Acta Scientific Agriculture (ASAG)(ISSN: 2581-365X)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 2

Effects of Preservatives on the Vase Life of Two Rose Cultivars

Most. Mayna Begum*, Abdullah Al Mahmud, Sultana Mahmuda, Sharmin Akter and Shreef Mahmood

Department of Horticulture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh, South Asia

*Corresponding Author: Most. Mayna Begum, Department of Horticulture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh, South Asia.

Received: December 30, 2019; Published: January 18, 2020



  An experiment was carried out at the laboratory, Department of Horticulture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur during 1st to 17th December, 2017. The main objective of this research was to increase the vase life of two cut rose cultivars using different preservative solutions. The two factor experiment was laid out in the completely randomized design with three replications. There were two cultivars: Lincoln (V1) and Tajmahal (V2), and these flowers were kept in six preservative solutions viz., T1= water (control), T2= 2% sucrose + 50 ppm AgNO3, T3= 2% sucrose + 100 ppm AgNO3, T4= 2% sucrose + 150 ppm AgNO3, T5= 2% sucrose + 150 ppm 8-HQS, and T6= 2% sucrose + 200 ppm 8-HQS. Flowers were monitored for 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 DAS of storage. Parameters studied in the experiment were: flower head diameter (cm), petal wilting (1-7 scale), petal discolouration (1-8 scale), petal blackening (1-8 scale), bent neck (1-8 scale), flower opening (1-4 scale), total soluble solids (TSS),% dry weight (g), solution uptake (g/flower), transpiration loss (g), water balance (g) and vase life (days). Lincoln performed better than Tajmahal. Among the preservatives, T2 (2% sucrose + 50 ppm AgNO3) gave the best results in respect of all parameters whereas T1 gave the lowest results in different DAS. The combinations of cultivars and preservatives demonstrated a significant variation (1%) in vase life and most of the others (1% or 5%). The highest vase life (16.67 days) of Lincoln and Tajmahal were recorded when those were kept in T2 and T3, respectively whereas it was only 6.67 days in control. The highest solution uptake rate was recorded in V1T2 (14.50 g). At the end of the storage, the highest water balance rate was with V1T2 (0.33 g). The lowest number of petal discolouration was noted in V1T2 (5.17) than other treatment combinations. Again, at the end of storage, the minimum bent neck was observed in the combination V1T2 (3.50) than the others. In term of transpiration loss,% dry weight, total soluble solids, the best results were in V1T2 than the rest combinations. At the end of storage, the maximum flower head diameter was observed in V2T3. Different quality parameters like petal wilting and petal blackening were also significantly minimum in Lincoln preserved in Tthan the other preservatives. Overall, 2% sucrose with 50 ppm AgNO3 solution extended the vase life and improved the quality parameters in rose cv. Lincoln than other preservatives.

