Can artificial plants help us concentrate?

Schools and offices are filling up with greenery that never needs watering, on the understanding that plants sharpen the mind. The research behind that assumption is mostly about living plants. What happens when the leaves are plastic turns out to depend on which part of the mind you’re asking about.

In a primary school classroom, a wall of artificial foliage went up and stayed up for a month. The children’s working memory, their capacity to hold and juggle information in the moment, improved over that period. The researchers concluded that even passive, non-living greenery had a restorative effect on the children who sat in front of it (Bernardo et al., 2021). Then the study moved into a second phase, in which the children planted and tended real plants, and the broader gains in attention became clearer still.

That sequence, artificial first and living second, is a fair miniature of the whole field. Artificial plants and artificial green walls do seem to do something for the thinking brain. But the something is selective, it is smaller than the equivalent effect of living plants, and it is far better established for mood and the feeling of being able to concentrate than for the hard currency of test scores.

Why plants should help at all

The idea that greenery aids concentration comes from attention restoration theory, which holds that the kind of focused, effortful attention demanded by a spreadsheet or a maths lesson is a finite resource. It fatigues. Natural scenes, the theory goes, engage a softer, effortless kind of fascination that lets the directed system recover. Systematic reviews find the theory broadly supported, while noting that the attention tasks used to test it vary wildly from study to study (Ohly et al., 2016; Stevenson et al., 2018).

The evidence for living plants fits the theory reasonably well. In an office setting, plants improved attention capacity (Raanaas et al., 2011). Living green walls in classrooms produced repeated gains in children’s selective attention in a controlled evaluation (Van Den Berg et al., 2017), and a series of field experiments found similar benefits for pupils’ attention and wellbeing (Van Den Bogerd et al., 2020). Short “green breaks” in school grounds restored children’s cognitive performance (Amicone et al., 2018), and a systematic review of children and adolescents found greenspace consistently linked to better cognitive functioning (Vella-Brodrick & Gilowska, 2022). A meta-analysis of indoor plants found modest but measurable effects on a range of human functions (Han et al., 2022).

What none of that tells you is whether the plant has to be alive.

The handful of studies that asked

Remarkably few experiments have put artificial greenery in front of people and measured what their minds did next. The classroom study above is the most substantial, and its finding on working memory stands as the clearest direct evidence that an artificial green wall can move a cognitive outcome in a real setting (Bernardo et al., 2021).

The picture is less flattering when artificial and real plants go head to head. In a desktop experiment, eye-tracking suggested that looking at plants of either kind reduced cognitive effort, but improvements in reading span, a working-memory measure, and in creativity appeared only with the real plants, and more strongly in women (Sugano et al., 2022). In elementary school children, attention-related changes in brain activity were recorded for real foliage plants but not for artificial plants or photographs of plants (Oh et al., 2019). Adults found real plants more relaxing than artificial ones or pictures (Jeong & Park, 2021), although a more recent EEG study muddied this slightly: live and artificial plants both read as calming in men, and overall differences in brainwave patterns between plant types were small (Kim et al., 2024).

A 2026 study of picture-based green walls in college students adds a note of encouragement for the artificial side, finding benefits to students’ physical and mental health from what is, in effect, a photograph (Jia et al., 2026). But the honest summary of the direct comparisons is that artificial greenery is capable of producing some restorative or cognitive benefit, and that when a living plant is in the same room, the living plant usually wins on attention and memory.

What virtual plants tell us

Because studies of artificial plants are so scarce, researchers have leaned on a proxy: virtual reality. A virtual plant is, in cognitive terms, a very good artificial one, because it carries no scent, no humidity, no living presence, only the image.

The results are instructive. Adding virtual plants to a simulated office led to higher cognitive performance, including memory, alongside better creativity and psychological wellbeing (Mostajeran et al., 2023). A randomised crossover study in a virtual office found biophilic design lowered stress reactions and improved cognitive function (Yin et al., 2019), and a virtual biophilic classroom did the same for students (You et al., 2023). A real and a virtual living wall both reduced stress during a demanding task (Serra et al., 2025). Green walls simulated in underground environments helped with stress recovery and cognitive restoration (Du et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025), and a review of virtual biophilia found consistent benefits (Chan & Huang, 2024).

