Talk:Essential oil/Archive 1

Off Label
The article refers to "off-label" use of essential oils. (?) Off-label refers to prescription medications used for other than FDA-approved uses. Essential oils are not approved for anything to my knowledge and besides need no prescription. Therefore use of the term off-label appears in error. It's like saying peanut butter is supposed to be used with jelly, so putting it directly onto a banana is "off-label". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.74.140 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quality of Oils
A number of claims about the relative safety of the oils are being related. However, they're pulled from sources that are most likely referring to inferior essential oils. Oils that are properly distilled and tested to ensure all constituents are in place should not have any problem being applied "neat." For some of the more caustic oils, like clove, it would be wise to dilute them simply because they can be very hot, but not because they are "dangerous." Also, for oils that are certified pure therapeutic grade (CPTG), the only risk ran from using them "neat," would be an acute reaction. The intensity, due to it's concentration, could cause break-outs, diarrhea, head-ache, etc. Those are good reasons to dilute them (especially for beginners).

'[[ "The CPTG Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade®* mark represents dōTERRA's own internal standards for sourcing and testing 100% pure aromatic botanical extracts using independent testing laboratories." http://www.doterra.com/us/essentialGrades.php

Given that CPTG is a registered trademark of dōTERRA, does it have any generally applicable meaning, other than for dōTERRA's own products? ]]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.16.184 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note, though, that inferior oils present many of the problems already mentioned. Most oils are not held to the highest level of accountability- "GRAS," for example, is not adequate to properly ensure high quality essential oils. When oils are used that do not meet the most rigorous standards, side-effects can result. This is due to the various agents used to replace important constituents; some replacements might include: synthetic compounds, compounds derived from plants that have been treated with herbicides or pesticides, constituents that are not in their proper levels or ratios due to improper distillation or capture methods(...) Since this is the norm, most oils users (experienced and novice alike) recommend diluting them. Use of high quality oils does not result in these same side-effects, though, and said users do not make the same suggestions.

Another consideration for "dangers," would be the effects they have on certain groups of people, primarily pregnant women and those with potentially serious conditions (high blood pressure, etc). Peppermint, for example, can cause a woman to stop lactating. More serious considerations for pregnant woman would include avoiding oils that might induce labor. For those with heart conditions, oils that might increase blood pressure or cause dilation or constriction of vessels is a consideration. For children, most oils can be applied the same as on adults, but diluting is recommended (or use in small quantities).

There are a number of double-blind studies available as to the effects essential oils have on micro-organisms as well. The choice to source this article from books, while logical, is not necessarily complete. Most oil companies sell oils that are diluted by petrochemical fillers and do not include all of the necessary constituents. Dr. Robbert Pappas is the leading expert in the field of oil composition/quality (http://essentialoils.org/). You'll note, after viewing his documentation of various oils, that companies sell oils in varying quantities of important chemical constituents: these change their medicinal effects.

No mention is made of an upcoming study from Vanderbilt Hospital: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klBwEBWa4Zo

Pubmed is full of research, also, as to the healthful qualities of oils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.255.90 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Essential Oils in Food
Does anyone know how/when Essential Oils are used in foods? Neroli oil and Coriander oil are used in Cola. Does anyone know who suppliers of these oils that can be used in food are? Might be interesting to mention in a section "Essential Oils in Food" N9urk 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Many 100% Pure, therapeutic grade Essential Oils are considered to be GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe for consumption) there are cookbooks that show how to use these in your own dishes. Oregano, thyme, cinnamon bark, marjoram, and many others can be added for flavor, if they are 100% pure and organic. For the most part, very little oil is needed (one drop equals a bottle of dried herbs). There is one company that uses essential oils in all of their products and supplements. Essential oils may oxygenate the blood and support the immune system, promoting better health. You might want to check out Essential Science Publishing at www.essentialscience.net for books and cookbooks.

