Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: October 26, 2018

Subject: Sodium chlorite for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas - petitioned

NOSB Chair: Tom Chapman

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following:

Rulemaking Action: None

Statement of the Recommendation:

The NOSB does not recommend sodium chlorite for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas be 

added to the National List at §205.605(b).

Rationale Supporting Recommendation:

The NOSB noted the availability of allowed natural and synthetic alternatives to this substance. 

The Board recognized the importance of having the ability to rotate among several materials in 

an antimicrobial regime to reduce the incidence of microbial resistance. However, in the 

absence of public comment advocating for the addition of sodium chlorite for the generation of 

chlorine dioxide gas to the National List and the availability of alternatives, the NOSB 

determined it is not essential to organic production.

NOSB Vote: 

Classification Motion: Motion to classify sodium chlorite for the generation of chlorine dioxide 

gas as nonagricultural, synthetic (Classified in April 2016)

Motion by: Scott Rice 

Seconded by: Jean Richardson

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Listing Motion: Motion to add sodium chlorite for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas at 

§205.605(b)

Motion by: Scott Rice 

Seconded by: Lisa de Lima

Yes: 6 No: 9 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Outcome: Motion Failed
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee

Petitioned Material Proposal

Sodium chlorite, for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas

June 5, 2018

Summary of Petition (initial petition; petition addendum; technical report)

On October 8, 2015, the NOP received a petition from ICA TriNova, LLC to add chlorine dioxide (CDO) 

(CAS #10049-04-4) dry gas to §205.605(b) of the National List, nonagricultural (nonorganic) synthetic 

substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” The petition was revised November 30, 2015, revised 

again on December 1, 2015, and forwarded to the Handling Subcommittee (HS) December 2, 2015. The 

petitioner presently manufactures and markets CDO as the formulated product Z-Series FruitGard (FCN 

949, EPA Reg. #79814-5).

Use

This material is petitioned for use as an anti-microbial pesticide, sanitizer and/or disinfectant for fruits 

and vegetables. CDO gas is used in post-harvest handling for the direct treatment of fruits, vegetables 

and nuts during storage, transportation and food preparation applications to reduce spoilage and 

pathogenic organisms with no requirement for post treatment rinse. CDO acts as a killing agent of 

pathogenic organisms.

Chlorine dioxide gas is well known for its antimicrobial effects through oxidative inactivation 

(Stubblefield et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015; Park and Kang, 2017). When used as a fumigation agent, there 

are no residual traces of the CDO disinfectant, or disinfection by-products (DBP) of chlorite and chlorate 

(JECFA, 2008). The efficacy of CDO gas against a wide range of microorganisms has been demonstrated 

in several studies across a variety of fruits and vegetables (2018 TR 97 – 99). These studies also relate 

the increased efficacy of CDO in gas form, compared to its use in aqueous solution, which is primarily 

due to the increased penetration of the gas treatments, as well as the ability to effectively treat irregular 

surfaces (Stubblefield et al., 2014; Lee et al. 2015; Park and Kang, 2017).

Chlorine dioxide is permitted by the FDA as an antimicrobial treatment for a range of food products, 

including fruits and vegetables and poultry processing (21 CFR §173.300). CDO is also used as a 

bleaching agent in both flour and whole wheat flour (21 CFR §137.105(a) and 137.200(a)). CDO is also 

widely used in the sanitation and treatment of water systems and is allowed by the FDA as a disinfectant 

in bottled water (21 CFR §165.110(b)).

In organic production, CDO is currently allowed for use in liquid solution in crop production as a preharvest algicide, disinfectant, and sanitizer, including in irrigation system cleaning systems (7 CFR 

§205.601(a)(2)(ii)); in organic livestock production for use in disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and 

equipment (7 CFR §205.603 (a)(7)(ii)); and in organic handling for disinfecting and sanitizing food contact 

surfaces (7 CFR §205.605(b)). For these uses, residual chorine levels in the water cannot exceed the 

maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Water Drinking Act. The petition seeks to extend the 

use of CDO in gaseous form for the antimicrobial treatment of products labeled “organic” or “made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).”