Then the caveats. A virtual green wall improved mood and feelings of comfort but, in one crossover study, produced slower reaction times on a task (Yeom et al., 2021; Yeom et al., 2021). An eye-tracking pilot found that greenery in a virtual office competed for visual attention and could distract as well as restore (Latini et al., 2024). A systematic review of simulated-nature experiments warned that methodological choices, from exposure length to the type of display, heavily shape the results (Browning et al., 2020).

The pattern that emerges from the virtual work is this: a convincing image of greenery reliably improves how people feel while working and how productive they believe themselves to be, and it fairly often improves creativity. Its effect on speed, accuracy and sustained concentration is a coin toss.

Creativity: the strongest case

If there is one cognitive outcome where the evidence for non-living greenery is comparatively solid, it is creativity. A single indoor plant improved performance on a creative task in a Scandinavian laboratory study two decades ago (Shibata & Suzuki, 2004). In classrooms, plants and even the colour green boosted both visual and verbal creativity (Studente et al., 2016). A natural virtual environment improved creativity during a product-design task (Fleury et al., 2021), windows onto nature did likewise (Sharam et al., 2022), and the virtual-office study found a clear creativity gain from plants that existed only as pixels (Mostajeran et al., 2023).

Creativity is perhaps the outcome least dependent on a plant being alive. It appears to respond to the visual cue itself, to the sense of a softer, less institutional space, and that is a quality a well-made artificial plant can supply as readily as a real one.

Less is more

One of the more useful findings to come out of this research is that the relationship between greenery and performance is not a straight line. A dose-response study of workplace biophilic design identified around 12 per cent green coverage as optimal for productivity and restoration (Lei et al., 2021). A vegetation-density study put the sweet spot for restorativeness at roughly 13 to 24 per cent (Rhee et al., 2023), while a working-memory study using EEG markers suggested 25 to 36 per cent might be best for memory, with differences between men and women (Rhee et al., 2024). A separate study by the same group confirmed that indoor nature produces both restorative and cognitive benefits, but not in simple proportion to quantity (Rhee et al., 2023).

Beyond those ranges, greenery starts to work against you. Too many pothos plants, or the wrong arrangement of them, reduced work efficiency (Zuo et al., 2020). Eye-tracking in biophilic interiors shows that dense planting draws the gaze and holds it (Elliott et al., 2026), and the size of a green wall changes how much it restores (Sedghikhanshir et al., 2024). Different designs of indoor greening produced different physiological and cognitive responses in office workers (Fukumoto & Shimoda, 2024), and the pattern of biophilic design, not just its presence, shaped the benefit (Zhang et al., 2024). The practical lesson, for artificial and living greenery alike, is that a few well-placed pieces covering a modest fraction of the visual field do more for a working mind than a jungle.

What the lab finds and the office doesn’t

The sharpest critique of this literature comes from within it. One research group ran the same question in the laboratory and in real offices and got divergent answers: positive effects on performance in the lab, little or nothing in the field (Thatcher et al., 2020). Potted plants in university study rooms improved students’ perception of the room but not their cognitive performance (Van Den Bogerd et al., 2021). In an open-plan office in India, plants improved comfort and mood more than measured output (Budaniya et al., 2025). When indoor plants were compared with a guided meditation as a way of restoring tired minds, the plants did not come out ahead on cognitive measures (Archary & Thatcher, 2021). A systematic review of workplace environments concluded that links between perceived indoor features and measured performance remain inconsistent (Zhang et al., 2023).

Part of the explanation is that “attention”, “concentration”, “working memory” and “performance” are measured with dozens of different tasks, so that two studies claiming opposite results may not be measuring the same thing. Part of it is that laboratory exposures are short and controlled, while a real office contains noise, deadlines and colleagues, against which a plant is a small signal. The oldest critical review of the field made this point in 2009, and it still stands (Bringslimark et al., 2009).

What a plastic leaf can’t do

Why would a living plant outperform a convincing copy on attention and memory, when the eye can barely tell them apart? The likeliest answer is that the eye isn’t the only sense involved. Office workers exposed to multi-sensory biophilic design, combining visual greenery with natural sound and other cues, showed benefits that visual elements alone did not produce (Aristizabal et al., 2021; Byun et al., 2020). Adding plant scent to a visual biophilic environment improved both psychophysiological restoration and cognitive performance over the visual condition alone (Li et al., 2024). In elementary classrooms, the attention gains from real plants tracked improvements in indoor air quality (Kim et al., 2019). Students in high schools designed with biophilic principles showed protection against stress and better cognitive function (Li et al., 2025), and a dose-response study of college students found that perceived mental-health benefits rose with the richness of biophilic features (Li et al., 2024). Even in a windowless underground room, real plants and simulated windows together shifted how people felt and performed (Kim et al., 2018).

