Nature’s Gift · PRODUCT EVIDENCE
Eucalyptus, Lemon
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
Light, lemony and refreshing this Lemon Eucalyptus is a wonderful air freshener, clearing the air and killing germs. It appears to have anti-staph effects. It is a strong anti-fungal oil, and we have used it in the diffuser after a flood that soaked the carpeting with groundwater. Eucalyptus citriodora did a superb job of removing the musty smell left after everything was dried out. It is also often recommended as an insect repellent, but please see our Lemon Tea Tree or SkeeterBeater for THAT usage! Lemon Eucalyptus can be very sedating in small quantities. Certificate of Analysis: Batch No. AU-EC-062 Batch No. AU-58575 Batch No. AU 58854 Batch No. AU-59139 Batch No. CN-59519 (Current Batch) Eucalyptus citriodora, ethically farmed, steam-distilled leaves, China. • Insect repellant • Anti-fungal • Anti-bacterial
| Size / option | SKU | Supplier's listed price | Availability | Product link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| From price; choose size on supplier site | 0143abad2d91217954a2c6fe5e3e9570 | USD 18.00 | 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.
- Batch No. AU-58575Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU 58854Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. AU-59139Batch not specified on linkRead source ↗
- Batch No. CN-59519Batch 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
3 reports connected; 3 directly linked by the supplier. Read the evidence before comparing chemistry.
3 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. Unknown values are not assumed to match known values.
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.
Source extraction has review notes
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 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.
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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citronellal 1154.50 | 67.87% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Isopulegol 1151.25 | 6.74% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Citronellol 1229.25 | 4.14% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Isoisopulegol 1156.05 | 1.81% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| beta-Caryophyllene 1427.14 | 1.31% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| 1,8-Cineole 1031.80 | 1.05% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Citronellic acid 1312.00 Monoterpene Acid | 0.95% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| beta-Pinene 974.00 | 0.67% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| alpha-Pinene 936.10 | 0.30% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| IsoMenthone 1164.33 | 0.27% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Citronellyl acetate 1357.83 | 0.27% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| gamma-Terpinene 1054.00 | 0.11% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Terpinen-4-ol 1180.57 | 0.09% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Geraniol 1255.29 | 0.06% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Sabinene 973.00 | 0.05% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| (E)-beta-Ocimene 1047.70 | 0.05% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Myrcene 989.20 | 0.03% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Geranyl acetate 1379.20 | 0.03% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| (Z)-beta-Ocimene 1037.80 | 0.02% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| Neoisopulegol 1145.10 | 0.02% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| para-Cymen-8-ol 1185.25 | 0.02% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| para-Cymene 1024.30 | 0.01% | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
| UK Lemon Eucalyptus | Not quantified | No comparable range0 matched historical reports | Context not comparable |
Source changes
New listings, prices, and batch evidence.
- Eucalyptus, Lemon
Analytical document archived; extraction awaits review.
View source ↗ - Eucalyptus, Lemon
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.