Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Organic and Inorganic Salts as Postharvest Alternative Control Means of Citrus

Written By

Khamis Youssef, Kamel A. Abd-Elsalam, Ahmed Hussien, Simona M. Sanzani and Antonio Ippolito

Submitted: 02 October 2016 Reviewed: 13 December 2016 Published: 12 April 2017

DOI: 10.5772/67228

From the Edited Volume

Citrus Pathology

Edited by Harsimran Gill and Harsh Garg

Chapter metrics overview

2,237 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Several postharvest disease control means alternative to conventional chemical fungicides, such as organic and inorganic salts, will be highlighted in the proposed chapter. In particular, it will comprehensively cover different aspects of the use of salts against postharvest Penicillium decay of citrus. It will be an essential resource for the graduate and postgraduate students, researchers, professionals, supply chain players, citrus industries, and retailers. Organic and inorganic salts have a broad spectrum of activity against a wide range of fungi. In addition, they are easy to apply, inexpensive, safe for humans and the environment, and suitable for commercial postharvest handling practices. Different application strategies of salts, before and after harvest, and combined application (with wax, natural compounds, and fungicides, etc.) will be also discussed. The present chapter attempts to highlight how the use of organic and inorganic salts as alternative postharvest disease management technologies has developed from the laboratory to the market.


  • citrus
  • salts
  • postharvest pathology
  • GRAS

1. Introduction

Citrus world production has reached 71 M tons in 2013 (, and the Egyptian production reached 2.9 M tons, representing 30% of the total Egyptian fruit production. Italy ranked at ninth place in the world producers chart with 1.7 M tons. Citrus fruit suffers from postharvest diseases caused by several fungal pathogens. The major postharvest diseases can be divided into two classes based on their initial infections. Rots from field infection include Alternaria rot, Phytophthora rot, Phomopsis and Diplodia stem-end rot, and Anthracnose rot. Rots from postharvest infection include Penicillium rots, Aspergillus rots, Rhizopus rot, Sour rot, and Fusarium rot [1].

Green, blue, and whisker moulds caused by Penicillium digitatum (Pers.:Fr.) Sacc., P. italicum Wehmer, and P. ulaiense (Hsieh, Su & Tzean), respectively, are the most important and destructive postharvest diseases of citrus fruit, especially if grown under Mediterranean climate conditions. The control of postharvest diseases is generally exerted by chemicals. However, many fungal pathogens have developed resistance to the active ingredients of a wide range of fungicides. In addition, the problems associated with their use (i.e., waste disposal), as well as the public increasing awareness about health and environmental risks, have promoted the search for new and safer alternatives. Replacement of synthetic fungicides by salts, which are nontoxic for consumers and for the environment, is gaining considerable attention.

During last two decades, because of the consistent increase in the area under citrus cultivation, the production has grown dramatically. However, the interest in protecting the fruit against postharvest losses caused by the pathogens has not gained the same spur in the implementation of the available technologies. Despite international organizations responsible for monitoring food resources have been recognized that the most economically feasible and expedient means to increase food supply are to reduce postharvest losses [2].

The surface of fruits or vegetables is covered by fungal and bacterial propagules; however, most of them do not cause decay, even when conditions suitable for penetration and development are present because of natural resistance. However, natural resistance to disease of fruits generally declines after harvest, due to ripening and senescence, leading to decay and physiological impairment. The preharvest factors (soil conditions, moisture, temperature, relative humidity, and nutrient availability, etc.) that affect the postharvest life of a fresh produce were discussed [3].


2. Penicillium decay

The genus Penicillium includes 150 species, but only few species are economically important plant pathogens [4]. In Mediterranean climate areas, green and blue moulds caused by P. digitatum and P. italicum, respectively, are the most important postharvest diseases of citrus fruit. Both fungi are necrotrophs that feed on the dead matter and require wounds to enter the fruit [5]. Blue mould is generally of lesser overall importance, but may become a major problem under prolonged storage conditions, which suppress development of green mould [6]. At room temperature, green mould invades fruit much more rapidly than blue mould and predominates in mixed infections [7]. Currently, another species of Penicillium, P. ulaiense causing whisker mould, has being considered important on citrus, especially in packinghouses. It is a pathogenic fungus described as a member of the series Italica [8], together with P. italicum. In the past, the fungus was mistaken for P. italicum and its unique features dismissed as variations due to particular environmental conditions [9]. Recently, this fungus is becoming a serious concern for citrus packinghouses in several countries, because of its resistance to the commonly used preservatives. Rots are differentiated from those of P. italicum by the presence of coremia on the fruit [10]. Initially isolated from decaying oranges in Taiwan [11], P. ulaiensehas been described on citrus fruit in the United States [9, 10], Australia [12], Argentina [13], and recently in Egypt [14] and Tunisia [15]. Besides the taxonomic and phytopathological aspects [8, 10], there is little or no information about this organism [16].

The optimal growth conditions for Penicillium involve a warm and moist environment. Although infection may take place in the field, blue and green moulds are essentially postharvest pathogens. The fungus can spread during storage, since the airborne spores are long-lived and may easily survive from season to season on contaminated bins. Inoculation can also occur during fruit handling, for example, in water contaminated with the pathogen spores in packinghouses [17]. A single decayed fruit may contain enough spores to contaminate water of the entire packing line [18]. The pathogen can penetrate the host tissues also through openings in the peel, and can spread from one fruit to another by simple contact (nesting). When the host is first infected, a stain appears on the peel; this rapidly forms a slight indentation, after which the fruit decomposes partially or totally within few days.


3. Disease management of citrus fruits

The best and most effective management strategies to control citrus fruit diseases would be to avoid or minimize the predisposing factors responsible for origin and development of the diseases through an integrated approach. These management strategies include improved cultural practices, regular monitoring of the disease appearance and weather conditions, improved postharvest handling, control agents, timely use of effective fungicides, transport, and storage conditions.

