Demonstrates pollutant reduction in indoor air, suggesting sustainable purification options.
As indoor air pollution continues to threaten public health and environmental sustainability, the need for accessible and eco-friendly air purification technologies has become increasingly significant. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of water hyacinthderived activated charcoal filters in improving indoor air quality while promoting sustainable waste utilization. Specifically, the study sought to determine the adsorption capacity of water hyacinth charcoal compared to commercially available activated charcoal filters and evaluate its efficiency in reducing indoor air pollutants in terms of particulate matter, humidity, and temperature. The study employed a quantitative, quasi-experimental research design conducted at Dr. Yanga's Colleges, Inc.. Water hyacinth biomass underwent carbonization and citric acid activation before being integrated into an Arduino-based air filtration system equipped with MQ-135 and DHT11 sensors for real-time air quality monitoring. Pollutant concentrations were measured over a 24-hour period under controlled conditions, and the collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired samples t-test at a 0.05 significance level. Findings revealed that although commercial activated charcoal demonstrated stronger initial adsorption performance, water hyacinth charcoal exhibited greater long-term pollutant reduction efficiency. After 24 hours, water hyacinth charcoal achieved approximately 82% pollutant reduction compared to 49% using commercial activated charcoal. The gradual increase in filtration efficiency was attributed to pore expansion and delayed saturation caused by the citric acid activation process. However, inferential analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the two filtration materials (p > 0.05). Despite this, the numerical trends suggest that water hyacinth charcoal possesses strong potential as a sustainable, low-cost, and environmentally friendly alternative for indoor air purification, particularly in resource-limited communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brobio et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: