From that article you linked:

"In a study at Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand, the snake plant can absorb CO2 at 0.49 ppm/m3 in the closed system."

That would require an enormous number of snake plants to do anything. A tiny apartment is 50m^2 * 3m = 150 cubic meters, so it requires 300 snake plants just to bring down by 1ppm (though not sure over what timescale or other assumptions in the work cited)

Don't you mean 0.5ppm/m3 per minutes?

Because you need to take time into account and it's more coherent with the result of other studies (an optimist case with good sunlight but 0.4ppm/m3/m is ok I guess for young plant).

yeah I'm not sure what the timebase is but I wondered that myself. I assumed it was per hour or day, but not an expert in plant biology and my assumption sounds like it was wrong.

from [1]

'The approximate amount of carbon exhaled by a single human in 1 d is 300 g, whereas the carbon content of 1 L of gasoline is 640 g. In comparison, a single Spathiphyllum in a 15-cm pot grown at a PPF of 20 mmolm–2s–1 fixed 0.8 g C per day, so it would take 400 plants to offset a single human or 845 plants to offset a gasoline use of 1 Ld–1.'

[1] https://www.realhomes.com/news/do-house-plants-remove-carbon...

What person does a back of the envelope calculation and manages to equate 75kg of metabolic tissue consuming around about 0.8kg of oxygen a day is going to be cancelled out by a couple plants draped around the place?

What's wrong with having hundreds of plants then? Filtration doesn't get rid of CO2, opening the windows just brings your CO2 levels to whatever it is outside (at best).

Planting more plants is at least a step in the right direction. Everything else is more or less simply turning it into someone else's problem.

Just the practical component. If you’re in a closed environment, and you want to reverse your CO2 production, you need to create new biomass roughly equivalent to the quantity of food you consumed that day. The practical consideration that is totally skipped on the question renders the inquiry useless for any practical purposes for most humans

Not the whole biomass. Just the mass of CO2 that falls into the category of "collects in your house when the windows are all closed". I'm not going to argue that it's a small number nor that it's easy to take care of a large array of plants. It's just that everything else short of using plants seems like a simple offloading of CO2 elsewhere (e.g. opening windows). I'm not satisfied with such selfish solutions.

You're right that the practical consideration is important. It needs to be addressed and engineered to be made practical.

On top of that maybe we eat too much, but that's a off topic.