Sodium chlorite, from which chlorine dioxide gas is produced, is not presently allowed in USDA organic 

regulations, however acidified sodium chlorite is permitted at 7 CFR §205.605(b) for “secondary direct 

antimicrobial food treatment and indirect food contact surface sanitizing.”
Manufacture

Chlorine dioxide gas is produced by impregnating zeolite with sodium chlorite and then activating the 

zeolite, which is then treated with solid or liquid acids such as citric acid. If a liquid acid is used, as in the 

product manufactured by the petitioner, an unspecified buffer is used to control the formation and 

release of the CDO gas. The ability to produce the desired CDO gas from sodium chlorite with any acid 

allows for the selection of one of several GRAS acid sources (e.g., citric acid).

Several industrial synthetic procedures are used in the production of sodium chlorite, including the 

following: the treatment of chlorine dioxide with sodium hydroxide and a reducing agent (e.g., sodium 

sulfite), the treatment of chlorine dioxide with sodium peroxide (Na2O2), or an alkaline solution of 

hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (TR 2018, 72-75 ). 

Due to its reactivity and explosive nature when concentrated, CDO is generated on-site prior to required 

usage. There are several methods for the generation of CDO gas from sodium chlorite, all of which 

involve the oxidation of the chlorite ion to the neutral radical species. This oxidation process can be 

completed by treatment with H+ from an acid, or electrochemically by the electrolysis of a sodium 

chlorite solution, and by treatment with chlorine gas (Cl2) (TR 2018, 296-297).

Chlorine dioxide is applied as a dry pure gas in closed containment. Treatment is conducted over several 

hours until the substance is completely consumed by reactions with a wide variety of organic matter. 

CDO is converted to a chloride ion on the food products. In processing facilities, this material is used as 

an oxidizer, surface and equipment cleaner, and deodorizing agent. It is applied as a dry pure gas at the 

point of need. Application rates vary.

Summary of Review

The Handling Subcommittee’s initial review of the petition determined a need for revision by the 

petitioner. The HS found the initial petition sought to list a process rather than a material. If reviewed as 

petitioned, the HS would have reviewed several materials: sodium chlorite, zeolite acting as a carrier 

which is impregnated with sodium chlorite, acidic chlorine dioxide activators and related buffers. When 

used together as directed, these materials produce CDO gas.

The HS returned the petition to the petitioner April 18, 2016, with a request to revise the title to 

“Sodium chlorite, for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas.” The HS believed a petition considering 

sodium chlorite for the particular use of gas generation is more consistent with how other sodium 

chlorite materials have been reviewed. The proposed use is similar to the acidified sodium chlorite that 

is already listed at 205.605(b) for “secondary direct antimicrobial food treatment and indirect food 

contact surface sanitizing.” That substance was petitioned and added as a solution, whereas this listing 

would be used as a fumigant gas for direct food contact with no requirement for post treatment rinse.

Under the current title, certifiers and/or material review organizations would review the sodium chlorite 

product and the attendant components noted above. In its revision request, the HS also asked the 

petitioner if, as with use of other sodium chlorite materials, produce treated with ClO2 dry gas requires 

a potable water rinse sufficient that residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum 

residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

A petition addendum responding to these two requests was received by the HS May 5, 2016.

The petitioner responded to the two HS requests above, resubmitting the petition as “Sodium chlorite, 

for generation of chlorine dioxide gas” and, in response to the question regarding need for a posttreatment potable water rinse, the petitioner noted that CDO gas rapidly reacts with produce surfaces 
and potential residues of concern, primarily CDO or chlorite ion, do not persist. Water solution 

applications and precautionary potable rinses are not required for gas applications (Smith et al., 2015).

Because of this material’s intended use as killing agent for pathogenic organisms, the petitioner’s 

formulated product is EPA registered. While the petitioner notes the target use of CDO gas is for 

vegetables and fruit, the EPA label for the formulated product only allows for use on stored potatoes.

Summary of Public Comments

In advance of the Fall 2016 meeting during which this material was reviewed, the Board received a 

number of comments from the public; some supported the listing while others cited concerns.

