Assessment of suitable Embedding media for Drying of Rose and Marigold Flowers

Introduction

Despite their beauty, flowers and foliage are highly perishable and delicate. Their freshness can be extended only up to about 40% with the use of preservatives or chemicals (Ranjan & Misra, 2002) [1] . Moreover, flowers are not available year-round in all regions, leading to supply shortages (Sindhuja et al., 2017) [2] . To overcome these limitations, the concept of dry flower technology has gained importance. Dry flowers offer novelty, durability, aesthetic appeal, adaptability and year-round availability, making them a valuable product in floriculture (Dilta et al., 2011) [3] . What began as a traditional art form has now evolved into an interdisciplinary science and a global economic activity (Verma et al., 2012) [4] . The practice of desiccating flowers is ancient, originating in Egypt, where herbs and flowers were dehydrated for mummy preservation and in medieval times when monks suspended therapeutic herbs in inverted bundles for drying. Botanists later used dried specimens for herbarium collections and plant identification. In modern times, advanced drying methods such as hot-air ovens and microwave drying are used to enhance quality and reduce drying time (Acharya et al., 2013) [5] . Consumer demand for dried flowers has been increasing in both national and international markets. Compared to fresh flowers, dried flowers are biodegradable, ecofriendly, long-lasting and retain their decorative appeal for years when properly protected from humidity, dust and wind (Ranjan & Misra, 2002) [1] . Among commercially important flowers, rose (Rosa hybrida) occupies the leading position in international cut flower trade due to its attractive form, wide colour range, growth habit and fragrance. In addition to cut flower use, roses are important for garlands, bouquets, floral arrangements, hair adornments and valueadded products such as gulkand, attar and rose water (Arora, 1990) [6] . Moisture content plays a critical role in determining the quality and durability of dried flowers. Ideally, flowers should be dried to a moisture level of 8-11.5% to maintain their structural and biochemical integrity (Acharya et al., 2013) [5] . Various drying methods are employed, ranging from traditional sun and air drying to modern techniques such as microwave and freeze drying. While sun and air drying are inexpensive, they often lead to discoloration and shrinkage (Dilta et al., 2011) [3] . Press drying is suitable for making art works but not for whole blooms.

Material and Method Experimental Site

The laboratory experiment was carried out in the Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, College of Horticulture and Research Station, Mahatma Gandhi Udyaniki Evam Vanik Vishwavidyalaya, Durg (Chhattisgarh).

Experimental details and methodology

Detailed Programme of research: The present experiment was conducted on two flower crops, Rosa hybrida (Rose) and Tagetes erecta (Marigold) to study the effect of different embedding media on flower drying. The drying of flowers was carried out using the embedding method with different materials such as silica gel, borax, and sand. In this experiment, two factors were considered. Factor A consisted of the type of flower, where F1 represented Rose and F2 represented Marigold. Factor B consisted of the embedding media used for drying. The embedding media included M0 -Without embedding, M1 -Sand, M2 -Silica gel, M3 -Borax, M4 -Sand + Silica gel, M5 -Sand + Borax, and M6 -Silica gel + Borax. A total of 14 treatment combinations were formed by combining the two flowers with the different embedding media. These treatments included: T1 (F1M0) -Rose without embedding, T2 (F1M1) -Rose with sand, T3 (F1M2) -Rose with silica gel, T4 (F1M3) -Rose with borax, T5 (F1M4) -Rose with sand and silica gel, T6 (F1M5) -Rose with sand and borax, and T7 (F1M6) -Rose with silica gel and borax. Similarly, T8 (F2M0) -Marigold without embedding, T9 (F2M1) -Marigold with sand, T10 (F2M2) -Marigold with silica gel, T11 (F2M3) -Marigold with borax, T12 (F2M4) -Marigold with sand and silica gel, T13 (F2M5) -Marigold with sand and borax, and T14 (F2M6) -Marigold with silica gel and borax.

Experimental Procedure Embedding of flowers in desiccants

By drying the flower using various embedding medium, such as Sand, Silica Gel, Borax, Sand + Silica Gel, and Silica Gel + Borax (1:1) mixture, the problem of petal shrinking and floral shape destruction can be resolved. This procedure involved inserting 5 cm flower stems into the desiccant after pouring a layer of the embedding material, about 1 to 1.5 cm thick, into the bottom of the container. Pour the embedding media slowly and continuously around and above the flower up to to cm to cover all the spaces between the petals without changing the shape of the flowers. These containers were used to store the flowers in the appropriate drying procedure after they had been placed in desiccant.

