Nature’s Gift profile

Nature’s Gift · PRODUCT EVIDENCE

Tea Tree

Botanical name not captured · Source checked Sep 6, 11:49 PM UTC

What the supplier lists

Captured product claims; report identity is shown separately below.

Product source ↗
Origin
Not captured
Plant part
Not captured
Extraction method
Not captured
Chemotype
Not captured
Read supplier product description

Michelle loves Tea Tree Oil, but said today as she was pouring it, “this is the nicest batch we’ve had in years.” Tea Tree Oil has won a reputation as a “cure-all” because of its powerful anti-fungal, anti-viral, and anti-bacterial properties. It is the first suggestion for athlete’s foot, nail viruses, and other fungal infections. It’s often used in acne remedies, as well as in a diffuser to combat the flu and other viral infections. It is often recommended as the remedy for a vaginal candida infection. Please note that recent laboratory tests indicate that Tea Tree Essential Oil is more effective as an antibacterial agent in weak dilutions (ie, less than 2%) than it is neat. I know there are those who recommend using Tea Tree neat, or at least say that it may safely be used neat, however in my experience it is far too harsh to use neat on the skin, and since it is more effective in a weak dilution, why use more than needed? Research published in Aromatherapy Today, an international aromatherapy journal, indicates that Tea Tree oil added to shampoo in a 5% dilution is at least as effective as ketoconazole and 1% terbinafine in the treatment of dandruff. In the test, the subjects used a 5% dilution in a daily shampoo, and left the shampoo in their hair for three minutes before rinsing. WARNINGS: Avoid topical use with diabetes and insulin resistance syndrome; patients with diabetes are more apt to experience skin reactions from Tea Tree Essential Oil. Especially avoid use with diabetic neuropathy. 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. GC/MS Analysis: Batch No: AU-MA-13 Batch No: AU-TT866 Batch No. AU-MA-15 Batch No. AU-PMA030 Batch No. AU-58751 Batch No. AU-58991 Batch No. AU-59065 Batch No. AU-59073 Batch No. AU-59155 Batch No. AU-59255 (Current Batch) BLENDS WITH: Atlas Cedarwood, Bergamot, Black Pepper, Eucalyptus, Ginger, Lavender, Lemon, Peppermint, Rosemary. Photos courtesy of Mark Webb. Melaleuca alternifolia, organically produced but not certified, steam-distilled leaves, Australia. powerful anti-fungal, anti-viral and anti-bacterial athlete’s foot and other fungal infections often used in acne remedies dandruff

Size / optionSKUSupplier's listed priceAvailabilityProduct link
From price; choose size on supplier sitec4cef4cbb910c02d3838c6374d21e5c2USD 12.00in stockBuy this option ↗
Prices retain their published currency. Shipping and tax may be additional.Confirm availability and batch with the supplier.

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.

I’m interested in

Meet the main constituents, then select one to see what makes it interesting.

Finding the matching oil reports…

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.

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

5 reports connected; 5 directly linked by the supplier. Read the evidence before comparing chemistry.

Supplier report information is available
Documented

5 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.

Documented

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

Chemical extraction needs review

Automatically extracted figures are visible for inspection. They are excluded from historical anomaly conclusions until the extraction is reviewed.

Evidence gap

Comparison context is incomplete

Missing or unconfirmed: plant part, extraction method, origin, analysis method, percentage basis, exact analysis date, batch. Unknown values are not assumed to match known values.

Evidence gap

Source extraction has review notes

Some source peak rows could not be fully verified or quantified. The percentage measurement basis requires confirmation. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

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.

Evidence gap

Source extraction has review notes

Some source peak rows could not be fully verified or quantified. 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. Some source peaks overlap or combine constituents; independent percentages may not be available. A source date requires review against the original document. Additional source extraction notes require review against the original document.

Evidence gap

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.

Supplier / batch
Nature’s Gift
AU- ME-15
Report botanical identity
Melaleuca alternifolia
Chemotype not reported
Origin / plant part
Origin not reported
Plant part not reported
Extraction / analysis
Extraction not reported
Method not reported · unspecified
Source document archivedLinked from this productAnalysis: Date not reported
Read original source ↗
Chemical constituentThis reportMatched historical rangeWhat it means
1,8-cineole 3.20 Trace to15.00%No comparable range0 matched historical reportsContext not comparable
sabinene 1.22 Trace to3.50%No comparable range0 matched historical reportsContext not comparable
aromadendrene 0.80 Trace to3.00%No comparable range0 matched historical reportsContext not comparable
delta-cadinene 0.88 Trace to3.00%No comparable range0 matched historical reportsContext not comparable
golubulol 0.23 Trace to1.00%No comparable range0 matched historical reportsContext not comparable
5 measurements in this report · 5 shownObserved history is not a specification or a purity test.

Source changes

New listings, prices, and batch evidence.

  • Tea Tree

    Analytical document archived; extraction awaits review.

    View source ↗
  • Tea Tree

    Product first observed in the supplier catalog.

    View source ↗

Know what the evidence says

Three signals. No mystery scores.

Documented evidence

Source documents or comparable measurements support the specific finding shown.

Worth investigating

A chemistry difference or identity mismatch needs context. Open the report and matched history.

Evidence gap

A report, batch link, or key detail is missing. The oil's quality cannot be judged from missing information.