摘要:

THE ANALYST. A U G U S T , 1 8 8 8 . -- PECOCEEDINOS OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. POLLUTED DRINKING WATER AND THE CLOSURE OF WELLS. (Read at the Meeting, June 20, 1888.) PROFESSIONAL and even public opinion has long beon opposed t o the use, for drinking, of water polluted by excrementitious matters or sewage ; the use of such water not only is repugnant to sentiment, but experience has proved that it sometimes produces serious disease and death. This fact has been recognised from the earliest historic times, and in the more enlightened and more scientific modern times it is still more frequently brought home to us. For the last half-century the subject has received greater attention than ever before, till it has come to be generally acknowledged that sewage-polluted water cannot be drunk with safety.This widespread impression has led, in many large corn- munities, to the obtaining of Parliamentary powers to supply pure water from a dis- tance, either from tho surface of the earth in districts free from population, as Glasgow from Loch Katrine, Manchester from Thirlmere, and Liverpool from the source of the Severn, as Rome did from the distant Arno ; or from the strata of the earth at points so deep as to be beyond the influence of surface filth, and to the abolition of the surface wells of such towns at one sweep. These special and local Acts, as well as the Public Health Act, have served not only to confirm pnblic opinion in favour of pure water, but they have also equally led the public to believe that ik was only necessary to prove, either by common observation or by chemical means, the pollution of a water supply with animal matter, in order-in cases of wells especially-to enable the closure of such supplies to be effected.I n some towns there has, however, been no general closure, but each well is chemically examined in detail, and closed if the circumstances warrant this proceeding, On the mere proof of such pollution hundreds of thousands of wells in the country have been closed: in Rome cases-notably with the Broad Street pump at Westminster-after injury being proved, but in most cases without any such proof whatever. Two cases recently decided, however, have excited much surprise and disappoint- ment, inasmuch as orders to close the polluted wells were refused, on the ground that it had not been proved that the waters were “injurious to health ” ; these words are from the 70th Section of the Public Health Act, 1875.One of these cases occurred at BY ALFRED HILL, M.D., F.I.C.142 THE ANALYSP. Enfield ; the other a t Birmingham. The Enfield case was brought before the Society of Medical Officers of Health on the 18th of May by the analyst, Mr. Lloyd, who raised the question, What, in the words of the 70th Section of the Public Health Act, consti- tuted “ water injurious to health ? ” He said the presence of sewage matters in potable water, even when in large quantity, appeared not necessarily to do so, though if the sewage contained the germs of disease it would; and he mentioned eminent authorities who had shown “ that no sufficient chemical variation, to be of a decisive character, existed,” to indicate when pollution is injurious and when not.Bacteriology, he said, was equally at fault in proving the existence of disease germs. Recognising these facts, he had, he said, when reporting upon contaminated water, simply stated the water con- tained sewage, and was therefore unfit for drinking purposes, and t7h had su$iced in, most cases to emure the closing of the wells; but recently a contested case at Enfield was lost on the ground that the report did not use the words of the Act. The water in question contained :-Total solids, 83.72 ; loss on heat, 7.0. Oxygen absorbed, 0.1 57 ; C1, S.40 ; N, as nitrates, 2-28 ; NH3 -084; Albd. NH, -008. No water analyst of ex- perience could, it would be supposed, do otherwise than condemn such a water, yet, sin- gularly enough, two other chemists, whose analytical results agreed with Mi*.Lloyd’s, and who made their analyses independently, gave favourable reports of the water. The owner of the well disputed his report, and an analysis on his behalf was made by Mr. Gregory, who found practically the same result, with the exception of the nitrates, which he gives at 4.22, and who reported ‘ a perfectly safe water to use for drinking and domestic purposes, being free from any trace of sewage contamination.’ In view of the conflicting svidence, the magistrate decided to send a sample to Dr. Bell at Somerset House, and he, in his report, stated that his results did not differ materially from the previous analyses.It was evident, he thought, from the large quantity of saline matters present, that it passed through a stratum of earth largely charged with sewage or organic refuse, and carried down with it various products resulting from the oxidation of the organic matter, which, though not dangerous to health, was very objec- tionable. As to how such a sentence came in the Act, he thought it was taken for granted that the mere presence of sewage in potable water was prim& facie evidence that the water was injurious, and that view was supported by the fact that in the Sixth Report of the Rivers Commission on Domestic Water Supply river water receiving sewage, and shallow well waters were designated dangerous, without any consideration of the quantity of pollution.So long as Somerset House was made the court of appeal, it practically amounted to an inability to close polluted wells.” I have st@ed this case a t some length because it is almost on a perfect parallel with the Birmingham case, in which the water was very similar, being better in some respects, but worse in others. The analytical results obtained by myself in 100,000 parts were as follows :-Total solids 148-2 ; NH, 0001 ; Albd. NH, -015 ; N as nitrates 6.6 j chlorine 11 -2. As in the Enfield water, however, the point on which the whole case turned was the word “injurious.” I n my evidence I said the water presented all-round evidence of pollution with matter derived from sewage ; it was therefore dangerous for domestic use. The counsel for the defence asked me this question ; “ Seeing before you the defendant, who is now in perfect health, and who has drunk the water daily for twenty-five years without any illness, do you mean to swear that, if he were to drink now a pint.or a quart of the water, or more, it would prove injurious to his health ? ” I replied, ‘‘ No ; it might not at the prasent time, though it might; or, if not now, a t some future time.’’ The magistrate then asked me, Do you say this well is injurious to health ? ” to which I replied, ‘‘ No ; I say it is dangerous, and likely to injure health a t any moment.” TheTHE ANALYST. 143 magistrate then said, “ I think we must dismiss the case.” Mr. Parker, the Inspector of Nuisances : ‘( On what ground, your worship 1” Mr. Goodman: I‘ You have not proved that the well is so polluted as to be injurious to health.” I t was true I had not, because I could not point to illness or death which had been produced by it, and I know of no other proof; but I had proved all that chemical analysis enabled me to do-viz., that it was polluted in the same manner (that is, by animal matter) as many wells are which have been known to produce illness and death.Surely it was never intended by the Act that polluted wells are not to be closed until disease or death have resulted from their use; and yet, as I had proved everything short of this, I don’t know what other proof was left to be produced. The failure of the Enfield and Birmingham prosecutions is not only disappointing, but very embarrassing in its influence on future action.I don’t know how Mr. Lloyd has fared with his Authority, but in my case all the blame is put upon my shoulders, because I did not swear that the water was ‘ I injurious,” and so comply with the wording of the Act. But how, as a conscientious witness, could I do this when I know, as we all know, that water contaminated by normal or uninfected sewage is drunk every day by millions of people with apparent impunity ? My answer to the categorical question put to me by counsel as to whether a draught of the Birmingham well water in question would now injure the defendant would a t once have neutralised any opinion of mine to the contrary in the minds of the Bench, and so the sacrifice of my convictions would have done no good, while it would have left me discredited in the opinion of conscien- tious men competent to judge of the question, and an object of life-long contempt to myself.A scientific witness is not an advocate ; he should not be a partisan. It is his bounden duty to tell the truth, as far as he believes he knows it, “without fear, favour, or affection,” and regardless of all consequences; he is not responsible for them ; and then in any case, to whatever extent he may unjustly be made to suffer in “ mind, body, or estate,” he cannot be brought by any power to a lowor condition than that of the defeated general, who, in retreating, cried, ‘‘ All is lost bnt honour.” Less with the object of obtaining confirmation of my views than to educate and satisfy the doubts of others, I wrote to several acknowledged eminent water analysts and medical officers of health, asking their opinions on the words “injurious ” and ‘6 dangerous.” The following are some of their replies, the first three being from gentle- men having occupied and occupying the most important chemical and medico-chemical positions under Government-viz., Dr.Frankland, of the Rivers Pollution Commission ; Dr. Duprb, Analyst to the Local Government Board ; and Dr. Thomas Stevenson, Official Analyst to the Home Office :- [COPY*I ‘‘ The Yews,” Reigate, MY DEAR DR. HILL, May 26th, 1888. In reply t o your letter of the 19th inst., I arn decidedly of opinion that no analytical results can justify the opinion that a particular sample of water is injutious to health, unless actual poisons are detected j but if the sample contains palpable evidence of pollution by animal organic matter, it is undoubtedly dangerous to health, inasmuch as it might be actually injurious at the time the sample was taken, or may become so at any moment.With regard to the personal execution of analyses, it is neither possible nor desirable