The implication is not that artificial greenery fails, but that some of its weaker showing reflects what it leaves out: scent, humidity, the faint movement of living leaves, the act of caring for something. Where those can be supplied by other means, the gap may narrow.

Cognitive outcome	Artificial or simulated greenery	Living greenery
Selective attention	Some gains in classrooms and VR	Repeated gains in classrooms
Working memory	Mixed, sometimes improved	Mixed to moderately positive
Creativity	Fairly consistent improvement	Also often improved
Processing speed and reaction time	Highly mixed	Highly mixed
Broad cognitive performance	Small, context-dependent gains	Inconsistent overall

Pattern of findings across the literature (Bernardo et al., 2021; Mostajeran et al., 2023; Van Den Berg et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2018; Yeom et al., 2021).

Claim	Strength of evidence
Artificial or simulated greenery can improve some attention-related outcomes	Moderate
Artificial or virtual greenery can improve creativity	Moderate
Artificial greenery improves working memory	Moderate, with nulls
Artificial greenery matches living plants for cognitive benefit	Weak
More greenery produces larger cognitive gains	Weak; the relationship is non-linear

The verdict

Can artificial plants help us concentrate? The research supports a qualified yes. The most reliable effects are on the states that surround concentration rather than concentration itself: feeling restored after a long task, feeling that a room is a place one can work in, and a measurable lift in creative thinking. A month in front of an artificial green wall improved children’s working memory in the one study that looked, and virtual plants, the closest laboratory stand-in for artificial ones, have improved memory and creativity in several more. Against that, direct comparisons with living plants generally favour the living plants for attention and memory, field studies find less than laboratories do, and nobody has yet shown that an artificial plant sharpens performance on a demanding task over months of ordinary use.

For a school or office deciding what to put on the walls, the evidence points to a few practical conclusions. Greenery of any kind beats bare walls for how a space feels and for creative work. A moderate amount, somewhere between a tenth and a quarter of the visual field, does more than a dense display, which can distract. Where living plants are possible, they remain the better bet for attention and memory. And where they are not, in windowless rooms, in buildings with no one to water them, in places where soil and pollen are unwelcome, a convincing artificial substitute is likely to deliver part of the benefit, with the part that matters for mood and creativity the most secure.