Removal of flower from the container

After the completion of drying process and setting time, the containers were gently inclined over to remove the dried flower from embedding material without making any mechanical damage. The dried flowers were lifted up by hand; clean the embedding material which is adsorbed on the flower by inverting them and tapping the stems with fingers slowly. Remaining desiccants were finally cleaned by using fine brush.

Results and Discussion

Quantitative Parameter Initial flower size

The data pertaining to the effect of flower types and embedding media on the initial flower size have been presented in Fig. 1 The results indicated that flower types significantly influenced the initial flower size. Between the two flower types, F₁ (Rose) recorded the highest mean initial flower size (5.25 cm), whereas F₂ (Marigold) showed a comparatively smaller mean size (2.62 cm). This clearly shows that rose flowers inherently possessed a larger bloom size at the initial stage than marigold. The effect of embedding media and their interaction with flower type (F × M) on initial flower size was nonsignificant. Flower type alone had a significant influence, with roses showing larger initial size than marigold. Although some media combinations showed numerical improvement, the differences were statistically nonsignificant, indicating that initial flower size is mainly determined by flower type rather than embedding media.

The data pertaining to the effect of flower types and embedding media on the final flower size have been presented in Fig. 2. The results indicated that flower types exerted a significant influence on the final flower size. Between the two flower types, F₁ recorded a higher mean final flower size (2.89 cm), whereas F₂ showed a comparatively smaller mean final flower size (1.30 cm). This clearly indicates that F₁ flowers retained a larger bloom size at the final stage of drying than F₂. The effect of embedding media on the final flower size was also found to be significant at the 5% level, indicating that different embedding media influenced the extent of size retention in flowers. Among the embedding media, M2 (Silica Gel; 2.64 cm) recorded the highest overall mean final flower size, followed by M6 (Silica Gel + Borax; 2.55 cm), whereas M5 (Sand, 1.44 cm) recorded the smallest mean final size. However, the interaction effect between flower types and embedding media (F × M) was nonsignificant, indicating that their combined influence did not cause statistically significant variation in final flower size. Both flower type and embedding media individually affected flower size significantly, but their interaction did not. F₁ retained a larger flower size after drying than F₂, while embedding media such as M₂ and M₆ showed better size retention. This suggests that final flower size is mainly governed by the inherent characteristics of the flower type and the independent effect of embedding media.

The data pertaining to the effect of flower types and embedding media on the reduction in flower size after drying have been presented in Fig. 3. The results revealed that flower types significantly influenced the extent of flower size reduction. Rose flower (F₁) recorded a higher mean reduction (2.36 cm), whereas Marigold flower (F₂) exhibited a comparatively lower mean reduction (1.26 cm). This indicates that F₁ flowers experienced greater shrinkage during drying compared to F₂. The effect of embedding media was also found to be significant, indicating that different media influenced the degree of shrinkage during the drying process. Among the embedding media, M2 (1.11 cm) recorded the lowest reduction in flower size, followed by M3 (1.69 cm) and M6 (1.55 cm). The highest reduction was observed in M0 (2.34 cm) and M1 (2.23 cm), suggesting that untreated or coarse media allowed more shrinkage. The interaction effect between flower types and embedding media (F × M) was found to be nonsignificant, indicating that the combined effect of flower type and embedding media did not produce statistically meaningful differences in size reduction. Overall, the results showed that flower type and embedding media independently affected flowersize reduction after drying, while their interaction was non-significant. F₂ retained its size better than F₁, and media such as M₂ (Silica Gel) and M₆ (Silica Gel + Borax) performed best in minimizing shrinkage. The greater reduction in F₁ may be attributed to its higher moisture content and softer petals, whereas rapid moisture removal by Silica Gel-based media helped preserve structure. This indicates that shrinkage is primarily governed by flower characteristics and the individual efficiency