Essential oils from edible plants are added to the food production process directly without further modification to affect the flavour of food. I'm not sure who the suppliers, are but most of the big flavor firms buy them directly from farm coops or local industries in the producing countries. Lime oil is one of the most used EO and is the chief flavorant of Coca Cola and 7up and sprite. Sjschen 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the 'without further modification' part. I believe there is some processing of the EO, e.g. to remove terpenes & to ensure a stable product. Also some emulsifier is required, such as glycerin, natural gums such as gum arabic, or brominated vegetable oil. Come to think of it, I am not clear on why BVO is listed in the ingredients of some citrus drinks, such as Mountain Dew, but generally not in colas. Perhaps the higher citrus oil content requires a more effective emulsifier? According to this link,, the caramel coloring itself acts as an emulsifier. Here's another link that discusses EOs in cola: --Dforest 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I've always understood that the EO of citrus did not need additional purification beyond filtering. Evidently they also extract frangrance compounds out of the oil using ethanol as in absolutes. This makes sense since "oily" compounds that can dissolve in ethanol tends to do an okay job when dissolved in water, which certainly help when dealing with clear colas such as 7up and Sprite. As for BOV, it causes a the drink to become cloudly and I've always though it's just used for "effect". It's possible that the (perhaps) higher citrus oil contents required more emulsification. As for the colas, the acidic caramel used in the drink will also do a good job as a emulsifier in combination with ethanol extracted fragrance oils to prevent separation. I have also heard elsewhere that the label of "natural/artificial flavourings" not only include the flavourant oils but also the preservatives and emulsifiers that enables it to be easily used in water. Sjschen 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that BVO is usually used in cloudy soft drinks, often in combination with ester of wood rosin. As explained in Notes on Making Cola, both are weighting agents, that is, oils with a higher density than water, which are added to the flavor oils to make their combined density equal to that of the water phase of the emulsion. According to, BVO has been used in the past to prevent emulsion separation (the ring at the top of the beverage) but is now banned in the EU, Japan, and Australia, and allowed only in less than 15ppm in the US, which is usually insufficient for preventing separation.  Dforest 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuff
they have no pollution. rose water is a hydrosol of rose oil, and is great toner for skin. rose oil is extremely expensive and a nice perfume as well as emotional b alancer.

hi i am a process engineering. i want know about rose water ,rose oil & their pollution can you help me

Page currently in use & exapansion --allie 17:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Production citation: I used this link to better define the distillation process, the expeller process, and especially the alcohol solvent process. http://www.wsu.edu/~gmhyde/433_web_pages/433Oil-web-pages/Processing/Process-Edible&Essence_Oil.html. This has an excellent chart of the distillation process as well. --allie 23:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Therapeutic grade: This distinction requires a citation. It is common knowledge among experienced users of essential oils. The fallacy is that if an oil is diluted, it is not as efficable. The coffee feilter test is commonly used for perfumery, as well, since the mixed oils dry quickly. Coffee grounds are used to "cleanse" the bouf, or sense of smell. --allie 23:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Folk remedy section
The "Popular Oils" section contains a bunch of dubious health claims associated with various essential oils. The health claims should be sourced to a double-blind study that confirms that there is such a health benefit, or else the section should be titled "Folklore beliefs" or something to that effect. Tempshill 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Link to Expression
The link Expression ends up at a disambiguation page, none of the links seem immediately appropropriate.

should this be the opposite?
There is no way to distinguish between these synthetic additives and the naturally occurring chemicals. Consider that the most expensive oils are almost certainly adulterated. Not really sure what you're trying to say:
 * "even the most expensive oils are likely adulterated" OR
 * "only the most expensive oils are unadulterated

in either case, it'd be interesting to have a link to some information about the prevalence of doctoring the oils....

Essential oils are amazing and are therapeutic in many facial cosmetics and skin-care products.