that the principal of a laboratory should personally make the analytical determinations ; but they should be made under his direction or supervision, and the evidence of the assistant who actually makes them should be tendered if the results are challenged. I have often known this done, but I do not remember a case in which the assistant was actually called. Believe me, yours very truly, (Signed) E. FRANKLAND.144 THE ANALYST. [COPY.Iy Laboratory, Westminster Hospital Medical School, Caxtoii Street, Westminster, S.W., There cannot be the slightest doubt that the well water, details of the analysis of which you have furnished to me, is polluted to a very serious degree by sewage or similar matter-in fact, it is little else than sewage oxidized to a greater or lesser degree by filtration through soil. Such a water is totally unfit for use. At the same time, I quite agree with YGU that you could not conscientiously have sworn that the particular sample of water you analysed was injurious t o health. All that a chemist can do in such a case, seeing that we have as yet no means of identify- ing any of the germs producing typhoid fever, cholera, etc., etc., is to state that the water is polluted by lanimal matter-probably excrementitious-and that i t may at any time become injurious.What I usually do in such a case as this is to condemn the well, rather than the par- ticular sample of water. If a water shows sewage pollution i t may or may not be injurious ; that depends upon circumstances a t present beyond the ken of the water analyst, but a t all events it proves that the well from which the sample of water has been taken must be in more or less direct communication with sewage matter, and, whenever such sewage matter contains the germs of disease, the water from the well will be dangerous to every one drinking it. DEAR DR. HILL, June 15th’ 1888. Yours very truly, (Signed) A. DUPR~. June 16th, 1888. Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital, London, S.E., DEAR DR. HILL, I have read with much interest your case of the refusal of the magistrates to order the closing of a well where you testified that the water was dangerous to health, although yon very properly declined to say that the water was actually injurious to health ; and I have the figures of your analysis before me.I think you were quite right in your opinion, and also in using the expression “ dangerous.” I am in the habit of using the term dangerous’’ in my reports on such waters as this one you analysed, and of purpose. They are waters which expose the drinkers to risk, although individuals may again and again drink them without actual resulting harm. Without it can be shown that “injurious ” and “ dangerous ” are synonymous terms, ‘ I dangerous ” is the better and mwe correct expression.Should the decision in your case be upheld, in future it will be well to use the word ‘ I injurious ” with the qualification--i.e., ‘’ likely to injure health ”-or to have the law altered. Believe me, yours very faithfully, (Signed) THOS. STEVENSON. From H. Tomkins, Esq., M.D., B.Sc., Medical Officer of Health, Leicester. Borough of Leicester, Health Department, Town Hall, DEAR DR. HILL, 16th June, 1888. Re “ Polluted Water.” The analysis of the water (of which you sent me a copy) is sufficient to warrant its being condemned without hesitation, and I cannot understand your magistrates refusing to do so in the face of your evidence. I have constantly condemned water less polluted than this, and have had no difficulty in getting wells closed on certifying that such is dangerous to health. Of course the absolute proof of its injury could only be sworn to after illness had been caused by it ; but it appears to be a very anomalous position for any authority to be in, whose duty is t o guard the public health against danger, to wait until injury has actually resulted.I agree with you that, if justices take this view of the wording of the 70th Section, the sooner it is amended the better. From Matthew A. Adams, Esq., F.R.C.S., Medical Officer of Health, County Analyst Yours faithfully, (Signed) HY. TOMKINS. and Analyst for the Borough of Maidstone. Ashford Road, Maidstone, DEAR DR. HILL, 16th June, 1888. I am quite of your opinion as to the danger of allowing such a water as you send me particulars of t o be used for drinking purposes.The great excess of solid matter (unless other- wise explained), the high chlorine, and particularly the great excess of nitrates, make it, in my opinion, imperative that the well should be closed because of the constant risk to those drinking it. Of course it is impossible for anyone-chemist or other-without actual demonstration to say that any polluted water, for the time being, is positively u injuiious,” and it is unreasonable toTHE ANALYST. 