• Several commenters noted the material should be petitioned or listed as “chlorine dioxide gas” 

with an annotation restricting the form to “generated from sodium chlorite.” One commenter 

noted if “sodium chlorite for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas” appears on the National 

List, it is unclear how other precursors and activators other than sodium chlorite would be 

reviewed. It is important to note the initial petition was submitted in this way; however it was 

the HS’s opinion that since the material would not be sold or distributed as the finished product 

of chlorine dioxide gas, it should be petitioned as stated in the proposal.

• A number of commenters noted that CDO gas does not have a place in organic production and 

see this as a substitute for good care and handling of produce. While care and handling certainly 

play a role in reducing microbial contamination, increased scrutiny of food safety measures and 

additional regulations are driving industry to identify other tools. The NOSB currently has a work 

agenda item to develop questions to assess the essentiality of sanitizer (antimicrobial) materials.

• Several commenters expressed concern for worker safety when using this material. Several 

commenters requested the HS review this material in relation to other sanitizers and/or chlorine 

materials. Some commenters noted the need for a technical report (TR) to provide more neutral 

input on this material and to address some of the concerns noted above.

• Several commenters noted the addition of CDO gas as a step forward for reducing 

microorganisms on fruit and vegetables and it would add another option for sanitation.

Given public comment citing the above questions and concerns, the Board referred the material back to 

the Handling Subcommittee for further review and subsequently requested a TR on June 6, 2017.On 

January 9, 2018, the NOP provided the TR to the Handling Subcommittee for review.

Allowance under other organic standards

• Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

Sodium chlorite is not listed in CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015.

Chlorine dioxide is listed in CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015, Table 7.3 “Food-grade cleaners, 

disinfectants and sanitizers permitted without a mandatory removal event,” with the exception 

that CDO levels do not exceed maximum levels for safe drinking water, Table 7.4. “Cleaners, 

disinfectants, and sanitizers permitted on organic product contact surfaces for which a removal 

event is mandatory,” with permission for use “up to maximum label rates.”

• CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and 

Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (GL 32-1999) -

Neither sodium chlorite nor chlorine dioxide are listed in the GL 32-1999 CODEX.
• European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

Neither sodium chlorite nor chlorine dioxide are listed in EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008.

• Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

Neither sodium chlorite nor chlorine dioxide are listed in the JAS for Organic Production.

• International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)

Sodium chlorite is not listed in the IFOAM Norms. Chlorine dioxide is listed in the IFOAM Norms 

in Appendix 4, Table 2, “Indicative List of Equipment Cleansers and Equipment Disinfectants,” 

with a limitation of “an intervening event or action must occur to eliminate risks of 

contamination.”

Category 1: Classification 

1. Substance is for: X Handling _____ Livestock

2. For HANDLING and LIVESTOCK use:

a. Is the substance _____ Agricultural or X Non-Agricultural?

 Describe reasoning for this decision using NOP 5033-2 as a guide:

The substance is a chemical compound.

b. If the substance is Non-agricultural, is the substance _____ Non-synthetic or 

 X Synthetic? 

Is the substance formulated or manufactured by a process that chemically changes a 

substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources? [OFPA 

§6502(21)] If so, describe, using NOP 5033-1 as a guide: 

The substance is not manufactured, produced or extracted from a natural source.

3. For LIVESTOCK: Reference to appropriate OFPA category

Is the substance used in production, and does it contain an active synthetic ingredient in the 

following categories: [§6517(c)(1)(B)(i)]; copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 

bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and 

minerals; livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps 

and seals, insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; or (ii) is used in 

production and contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern?

N/A

Category 2: Adverse Impacts 

1. What is the potential for the substance to have detrimental chemical interactions with other 

materials used in organic farming systems? [§6518(m)(1)]

CDO gas is a known oxidizer. However, as described in the petition, when used in an enclosed 

environment such as a produce cold room, there are no known interactions with other 
substances used in organic production.

2. What is the toxicity and mode of action of the substance and of its breakdown products or any 

contaminants, and their persistence and areas of concentration in the environment? 

[§6518(m)(2)]

CDO gas is not persistent and not a known bio-accumulative substance. However, it is a strong 

oxidizer and acutely toxic and would impact wildlife or other fauna if released in an uncontrolled 

fashion. Under the intended use in an enclosed environment there is minimal environmental 

hazard.