Bkusler 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that the more scarce (and thus expensive) the oil, the more likely it will be adulterated with cheaper additives. --Dforest 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

List of essential oils
List of vegetable oils has a fairly comprehensive list of essential oils, although there are a few items in Essential oils that aren't there yet. I'd like to propose the following:


 * 1) Make sure that everything in Essential oils is in List of vegetable oils
 * 2) Turn List of vegetable oils into List of essential oils
 * 3) Remove the lists from both Essential oils and List of vegetable oils

Any objections? Waitak 06:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of number 2 but I'm not sure of removing the entire lists. Perhaps the sections should be shortened somehow and should point to the list article as a main article. Sjschen 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea! So does:
 * Make sure that everything in Essential oils is in List of vegetable oils
 * Turn List of vegetable oils into List of essential oils
 * Remove the list from List of vegetable oils, and add a pointer to List of essential oils in List of vegetable oils
 * Replace Essential oils with a list of a few of the most important sources, and a pointer to List of essential oils
 * sound okay? Waitak 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good if you are willing to do all four :) Sjschen 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, more or less. I decided to leave the raw materials section, but order it by the part of the plant that's used to make the oil. Waitak 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Relocating "Rose oil" and "Aromatherapy"
I think these two sections talk more about their title subjects than about Essential oils in general. Does anyone mind if they were moved to their main articles? Sjschen 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No objection here. Waitak 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hydrosols
When following around a few links relating to perfume-making I was redirected to this page from hydrosol. The way this is worded implied to me that a hydrosol is a synonym for essential oils, but further research indicates that this isn't so - the hydrosol is a by-product of the distillation process (being the leftover water) rather than the oil itself, which being hydrophobic settles out separately to the water. Maybe this can be made clearer on this page somehow, unless I'm being a bit dim and missed something! TheMoog 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Hydrosol is the aquous distillate from steam distillation, but since no one has bothered to write an article to talk about hydrosols, the best place for now to find hydrosol info is still in essential oils. Perhaps you would like to start an article on hydrosols? Sjschen 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to try and distill (excuse the pun) the relevant information, but I'm no chemist! TheMoog 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aromatherapy blog in External Links
I've removed this link twice: http://www.aromatherapypoint.com/essential-oils/  This is not an article about aromatherapy. The article already lists aromatherapy as a related topic. Please post aromatherapy related links in the aromatherapy section. Typing monkey 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable oil is not essential oil
I was somewhat gob-smacked to see a picture of container of "olive oil" on this site for essential oils. Non-volatile vegetable oils are not essential oils. I am removing this picture and it's associated information because it's erronious and irrelevant to an article on essential oils.John Moss (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A topic of ....
Two Dollars Australia has been added based on the following http://www.twodollars.com.au/products/items6866.asp

Ha...Ha...more than two dollars ~___^--222.67.211.189 (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of stores that sells essential oils really doesn't belong as part of an encyclopedia article. Sorry! Waitak (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Toxicology section needs editing or removal
The toxicology section has a number of issues:

1) The concept of LD50 may be understandable to those with scientific backgrounds, but since this article is within the scope of Food and Drink project, it will get a number of readers who don't understand it. An brief explanation of LD50 would be helpful.

2) The range provided is so broad as to be practically useless. If providing a broad range of values like that, some indication of which oils are at which end of the range would be helpful to avoid giving the wrong idea.

3) As already noted, a cite is needed for the claimed range.

The basic impression that this section currently leaves is that essential oils are just as likely as arsenic to kill you when ingested or placed on the skin. That's an irresponsible statement, and likely to frighten people unnecessarily. If SOME essential oils are as poisonous as arsenic (which I don't dispute), specify which ones. Better yet, provide a table of typical LD50s for specific types of essentials. Or leave it out, since in normal use, nobody is going to come anywhere near the level of consumption needed to cause death.

69.171.176.161 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in aromatherapy
I have removed the following content:


 * The nature of the field lends itself naturally to wishful thinking and outright quackery.

...not because I am a proponent of aromatherapy – I recognize that there are issues with it – but because the sentence is not encyclopedic in style and because I am not convinced that quackwatch.com is a reliable source (at least on its own). / ninly ( talk ) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Photosensitizers" and link to Wiki page ...
The article says: "Some essential oils, including many of the citrus peel oils, are photosensitizers, increasing the skin's vulnerability to sunlight."

"photosensitizers" links (gets redirected?) to the page titled "Photoelectrochemical processes", which has no mention whatsoever of skin sensitivity to light.