Keywords: Preservative; Wilting, Discoloration; Vase Life; Rose



  1. Ritz CM., et al. “Evolution by reticulation: European dog roses originated by multiple hybridization across the genus Rosa”. Journal Heredity 96 (2005): 4-14.
  2. Butt SJ. “A Review on prolonging the vase life of Rose. Pakistan Rose Annual”. Published by Pakistan National Rose Society (2003): 49-53.
  3. Chowdhury RA and Khan F. “Cut Flower Export from Bangladesh: Prospects, Challenges, and Propositions”. Manarat International University Studies 5.1 (2015): 11.
  4. Kazemi M. “Effect of Cobalt, Silicon, Acetylsalicylic Acid and Sucrose as Novel Agents to Improve Vase-life of Argyranthemum Flowers”. Trends in Applied Sciences Research 7 (2012): 579-583.
  5. Reddy T., et al. “Impregnating cut rose stem with nickel increases vase life”. Horticultural Abstract (1988): 59-60.
  6. Nowak J and Rudnicki RM. “Postharvest handling and storage of cut flower, florist, greens and potted plants”. Timber Press Inc (1990): 39-43.
  7. Van Doorn WG., et al. “Sources of the bacteria involved in vascular occlusion of cut rose flowers”. Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science 122 (1997): 263-266.
  8. Lacey L., et al. “Maturity testing of citrus”. Farmnote, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia 3 (2001): 1-5.
  9. Amingad V., et al. “Comparison of Silver Nanoparticles and Other Metal Nanoparticles on Postharvest Attributes and Bacterial Load in Cut Roses var. Taj Mahal”. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience 5.6 (2017): 579-584.
  10. Sarkka L. “Yield, quality and vase life of cut roses in year round greenhouse production”. Academic Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland (2005): 64.
  11. Ichimura K., et al. “Mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades in plants: a new nomenclature”. Trends Plant Science 7 (2002): 301-308.
  12. Locke EM. “Extending cut flower vase life by optimizing carbohydrate status: Preharvest conditions and preservative solution”. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh (2010): 246.
  13. Ferriera DI and Swardt GH.  “The relationship between the changes in membrane permeability and cut respiration rate of senescence of rose petals (cv. Sonia)”. Agroplantae 12 (1980): 49-51. 
  14. Friedman H., et al. “Characterization of yield, sensitivity to Botrytis cinerea and antioxidant content of several rose species suitable for edible flowers”. Scientia Horticulturae 123.3 (2010): 395-401.
  15. Regan EM.  “Developing water quality and storage standards for cut rose stems and postharvest handling protocols for specialty cut flowers”. MS Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh (2008):126.
  16. Farnham DS., et al. “The value of using chemical solution for carnation conditioning and bud opening”. Florists Review 150.3980 (1972): 17-88.
  17. Elgimabi EN and Sliai AM.  “Effects of preservative solutions on vase life and postharvest qualities of Taif rose cut flowers (Rosa damascene) cv. Trigintipetala”. American Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science 13.1 (2013): 72-80.
  18. Rogers MN.  “An historial and critical review of postharvest physiology research on cut flowers”. Horticultural Science 8 (1973): 189-194.
  19. Dinesh BM., et al. “Influence of holding solutions on the postharvest life of Dendrobium hybrid Sonia”. South Indian Horticulture 50.5-4 (2002): 451-457.
  20. Bhattacharjee SK. “Effect of different chemicals in holding solution on post-harvest life and quality of cut roses”. Annals of Plant Physiology 12.8 (1998): 161-163. 
  21. Ichimura K., et al. “Effects of temperature, 8-HQS and sucrose on vase life of cut rose flowers”. Horticultural Science 15 (1999): 33-40.
  22. Tsegaw T., et al. “Influence of pulsing biocides and preservative solution treatment on the vase life of cut rose (Rosa hybrida L.) varieties”. Journal of Applied Science and Technology 2.2 (2011): 1-18.
  23. Niemietz CM and Tyerman SD.  “New potent inhibitors of aquaporins: silver and gold compounds inhibit aquaporins of plant and human origin”. FEBS letters 531.3 (2002): 443-447.
  24. Singh AK and Tiwari AK.  “Effect of pulsing on postharvest life of rose cv. Doris Tystermann”. South Indian Horticulture 50 (2002): 140-44.
  25. Nijsse J., et al. “Xylem hydraulic conductivity related to conduit dimensions along chrysanthemum stems”. Journal of Experimental Botany 52 (2001): 319-327.
  26. Halevy AH. “Treatments to improve water balance of cut flowers”. Acta Horticultura 64 (1976): 223-226.
  27. Halevy AH and Mayak S. “Senescence and post-harvest Physiology of cut flowers”. In Horticultural Reviews, Part-II (Ed. J. Janick). 3 (1981): 59-143. 
  28. He S., et al. “Stem end blockage in cut Grevillea (2006). 
  29. Moon-soo C., et al. “Sucrose enhances the post-harvest quality of cut flowers of Eustoma grandiflorum (raf) shinn”. In: Proceedings: Seventh International Symposium. Postharvest physiol. Ornamentals Eds”. Acta Horticulturae (2001): 543.
  30. Hajizadeh HS., et al. “Using of preservative solutions to improve postharvest life of Rosa Hybrid cv. Black magic”. Journal of Agricultural Technology 8.5 (2012): 1801-1810.
  31. Butt SJ. “Extending the Vase Life of Roses (Rosa hybrida) with Different Preservatives”. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 7.1 (2005): 97-99. 
  32. Singh AK and Tiwari AK. “Post-harvest life of rose cv. ‘Happiness’ as influenced by pulsing with various chemicals”. Progressive Horticulture 32.1 (2000): 86-89.
  33. Paulin A. “Inflence of exogenous sugars on the evolution of some senescence parameters of petals”. Acta Horticulturae (1986): 181.
  34. Durkin D and Kuc R. “Vascular blockage and senescence of the cut tuberose and gladiolus flowers”. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science 89 (1966): 683-688.
  35. Mayak S., et al. “The water balance of cut rose flowers”. Physiological Plantarum 32 (1974): 15-22. 


Citation: Most. Mayna Begum., et al. “Effects of Preservatives on the Vase Life of Two Rose Cultivars" Acta Scientific Agriculture 4.2 (2020): 51-73.


Acceptance rate32%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.014

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is June 25, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US