Reduction in Flower Size %

The data pertaining to the effect of flower types and embedding media on the percentage reduction in flower size have been presented in Fig. 4. The results indicated that flower types significantly differed in the extent of percentage reduction during drying. Between the two flower types, F₂ recorded a higher mean percentage reduction (50.51%), whereas F₁ exhibited a comparatively lower mean percentage reduction (44.65%). This shows that F₂ flowers shrank relatively more than F₁ during the drying process. The embedding media also showed clear differences in the percentage reduction. Among the seven media tested, M2 (30.87%) exhibited the lowest percentage reduction, followed by M6 (37.61%) and M3 (40.84%), indicating better shape and size retention. The highest reduction was observed under M5 (52.97%) and M4 (50.78%), while M0 (61.94%) and M1 (58.07%) also showed comparatively higher shrinkage. Flower type and embedding media significantly influenced the percentage reduction in flower size, with F₁ retaining its size more effectively than F₂. Media such as M₂ and M₆ provided the best size preservation, whereas coarse or slowdrying media led to greater shrinkage. The smaller reduction in F₁ is likely due to its thicker, firmer petals, which resist deformation during drying. Silica gel-based media like M₂ and M₆ promote quick, uniform moisture removal, thereby minimizing shrinkage, while slower-acting media such as M₄ and M₅ retain moisture longer, resulting in higher shrinkage. These factors explain the variation observed across treatments.

The data related to the effect of flower types and embedding media on the initial flower weight are presented in Fig. 5. The results revealed that flower types had a significant influence on the initial flower weight at the 5% level of significance. Between the two flower types, F₁ recorded a higher mean initial flower weight (6.93 g), whereas F₂ showed a lower mean weight (5.57 g). This clearly indicates that F₁ flowers possessed greater fresh weight at the beginning of drying as compared to F₂ The effect of embedding media on the initial flower weight was found to be nonsignificant, indicating that the variation among different media did not statistically affect the initial weight of flowers. Similarly, the interaction effect between flower type and embedding media (F×M) was also found to be non-significant, suggesting that the combined effect of flower type and media did not produce any meaningful variation in initial flower weight. The results indicate that flower type alone had a significant effect on the initial flower weight, whereas embedding media and their interaction with flower type showed no significant influence. F₁ flowers started with a higher initial weight than F₂, primarily due to their inherently larger and more succulent floral tissues, which naturally contribute to greater fresh weight. Since initial weight is determined by the physiological characteristics of the flowers at harvest, embedding media could not alter this parameter. The nonsignificant interaction (F × M) further confirms that the initial fresh weight is independent of the media used.

The data presented in Fig. 6. show that both flower types and embedding media significantly influenced the final flower weight. Between the flower types, F₁ recorded a higher mean final flower weight (1.71 g) compared to F₂ (1.22g), indicating that F₁ flowers retained more dry matter after the drying process. Embedding media also showed a significant effect, with the highest overall mean final weight observed in M₀ (1.84 g). In contrast, the lowest weight retention occurred in M₂ (1.11 g) and M₆ (1.26g). This variation reveals that some media supported better weight retention than others during drying. However, the interaction between flower types and embedding media (F×M) was found to be non-significant, indicating that both flower types responded similarly across all media. These findings lies in the inherent structural differences between the flower types: F₁ flowers possess denser and more compact tissues, enabling higher mass retention after drying than F₂. Likewise, the significant effect of media is due to their differences in moisture absorption and drying behavior, where media such as M₀, M₁, and M₅ slowed moisture loss and supported the flower structure, resulting in greater retained weight, while highly absorbent or fasterdrying media like M₂ and M₆ led to greater shrinkage and lower final weight.

The data in Fig. 7 indicate that flower type had a nonsignificant effect on moisture loss during drying. Although marigold (F₂) recorded slightly higher moisture loss (77.56%) than rose (F₁) (74.69%), the difference was not statistically significant. This means that both roses and marigolds lost moisture at nearly the same rate under the given drying conditions. On the other hand, embedding media showed a significant effect on moisture loss, meaning the drying material strongly influenced how much water the flowers lost. The highest moisture loss was observed in M₂ (81.98%), followed by M₆ (79.40 %) and M₃ (78.11%), all of which involved silica gel or its combinations, indicating faster moisture withdrawal. Lower moisture loss occurred in M₀ (70.67%), where drying was comparatively slower. The interaction between flower type and media (F × M) was nonsignificant, showing that roses and marigolds responded similarly across all embedding media. Moisture loss between roses and marigolds was nonsignificant because, despite species differences, both have similar initial petal water content, and their tissues release moisture at comparable rates during drying. Rose petals are softer with higher surface moisture, while marigold petals are firmer, but these traits balance out, resulting in similar moisture loss. Embedding media, however, showed significant effects-materials like silica gel absorb moisture rapidly, causing higher loss, whereas sand and less absorbent media dry flowers more slowly. Since both flowers responded similarly to each media type, the interaction remained non-significant.

