| -By Anil Kumar Verma, Y. C. Gupta, S. R. Dhiman and Ritu Jain Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, College of Horticulture, Dr. Yaswant Singh Parmar, University of Horticulture and Forestry, Himachal Pradesh |
"Studies on dry storage of chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora Tzevlev) cv. Snow Ball flowers were carried out at Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, during 1999-2001. Three wrapping materials viz., newspaper, cellophane wax paper and polythelene were used to store the flowers for 24, 48 and 72h at ambient storage, zero energy cool chamber and cold storage. The treatments were replicated thrice and experiment was laid out in CRD factorial. The maximum vase life (19.20 day), volume of solution consumed (259.30 ml), flower size (10.90 cm), total sugars (41.81mglg) and minimum weight loss (5.16%) were observed when cut flowers were packed in wax paper for 24 h in cold storage, however, minimum vase life, flower size, volume of solution consumed and total sugar were recorded in flowers wrapped in newspaper and stored for 72 h at ambinet conditions."
|
 |
Chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora Tzevlev) belongs to the family Asteraceae is native to China. It is national flower of Japan and regarded as a symbol of royality. Generally, white cultivars of Standard type chrysanthemums are more in demand than spray types. The high perishability of cut flowers makes them vulnerable to large postharvest losses which varied between 28-35 per cent (Anonymous, 1999). Appropriate packaging of cut flowers together with pulsing offers potential advantage of extending their storage period, vase life and maintaining flower quality. Hence, the present investigations were carried out with the objective to study the effect of packaging and storage on quality and vase life of chrysanthemum cv. Snow Ball.
Materials And Methods : The present studies were carried out at the Department of Postharvest Technology of Dr. Y.S. Parmar D.H.F. Solan, during 1999- 2001. The harvested cut stems were pulsed in 200 ppm 8 HQC + 5 per cent sucrose for 16 h and were packed in corrugated fibre board cartons. After packaging in cartons, they were dry stored in three storage systems i.e., ambient storage, zero energy cool chamber and cold storage. The cut stems were evaluated in 200 ppm 8 HQC + 2 per cent sucrose solution for vase life (day), physiological loss in weight (%), flower size (mm), volume of solution consumed (ml) and total sugar content (mg/ g). The data recorded for various parameters were subjected to statistical analysing using complete randomised design with factorial concept.
Results And Discussion : Vase life It is clear (see Table 1) that the maximum vase life of 19.20 day was observed in flowers wrapped in wax paper and stored for 24 h in cold storage while minimum vase life (0.00 day) was observed in flowers wrapped in newspaper and stored for 72 h in ambient storage, indicated that the flowers wilt at ambient conditions after 72 h storage. The possible reason for this is that the low temperature lower down the metabolic activities, rate of respiration, and, transpiration ethylene synthesis. Moreover, wrapping the flowers in wax paper increases the vase life as it reduces evaporation and maintains humidity inside the wrapping material and hence improves the turgidity of flowers. The storage of flowers at ambient conditions for 72h by wrapping them in newspaper resulted in poor vase life due to the fact that at ambient conditions high temperature is coupled with water stress and during storage ethylene synthesis increases as the storage duration increases (Menguc and Usta, 1994) and therefore, the vase life decreases.
Physiological loss in weight : It is evident (see Table 2) that physiological loss in weight of chrysanthemum cut flowers varied from 5.16 to 34.33 per cent among different treatments of packaging and storage. The minimum weight loss of 5.16 per cent was observed in wax paper wrapped flowers stored for 24 h in cold storage and it was at par with those stored for 48 h in same storage systems and same wrapping material. Madaiah and Reddy (1994) reported less per cent physiological weight loss in tuberose florets in cool chamber. The maximum weight loss of 34.33 per cent was observed in newspaper wrapped flowers stored for 72 h at ambient conditions. The possible reason for this is that the water loss which account for per cent physiological loss in weight is higher when cut flowers were stored at higher temperature because vapour pressure deficit is greater at higher temperature (Hardenburg et al., 1990) thereby, causing more moisture loss as well as weight loss.
