissions in polluted
areas.
CO2 concentration in most areas is
probably not influenced very much by
combustion. In industrialized or highly
congested areas when meteorological
conditions are conducive to pollutant
build up, however, plant growth rate
could be increased due to increased CO2
concentrations. For example, Bush24
reported CO2 concentration as high as
500 ppm in the Los Angeles area. Our
data indicate that a concentration of
400 ppm could increase the growth rate
of alfalfa by 13%. If elevated CO2
concentrations occur often, a significant
effect on plant growth could be ex-
pected.
The data indicate that vegetation
could be an important sink for HF,
SO2, Cl2, NO2, O3, and to a lesser extent
PAN during the growing season. Al-
though not included in this study, it is
evident from field observations that
other pollutants such as HC1 are re-
moved rapidly by vegetation because
the Cl~ content of vegetation is much
higher near an HC1 source. If it was
not for this vegetation sink, the con-
centration of many atmospheric pol-
lutants would probably be considerably
higher than they are. Although NO
is removed slowly by vegetation, it is
converted to NO2, CH3NO3, etc., in the
atmosphere, and it would be taken up
rapidly in these forms. The reaction
of O3 with hydrocarbons and NO may
be the major O3 sink when these pol-
lutants are present in high concentra-
tions, but in many areas, removal of
O3 by vegetation would probably be
more important. Since O3, PAN, and
photochemical aerosol are products of
photochemical reactions involving NO2,
removal of NO2 and perhaps certain
hydrocarbons by vegetation may in-
fluence the amount of these pollutants
that are formed. The removal of sub-
micron sized suspended particulates by
vegetation appears to be relatively slow
in comparison to removal of most
gaseous pollutants. Calculations in-
dicate that adsorption of gases on the
surface of particulates would probably
not be an important sink for gaseous
pollutants in most areas.
346
Although the cleansing action of
vegetation may be an important factor
in the cycling of certain pollutants, it
may not always be desirable. The rapid
removal of HF from the atmosphere by
forage species can result in fluorosis of
dairy cattle if the forage is consumed
over a long period of time. Accumula-
tion of fluoride by leaves can also cause
injury to sensitive species of plants. If
the uptake rates are high enough, SO2,
O3, NO2, PAN, Cl2, etc., can also cause
plant injury; although these pollutants
are converted to less toxic compounds
rather rapidly. Plant injury and effects
on livestock are relatively minor in most
polluted areas, however, and the cleans-
ing of the atmosphere by vegetation
appears to be a desirable feature of the
ecosystem.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to acknowledge the
following individuals who contributed
to the information presented in this
paper: Dr. Charles A. Pelletier and
Paul G. Voilleque of the Environ-
mental Branch, U.S. A.E.C., Idaho Op-
erations, and Dr. Jesse Bennett, Dr.
Niel Littlefield, Paul Derrick, and David
Tingey. This work was supported by
Grant NO. AP 00452, Air Pollution
Control Office, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
References
1. Robinson, E., and Robbins, R. C ,
"Sources, Abundance and Fate of
Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants,"
Report to Am. Petrol. Inst.; Stanford
Research Inst. (Feb 1968).
2. Meetham, A. R., "Natural removal
of pollution from the atmosphere,"
Quart. J. Royal Meleorol. Soc. 76:
359(1950).
3. Meetham, A. R., "Natural removal
of atmospheric pollution during fog,"
Quart. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc. 80:
96 (1954).
4. Frey, H. T., Krause, O. E., and
Dickason, C , "Major Uses of Land
and Water in the United States with
Special Reference to Agriculture-
Summary for 1964," U.S. Dept. of
Agric., Economic Research Ser., Agric.
Econ. Report No. 149 (1964).
5. Thomas, M. D., and Hill, G. R.,
"Relation of sulphur dioxide in the
atmosphere to photosynthesis and
respiration of alfalfa," Plant Physiol.,
12: 309 (1937).
6. Jacobson, J. S., Weinstein, L. H.,
McCune, D. C., and Hitchcock,
A. E., "The accumulation of fluoride
by plants," / . Air Poll. Control
Ass., 16: 412 (1963).
