Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41774083›Full record

ReviewScience progress

The efficacy of natural preservatives in extending the vase life of cut flowers.

Nirajan Bhandari, Umed Kumar Pun, Milan Panth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nirajan BhandariCollege of Natural Resource Management, Agriculture and Forestry University, Pakhribas, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-4774-9604
Umed Kumar PunDepartment of Natural and Applied Sciences, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6194-3633
Milan PanthEdisto Research and Education Center, Clemson University, Blackville, SC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2837-2036

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cut flower business has been growing rapidly worldwide, with a positive and significant impact on the economies of many countries. Maintaining quality and extending the vase life of cut flowers are crucial aspects of the floral industry. Synthetic preservatives (silver nitrate, silver thiosulfate, nano-silver, hydroxy quinoline, thiabendazole, and aluminum compounds) have been commercially used in the vase to maintain the quality and longevity of cut flowers for a long time. However, these preservatives may persist in the environment, causing severe health hazards and environmental pollution, and are also expensive. Therefore, cut flower industries seek low-cost, eco-friendly, and safer alternatives. In this context, natural preservatives (NPs), including plant extracts (PEs) and essential oils (EOs), offer a promising and sustainable alternative to synthetic preservatives in the vase. This review highlights the potential NPs and their role in enhancing the quality and vase life of cut flowers. We discussed how these preservatives exert their beneficial effects, such as inhibiting microbial growth, reducing ethylene production, and enhancing water uptake, and also explored the potential issues associated with them. We conducted a structured literature review and summarized the most commonly used EOs and PEs, their optimal dosages, efficacy, and combinations, and concluded with future directions to enhance the vase life of cut flowers sustainably.

Indexed as

FlowersFood PreservativesOils, VolatilePlant ExtractsFood PreservativesOils, VolatilePlant ExtractsCut flowerseco-friendlyessential oilsplant extractsvase life

Identifiers

PMID41774083
PMCPMC12957590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.