Its not clear what the original author meant by the term, and I think "photosensitizers" in the articles' context means something different, but I am not sure what it is...

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.242.182 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Link changed to Photosensitivity in humans which appears to be the point the original author was trying to make, and that article has some relevant discussion of photosensitivity caused by chemical compounds. Sodabrew (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Florasols extraction
This section is confusing. Does it mean that this is a chemical used as a solvent to extract essential oils? Needs editing for clarification (and as noted, citation). Wonderwanderer (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Definition of "essential oil"
The term Essential Oil has a very specific meaning in the industry and for good reason. The term has a deep and rich historical background which one should first be familiar with.

The term "essential oil" actually goes back to the days of the Alchemists in the Middle Ages. Alchemists searching for the "elixir of life" and "the philosophers stone" made many chemical discoveries. In the Hippocratic system of medicine it was said that the four temperaments, nervous (hyper), sanguine (cheerful), lymphatic (slothful), and bilious (grouchy) correspond to the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water and that disease is due to an imbalance of these elements. Thus rheumatoid arthritis, a waterycondition, should be treatable with heat (or the fire element) as a remedy to the water imbalance. Once distillation was discovered it became a symbol of purification and concentration of spiritual forces into the missing element, the "Quintessential" or 5th element. Alchemists distilled everything looking for the 5th element and quite often blew themselves up in the process! Once they started hydro distilling aromatic plants they found "oils" which separated from the water after the distillate was condensed (they aren't actually oils but in the days of the Alchemist anything that separated from water was called an oil). They called this oil the "Quintessence" because they thought they had found the missing 5th element. Since this "Quintessence" was thought to be an oil, the term "essential oil" eventually evolved because it was believed that this "oil" was "essential" to life.

Eodoctor (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Because of this history its important to realize what can legitimately be called an essential oil. Some have said here that its only just a matter of semantics and that I am being too picky about what is allowed to be called an essential oil. But what they fail to realize is that there is a practical side as well concerning what we allow to be called an essential oil. There are very good reasons to make the distinction and strictly define essential oils as only those volatile products obtained by steam or hydro-distillation with the only exception being the citrus oils which are mainly cold pressed (but can also be distilled, the point is they are volatile and no solvent is used, only mechanical process).

In the fragrance, flavor and aromatherapy industries there are basically two processes of obtaining volatile aromatic products, distillation and extraction. They are very different processes and its important to understand why its not correct to mix the terms. Most essential oil production uses steam to liberate the volatile oil from the plant. The plant never comes into contact with any solvents during a distillation process. In an extraction process the oil is pulled out from the plant material by chemical solvents. Its critical to realize the difference between the two methods because if one refers to a solvent extracted product as an essential oil he would be misleading his customer and the method of production is important because of what is expected by the industry. People in the industry, especially in the aromatherapy field, who knowledgeable about essential oils are looking for products that have not been in contact with chemical solvents. When solvents are used there are always solvent residues left in the product after production. For example, jasmine is never obtained by distillation because the product does not lend itself to production this way (for several reasons which I won't go into here). The primary method is by a two step solvent extraction process to obtain what is called jasmine absolute. Absolutes are made by first extracting the flowers with hexane or similar non-polar hydrocarbon solvent which pulls out not only the volatile aromatics but also the heavier plant waxes as well. After the hexane is evaporated you are left with a soft semi solid mass called the "concrete." The concrete can be sold as is but will always have some residual hexane (or similar) solvent in it. The concrete can also be further extracted with ethanol to pull out all of the more polar aromatic components and leaving behind the non-polar waxes. When the ethanol is evaporated the more polar aromatic components are concentrated into what is called the absolute, which, depending on the plant, can have a consistency like an essential oil, but typically also include heavier components that do not come out in distillation. The absolute will generally contain some residual ethanol (maybe only 1 % or so but can be higher if not evaporated well) and can even contain some residual hexane, but if done properly no hexane will be detectable.