3.1. Accurate cultural practices

Efficient removal of infected fruit and minimizing fruit injury are effective ways to control blue and green moulds. Disinfectants such as chlorine, quaternary ammonium compounds, formaldehyde, and alcohol are useful for preventing inoculum buildup. Spore populations are kept low in packing areas by removing infected fruit promptly, using exhaust fans, and keeping dump areas well away from packing facilities [19]. Harvest following rain is discouraged because wet fruits are more prone to injury. However, sanitary practices should be applied to prevent sporulation on diseased fruit and the accumulation of spores on equipment surfaces as well in the atmosphere of packing and storage facilities. Efficient packinghouses systematically segregate spoiled fruit in storage, distribution or repack, effectively reducing the disease [20, 21]. Moreover, effective sanitation practices during pre and postharvest handling, avoiding possible inoculum sources and preventing contamination, can significantly reduce the incidence of decay.

3.2. Chemical control means

Control of green and blue moulds varies among different countries’ legislation but is mainly based on the use of fungicide treatments, principally thiabendazole and imazalil, sprayed alternately or simultaneously, on fruit during waxing operation in the packinghouse. The control of postharvest fungal pathogens on citrus depends on the prompt application of a suitable fungicide at its recommended concentration. If the fungicide is not applied soon after the rind injury, which usually occurs during harvesting and subsequent handling, infection establishes and the organism escapes the protective activity of the compound being applied. The time allowed between the beginning of an infection and the application of a fungicide to completely inhibit or control infection depends on the growth rate of the germinating organism, which in turn depends on the fruit temperature [22]. Fungicidal dips and sprays, with thiabendazole, imazalil, thiophanate-methyl, sorbic acid, guazatine or sodium o-phenylphenate (SOPP) are used to control the disease [23]. Several years after the introduction of fungicides as thiabendazole, imazalil, and SOPP, resistant biotypes of P. digitatum were reported in packinghouses in many citrus production areas [24] and terminal markets [25]. These fungicides are used in a manner that is highly conductive to the selection and proliferation of resistant strains of P. digitatum and P. italicum. O-phenylphenol and thiabendazole have been used routinely on citrus fruits over the past three decades, resulting in a serious problem of resistance by the late 1970s [26]. It was reported that imazalil, successfully used in Mediterranean citrus production areas for several years, could be an effective treatment for control of thiabendazole-resistant isolates of P. digitatum and P. italicum [27]. It was investigated that all P. digitatum and P. italicum isolates collected in a citrus orchard were sensitive in vitro to imazalil and thiabendazole [28]. This result was consistent with earlier studies [2931] suggesting that naturally occurring resistant isolates of P. digitatum and P. italicum are rare or absent in citrus orchards, especially in those orchards without a prior history of fungicide usage. Nevertheless, isolates of P. digitatum resistant to thiabendazole, imazalil, or both fungicides were detected in all packinghouses sampled. Pyrimethanil (PYR) has been registered in USA against citrus green and blue moulds. A 90% reduction of green mould by PYR applied at ≥500 mg/l by dipping or drenching the fruit, and a 65% reduction applying PYR at 1000 or 2000 mg/l in wax over rotating brushes were observed. Indeed, PYR in aqueous solutions controlled sporulation better than when applied in wax, but it was less effective than imazalil, although an imazalil-resistant P. digitatum isolate was controlled by PYR. The sodium bicarbonate addition proved to improve PYR performance [32].

3.3. Nonchemical control means

Although synthetic fungicides are the primary means for controlling postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables, the growing concern for the human and environmental health [33], the cost of developing new pesticides to overcome pathogen resistances [34, 35], and the lack of continued approval of some of the most effective fungicides motivated the search for alternative approaches [36]. Several alternative means have been proposed to control postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables: biocontrol agents [37], natural substances [38], physical treatments [39], and organic or inorganic salts [4042]. Although all these approaches proved to be effective on a large number of hosts, they do not always offer a control level comparable to that provided by synthetic fungicides. However, an economically sufficient control extent can be obtained by the use of two or more alternative means in an integrated approach [37].

3.3.1. Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances

“Generally recognized as safe (GRAS)” is a category of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), stating that a chemical is considered safe to humans and animals, and thus considered food-grade. As such, carbonic acid salts are GRAS additives allowed with no restrictions for many applications (including food industry) in Europe and North America. The antimicrobial activity of these chemicals has been described in vitro [43] and in a wide range of substrates as well. Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) has been used as a disinfectant for citrus fruit since 1920 [4449]. Treatments with sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and NaHCO3 that reduced the incidence of postharvest decay on lemons proved to be as effective as higher concentrations of calcium chloride (CaCl2) in preserving tissue firmness during storage [5052]. Inversely, Ca salts at high concentrations (187.5 mM) caused symptoms of phytotoxicity on the fruit surface, in terms of skin discoloration and superficial pitting, leading to further chemical changes and reduced tissue firmness [53]. Concerning strawberries, CaCl2 dips in combination with heat treatment or storage in modified atmosphere and refrigeration proved to increase calcium content, fruit firmness, and delay postharvest decay [54]. Organic calcium salts are an alternative calcium source and calcium lactate has been described in the literature as a firming agent for several fruit. According to Lawles, the bitter and salty tastes associated with calcium chloride are largely suppressed when calcium is combined with larger organic ions such as lactate, gluconate, or glycerophosphate [55].

