Greenairy’s office air project enters Startup Battlefield 200

Greenairy’s plant towers were tested in three offices, with the startup reporting the lowest VOC levels at the site using its system. The Singapore company is developing towers intended to draw in air, break down toxic gases and release purified air. It will take part in Startup Battlefield 200 at TechCrunch Disrupt, according to TechCrunch.

The account begins with an indoor air concern identified by Tanvi Thombre and Lakshya Saraf while they were engineering students. The pair worked in a university makerspace where fumes from equipment were present. Thombre said they did not understand their exposure until a friend fainted and went to hospital. Their subsequent investigation focused on buildings where ventilation may be constrained by air-conditioning.

Three offices formed the pilot comparison

Greenairy has carried out short-term pilots at locations in Singapore, the source says. For its own testing, Saraf said, the startup used RESET-certified air monitors in three offices. A Greenairy tower was present in one office, a medical-grade ioniser in another, and a HEPA purifier in the third. No pilot dates, duration or underlying monitor readings are included in the account.

Saraf reported that the Greenairy tower office had the lowest VOC levels and that the tower removed VOCs fastest. The source does not describe how the locations were selected or whether their conditions were comparable. It also does not provide measurements, a testing protocol or an independent review of the results. Office staff reportedly liked the system’s fresh aroma and natural feel, but that observation is not a formal user study.

Purifiers and plants address different concerns

The founders’ argument is that conventional air purifiers can remove particulate matter, including dust and pollen, yet may be less effective against certain gases. The source names carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and benzine as examples of gases that concern them. It describes many such substances as VOCs, or chemicals that evaporate easily into the air. This distinction is central to the startup’s stated rationale for building a different kind of office air system.

Greenairy’s proposed response is to alter the conditions around plants so they process air faster than a plant kept in a pot, Saraf said. The account does not explain the technical design or specify how gases are broken down. Saraf also contrasted the towers with filters that address a narrow range of VOCs and need frequent replacement. The article presents this as the founders’ comparison; it does not provide a lifecycle assessment or operating-cost figures.

The founders trace the idea to exposure

Thombre and Saraf began looking into indoor pollution after their makerspace experience. Thombre said the exposure involved fumes from laser cutters, 3D printers and soldering irons. She described indoor pollution as an invisible risk for workplaces and other commercial buildings where windows may not be opened because of air-conditioning. The source does not name the university or give a date for these events.

Thombre also said VOCs are linked to chronic disease and sick building syndrome, a term for discomfort or health effects associated with time spent in a building without a specific identified cause. She pointed to Harvard research connecting improved indoor air quality with cognitive function and productivity. The source does not provide the research citation or establish a health outcome from Greenairy’s pilots. Those claims therefore remain part of the founders’ explanation of the problem, rather than measured effects of their product.

Further evidence has not been published

TechCrunch reports that Greenairy will appear at Startup Battlefield 200 during TechCrunch Disrupt. The source does not describe an investment round, disclose investor names or provide fundraising terms. It also does not state whether the towers are commercially available or when further deployments are planned. No response from Greenairy on those unreported matters is included in the supplied account.

The published information leaves key questions about performance open. It gives no monitor values, comparison methodology or independent assessment, and it does not detail the tower’s engineering. Future disclosures about deployment, validation and commercial availability would help establish how the pilot findings translate into routine use. The source does not specify when any such information will be provided.