These extracted products like Absolutes, Concretes, Florasols, CO2s, etc. are not called essential oils in the industry because of the method they are produced and because they generally contain solvent residues. Most buyers, when looking for essential oils, don't want products with solvent residues or that have ever come into contact with solvents which is why its improper to refer to absolutes or other extracted products as essential oils. Most everyone in industry only recognizes essential oils as products produced by steam or hydro-distillation (and the exception of cold pressed citrus oils).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in their Vocabulary of Natural Materials (ISO/D1S9235.2) defines an essential oil as a product made by distillation with either water or steam or by mechanical processing of citrus rinds or by dry distillation of natural materials. Following the distillation, the essential oil is physically separated from the water phase. The international trade organization for the essential oil industry is called IFEAT (www.ifeat.org) and any representative can also confirm that solvent extracted products are not essential oils.Eodoctor (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above apparently consists entirely of original research. Where are the reliable sources to support this? Such an extensive history and such important and recognized distinctions should surely be published across quite a period of time in multiple independent, 3rd party reliable sources. If not it seems to be original research from an editor who promotes these distinctions professionally (per diff). Not a suitable basis for content on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pharmacology section requires WP:MEDRS quality references
Any biomedical information on WP must accurately reflect the best current scientific understanding of that information. Primary sources, single studies and out of date references are not appropriate. See WP:MEDRS for a clear explanation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is poorly referenced
Many references are outdated, incomplete, of questionable reliability or relevance. Much of the article is unreferenced WP:OR and reads like an essay. I will post some suggested references below. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest Some Discussion of Ancient-Traditional Methods
I was researching the subject of natural oil extraction, aromatic or not, with an emphasis on simple and primitive methods, with immense difficulty. Though I see you have linked to a page on Enfleurage in the See Also section, might I suggest some inclusion of this method in discussion of method here? The Enfleurage page, I should add, had a modern bias too; I encountered a page through independent online searching discussing the ancient extraction of aromatic oils during the Biblical Exodus by the heating and wringing of olive oil-soaked wool cloth wrapped around perfume sources (petals), rather than the glass plate method discussed on the wiki page. Perhaps primitive methods of oil extraction in general still need some work (though apparently steam distillation has been practiced for millenia). Just a couple of thoughts from a passing user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.93.113 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject
I need help on the wikiproject that I just created at WikiProject Essential Oils Thanks a million Ilikeguys21 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
User:Huangdi please explain why you are trying to remove reference to "therapeutic" use of essential oils as pseudoscience. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that's not scientifically established? Because the opinion piece you cite doesn't even state the claim you are making on its behalf? Because this is more NPOV: "Research on the effectiveness of aromatherapy — the therapeutic use of essential oils extracted from plants — is limited." Huangdi (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a weird answer. Stuff like what is found here, is what that line is addressing.  I don't even know what "Balance hormones" means.  It is pseudoscientific bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Using false arguments fails to answer my questions. Nowhere is the source I am citing related to your specious link. More importantly, you have failed to address in any way the point regarding my genuine NPOV edit. Huangdi (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the sources you introduced here and here are not reliable sources per MEDRS. We don't use university or hospital websites to source content about health or science. Please read WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the phrase inferring that the Benifits are the subject of ongoing research is misleading. I can find no references to any peer reviewed scientific research. I agree it should be classed under pseudoscience Sarboss (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible Edits
The section of “ingestion” does not provide any cited information in regards to human consumption. Additionally, the section labeled “Pharmacology and medical uses” needs reliable references to indicate how essential oils could or could not be used for medical purposes. It may be necessary to create a “Side Effects” page to inform people of the potential risks involved in the usage of essential oils. The structure of the article is not fluid or easily maneuvered. Possible edits to reorganize the page might be beneficial. Ray2140947 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"volatile (defined as 'the tendency of a substance to vaporize')" No, a noun phrase cannot be the definition of an adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B030:CD4C:24CC:DC38:C771:4F03 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That is actually a definition of volatility, not volatile. I changed it to the applicable OED definition of volatile, I think it's simple without being simplistic. And I linked the first usage of volatile in the lead to the Volatility_(chemistry) page, for those who want more depth on the topic. CleverTitania (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The sentence “Aromatherapy may be useful to induce relaxation, but there is not sufficient evidence that essential oils can effectively treat any condition” is implying that more study is needed. But the link clearly indicates that there has been ample studies with no link to a benefit. Perhaps it should be changed to “Aromatherapy may be useful to induce relaxation, but there is no evidence that essential oils can effectively treat any medical condition Sarboss (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Go ahead. --Zefr (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Scientists find new evidence linking essential oils to seizures. Maybe revelant to mention somewhere in the article? https://academictimes.com/scientists-find-new-evidence-linking-essential-oils-to-seizures/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920121121000796?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email