3. Describe the probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, misuse or 

disposal of such substance? [§6518(m)(3)]

Manufacturing sodium chlorite produces several byproducts, such as chlorine dioxide, which 

cannot be immediately released into the environment. This petition is for the use of sodium 

chlorite to generate chlorine dioxide gas. When used as intended, the CDO rapidly decomposes 

to chlorite and chlorate, with the final endpoint being chloride (GRN 000161; JECFA, 2007a; Lee 

et al., 2015; Clordisys Systems, Inc., 2016; Park and Kang, 2017). Chloride is prevalent in nature 

and physiology, and therefore, will not provide an adverse impact at anticipated concentrations

(WHO, 2000).

4. Discuss the effect of the substance on human health. [§6517 (c)(1)(A)(i); §6517 (c)(2)(A)(i); 

§6518(m)(4)].

As noted in the petition, the primary concern of exposure to chlorine dioxide is acute toxicity 

resulting from airborne gas. Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidizer and known irritant to the

respiratory system, eyes, and other mucous membranes. Thresholds for irritation are not well 

defined (WHO, 2000; IPCS, 2002). In prior studies of CDO, intense irritation in humans was seen 

at concentrations of 5 ppm, and this level is considered immediately dangerous to life or health 

by NIOSH (ATSDR 2004b). Permissible exposure limits (PEL) in air is a time weighted average of 

0.1 parts per million (ppm) during an 8-hour shift, over a 40-hour workweek, and the 

recommended exposure limit (REL) is 0.3 ppm for short term (15 minute) exposures (NIOSH 

2016b). Symptoms or chronic diseases resulting from exposure to bleach and/or chlorine 

dioxide identified by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOSH), the U.S. Centers 

for Disease Control (CDC), and the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics 

include skin irritation; irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; cough, wheezing, asthma, bronchitis, 

pulmonary edema, and/or chronic bronchitis (AOEC 2017; NIOSH 2016b; ATSDR 2010; ATSDR 

2002; ATSDR 2004a).

Chlorine dioxide is highly reactive and is expected to rapidly decompose to chloride and chlorate 

when used as intended. Due to the rapid decomposition of CDO the proposed use, and 

appropriate application procedures and industrial hygiene controls that prevent human 

exposures, the proposed use is unlikely to result in the adverse human health effects from CDO

(TR 2018 428-429).

Both chlorite and chlorate are readily absorbed in the body; however, due to the physiological 

prevalence of chloride in the body, there are no reliable analytical methods to track their 

metabolism (EPA, 2000; WHO, 2000). Current studies suggest that following ingestion of 
chlorate and chlorite, both oxychloro anions are reduced to chloride, which is excreted in urine 

(EPA, 2000).

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently reviewed the possible effect of 

antimicrobial treatments for the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and has reported that 

there are no documented cases of antimicrobial resistance from CDO treatments (EFSA, 2008). 

5. Discuss any effects the substance may have on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including 

the salt index and solubility of the soil), crops and livestock. [§6518(m)(5)] 

The substance is used in an enclosed handling environment and not applied to soil or livestock. 

When used according to the petitioned use, applied at low levels and in secure conditions, the 

substance does not have adverse impacts in the agroecosystem.

6. Are there any adverse impacts on biodiversity? (§205.200)

When used according to the petitioned use, applied at low levels and in secure conditions, the 

substance does not have adverse impacts on biodiversity.

Category 3: Alternatives/Compatibility

1. Are there alternatives to using the substance? Evaluate alternative practices as well as nonsynthetic and synthetic available materials. [§6518(m)(6)]

Preventive practices are an essential aspect of organic production, and keeping fresh produce 

free of soil and reducing the potential for bacterial contamination of produce during pre- and 

postharvest is an FDA requirement. There are some fluid alternatives such as sodium 

hypochlorite or chlorine dioxide in liquid form, the latter of which is already listed on the 

National List. Presently the only non-fluid anti-microbial pesticide, sanitizer or disinfectant 

alternative on the National List is ozone (7 CFR §205.605(b)).

