Nature’s Gift · PRODUCT EVIDENCE
Eucalyptus Radiata
Botanical name not captured · Source checked Sep 7, 12:35 AM UTC
What the supplier lists
Captured product claims; report identity is shown separately below.
Read supplier product description
Traditionally, Radiata is considered the most pleasant aromatically and safest of the Eucalyptus oils to use with children. (Valerie Worwood suggests including it in any kid’s cold care kit.) However, this particular batch of Radiata is the highest in 1,8 Cineole of any unrectified Eucalyptus oil that we have ever seen. Due to this factor, we would not recommend our current batch for toddlers or infants. If you are accustomed to our Euc. Radiata, please note this batch does not have the usual aroma you are expecting. (I, Marge, love it, but the rest of the crew does not.) We can vouch that it is indeed Eucalyptus Radiata, the difference must be attributed to a crop-specific batch, which we see (smell!) happen from time to time in aromatherapy. Variables include soil, weather patterns, etc. Normally speaking, Patricia Davis says this is the most useful Eucalyptus Oil because it smells better and is more easily assimilated. It is most useful for sinus conditions because it can be breathed very closely without triggering a cough reflex. (Since it is the 1,8 Cineole believed to cause the cough/expectorant reflex, the statement would not necessarily apply to this particular batch.) Many sources say it is the oil of choice for infections high up in the chest. As an alternative, many experts recommend Eucalyptus smithii for use with children, if it is in the lower range for 1,8 Cineole. (However Robert Tisserand cautions about either with young children.) SHELF LIFE: Approximately 2 to 3 years after you open the bottle. Storing in the dark, refrigerated, and decanting half full bottles into smaller, full bottles will extend shelf life. Certificate of Analysis: 2013 Batch No. AU-B405049 Batch No. SA-EUCRO02161 Batch No. SA-EUCR1215EA Batch No. AU-29594 Batch No. AU-58591 Batch No. AU-59036 Batch No. AU-59138 Batch No. AU-59326 Batch No. AU-59300 Batch No. AU 59493 (Current Batch) Photos courtesy of Mark Webb. Eucalyptus radiata, steam-distilled leaves, Australia. • Safe for children (Diffusion only for infants & toddlers • Respiratory • Sinus congestion
| Size / option | SKU | Supplier's listed price | Availability | Product link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| From price; choose size on supplier site | fa8c8d90bce212b454055026d3c20d7a | USD 14.00 | in stock | Buy this option ↗ |
LEARN AS YOU COMPARE
What’s inside this oil?
Constituents are the natural chemicals that give an oil its character. See the main ones, learn what they do, and explore differences between batches.
Meet the main constituents, then select one to see what makes it interesting.
Report links found on the supplier source
Follow the original source to inspect the complete report. Link discovery alone does not validate the report or current stock.
- 2013Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-B405049Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. SA-EUCRO02161Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. SA-EUCR1215EABatch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-29594Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-58591Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-59036Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-59138Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-59326Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-59300Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU 59493 (Current Batch)Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
Notes on the captured information
Details to keep in mind when using this listing.
- Product name is a browsing group; botanical identity must be verified before chemical comparison.
AUTOMATIC OIL REVIEW
More evidence needed for this report
What the evidence tells you
8 reports connected; 8 directly linked by the supplier. Read the evidence before comparing chemistry.
8 source documents archived
The downloaded source document is preserved with its content fingerprint, so later changes do not overwrite the evidence. Archiving alone does not establish its report type or quantitative validity.
Report linked from the product page
The supplier connects this product to the report. Confirm the batch on the bottle before applying these figures to a purchase.
Original analytical report status needs confirmation
These source documents are saved, but their status as original laboratory reports is unconfirmed or they are publisher summaries. They remain outside historical anomaly conclusions.
Chemical extraction needs review
Automatically extracted figures are visible for inspection. They are excluded from historical anomaly conclusions until the extraction is reviewed.
Comparison context is incomplete
Missing or unconfirmed: plant part, extraction method, origin, analysis method, batch, exact analysis date, percentage basis. Unknown values are not assumed to match known values.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source extraction identifies mixed or multiple assays. A single comparable measurement series has not been established.
Repeated constituent identity needs checking
More than one extracted row identifies the same constituent. Its percentage is withheld from the comparison until the source rows are resolved.
Extracted percentages exceed 100%
The quantified total is 217.59%. Check for repeated peaks, mixed tables, or a transcription problem before using these values.
Source extraction has review notes
Some source peak rows could not be fully verified or quantified. Multiple assay columns or mixed tables require separate review. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. Some source peaks overlap or combine constituents; independent percentages may not be available. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source describes the analysis as qualitative. Its listed figures remain visible, but are excluded from numerical historical anomaly conclusions.