Koul 2008
Re:  What does WP:CITEVAR have to do with this? On the other hand running in and out of a huge number of pages removing publisher because you don't like it is a well understood violation of WP:CITEVAR.

Second, to repeat what I said in my edit summary, you need to be engaged with the page and read the edit history to understand what's going on here. Before we proceed: Do you understand why this cite is unusual? Do you understand what I was doing before you edited it?

Thirdly, why did you also remove the GS cluster ID? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEVAR says "editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." The article had a clear majority of journal citations without publishers, as is the case in the vast majority of style guides out there. I normalized the article to the dominant style, and you re-introduced the inconsistency. That's textbook WP:CITEVAR stuff. As for the GS Cluster ID, we already have a free link via ResearchGate. We don't need to clutter citations with extra links of dubious value when there's already a perfectly servicable free link there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are imitating the disruptive editing style and specious arguments of another user I've been dealing with recently. That's creepy. I'd like that to stop. Anyway:


 * CITEVAR obviously does not mean to prohibit repairing citations. That is not the meaning of "style" to anyone. Discouraging people from repairing citations - by telling them they're breaking a rule - is a very bad idea.


 * If you want to contend that adding a field to one cite is the same as a mass change of cites to a different style (what WP:CITEVAR actually prohibits), then I assume you'll be removing all the bibcodes you have added all over WP. No? Well then.


 * All I'm taking from this is that you haven't even looked at the edit history as I asked. Here, I'll explain: I just had to salvage the {{cite}} because it was destroyed by a bot. More fields are necessary to (hopefully) prevent the bot from misrecognising it again. If you had looked at the {{cite}} as I'd asked you would have noticed that there is no DOI and there is a high risk that the same bot will do the same thing again. Any additional fields/information about Koul 2008 is useful and necessary to prevent further damage and to assist in future repair.


 * Your personal dislike for publisher needs to be resolved on Talk:Cite journal or not at all. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Normalizing an article to the dominant citation style, one style supported by virtually all major citation guides, is perfectly fine and well in line with WP:CITEVAR. Introducing a deviation from that style isn't. If my arguments remind you of someone else, that's really your problem. Take your accusations of creepiness elsewhere. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing to quote the same person while protesting the "accusation". That's some dedicated grudge you have going on there. Look you're not engaged with the page, you still show no signs of even understanding what just happened, and you're running in and out doing your usual publisher stuff. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about lungs/ breathing safety?
I'm surprised there is nothing related to safety re. breathing, since breathing seems to be one of the main uses - home electric diffusers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.72.64 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Worse than just that. Essential oils are, in many cases, hazardous chemicals that have no business in or on the body. A relative of mine almost died after ingesting several CC of concentrated "Tea Tree Oil". He was quite ill for several weeks. People with zero understanding of chemistry are self-medicating with a whole raft of dangerous compounds. This article serves no useful purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6ae5:2510::36 (talk • contribs)
 * Rigorous studies and reviews on breathing or ingestion effects of essential oil are generally absent because funding for non-proprietary compounds is unlikely to be available (what company would pay for expensive clinical research if the results cannot be protected and used commercially?), leaving clinical anecdotes and general chemical information as sources. The Poison Control Center is used in the article as a summary of toxicity from breathing or ingestion. For tea tree oil specifically, the article's toxicity section is explicit about the potential dangers of ingestion. PubChem has a comprehensive report. Zefr (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)