In Egypt, a complete inhibition was observed in the linear growth of G. candidum, P. digitatum, and P. italicum when exposed to benzoic, citric, and sorbic organic acids at concentrations of 4% and 2% of either sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate, respectively [56]. The efficacy of potassium sorbate and ammonium bicarbonate as possible alternatives for controlling soil-borne pathogens Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis, Macrophomina phaseolina, Rhizoctonia solani, and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum was evaluated [57]. Authors summarized that potassium sorbate had higher toxicity to all fungi compared to ammonium bicarbonate in soil tests. Both ammonium bicarbonate and potassium sorbate increased the pH of soil. The rate of pH increase was higher in ammonium bicarbonate.

More than 20 food additives and GRAS compounds were tested to control major postharvest diseases of stone fruit by Ref. [58]. Overall, the best compounds were 200 mM potassium sorbate, 200 mM sodium benzoate, 200 mM sodium sorbate, 100 mM 2-deoxy-d-glucose, 400 mM sodium carbonate, and 250 mM potassium carbonate. Moreover, potassium sorbate was successfully tested in mixture with commercial fungicides against the major postharvest pathogens of citrus fruit, in particular, combined low concentrations of potassium sorbate with imazalil, thiabendazole, pyrimethanil, and fludioxonil [59]. Potassium sorbate was not only compatible with these fungicides, but also enhanced their effect against P. digitatum and G. citri-aurantii. In other studies [40, 6062], potassium sorbate solutions applied at room temperature or moderately heated for relatively long immersion times (2–3 min) resulted effective to control green mould [59].

3.4. Integrated control options and strategies

Alternative control means alone are often less effective compared with commercial fungicides or provide inconsistent control. Therefore, to achieve a similar level of efficacy provided by conventional fungicides, an integration of commercial chemicals at low doses [63], hot water [64], chloride salts [56, 65], carbonate salts [40], natural plant extracts [66], and other physical treatments such as curing and heat treatments [67], is recommended [6871].

3.4.1. Citrus fruit wax combined with salts

Generally, citrus fruits are waxed in order to improve their shine [72] and reduce water loss during postharvest storage. Previous studies showed that, the application of shellac-based waxes reduced internal O2 levels, and increased internal CO2 and ethanol levels [73]. According to Waks, waxes minimize stem-end rind breakdown and other collapses of rind tissue, and can protect the fruit from the entrance of pathogens. The effect of waxing on the incidence of postharvest rots apparently is not unique to citrus fruits [74]. For example, it is reported for Starking apples attacked by Gloeosporium sp., the cause of apple bitter rot [75]. Coating (mainly with wax, shellac, and sucrose ester, etc.) is not recommended for long-term storage to prevent off-flavor [76].

Waxes may also serve as carriers of fungicides or growth regulators, because these chemicals are less effective when applied in waxes than when applied in water; therefore, higher concentrations are generally used in waxes than in water [77]. According to Taverne, when combined in wax and applied at label rate (150 μL/100 g), imazalil reduced the decay levels. In particular, when fruits were treated with wax containing ≥3000 ppm of imazalil, sporulation was reduced, since residues of 2–3 ppm were achieved. Doubling the wax volume did not significantly improve the sporulation control. Combinations of imazalil applied in water followed by imazalil in wax might be required to ensure high decay and sporulation control [78].

It evaluated the effect of organic acids (ascorbic, benzoic, citric, and sorbic) as well as organic salts (potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate) at different concentrations (0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0%) on the growth of Geotrichum candidum, P. digitatum, and P. italicum in vitro and in vivo. A complete inhibition was observed in the linear growth of all tested fungi when exposed to all organic acids concentrations and to 4% and 2% of either sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate salts, respectively. The various tested organic acids and salts showed different extent of protective or therapeutic effect on the coated lemon fruit against mould infection, whatever the time of their artificial inoculation. All treated citrus fruit showed reduced rate of sour rot, green and blue moulds when compared with untreated fruits. A complete inhibition of mould incidence was obtained in coated lemon fruits with 4% of sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate in water or wax mixtures 24 h before inoculation. In addition, high reduction in mould incidence was observed in lemon fruits coated with the same salt concentration 48 h after inoculation under the same conditions [56].

In general, the most practical combination of solution temperature, chemical concentration, and treatment duration for optimal decay control must be determined for each chemical and each host-pathogen systems [68]. Heat and the integration of certain physical, chemical, or biological treatments have been evaluated for postharvest decay control of peaches and nectarines [79, 80]. According to our knowledge, a limited research has been conducted to elucidate the ability of a mixed application of wax and food additives on the development of postharvest diseases of citrus during storage [41].

3.4.2. Electrolyzed water in combination with salts

Sanitizing is considered a fundamental component of processing the fresh fruit and vegetables. Typically, chlorine compounds and fungicides are the main active elements in sanitation and postharvest processing of fresh fruits. The corrosive effect of chlorine and toxicity of fungicide residue are considered a serious issue in processing fresh products [81, 82]. Development of alternative methods for sanitizing fresh products and controlling postharvest diseases is derived by economic and consumer demand motivations [83].

Electrolyzed water (EW) was introduced as decontaminating agent [84], and its application was approved in Japan and USA as a food additive and sanitizing agent [85, 86]. EW has shown its potential to inactivate pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria [8789] and fungi [17, 9093]. One of the main advantages of EW is the less adverse effect on environment and human health because no hazardous materials are used during its production [85].

The electrolysis of diluted solution of salts (e.g., NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2) leads to dissociation of salt ions, and formation of anion and cations at anode and cathode, negative and positive electrodes, respectively [94]. The physical properties and chemical composition of EW vary depending on the concentration of salt solution (e.g., NaCl), electrical current, length of electrolysis, and water flow rate [95]. Most previous studies assessed electrolyzing parameters (flow rate, current intensity, and time for electrolyzing) effect on free chlorine, electric conductivity, and pH of the resulted EW [9698], while very few studied the effect of electrolyzing parameters on the ability of electrolyzed water to deactivate pathogen unit [17]. Although salt solutions used in electrolysis play a major role in the effectiveness of EW, few salts were studied for their effect on EW efficiency: sodium chloride [93, 96100], potassium chloride [101], and sodium bicarbonate [102].