References

1. Amicone, G., Petruccelli, I., De Dominicis, S., Gherardini, A., Costantino, V., Perucchini, P., & Bonaiuto, M. (2018). Green breaks: The restorative effect of the school environment’s green areas on children’s cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01579
2. Archary, P., & Thatcher, A. (2021). Affective and cognitive restoration: Comparing the restorative role of indoor plants and guided meditation. Ergonomics, 65, 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.2003873
3. Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L.-H., Mullan, A. F., Ly, S., Senerat, A., Nenadic, I., Browning, W., Loftness, V., & Bauer, B. (2021). Biophilic office design: Exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101682
4. Bernardo, F., Loupa-Ramos, I., Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2021). The restorative effect of the presence of greenery on the classroom in children’s cognitive performance. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063488
5. Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.001
6. Browning, M., Saeidi-Rizi, F., McAnirlin, O., Yoon, H., & Pei, Y. (2020). The role of methodological choices in the effects of experimental exposure to simulated natural landscapes on human health and cognitive performance: A systematic review. Environment and Behavior, 53, 687–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520906481
7. Budaniya, M., Mishra, A., Rai, A., & Dasgupta, M. S. (2025). Indoor plants’ effect on occupants’ performance, perceived comfort, and affect in an open-plan space in composite climatic regions, India. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112785
8. Byun, K., Aristizabal, S., Porter, P., Campanella, C., Clements, N., & Li, L. (2020). The effect of visual and auditory biophilic design interventions on cognitive performance in office workers: A multiple cohort crossover study in a living lab. https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2020.virtual.p-0041
9. Chan, H.-C., & Huang, Y. (2024). Research on the benefits of biophilia effects in virtual environments. 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61044-8_2
10. Du, M., Zhang, Y.-N., Zhang, X., Tang, Z., Zhai, M., & Hong, B. (2025). Floral walls versus green wall for stress recovery and cognitive restoration in underground environments: A VR-based experimental study. Developments in the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100819
11. Elliott, J. E., Fallahkhair, S., Farr, E., & Piroozfar, P. (2026). Human visual attentiveness and response to biophilic interior design: An eye-tracking study. 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-29583-5_16
12. Fleury, S., Blanchard, P., & Richir, S. (2021). A study of the effects of a natural virtual environment on creativity during a product design activity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 100828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100828
13. Fukumoto, H., & Shimoda, M. (2024). The effects of different designs of indoor biophilic greening on psychological and physiological responses and cognitive performance of office workers. PLOS ONE, 19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307934
14. Han, K.-T., Ruan, L.-W., & Liao, L. (2022). Effects of indoor plants on human functions: A systematic review with meta-analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127454
15. Jeong, J., & Park, S.-A. (2021). Physiological and psychological effects of visual stimulation with green plant types. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412932
16. Jia, C., Zhang, L., Jin, Y., Liu, W.-X., Song, X., Wang, C.-J., Zhou, Z., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Cai, H.-F., Yang, L., & Guo, Y. (2026). Effect of picture-based indoor green walls on the physical and mental health of college students. Environmental Pollution, 127889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2026.127889
17. Kim, H.-H., Yeo, I., & Lee, J.-Y. (2019). Higher attention capacity after improving indoor air quality by indoor plant placement in elementary school classrooms. The Horticulture Journal, 89, 319–327. https://doi.org/10.2503/hortj.utd-110
18. Kim, J., Cha, S., Koo, C., & Tang, S.-K. (2018). The effects of indoor plants and artificial windows in an underground environment. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.029
19. Kim, S.-H., Lee, C. H., & Park, S.-A. (2024). Brain wave changes in the prefrontal cortex when exposed to varying plant types as visual stimuli. HortScience. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci17962-24
20. Latini, A., Marcelli, L., Di Giuseppe, E., & D’Orazio, M. (2024). Investigating the impact of greenery elements in office environments on cognitive performance, visual attention and distraction: An eye-tracking pilot-study in virtual reality. Applied Ergonomics, 118, 104286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104286
21. Lei, Q., Yuan, C., & Lau, S. (2021). A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity performance. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129168
22. Li, K., Perrault, A., DeYoung, W., Cameron, E., Miller, C., O’Connor, A., Gu, M., & Braun, B. (2024). Impact of biophilic design on college student perception of mental health and environmental benefits: A dose-response study. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112318
23. Li, M., Jie, Y., & Xu, L. (2025). Protective and restorative effects of biophilic design in high school indoor environments on stress and cognitive function. Indoor Air, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1155/ina/8696488
24. Li, Z., Zhang, W., Cui, J., Wang, L.-S., Liu, H., & Liu, H. (2024). Biophilic environment with visual-olfactory stimuli contributes to psychophysiological restoration and cognitive enhancement. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111202
25. Liu, W., Du, M., & Hong, B. (2025). Effects of underground green walls on human cognitive performance and physiological responses: A virtual reality simulation study. Landscape Architecture and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.las.2025.100005
26. Mostajeran, F., Steinicke, F., Reinhart, S., Stuerzlinger, W., Riecke, B., & Kühn, S. (2023). Adding virtual plants leads to higher cognitive performance and psychological well-being in virtual reality. Scientific Reports, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34718-3