145 suppose that the P.H. Act would require an analytical opinion on the subject, if the injurious pro- perties of a water could be otherwise, legally and more directly, demonstrated. It would hardly do to administer the water in question to a susceptible person to test the opinion. The fact is, as all properly informed persons well know, an opinion in such cases can be based on inference alone.Perhaps the enclosed “ extract,” which further explains my views and my mode of dealing with such cases, will interest you. Yours faithfully, (Signed) MATTHEW A. ADAMS. From Dr. Walter J. Sykes, late Medical Officer of Health and Public Analyst for Portsmouth. The Laboratory, 11, Billiter Square, London, E.C., DEAR DR. HILL, June 18tli, 1888. I duly received yours enclosing analysis of a sample of water. There can be no two opinions on the matter ; it is an exceedingly polluted water, and totally unfit for human consump- tion. I consider your qualification “ dangerous ” to be the correct one ; it is a water receiving a large quantity of animal organic pollution, and, though a t present the large amount of this is being oxidised into harmless nitrogen compounds, yet no one can foresee how soon this action may cease ; and when i t does, either temporarily or permanently, disease and probably death will be the result.I have had to regret on many occasions that the bench adopt such literal interpretations of the wording of the Public Health Act. It has several times happened to me to be unable to get ‘‘ dangerous ” drainage arrangements altered, because I could not positively say they were “injurious ” a t the time. This is a great stumbling block in the way of preventive medicine, as, though we are able to point out dangers ahead, we cannot get them removed, but we must first wait until some serious illness or death has been the result, Believe me! yours faithfully, (Signed) WALTER J. SYKEP, M.D., D.P.H.From Dr. Alfred Ashby, Medical Officer of Health and Public Analyst for Eeading Urban Sanitary Authority. Town Hall, Reading, DEAR DR. HILL, June 18th, 1888. There can be no doubt the water you allude to in your letter ought not to be allowed to be drunk ; but, although I have frequently got polluted wells closed on similar evidence to yours, I have long anticipated that such a line of defence as that you describe would be taken in some polluted water case, owing to the unfortunate wording of Section 70 Public Health Act, 1875. Of course we all know that polluted water may be drunk for a long time without causing actual disease, in the same way that any unhealthy condition within the meaning of the 91st Section of the Public Health Act may exist for a long time without actually causing disease ; but that the water is under the most favourable conditions for widely disseminating disease as soon as the infective material is added to its ordinarily contained filth.If these sections are to be interpreted in their literal sense, and we have in all cases to prove that some actual person has been made ill before proceedings can be successful, the sooner we give up our work the better. Such an interpretation is certainly opposed to the spirit of the Act of 1875, which is preventive ; and, if we were always bound by it, the greater part of the improve- ment in the public health which has been effected during the past fifteen years would not have taken place.The evidence you gave in the case you refer to was perfectly correct, for you could have given no other reply to the question put to you. I am, yours very faithfully, (Signed) ALFRED ASHBY. I have been asked if I could not see my way t o saying that I regarded the words ‘( injurious ” and “ dangerous ” as synonymous. Unfortunately this is impossible, because I have, like Dr. Frankland, Dr. DuprB, and others, already and always rigidly main- tained the distinction. As long as the single hair is strong enough to support thesword over the head of Damocles, who sits beneath it, his life is only in danger; if that hair should break he will be injured. The thoughtless person, smoking his pipe while sitting on a barrel of gunpowder, is only in danger as long as the spark and the powder are146 THE ANALYST.kept apart ; buc in the opposite case he will be certainly injured. Surely the distinc- tion between danger and injury is plain enough, but is it wise to wait for the breaking of the hair or the explosion of the powder before taking steps to prevent injury ? That the object of the Public Health Act is to prevent injury is undeniable, and I maintain, therefore, that the sanitarian having pointed out the danger, it is for the legal tribunal to read and interpret the Act in that sense-I mean as a preventive Act-and order the removal of the danger. I n the Sanitary 12ecol.d of last month is a report of two wells which were closed a t Halifax. The analysts, Mr. Ackroyd, of Halifax, and Mr. Jarmain, of Huddersfield, reported in accordance with my view of the case.The former said that the waters were ‘( contaminated and danyeyous to drink ” ; the latter, that they were (‘ polluted with sewage or drainage from manured land.” I suppose that if there had been no evidence beyond this the case would have broken down, but I hear indirectly that Mr. Ainley, the Medical Officer of Health, in agreeing with the chemical reports, went further, and swore the waters were in jniious to health, although there was no actual proof of it. Probably if the Birmingham case had had the benefit of a legal representative t o conduct it, such a view