Anions of Cl- are targeting polypeptides and carbohydrates in the cell wall, in addition to destruction of nucleic acids—DNA and RNA—which impairs the process of DNA replication and gene expression, therefore, halts the cell division and stops the essential biological function leading to cell death. Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) has shown moderate biocide effect following free chlorine level. ORP indicates the tendency of ions to accept/donate electrons (reduction/oxidation), and was suggested as alternative stronger sanitizing factor compared to free chlorine [91, 103, 104]. It was found that in case of long exposure time, decrease of ORP to −300 mV reduced coliform bacteria population to 10 fold, and at ORP −400 mV, coliform bacteria population decreased 100 fold, and decreasing ORP to below −600 mV will completely inactivate all coliform bacteria [105]. Thus, it was possible to improve the biocide activity by manipulating the ORP regardless the anion present. Using salts with different anion radical than Cl, it is possible to still achieve the same level of disinfestations or even improve the biocide activity targeting multiple sites in the pathogen biological system [105].

The values of pH represent the level of hydrogen ion activity governing the solution acidity/alkalinity. The solution acidity/alkalinity has a biocide effect against pathogen cells, and although it came third to free chlorine and ORP, it still shows significant effect on the pathogen count. The role of pH is believed to make the cells more sensitive to active chlorine by erupting their outer membrane and facilitating the entry of HOCl [106]. Previous papers have studied the effect of electrolyzing parameters on the electrolyzed water characteristics [1795]. Recently, acidic electrolyzed water has shown higher biocidal activity toward P. digitatum, P. italicum, and P. ulaiense causing green, blue, and whisker moulds, respectively. When compared to the effect of alkaline electrolysis water [107], the author suggested that using amended salt solutions would improve the biocidal effect of electrolyzing. Further studies have suggested the higher biocide effect of acidic water and also suggested alkaline water to be used in cleaning and degreasing before application of acidic electrolyzed water [108112].

3.5. Preharvest treatment for controlling postharvest citrus decay

Citrus requires about 5–9 months for its maturity on trees, and during this long maturity period, the fruit remains exposed to the attack of preharvest fungal pathogens such as Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, C. acutatum, Botryodiplodia theobromae, Alternaria citri, and Phomopsis citri, etc. The incipient infection of preharvest pathogens subsequently manifests in the form of postharvest diseases, besides the attack of the main postharvest pathogens such as P. digitatum, P. italicum, and G. candidum, etc., during postharvest handling, transport, storage, and marketing. A number of nonconventional alternatives have been trailed as standalone treatments. It was showed that, potassium sorbate was effective when used on oranges, grapefruits, mandarins, and tangerines, but later research found that the effectiveness was influenced by citrus species and cultivars [60]. Potassium sorbate efficacy is variable when used as commercial treatment for citrus fruits, limiting its use as a standalone treatment [113].

In this perspective, the optimization of some promising alternative methods, like the use of salts, is a great interest. Since injuries sustained by citrus fruit during harvest, strongly favorite wound pathogens such as P. italicum and P. digitatum, the reduced efficacy of alternative control means could be partially ascribed to the lack of curative effect against already established infections. Based on this consideration, a near-harvest treatment could be an appropriate strategy to prevent the colonization by pathogens during harvesting and postharvest handling of fruits [42, 114].

The effectiveness of different salt solutions (2%, w/v), sodium carbonate and bicarbonate, potassium carbonate and bicarbonate, and calcium chloride, in controlling postharvest Penicillium rot of “Hernandina” clementine were reported [115]. Preharvest sprays and the combination of pre and postharvest application of salts were in average more effective, in suppressing Penicillium rot, than the individual postharvest dipping [42]. A detailed study of the ability of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate to induce resistance in oranges has been performed and published [116].


4. Conclusion

The book chapter aims at presenting salts as a sustainable approach for controlling postharvest diseases of citrus fruit to researchers and industries, graduate, and postgraduate students. The use of organic and inorganic salts was reviewed since the pioneer studies in the early 1920s of the last century until the most recently published works. Several salts confirmed their efficacy as affordable, safe to consumers and operators, and already used in the food industry. More studies concerning their mode of action might contribute to expand their application in the field and/or packinghouses.



Current work was supported by the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF), Egypt (grant no. 5555 Basic & Applied).