Quantitative Parameters

Initial flower size and weight  Flower type significantly influenced both initial flower size and weight.  Rose (F) recorded larger size (5.25 cm) and higher initial weight (6.93 g) than Marigold (F) (2.62 cm;₁ ₂ 5.57 g).  Embedding media and F × M interaction showed nonsignificant effects, indicating that initial size and weight are inherent flower traits.

Final flower size  Both flower type and embedding media had significant effects.  Rose (F₁) retained a larger final size (2.89 cm) compared to Marigold (F) (1.30 cm). ₂  Among media, M₂ (Silica Gel) ( 2. Interaction effects (F×M) were significant for most qualitative parameters, showing that the choice of medium is crucial for each flower type.

3. Best treatment combination: F₁ × M ₂ (Rose + Silica Gel) This combination consistently gave superior results in colour, appearance, texture, shattering resistance, and overall acceptability.

4. Silica gel-based media enhanced colour retention, minimized shrinkage, and produced aesthetically superior dried flowers due to fast and uniform moisture withdrawal.

References

1. Acharya S, Patel A, Patel R. Drying techniques of ornamental flowers and foliages. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2013;8(2):667-670.
2. Akram T, Sharma P. Standardizing dehydration technique for Cleretum bellidiforme and Calendula officinalis. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(6):458-461.
3. Anusha S, Lalitha Kameswari P, Dorajee Rao AVD, Madhavi M, Uma Krishna K. Physico-chemical characters of marigold flowers during drying as influenced by embedding media and drying methods. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(9):20122016.
4. Arora JS. Introductory ornamental horticulture. Kalyani Publishers; 1990.
5. Brown SP, White P, Tjia B, Sheehan MR. Drying and preserving plant materials for decorative uses. UF/IFAS Extension Publication EP004. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences; 2013.
6. Chandana S, Malam VR. Impact of different drying methods and desiccants on storage quality of annual chrysanthemum and gerbera. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(2S):888-891.
7. Dilta BS, Behera TB, Gupta YC, Bhalla R, Sharma BP. Effect of embedding media, temperature and durations on hot air oven drying of rose (Rosa hybrida L.) cv. First Red. Indian Journal of Applied Research. 2014;4(1):233.
8. Dilta BS, Sharma BP, Gupta YC, Sharma P. Standardization of drying techniques for flowers of marigold. Progressive Agriculture. 2011;11(1):124127.
9. Gangadhar Swamy K, Chandan K, Naik KB, Prashanth SJ, Nataraj SK, Sreenivasalu GB. Comparison of different methods of drying in rose cv. Gladiator. Asian Sciences. 2009;4(1-2):1-3.
10. Gantait SS, Mahato S. Effect of different embedding media and duration of drying on production of quality dry flowers in gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii Bolus ex Hooker F). HortFlora Research Spectrum. 2015;4(2):135-138.
11. Gurjar A, et al. Influence of various chemical pretreatments and drying methods on value addition of Tagetes erecta L. AATCC Review. 2023.
12. Jagadeeswari VV, Suseela T, Sudha Vani V, Salomi Suneetha DR, Sujatha RV. Effect of different levels of embedding media, temperature and duration on drying quality of rose cv. Mirabel in vacuum drying. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024;8(10):1481-1487.
13. Jawaharlal M, Visalakshi M, Cintu S, Ganga M. Standardization for drying, bleaching and dyeing processes in dried flowers. Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 2013;8(1):65-69.
14. Malakar M, Acharyya P, Biswas S. Standardization of dehydration techniques of some ornamental foliages. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 2016;9(4):555-562.
15. Meman MA, Barad AV, Raval LJ. Effect of drying conditions and embedding materials on post-harvest quantitative parameters in China aster (Callistephus chinensis) flowers. Journal of Horticultural Science. 2006;1(1):48-51.
16. Meman MA, Barad AV, Varu OK. Technology for dry flower production of calendula (Calendula officinalis) flowers. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2008;3(1):1-4.
17. Mir SR, Shinde BM, Sonawane HB. Studies on different drying methods in ornamental flowers concerning quality dry flower products. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2021;13(10):1089410896.