7. Barry, P. J., and Chamberlain, A. C ,
"Deposition of iodine onto plant
leaves from air," Health Phys., 9:
1149 (1963).
8. MacLean, D. C , Schneider, R. E.,
and Weinstein, L. H., "Accumulation
of fluoride by forage crops," Contrib.
Boyce Thompson Inst., 24: 165 (1969).
9. de Cormis, L., "Plant physiology—
Emission of sulfurated hydrogen by
plants subjected to an atmosphere
containing sulfuric hydride," Comptes
Rend. Acad. Sci (Paris), Series D:
683 (1968).
10. Spedding, D. J., "Uptake of SO2 by
barley leaves at low sulphur dioxide
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
concentrates," Nature, 224: 1229
(1969)
11. Kohout, R. and Materna J., "Sorptipn
and propagation of sulfur dioxide
in the assimilation organs of some
forest woody plants," Proc. Conf.
Effect Ind. Emissions Forestry, Janske
Lazne, Czechoslovakia, p. XVII-1
to XVII-6 (1966).
12. Nuttonson, M. Y., AICE Survey of
USSR Air Pollution Literature, Vol. 2,
American Institute of Crop Ecology,
Maryland (1969).
13. Hill, A. C , "A special purpose plant
environmental chamber for air pol-
lution studies," J. Air Poll. Control
Ass., 17: 743 (1967).
14. Darley, E. F., Kettner, K. A., and
Stephens, E. R., "Analysis of per-
oxyactyl nitrates by gas chromato-
graph, with electron capture detec-
tion," Anal. Chem. 35: 589 (1963).
15. Pack, M. R., Hill, A. C , and Benedict,
H. M., "Sampling atmospheric fluo-
rides with glass fiber filters," J. Air
Poll. Control Ass., 13 : 374 (1963).
16. Hill, A. C , Transtrom, L. G., Pack,
M. R., and Holloman, A. Jr., "Fa-
cilities and techniques for maintaining
a controlled fluoride environment in
vegetation studies," J. Air Poll.
Control Ass., 9: 22 (1959).
17. Williard, H. H., and Winter, O. B.
"Volumetric method for determina-
tion of fluorine," Ind. Eng. Chem.
(Anal.Ed.)5:7(1933).
18. Willis, C. P., Olson, D. G., and Sill,
C. W., "Radiochemical determination
of sulfur-35 in large samples of
vegetation," Anal. Chem., 42: 124
(Jan 1970).
19. Pack, M. R., Hill, A. C , Thomas,
M. D., and Transtrum, L. G., "Deter-
mination of gaseous and particulate
inorganic fluorides in the atmo-
sphere," Symposium on Air Pollution,
Special Tech. Pub. No. 281 American
Soc. Testing Mat. (1959).
20. Hill, A. C , and Littlefield, "Ozone:
effect on apparent photosynthesis,
rate of transpiration, and stomatal
closure in plants," Environ. Sci.
Technol.,3:52 (1969).
21. Krall, A. R., and Tolbert, N. E.,
"A comparison of the light dependent
metabolism of CO by barley leaves
with that of formaldehyde, formate
and CO2," Plant Physiol, 32: 321
(1957).
22. Dreisinger, B. R., and McGovern,
P. C , "Monitoring atmospheric sul-
phur dioxide and correlating its
effects on crops and forests in the
Sudbury area," Proceedings—Impact
of air pollution on vegetation con-
ference, Ontario Depart, of Energy
& Resource Mgt., Toronto, Ontario
(1970).
23. Street, A. B., Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District, letter,
March 7, 1969.
24. Thompson, C. R., Personal com-
munication.
25. Stephens, E. R., "Chemistry of
atmospheric oxidants," / . Air Poll.
Control Ass. 19: 181 (1969).
26. Bush, Albert F., "Consideration of
urban atmospheric pollution," pre-
sented at ASCE Environmental Engi-
neering Conference, Salt Lake City,
Utah, May 11, 1964.
Dr. Hill is Associate Professor
Department of Biology, University
of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.