  1. 1. Ippolito A, Nigro F. Agrumi (pp. 181–195). In: De Cicco V, Bertolini P, Salerno MG (eds.). “Postharvest pathology of plant products”. Piccin Nuova Libraria SpA, Padova. 2009; p. 260.
  2. 2. Eckert JW, Ogawa JM. The chemical control of postharvest diseases: subtropical and tropical fruits. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1985; 23: 421–454.
  3. 3. Sams CE. Preharvest factors affecting postharvest texture. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1999; 15: 249–254.
  4. 4. Pitt JI. The Genus Penicillium and its Teleomorphic States Eupenicillium and Talaromyces. Academic Press, London.1979.
  5. 5. Ballester AR, Izquierdo A, Lafuente MT, González-Candelas L. Biochemical and molecular characterization of induced resistance against Penicillium digitatum in citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010; 56: 31–38.
  6. 6. Eckert JW, Eaks IL. Postharvest disorders and diseases of citrus fruits. In: Reuther W, Calavan EC and Carman GE (eds.). The Citrus Industry, vol. 5. University of California Press, Oakland, 1989; pp. 179–260.
  7. 7. Brown GE, Ismail M, and Clay C. Florida Department of Citrus, Lakeland, FL. Citrus fruit fact sheets-postharvest disease. 1995.
  8. 8. Frisvad JC, Filtenborg O, Lund F, Samson RA. The homogeneous species and series in subgenus Penicillium are related to mammal nutrition and excretion. In: Samson RA, Pitt JI (eds.). Integration of Modern Taxonomic Methods for Penicillium and Aspergillus Classification, Hargrove Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 2000; pp. 265–283.
  9. 9. Holmes GJ, Eckert JW, Pitt JI. A new postharvest disease of citrus in California caused by Penicillium ulaiense. Plant Dis. 1993; 77: 537.
  10. 10. Holmes GJ, Eckert JW, Pitt JI. Revised description of Penicillium ulaiense and its role as a pathogen of citrus fruit. Phytopathology. 1994; 84: 719–727.
  11. 11. Hsieh HM, Su HJ, Tzean SS. The genus Penicillium in Taiwan. I. Two new taxa of synnematous Penicillium. Trans. Mycological Soc. Republic China. 1987; 2: 157-168.
  12. 12. Hocking AD, Pitt JI. Fungi and mycotoxins in food. In: Orchard AE. (ed.). Fungi of Australia, vol. 1B, Introduction-Fungi in the Environment. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia, 1996; pp. 315–342.
  13. 13. Carrillo L. Penicillium ulaiense Hsieh, Su & Tzean, a postharvest pathogen of citrus fruits in northeastern Argentina. Revi. Argent. Microbiol. 1995; 27:107–113.
  14. 14. Youssef K, Ahmed Y, Ligorio A, D’Onghia AM, Nigro F, Ippolito A. First report of Penicillium ulaiense as a new postharvest pathogen of citrus fruit in Egypt. Plant Pathol. 2010; 59: 1174.
  15. 15. Rouissi W, Cherif M, Ligorio A, Ippolito A, Sanzani SM. First report of Penicillium ulaiense causing whisker mould on stored citrus fruit in Tunisia. J. Plant Pathol. 2015; 97: 402.
  16. 16. Rajal VB, Cid AG, Ellenrieder G, Cuevas CM. Production, partial purification and characterization of α-l-rhamnosidase from Penicillium ulaiense. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009; 25: 1025–1033.
  17. 17. Fallanaj F, Sanzani SM, Youssef K, Zavanella C, Salerno MG, Ippolito A. A new perspective in controlling postharvest citrus rots: the use of electrolyzed water. Acta Hortic. 2015; 1065: 1599–1605.
  18. 18. Janisiewicz WJ, Yourman L, Roitman J, Mahoney N. Postharvest control of blue mold and gray mold of apples and pears by dip treatments with pyrrolnitrin, a metabolite of Pseudomonas cepacia, Plant Dis. 1991; 75: 490–494.
  19. 19. Brown GE, Eckert JW. Green mold. In: Whiteside JO, Garnsey SM and Timmer LW (eds). Compendium of Citrus Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN, USA, 1988.
  20. 20. Snowdon AL. A Colour Atlas of Postharvest Diseases and Disorders of Fruits and Vegetables. Volume 1: General Introduction and Fruits. Wolfe Scientific Ltd, London, UK. 1990; p. 302.
  21. 21. Wardowski WF, Brown GE. Postharvest Decay Control Recommendations for Florida Citrus Fruit. Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida. 2001; pp. 1–7.
  22. 22. Lesar KH, Du Toit Pelser P. The efficacity of Prochloraz (Omega) against postharvest diseases of citrus fruit. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture. 1996; 1: 415–417.
  23. 23. Pitt JI, Hocking AD. Fungi and Food Spoilage. 2nd ed., Blackie Academic & Professional, London. 1997.
  24. 24. Wild BL. Differential sensitivity of citrus green mould isolates (Penicillium digitatum Sacc.) to the fungicide imazalil. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1994; 22: 167–171.
  25. 25. Bus VG, Bongers AJ, Risse LA. Occurrence of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum resistant to benomyl, thiabendazole and imazalil on citrus fruit from different geographic origins. Plant Dis. 1991; 75: 1098–1100.
  26. 26. Harding JrPR. Differential sensitivity to thiabendazole by strains of Penicillium italicum and P. digitatum. Plant Dis. 1972; 56: 256–260.
  27. 27. Harding JrPR. R 23979, a new imidazole derivative effective against postharvest decay of citrus by molds resistant to thiabendazole, benomyl, and 2-aminobutane. Plant Dis. 1976; 60: 643–646.
  28. 28. Benaoumar AA, Saadi B, Boudyach EH, Boubaker H. Sensitivity of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum to Imazalil and Thiabendazole in Morocco. Plant Pathol. J. 2009; 8: 152–158.
  29. 29. Holmes GJ, Eckert JW. Relative fitness of imazalil-resistant and sensitive biotypes of Penicillium digitatum. Plant Dis. 1995; 79: 1068–1073.
  30. 30. Holmes GJ, Eckert JW. Sensitivity of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum to postharvest citrus fungicides in California. Phytopathology. 1999; 89: 716–721.
  31. 31. Kinay P, Mansour MF, Gabler FM, Margosan DA, Smilanick JL. Characterization of fungicide-resistant isolates of Penicillium digitatum collected in California. Crop Prot. 2007; 26: 647–456.