Flower Size : The data presented in Table 3 depict that the maximum flower size (10.90cm) was observed when flowers were stored for 24 h while minimum (9.53cm) was recorded when storage duration was increased to 72 h. Out of different storage materials and storage systems tested, it was observed that the flowers wrapped in wax paper and cold stored had maximum (12.58 cm) size as compared to others. However, minimum size (7.97cm) was recorded in flowers wrapped in newspapers and stored at ambient conditions. The interaction between storage duration, storage system and packaging material reveals that the flowers wrapped in wax paper and cold stored for 24 h had maximum (12.92) size. This is due to the fact that the flowers wrapped in wax paper had higher moisture retention and further storing them at low temperature resulted in lower metabolic activities like respiration, transpiration and maintained high humidity which resulted in easy and more flower opening. The minimum flower size (6.52 cm) was observed when flowers were wrapped in newspaper and stored for 72 h at ambient conditions. Under ambient storage, reduced diameter and failure of flowers to further expansion after prolonged storage could be due to shift in hormonal balance within the tissue of stored flowers (Goszenynska and Rudnecki, 1982). Solution Consumed Amount of solution consumed was maximum (216.0 ml) when flowers were stored for 24 h and minimum (132.7 ml) when stored for 72 h (Table 4). The decrease in amount of solution consumed with increase in storage duration may be attributed as a result of water stress resulting into decreassed vase life, flower size, etc. The flowers wrapped in wax paper and stored for 24 h in cold storage resulted in maximum amount of solution consumed (259.3 ml), however, minimum amount of solution (10.67 ml) was absorbed by flowers when wrapped in newspaper and stored for 72 h at ambient conditions. The possible reason for this is that in cold storage the metabolic activities of flowers slower down whereas at ambient conditions there is increase in metabolic activities and rapid loss in respiratory substrates which reduces the uptake of solution. As far as wrapping materials are concerned, in case of wax paper, humidity is maintained, whereas in case of newspaper, loss of water vapour was more which decreased the flower rigidity and hence, make the flower unable to consume more solution. Total Sugars Data presented in Table 5 depict that the flowers stored for 24 h had maximum (29.46 mg/g) total sugars whereas, minimum (17.78 mg/ g) sugars were observed after 72 h storage. Decrease in total sugars on increasing storage durations can be attributed to decrease in carbohydrate contents, because respiration keeps on going during storage, thereby utilizing sugar as a substrate. The interaction effects among the treatments reveal that the flowers wrapped in wax paper and stored for 24 h in cold store had maximum (41.81 mg/g) total sugar while, flowers wrapped in newspapers and stored for 72 h under ambient, conditions resulted in minimum 1.66 mg/ g total sugars. Cut flowers stored under ambient storage had higher sugars which may be due to the fact that at higher temperature, respiration rate increases resulting in more utilization of sugars. |
| |
| Table 1. Effect of packaging and storage treatment on vase life of chrysanthemum cut flowers cv. Snow Ball |
|
|
|
Interaction SxWxI |
|
| Treatment |
Packaging |
|
Vase life (day) |
| |
|
|
Storage duration (h) |
| |
|
24(I) |
48(I2) |
72(I3) |
Mean |
| Ambient storage (S1) |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
7.23 |
4.50 |
0.00 |
3.91 |
| |
Cellophane wrapping (W2) |
9.10 |
6.33 |
1.33 |
5.58 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
10.92 |
6.91 |
1.91 |
6.58 |
| |
Polyethylene wrapping (W4) |
8.86 |
6.08 |
1.25 |
5.40 |
| Zero energy cool |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
13.00 |
11.87 |
5.66 |
10.81 |
| Chamber (ZEC) (S2) |
C ellophane wrapping (W2) |
15.50 |
13.77 |
7.68 |
12.32 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
16.17 |
14.33 |
8.25 |
12.92 |
| |
Polyethylene wrapping (W4) |
15.17 |
13.75 |
7.25 |
12.05 |
| Cold storage (S3) |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
16.25 |
15.67 |
11.71 |
14.56 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
19.20 |
18.15 |
14.72 |
17.36 |
| |
Polythylene wrapping (W4) |
18.00 |
17.13 |
13.28 |
16.44 |
| Mean |
|
13.98 |
12.17 |
7.27 |
|
| C.D. (P=0.05) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Storage duration (I) |
|
|
0.12 |
|
|
| SxW |
|
|
0.24 |
|
|
| SxWx |
|
|
I 0.42 |
|
|
|
| |
| Table 2. Effect of packaging and storage treatment on per cent physiological loss weight (PLW%) in chrysanthemum cut flowers cv. Snow Ball |
|
|
|
Interaction SxWxI |
|
| Treatment |
Packaging |
|
Vase life (day) |
| |
|
|
Storage duration (h) |
| |
|
24(I) |
48(I2) |
72(I3) |
Mean |
| Ambient storage (S1) |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
24.0 |
31.00 |
34.33 |
29.77 |
| |
Cellophane wrapping (W2) |
18.67 |
25.00 |
29.67 |
24.44 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
16.67 |
23.70 |
28.67 |
23.01 |
| |
Polyethylene wrapping (W4) |
19.33 |
26.67 |
31.00 |
25.66 |
| Zero energy cool |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
11.50 |
13.17 |
14.67 |
13.11 |
| Chamber (ZEC) (S2) |
Cellophane wrapping (W2) |
8.96 |
9.60 |
10.17 |
9.57 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
7.40 |
14.33 |
8.25 |
12.92 |
| |
Polyethylene wrapping (W4) |
9.16 |
10.50 |
10.33 |
9.99 |
| Cold storage (S3) |
Newspaper wrapping (W1) |
9.33 |
9.86 |
10.23 |
9.81 |
| |
Cellophane wrapping (W2) |
6.33 |
7.15 |
8.00 |
7.16 |
| |
Wax paper wrapping (W3) |
5.16 |
8.53 |
7.18 |
5.95 |
| |
Polythylene wrapping (W4) |
8.00 |
8.33 |
8.70 |
8.23 |
| Mean |
|
12.0 |
14.88 |
16.84 |
|
| C.D. (P=0.05) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Storage duration (I) |
|
|
0.26 |
|
|
| SxW |
|
|
0.52 |
|
|
| SxWx |
|
|
0.91 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