Natural alternatives include weak organic acids such as alginic, citric and lactic acids, which are 

included on the National List (7 CFR §205.605(a)). However, the use of acids as disinfecting and 

sanitizing agents may result in changes to the organoleptic properties of the products, including 

flavor and other sensations (Meireles et al., 2016).

2. For Livestock substances, and Nonsynthetic substances used in Handling: In balancing the 

responses to the criteria above, is the substance compatible with a system of sustainable 

agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)] 

N/A

Category 4: Additional criteria for synthetic substances used in Handling (does not apply to 

nonsynthetic or agricultural substances used in organic handling):

Describe how the petitioned substance meets or fails to meet each numbered criterion.

1. The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes; 

(§205.600(b)(1))

The substance is a chemical compound.
2. The substance's manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment 

and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling; (§205.600(b)(2))

As noted above, when used as intended, the substance rapidly degrades to chlorite and chlorate

ions that have little adverse effects on the environment. Due to the lack of appreciable residues

of chlorine dioxide, chlorate, or chlorite post CDO gas treatment, there is no need for the 

potable water rinse that is currently required for aqueous treatments, such as with acidified 

sodium chlorite. The ability to eliminate the requirement for the post-treatment rinse allows for 

a reduction in waste water effluent, further protecting environmental concerns (Clordisys

Systems, Inc., 2016).

3. The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, 

itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by 

applicable Federal regulations; (§205.600(b)(3)

Neither the nutritional quality of the food nor human health is impacted with use of CDO gas, or 

its breakdown products of CDO or chlorite ions.

4. The substance's primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, 

textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is 

required by law; (§205.600(b)(4))

The petition and the 2018 TR describe the preservative qualities associated with the use of this 

substance. However, the preservative qualities are likely due to the inactivation of 

microorganisms that facilitate food spoilage and are secondary to its primary action (GomezLopez et al., 2009; EFSA, 2016).

5. The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA's good manufacturing practices (GMP) 

and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by 

FDA; (§205.600(b)(5))

Sodium chlorite, for the generation of CDO gas does not appear in the FDA GRAS inventory. 

However, CDO generated using sodium chlorite in calcined or sulfated kaolin clay (GRN 000161), 

and CDO generated from particles composed of sodium polyphosphate, magnesium sulfate, 

sodium silicate and sodium chlorite that are incorporated into low density polyethylene (LDPE) 

food-packaging films appear in the FDA GRAS inventory (GRN 000062).

6. The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products. 

(§205.600(b)(6))

While other sanitizers and disinfectant substances appear on the National List, only ozone is 

currently present in gas form. In gaseous form, CDO reacts rapidly and completely, thereby 

reducing or negating the need for de-chlorination of waste water streams. Liquid forms of CDO

mainly treat the rinse waters and are not as effective in treating microorganisms on produce. As 

noted above, dry gas applications appear to have greater effectiveness in penetrating coarse or 

porous produce. The use of CDO in gaseous form stands to reduce water usage.
7. In balancing the responses to the criteria in Categories 2, 3 and 4, is the substance compatible

with a system of sustainable agriculture [§6518(m)(7)] and compatible with organic handling?

(see NOSB Recommendation, Compatibility with Organic Production and Handling, April 2004) 

As noted, acidified sodium chlorite is already listed at §205.605(b), and at the April 2016 NOSB 

meeting, the Board voted unanimously to add hypochlorous acid to §205.605(b). Like acidified 

sodium chlorite and hypochlorous acid, CDO gas has the added potential to offer handling 

operations a material that has strong antimicrobial properties on irregular surfaces, may reduce 

water use, and appears compatible with the fundamental principles of organic production.

Classification Motion: (The NOSB classified sodium chlorite as nonagricultural, synthetic in April 2016).

Motion to classify sodium chlorite, for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas as nonagricultural, 

synthetic.

Motion by: Scott Rice

Seconded by: Jean Richardson

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

National List Motion: 

Motion to add sodium chlorite, for the generation of chlorine dioxide gas at §205.605(b)

Motion by: Scott Rice

Seconded by: Lisa DeLima

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Lisa de Lima, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 24, 2018
References

AOEC 2017; Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics Exposure Code: 322.10. Retrieved

November 9, 2017 from http://www.aoecdata.org/expcodelookup.aspx.