  32. 32. Smilanick JL, Mansour MF, Gabler FM, Goodwine WR. The effectiveness of pyrimethanil to inhibit germination of Penicillium digitatum and to control citrus green mold after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006; 42: 75–85.
  33. 33. Wilson CL, Wisniewski ME. Biological Control of Postharvest Diseases. Theory and Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. 1994.
  34. 34. Romano ML, Gullino ML, Garibaldi A. Evaluation of the sensitivity to several fungicides of postharvest pathogens in North-western Italy. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Gent. 1983; 48: 591–602.
  35. 35. Spotts RA, Cervantes LA. Population, pathogenicity, and benomyl resistance of Botrytis spp., Penicillium spp., and Mucor piriformis in packinghouses. Plant Dis. 1986; 70: 106–108.
  36. 36. Gullino ML, Kuijpers LAM. Social and political implications of managing plant diseases with restricted fungicides in Europe. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1994; 32: 559–579.
  37. 37. Janisiewicz WJ, Korsten L. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002; 40: 411–441.
  38. 38. Ippolito A, Nigro F. Natural antimicrobials in postharvest storage of fresh fruits and vegetables. In: Roller S. (ed.). Natural Antimicrobials for the Minimal Processing of Foods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 2003; pp. 201–234.
  39. 39. Nigro F, Ippolito A, Lattanzio V, Di Venere D, Salerno M. Effect of ultraviolet-C light on postharvest decay of strawberry. J. Plant Pathol. 2000; 82: 29–37.
  40. 40. Palou L, Usall J, Smilanick JL, Aguilar MJ, Viñas I. Evaluation of food additives and low-toxicity compounds as alternative chemicals for the control of Penicillium digitatum and Penicillium italicum on citrus fruit. Pest Manage. Sci. 2002; 58: 459–466.
  41. 41. Youssef K, Ligorio A, Nigro F, Ippolito A . Activity of salts incorporated in wax in controlling postharvest diseases of citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012; 65: 39–43.
  42. 42. Youssef K, Ligorio A, Sanzani SM., Nigro F, Ippolito A. Control of storage diseases of citrus by pre-and postharvest application of salts. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012; 72: 57–63.
  43. 43. Corral LG, Post LS, Montville TJ. Antimicrobial activity of sodium bicarbonate. J. Food Sci. 1998; 53: 981–982.
  44. 44. Barger WR. Sodium bicarbonate as a citrus fruit disinfectant. California Citrograph. 1928; 13: 164–174.
  45. 45. Smilanick JL, Margosan DA, Henson DJ. Evaluation of heated solutions of sulfur dioxide, ethanol, and hydrogen peroxide to control postharvest green mold of lemons. Plant Dis. 1995; 79: 742–747.
  46. 46. Smilanick JL, Mackey BE, Reese R, Usall J, Margosan DA. Influence of concentration of soda ash, temperature, and immersion period on the control of postharvest green mold of oranges. Plant Dis. 1997; 81: 379–382.
  47. 47. Palou L, Smilanick JL, Usall J, Viñas I. Control of postharvest blue and green molds of oranges by hot water, sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. Plant Dis. 2001; 85: 371–376.
  48. 48. Marloth R. The influence of hydrogen-ion concentration and of sodium bicarbonate and related substances on Penicillium italicum and P. digitatum. Phytopathology. 1931; 21: 169–198.
  49. 49. Smilanick JL, Margosan DA, Mlikota F, Usall J, Michael IF. Control of citrus green mold by carbonate and bicarbonate salts and the influence of commercial postharvest practices on their efficacy. Plant Dis. 1999; 83: 139–145.
  50. 50. Smilanick Jl, Sorenson D. Use of lime-sulfur solution for the control of postharvest decay of citrus fruit. Pest Management Grants Final Report. DPR Contract No. 97-0229; 1999.
  51. 51. Ordóñez-Valencia C, Alarcón A, Ferrera-Cerrato R, Hernández-Cuevas LV. In vitro antifungal effects of potassium bicarbonate on Trichoderma sp. and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Mycoscience. 2009; 50: 380–387.
  52. 52. Poovaiah BW. Role of calcium in prolonging storage life of fruits and vegetables. Food Technol. 1986; 40: 86–88.
  53. 53. Manganaris GA, Vasilakakis M, Diamantidis G, Mignani I. The effect of postharvest calcium application on tissue calcium concentration, quality attributes, incidence of flesh browning and cell wall physicochemical aspects of peach fruits. Food Chem. 2007; 100: 1385–1392.
  54. 54. Rosen JC, Kader AA. Postharvest physiology and quality maintenance of sliced pear and strawberry fruits. J. Food Sci. 1989; 54: 656–659.
  55. 55. Lawless HT, Rapacki F, Horne J, Hayes A. The taste of calcium and magnesium salts and anionic modifications. Food Qual. Preference. 2003; 14: 319–325.
  56. 56. El-Mougy NS, El-Gamal NG, Abd-El-Kareem F. Use of organic acids and salts to control postharvest diseases of lemon fruits in Egypt. Arch. Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2008; 41: 467–476.
  57. 57. Arslan U, Ilhan K, Vardar C, Karabulut OA. Evaluation of antifungal activity of food additives against soilborne phytopathogenic fungi. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009; 25: 537–543.
  58. 58. Palou L, Smilanick JL, Crisosto CH. Evaluation of food additives as alternative or complementary chemicals to conventional fungicides for the control of major postharvest diseases of stone fruit. J. Food Prot. 2009; 72: 1037–1046.
  59. 59. Smilanick JL, Mansour MF, Gabler FM, Sorenson D. Control of citrus postharvest green mold and sour rot by potassium sorbate combined with heat and fungicides. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008; 47: 226–238.
  60. 60. Smoot JJ, McCornack. The use of potassium sorbate for citrus decay control. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Soc. 1978; 91: 119–122.