Source extraction has review notes
The source describes a qualitative GC/MS analysis; these figures are not validated mass fractions. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source extraction identifies mixed or multiple assays. A single comparable measurement series has not been established.
Extracted percentages exceed 100%
The quantified total is 196.55%. Check for repeated peaks, mixed tables, or a transcription problem before using these values.
Source extraction has review notes
Some source peak rows could not be fully verified or quantified. Multiple assay columns or mixed tables require separate review. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. Some source peaks overlap or combine constituents; independent percentages may not be available. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Source extraction has review notes
The percentage measurement basis requires confirmation. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source describes the analysis as qualitative. Its listed figures remain visible, but are excluded from numerical historical anomaly conclusions.
Source extraction has review notes
The source describes a qualitative GC/MS analysis; these figures are not validated mass fractions. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. A source date requires review against the original document. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source describes the analysis as qualitative. Its listed figures remain visible, but are excluded from numerical historical anomaly conclusions.
Source extraction has review notes
The source describes a qualitative GC/MS analysis; these figures are not validated mass fractions. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. A source date requires review against the original document. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source describes the analysis as qualitative. Its listed figures remain visible, but are excluded from numerical historical anomaly conclusions.
Source extraction has review notes
The source describes a qualitative GC/MS analysis; these figures are not validated mass fractions. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. A source date requires review against the original document. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Numerical comparison is not supported for this report
The source describes the analysis as qualitative. Its listed figures remain visible, but are excluded from numerical historical anomaly conclusions.
Source extraction has review notes
The source describes a qualitative GC/MS analysis; these figures are not validated mass fractions. The source includes reproduction restrictions; the archived original remains private. A source date requires review against the original document. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.
Not enough comparable history to assess differences
A range requires at least three earlier, reviewed original reports with the same botanical, chemotype, origin, plant part, extraction, analysis method, percentage basis and storage context. Missing and trace values are never replaced with zero.
Read the reported chemistry
Keep the original report, its identity, and the historical sample size in view.
| Chemical constituent | This report | Matched historical range | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,8-CineoleCAS 470-82-6 | 86.06% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| 1,8-Cineole 1031.80 | 86.06% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| ESSENTIAL VALIDATION SERVICES | 747 SW 2ND AVE GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32601 | 317-361-5044RT: 6.12 - | 19.25% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-TerpineolCAS 98-55-5 | 7.68% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Terpineol 1191.71 | 7.68% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| SabineneCAS 3387-41-5 | 1.20% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Sabinene 973.00 | 1.20% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-PineneCAS 80-56-8 | 1.19% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Pinene 936.10 | 1.19% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Terpinyl acetateCAS 80-26-2 | 1.12% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Terpinen-4-olCAS 562-74-3 | 0.64% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Terpinen-4-ol 1180.57 | 0.64% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| MyrceneCAS 123-35-3 | 0.52% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Myrcene 989.20 | 0.52% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| beta-Pinene 977.70 | 0.44% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Piperitone 1274.00 | 0.22% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Geranial 1275.57 | 0.13% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Linalool 1099.00 | 0.12% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Neral 1246.57 | 0.11% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Geraniol 1255.29 | 0.10% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| β-Citral 1274.25 | 0.05% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Pseudolimonene 1003.00 | 0.04% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Phellandrene 1004.10 | 0.04% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| gamma-Terpinene 1063.71 | 0.04% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| delta-Terpineol 1166.00 | 0.04% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| delta-Terpinyl acetate 1316.50 | 0.02% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Thujene 927.80 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Camphene 950.30 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Terpinene 1017.10 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Terpinolene 1092.10 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| cis-p-Menth-2-en-1-ol 1127.50 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| trans-p-Menth-2-en-1-ol 1141.75 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Citronellal 1158.43 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Thymol 1288.15 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Geranyl acetate 1370.10 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| beta-Elemene 1389.20 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| beta-Caryophyllene 1427.14 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Bicyclogermacrene 1490.71 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| gamma-Cadinene 1515.29 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Terpinyl acetate 1353.00 | Not quantified | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
Source changes
New listings, prices, and batch evidence.
- Eucalyptus Radiata
Analytical document archived; extraction awaits review.
View source ↗ - Eucalyptus Radiata
Product first observed in the supplier catalog.
View source ↗
Know what the evidence says
Three signals. No mystery scores.
Source documents or comparable measurements support the specific finding shown.
A chemistry difference or identity mismatch needs context. Open the report and matched history.
A report, batch link, or key detail is missing. The oil's quality cannot be judged from missing information.