ATSDR 2002. ToxFAQsTM for Calcium Hypochlorite/Sodium 

Hypochlorite. Published April 2002. Retrieved November 9, 2017 

from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts184.pdf.

ATSDR 2004a. ToxFAQsTM for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite. Published September 2004. Retrieved 

November 9, 2017 from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts160.pdf.

ATSDR 2004b. Toxicological Profile for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite. Published September 2004. 

Retrieved November 9, 2017 from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/TP.asp?id=582&tid=108.

ATSDR 2010. Toxicological Profile for Chlorine.

Published November 2010. Retrieved November 9, 2017 

from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp172.pdf.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2008. “Assessment of the possible effect of the four 

antimicrobial treatment substances on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance” The EFSA Journal no. 

659: 1-26.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2016. “Safety of gaseous chlorine dioxide as a preservative 

slowly released in cold food storage areas.” The EFSA Journal no. 14: 1-17.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. Toxicological Review of Chlorine Dioxide 

and Chlorite. EPA/635/R-00-007. Retrieved May 14, 2018 from

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0648tr.pdf

Clordisys Systems, Inc. 2016 “Environmental Assessment for FDA Food Contact Notification (FCN) 1665.” 

Retrieved May 15, 2018 from

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/EnvironmentalDecisions/ucm534

415.pdf

Gomez-Lopez, V.M.; Rajkovic, A.; Ragaert, P.; Smigic, N.; Devlieghere, F. 2009. “Chlorine dioxide for 

minimally process produce preservation: a review.” Trends in Food Science and Technology no. 20: 17-

26.

GRN 000062 – FDA Response Letter for GRAS Notice No. GRN 000062, 2001. Retrieved May 14, 2018

from https://wayback.archiveit.org/7993/20171031024147/https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeIn

ventory/ucm153971.htm

GRN 000161 – FDA Response Letter for GRAS Notice No. GRN 000161, 2005. Retrieved May 14, 2018

from

https://wayback.archiveit.org/7993/20171031021739/https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeIn

ventory/ucm154402.htm
IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). 2002. Chlorine Dioxide (Gas) – WHO Concise 

International Chemical Assessment Document 37. Retrieved May 14, 2018 from

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad37.pdf?ua=1

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). 2008. Benefits and Risks of the Use of 

Chlorine-containing Disinfectants in Food Production and Food Processing. In Report of a Joint 

FAO/WHO Expert Meeting 27-30 May 2008, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1357e/i1357e.pdf

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) 2007a. Summary and Conclusions– In Joint 

FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 68th Meeting. Geneva, Switzerland: FAO/WHO. 

Retrieved May 15, 2018 from

http://www.fao.org/3/a-at869e.pdf

Lee, Y.; Burgess, G.; Rubino, M.; Auras, R. 2015. “Reaction and diffusion of chlorine dioxide gas under 

dark and light conditions at different temperatures.” Journal of Food Engineering no. 144: 20-28.

Miereles, A.; Giaouris, E.; Simoes, M. 2016. “Alternative disinfection methods to chlorine for use in the 

fresh-cut industry.” Food Research International no. 82: 71-85.

NIOSH 2016b; National Institute for Occupational Safety Pocket Guide for Chlorine Dioxide. Published 

April 11, 2016. Retrieved November 9, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0116.html.

Park, S.H.; Kang, D.H. 2017. “Influence of surface properties of produce and food contact surfaces on the 

efficacy of chlorine dioxide gas for the inactivation of foodborne pathogens.” Food Control no. 81: 88-

95.

Smith, D.J. et al. Chloroxyanion residues in cantaloupe and tomatoes after chlorine dioxide gas 

sanitation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2015, 63, 9640-9649.

Stubblefield, B; Stubblefield, J.M.; Newsom, A.L.; Cahoon, A.B. 2014. “Surface decontamination of plant 

tissue explants with chlorine dioxide gas.” In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. – Plant no. 51: 214-219.

WHO (World Health Organization) 2000. Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products. In Environmental 

Health Criteria 216. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42274/1/WHO_EHC_216.pdf