  61. 61. Wild BL. Fungicidal activity of potassium sorbate against Penicillium digitatum as affected by thiabendazole and dip temperature, Sci. Horti. 1987; 32: 41–48.
  62. 62. Hall DJ. Comparative activity of selected food preservatives as citrus postharvest fungicides, Proc. Florida State Horticultural Soc. 1988; 101: 184–187.
  63. 63. Droby S, Cohen L, Daus A, Weiss B, Horev E, Chalutz B, Katz H, Keren-Tzour M, Shachnai A. Commercial testing of Aspire: a biocontrol preparation for the control of postharvest decay of citrus. Biol. Control. 1998; 12: 97–101.
  64. 64. Obagwu J, Korsten L. Integrated control of citrus green and blue molds using Bacillus subtilis in combination with sodium bicarbonate or hot water. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003; 28:187–194.
  65. 65. Wisniewski M, Droby S, Chaltutz E, Eilam Y. Effect of Ca2+ and Mg2+ on Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum in vitro and on the biocontrol activity of Candida oleophila. Plant Pathol. 1995; 44: 1016–1024.
  66. 66. Wilson CL, El-Ghaouth A, Solar J, Wisniewski JM. Rapid evaluation of plant extracts and essential oils for fungicidal activity against Botrytis cinerea. Plant Dis. 1997; 81: 204–210.
  67. 67. Plaza P, Usall J, Torres R, Lamarca N, Asensio A, Viñas I. Control of green and blue mould by curing on oranges during ambient and cold storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003; 28: 195–198.
  68. 68. Palou L, Smilanick JL, Droby S. Alternatives to conventional fungicides for the control of citrus postharvest green and blue moulds. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2008; 2: 1–16.
  69. 69. Sanzani SM, Nigro F, Mari M, Ippolito A. Innovations in the control of postharvest diseases of fresh fruits and vegetables. Arab. J. Plant Prot. 2009; 27: 240–244.
  70. 70. Droby S, Wisniewski M, Macarisin D, Wilson C. Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009; 52: 137–145.
  71. 71. Janisiewicz WJ, Conway WS. Combining biological control with physical and chemical treatments to control fruit decay after harvest. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2010; 1: 1–16.
  72. 72. Kaplan HJ. Washing, waxing, and color-adding. In: Wardowski WF, Nagy, Grierson W (eds.). Fresh Citrus Fruit. AVI, Westport, 1986; 379–395.
  73. 73. Hagenmaier RD, Baker RA. Wax microemulsions and emulsions as citrus coatings. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994; 42: 899–902.
  74. 74. Waks J, Schiffmann-Nadel M, Lomaniec E, Chalutz E. Relation between fruit waxing and development of rots in citrus fruit during storage. Plant Dis. 1985; 69: 869–870.
  75. 75. Bompeix G, Morgat F. Coating waxes, antiscald components, fungicides and storage of apples. Fruits. 1977; 31: 189–195.
  76. 76. Qiubo C, Jlannan Z, Jihua S. Recent trend for postharvest storage of tropical and subtropical fruits in China. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci. 1997; 32: 67–71.
  77. 77. Brown GE. Efficacy of citrus postharvest fungicides applied in water or resin solution water wax. Plant Dis. 1984; 68: 415–418.
  78. 78. Taverner P. Delivering Postharvest Decay, Food Safety and Market Access Solutions for Export Citrus: Final Report. Horticulture Australia, Sydney. 2008; 156p. ISBN 0734118694
  79. 79. Karabulut OA, Cohen L, Wiess B, Daus A, Lurie S, Droby S. Control of brown rot and blue mold of peach and nectarine by short hot water brushing and yeast antagonists. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002; 24: 103–111.
  80. 80. Mari M, Torres R, Casalini L, Lamarca N, Mandrin JF, Lichou J, Larena I, De Cal MA, Melgarejo P, Usall J. Control of postharvest brown rot on nectarine by Epicoccum nigrum and physico-chemical treatments. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007; 87: 1271–1277.
  81. 81. Bolognesi C, Morasso G. Genotoxicity of pesticides: potential risk for consumers. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2000; 11: 182–187.
  82. 82. Hricova D, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Electrolyzed water and its application in the food industry. J. Food Prot. 2008; 71: 1934–1947.
  83. 83. Mahajan PV, Caleb OJ, Singh Z, Watkins CB, Geyer M. Postharvest treatments of fresh produce. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014; 372, 20130309.
  84. 84. Shimizu Y, Hurusawa T. Antiviral, antibacterial, and antifungal actions of electrolyzed oxidizing water through electrolysis. Dent. J. 1992; 37: 1055–1062.
  85. 85. Park, H, Hung, YC, Kim C. Effectiveness of electrolyzed water as a sanitizer for treating different surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2002; 65: 1276–1280.
  86. 86. Yoshida K, Achiwa N, Katayose M. Application of electrolyzed water for food industry in Japan Institute of Food Technologist, 2004 Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
  87. 87. Iwasawa A, Nakamura Y. Antimicrobial activity of aqua oxidized water. Clin. Bacteriol. 1993; 20: 469–473.
  88. 88. Fabrizio KA, Cutter CN. Stability of electrolyzed oxidizing water and its efficacy against cell suspensions of Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. J. Food Prot. 2003; 66: 1379–1384.
  89. 89. Vorobjeva NV, Vorobjeva, LI, Khodjaev EY. The bactericidal effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on bacterial strains involved in hospital infections. Artif. Organs. 2004; 28, 590–592.
  90. 90. Al-Haq MI, Seo Y, Oshita S, Kawagoe Y. Fungicidal effectiveness of electrolyzed oxidizing water on postharvest brown rot of peach. HortScience. 2001; 36: 1310–1314.
  91. 91. Al-Haq MI, Seo Y, Oshita S, Kawagoe Y. Disinfection effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on suppressing fruit rot of pear caused by Botryosphaeria berengeriana. Food Res. Int. 2002; 35, 657–664.
  92. 92. Buck JW, Van Iersel MW, Oetting RD, Hung Y-C. Evaluation of acidic electrolyzed water for phytotoxic symptoms on foliage and flowers of bedding plants. Crop Prot. 2003; 22: 73–77.
