Background: Postharvest diseases that occur in apples are often caused by various pathogenic fungi, causing serious economic loss. The pathogenic fungi Penicillium expansum, Rhizopus stolonifer and Botrytis cinerea are among the most common pathogens in apples. The goal of this study was to see whether Moroccan Pelargonium graveolens essential oil (PGEO) could protect apple fruits from fungal infections after they were harvested (in vitro).Methods: PGEO was characterized by GC-MS and for antifungal assessment, in vitro poisoned food (PF) and volatile activity testing (VA) were carried out.Results: The investigation revealed that PGEO was effective against the three tested phytopathogenic fungi in a dose-dependent manner and this antifungal activity increased with the volatile activity test. The MIC value was 2 µL/mL for B. cinera, and R. stolonifer, and 1 µL/mL for P. expansum. Volatile fraction stops the growth of B. cinera at 40 µL / disc (QMI = 40 µL / disc), and of P. expansum and R. stolonifer at 80 µL / disc (QMI = 80 µL / disc).Conclusion: The current findings show that Moroccan PGEO has powerful antifungal activities, suggesting that it might be used instead of synthetic fungicides to combat apple post-harvest infections.Keywords: Pelargonium graveolens; Antifungal activity; Essential oil; Poisoned food; Volatile activity test; Apple Editorial Expression of Concern20 June 2025: Following publication of this paper, the internal audit (consequent to concerns on quality raised by Web of Science) notified Advancements in Life Sciences about suspected plagiarism. By this Editorial Expression of Concern, we alert the scientific community of the errors as we reconcile the records.Editorial Note25 June 2025: While rerunning the Turnitin originality analysis, a similarity index of 38% was found for this article (7% from a single source). Editorial board of Advancements in Life Sciences has started the process of retracting this article due to the above post-publication findings. The process shall be concluded after registering responses from the authors. Meanwhile, full text of the article shall remain unavailable for citations (this notice has been updated following insights derived from relevant COPE cases and the industry standards). Show of cause notice has also been issued to the concerned editorial team member.Rescinded: Editorial Expression of Concern23 July 2025: Editorial expression of concern issued on 20 June 2025 is hereby rescinded on account of author's explanation of the found similarity in light of COPE guidelines. Author's justification reads "The claim of 38% plagiarism is scientifically unfounded and grossly misleading. A thorough breakdown demonstrates that the majority of the flagged content consists of properly cited references, self-referenced material from our prior publications and widely used scientific terminology, even the title, our names, and the declarations at the end of the article". During reanalysis, total similarity was found within the permissible limit i.e., <20%. But one count was specially highlighted where 11% content of the subject article was similar to an article published in 2017 by some authors of this study.Authors, later, suggested to process this article under Text Recycling guidelines of COPE with the following comment "According to COPE guidelines, limited reuse of text from previous work is tolerated, provided it is transparent, cited, and used in a new context (which is the case for the article published in your journal). This is "text recycling" to describe the same experimental framework, not to artificially multiply publications."Concluding remarks: In light of the Text Recycling guidelines of COPE, the inquiry team concurs with the authors seeing details of the similarity between both articles (this one and the article published in 2017).The board has decided to keep the contents of this article unchanged.
Ouadi et al. (Sat,) studied this question.