18. Nair B, Singh KP. Aesthetic quality of chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora T.) flowers as affected by the desiccants. Journal of Agro Crop Science. 2011;2(2):11-14.
19. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1967.
20. Parmar N, Patil S, Chawla SL, Patel K. Standardization of drying technique and embedding media for annual flowers of Asteraceae family. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(1):1808-1811.
21. Patel KM, Patel RB, Chawla SL, Parmar S, Patel UR. Standardization of drying methods for winter annual flowers (dianthus, annual chrysanthemum and China aster). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2017;5(5):557-559.
22. Prasad J, Dey AN, Singh P. Standardization of embedding media for drying of flowers. Ornamental Horticulture. 1997;5(2):85-89.
23. Raghava SPS. Floriculture industry in India. Indian Horticulture. 2001;46(1):35-38.
24. Raghupathi B, Gantait SS. Effect of microwave oven drying technology on dehydration of ornamental foliage. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(5):1845-1852.
25. Ranjan R, Misra RL. Dry flowers and their value addition. Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2002.
26. Rathod N, Patil S, Deshmukh S. Evaluation of African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) genotypes for growth and flowering. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2021;9(2):2300-2303.
27. Renuka SK, Moond A, Mishra SK, Jain SK, Arya CK. Effect of drying techniques and embedding media on dried flower quality of rose (Rosa chinensis Jacq.) and water lily (Nymphaea alba L.). HortFlora Research Spectrum. 2016;5(4):289-294.
28. Safeena SA, Patil VS, Naik BH. Standardization of stage of harvest for better quality of dry flowers of rose. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 2014;9(3):224226.
29. Shailza, Jhanji S, Grewal HS. Emerging prospective of floriculture industry: drying of ornamental plants and their parts. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(7):16191633.
30. Sharma R. Commercial floriculture: opportunities and challenges. New India Publishing Agency; 2015.
31. Sindhuja S, Singh KP, Kumar P. Evaluation of storage techniques on shelf life of cut flowers. International Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience. 2017;5(4):680684.
32. Singh A, Shah RR, Dhaduk BK. Study of dehydration techniques for zinnia. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 2004;7(1):84-88.
33. Singh J, Saini P, Kaur H. Effect of embedding media on the quality of tinted chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflorum) cv. Pusa Shwet flowers dried in hot air oven. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(9):573-578.
34. Singh N, Singh J, Gupta P, Sahu T, Das K. Evaluation of different drying methods on the shape, colour retention and overall acceptability of rose (Rosa hybrida L.). International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024;8(2S):584-594.
35. Siva Teja V, Suseela T, Dorajee Rao AVD, Sudha Vani V, Salomi Suneetha DR. Effect of different levels of embedding media and traditional drying methods on production of quality dry flowers in chrysanthemum cv. Local Yellow. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(9):2355-2361.
36. Sudeep K, et al. Effect of desiccants and hot air oven temperatures on drying quality of Dendrobium orchid var. Sonia 17 flowers. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience. 2018;6(2):69-73.
37. Sujatha AN, Damodaran T, Shiva KN. Dry flower industry in Andamans. Kisan World. 2001;28:28.
38. Sunil Kumar G, Nagaraju R, Swarajyalakshmi K, Latha P, Balakrishna M. Standardization of drying techniques for different flowers for making potpourris. Advances in Bioresearch. 2018;9(6):68-76.
39. Swathi P, Rani V, Lakshmi K. Studies on ornamental potential of African marigold. Plant Archives. 2017;17(2):1609-1612.
40. Trinklein D. Drying flowers and foliage for arrangements. University of Missouri Extension, Horticultural MU Guide. 2006:1-6.
41. Verma RS, Padalia RC, Chauhan A. Dry flower technology: scope and opportunities. Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources. 2012;3(3):465-472.
42. Wararkar SM, Dalal SR, Mishra SNM. Dehydration studies in carnation flower. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2025;9(3):696-699.