  93. 93. Okull, DO, Laborde LFF. Activity of electrolyzed oxidizing water against Penicilium expansum in suspension and on wounded apples. J. Food Sci. 2004; 69: FMS23–FMS27.
  94. 94. Al-Haq MI, Sugiyama J, Isobe S. Applications of electrolyzed water in agriculture & food industries. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2005; 11: 135–150.
  95. 95. Kiura H, Sano K, Morimatsu S, Nakano T, Morita C, Yamaguchi M, Maeda T, Katsuoka Y. Bactericidal activity of electrolyzed acid water from solution containing sodium chloride at low concentration, in comparison with that at high concentration. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2002; 49: 285–293.
  96. 96. Hsu S-Y. Effects of water flow rate, salt concentration and water temperature on efficiency of an electrolyzed oxidizing water generator. J. Food Eng. 2003; 60: 469–473.
  97. 97. Abbasi PA, Lazarovits G. Effect of acidic electrolyzed water on the viability of bacterial and fungal plant pathogens and on bacterial spot disease of tomato. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006; 52: 915–923.
  98. 98. Guentzel JL, Lam KL, Callan MA, Emmons SA, Dunham VL. Postharvest management of gray mold and brown rot on surfaces of peaches and grapes using electrolyzed oxidizing water. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010; 143: 54–60.
  99. 99. Whangchai K, Uthaibutra J, Phiyanalinmat S. Effects of NaCl Concentration, Electrolysis Time, and Electric Potential on Efficiency of Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water on the Mortality of Penicillium digitatum in Suspension. Acta Hortic. 2013; 973: 193–198.
  100. 100. Khayankarn S, Jarintorn S, Srijump N, Uthaibutra J, Whangchai K. Control of Fusarium sp. on pineapple by megasonic cleaning with electrolysed oxidising water. Majeo Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2014; 8: 288–296.
  101. 101. Yaseen T, Ricelli A, Albanese P, Carboni C, Ferri V, D’Onghia A. Use of Electrolyzed Water to Improve Fruit Quality of Some Citrus Species. Proceeding of Future IPM in Europe, Riva del Garda, Italy, pp. 244–244. 2013.
  102. 102. Sanzani SM, Fallanaj F, Ligorio A, Youssef K, Zavanella C, Ippolito A. Electrolyzed Salt Solution Mode of Action in Controlling Green Mould of Citrus Fruit. In: III International Symposium on Postharvest Pathology. Bari, Italy 2015.
  103. 103. Kim C, Hung YC, Brackett RE. Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) and chemically modified water on different types of foodborne pathogens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000; 61: 199–207.
  104. 104. Liao LB, Chen WM, Xiao XM. The generation and inactivation mechanism of oxidation–reduction potential of electrolyzed oxidizing water. J. Food Eng. 2007; 78: 1326–1332.
  105. 105. Kim C, Hung YC, Brackett RE. Roles of oxidation-reduction potential in electrolyzed oxidizing and chemically modified water for the inactivation of food-related pathogens. J. Food Prot. 2000; 63: 19–24.
  106. 106. Park H, Hung YC, Chung D. Effects of chlorine and pH on efficacy of electrolyzed water for inactivating Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004; 91: 13–18.
  107. 107. Hussien A, Ahmed Y, Al-Essawy A, Youssef K. Evaluation of Alkaline and Acidic electrolysed Water on Controlling Postharvest Green, Blue and Whisker Moulds of Citrus. The 13th International Citrus Congress, Abstract Book. 2016; S3–144.
  108. 108. Koseki S, Itoh K. The effect of available chlorine concentration of the disinfecting potential of acidic electrolyzed water for shredded vegetables. J. Jpn. Soc. Food Sci. Technol. 2000; 47(12): 888–898.
  109. 109. Fabrizio KA, Sharma RR, Demirci A, Cutter CN. Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with various antimicrobial interventions to reduce Salmonella species on poultry. Poult. Sci. 2002; 81: 1598–1605.
  110. 110. Koseki S, Isobe S, Itoh K. Efficacy of acidic electrolyzed water ice for pathogen control on lettuce. J. Food Prot. 2004; 67: 2544–2549.
  111. 111. Ayebah B, Hung Y-C, Frank JF. Enhancing the bactericidal effect of electrolyzed water on Listeria monocytogenes biofilms formed on stainless steel. J. Food Prot. 2005; 68: 1375–1380.
  112. 112. Bosilevac JM, Shackelford SD, Brichta DM, Koohmaraie M. Efficacy of ozonated and electrolyzed oxidative waters to decontaminate hides of cattle before slaughter. J. Food Prot. 2005; 68: 1393–1398.
  113. 113. Montesinos-Herrero C, del Río AM, Pastor C, Brunetti O, Palou L. Evaluation of brief potassium sorbate dips to control postharvest Penicillium decay on major citrus species and cultivars. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009; 52: 117–125.
  114. 114. Ippolito A, Nigro F, Schena L. Control of postharvest diseases of fresh fruits and vegetables by preharvest application of antagonistic microorganisms (pp. 1–30). In: Dris R, Niskanen R, Jain SM (eds.). Crop Management and Postharvest Handling of Horticultural Products, vol. 4. Disease and disorders of fruit and vegetables. Science Publisher Inc., Enfield (NH), USA, 2004; 333 pp.
  115. 115. Youssef K, Ligorio A, Pentimone I, Sanzani S, Donghia AM, Nigro F, Ippolito A. Studies on application strategy of salts and chitosan for controlling Penicillium rot of Hernandina clementine. Proceedings of the Junior Scientist Conference. Vienna University of Technology Vienna, Austria, 2008; 189–190.
  116. 116. Youssef K, Sanzani SM, Ligorio A, Ippolito A, Terry LA. Sodium carbonate and bicarbonate treatments induce resistance to postharvest green mould on citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014; 87: 61–69.

Written By

Khamis Youssef, Kamel A. Abd-Elsalam, Ahmed Hussien, Simona M. Sanzani and Antonio Ippolito

Submitted: 02 October 2016 Reviewed: 13 December 2016 Published: 12 April 2017