27. Oh, Y.-A., Kim, S.-O., & Park, S.-A. (2019). Real foliage plants as visual stimuli to improve concentration and attention in elementary students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050796
28. Ohly, H., White, M., Wheeler, B., Bethel, A., Ukoumunne, O., Nikolaou, V., & Garside, R. (2016). Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 19, 305–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155
29. Raanaas, R. K., Evensen, K. H., Rich, D., Sjøstrøm, G., & Patil, G. (2011). Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.005
30. Rhee, J. H., Schermer, B., & Cha, S. (2023). Effects of indoor vegetation density on human well-being for a healthy built environment. Developments in the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100172
31. Rhee, J. H., Schermer, B., Han, G., Park, S.-Y., & Lee, K. (2023). Effects of nature on restorative and cognitive benefits in indoor environment. Scientific Reports, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40408-x
32. Rhee, J. H., Schermer, B., & Lee, K. (2024). Effects of indoor nature density and sex differences on working memory. Current Psychology, 43, 30677–30690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06689-9
33. Sedghikhanshir, A., Zhu, Y., Beck, M. R., & Jafari, A. (2024). Exploring the impact of green wall and its size on restoration effect and stress recovery using immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111844
34. Serra, H., Zavattaro, C., Eid, M., Farina, P., Abbatescianna, D., Cirillo, E., Gammeri, R., Celi, L., Scariot, V., & Ricci, R. (2025). Biophilic interventions in real and virtual environments reduce stress during cognitively demanding tasks. Scientific Reports, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-23224-3
35. Sharam, L. A., Mayer, K., & Baumann, O. (2022). Design by nature: The influence of windows on cognitive performance and affect. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101923
36. Shibata, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004). Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(5), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00419.x
37. Stevenson, M. P., Schilhab, T., & Bentsen, P. (2018). Attention Restoration Theory II: A systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 21, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2018.1505571
38. Studente, S., Seppala, N., & Sadowska, N. (2016). Facilitating creative thinking in the classroom: Investigating the effects of plants and the colour green on visual and verbal creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.09.001
39. Sugano, S., Tazaki, M., Arai, H., Matsuo, K., & Tanabe, S.-I. (2022). Characteristics of eye movements while viewing indoor plants and improvements in occupants’ cognitive functions. Japan Architectural Review. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.12284
40. Thatcher, A., Adamson, K., Bloch, L., & Kalantzis, A. (2020). Do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? Divergent results from laboratory and field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101487
41. Van Den Berg, A. E., Wesselius, J., Maas, J., & Tanja-Dijkstra, K. (2017). Green walls for a restorative classroom environment: A controlled evaluation study. Environment and Behavior, 49, 791–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516667976
42. Van Den Bogerd, N., Dijkstra, S. C., Tanja-Dijkstra, K., De Boer, M. D., Seidell, J. C., Koole, S., & Maas, J. (2020). Greening the classroom: Three field experiments on the effects of indoor nature on students’ attention, well-being, and perceived environmental quality. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106675
43. Van Den Bogerd, N., Dijkstra, S. C., Koole, S., Seidell, J., & Maas, J. (2021). Greening the room: A quasi-experimental study on the presence of potted plants in study rooms on mood, cognitive performance, and perceived environmental quality among university students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101557
44. Vella-Brodrick, D., & Gilowska, K. (2022). Effects of nature (greenspace) on cognitive functioning in school children and adolescents: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1217–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09658-5
45. Yeom, S., Kim, H., Hong, T., Ji, C., & Lee, D.-E. (2021). Emotional impact, task performance and task load of green walls exposure in a virtual environment. Indoor Air. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12936
46. Yeom, S., Kim, H., & Hong, T. (2021). Psychological and physiological effects of a green wall on occupants: A cross-over study in virtual reality. Building and Environment, 204, 108134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108134
47. Yin, J., Zhu, S., MacNaughton, P., Allen, J. G., & Spengler, J. (2018). Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Building and Environment, 132, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.006
48. Yin, J., Arfaei, N., MacNaughton, P., Catalano, P., Allen, J. G., & Spengler, J. (2019). Effects of biophilic interventions in office on stress reaction and cognitive function: A randomized crossover study in virtual reality. Indoor Air. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12593
49. You, J., Wen, X., Liu, L., Yin, J., & Ji, J. S. (2023). Biophilic classroom environments on stress and cognitive performance: A randomized crossover study in virtual reality (VR). PLOS ONE, 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291355
50. Zhang, P., Yu, Z., Hou, G., Shu, P., Bo, Y., Shi, Y., & Nie, R. (2024). Enhancing cognitive performance and physiological benefit in workspaces through patterns of biophilic design: A restorative approach. Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103293
51. Zhang, X., Du, J.-T., & Chow, D. (2023). Association between perceived indoor environmental characteristics and occupants’ mental well-being, cognitive performance, productivity, satisfaction in workplaces: A systematic review. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110985
52. Zuo, L., Wu, D., Yuan, Y., Li, H., & Yu, L.-Y. (2020). Effect of arrangement and quantity of Epipremnum aureum on work efficiency and subjective perceptions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 17804–17814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08078-8