Pelargonium Oil and Methyl Hexaneamine (MHA): Analytical Approaches Supporting the Absence of MHA in Authenticated Pelargonium graveolens Plant Material and Oil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methylhexaneamine (MHA) has been marketed in dietary supplements based on arguments that it is a constituent of geranium (Pelargonium graveolens) leaves, stems, roots or oil, and therefore qualifies as a dietary ingredient. The purpose of this study is to determine whether P. graveolens plant material (authenticated) or its oil contains detectable quantities of MHA. Two analytical methods were developed for the analysis of MHA in P. graveolens using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The results were further confirmed using liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry. Twenty commercial volatile oils, three authenticated volatile oils and authenticated P. graveolens leaves and stems (young and mature, and fresh and dried) were analyzed for MHA content. In addition, three dietary supplements containing MHA that alleged P. graveolens as the source are analyzed for their MHA content. The data show that none of the authenticated P. graveolens essential oils or plant material, nor any commercial volatile oil of Pelargonium (geranium oil) contain MHA at detectable levels (limit of detection: 10 ppb). The dietary supplements that contained MHA as one of their ingredients (allegedly from geranium or geranium stems) contained large amounts of MHA. The amounts of MHA measured are incompatible with the use of reasonable amounts of P. graveolens extract or concentrate, suggesting that MHA was of synthetic origin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it