would have been put forward and supported by the context of. the section as would have influenced the court to regard the case differently; but there was little chance of my obtaining a different decision, altogether unsupported as I was I)y legal or other aid, while opposed by two solicitors, two eminent and leading counsel, and, as I am informed, six chemists, headed, I know, by Dr.Attfield and Mr. Wanklyn. Such an array of legal and chemical machinery, with a bench not qualified by special training, either legal, medical, or chemical, to adjudicate on such a question, was, of course, entirely irresistible. A refusal of a closing order was almost inevitable, but even in that case all was not necessarily lost, for our legal advocate, if we bad had one, could still have asked for a case on which to found an appeal, and I have little doubt that a higher court would have ruled otherwise. Now, it appears to me that the question for this Society to consider is what is to be done under the circumstances, and I shall be very glad to hear the views and obtain the decision of my fellow-members upon it,.It appears to me there are three ways of overcoming the difficulty, for of course we are all anxious to find a way out of it in the interests of public health. The first, about which, however, I am not very sanguine, is to get magistrates to accept the secondary meaning of injurious-that is, “ tending to injure,” ‘‘ calculated to injure.” I f this signification of the word were taken, wecould all use it without hesita- tion, and so comply not only with the spirit, but with what is much more appreciated generally-with the absolute letter of the Act. Secondly, a case properly conducted by a legal representative might be taken into court on the evidence that the water was “dangerous and unfit for use,” and, on an order for closure being refused, zl case asked for, when, on appeal, the question would be argued to a satisfactory termination. Thirdly, with or without such test case and appeal to a higher tribunal, the Govern- tiicut could be memorialised by Local Authorities, medical and chemical societies, and others to amend the 70th Clause so far as to bring it into conformity with the practical common-sense and science of the day and the reasonable demands of sanitary progress.DISCUSSION. The PRESIDENT said that the subject which Dr. Hill had brought before the It seemed to him almost im- Society was one of extreme importance to everyone.THE ANALYST.I47 ---4__---1_. __ __-___--- --___- - _- __-_ __ _ _ - po.;siblo for anyono t o a f k m positively that a po1Iittt.d water would necessarily be injurious to health, remembering that such active poisons as opium and arsenic were habitually taken by individuals without injury to health, and that habit enabled the doses to be enormously increased. I t would not be possible to say of a water that actually contained arsenic, that it would be necessarily injurious to the health of drinkers, although certainly it would be dangerous to health. I n Sheffield they had recently some hundreds of cases of poisoning by lead, but the instances in which people had suffered were only a fraction of those in which people had drunk the same water with impunity, from which it must be concluded that only those people who were unusually susceptible to the influence of lead were affected under the conditions which prevailed.Similarly with sewage-contaminated water, which might be drunk by many persons, and especially those habituated to it, with impunity, while others would be immediately rendered dangerously ill. Of course too, as had been remarked, much depended on whether the sewage was excreted by persons in health, or those suffering from disease. The only possible way of ascertaining that a particular water would be actually injurious would be to experiment on human beings who had been previously accustomed to drink water of unexceptionable origin. A single experiment of this sort even would not suffice, as personal idiosyncrasy might prevent the poison from acting. He mentioned this to show how impracticable it was to affirm posit.ively that a water was injurious to health.I n the case of water which had suffered contamination by sewage, and in which the polluting matter had subsequently undergone oxidation, as was the case with the sample in question, he was in the habit of certifying that a change of conditions might render the water positively dangerous. It was a great misfortune that, owing to circumstances well known to the members. of the Society, many medical officers of health, and some professional chemists, were in the habit of ignoring the evidence of previous pollution furnished by the presence of nitrates and nitrites, and this in the face of the River Pollution Commissioners’ results, which showed that filtration of fresh sewage through five or six feet of gravelly soil caused the oxidation of all the ammonia to the so-called “harmless” nitrates and nitrites.But if the process of spontaneous purification by oxidation were interrupted, as by the pores of the soil becoming saturated with water through heavy rains, or other causes, the oxidation was liable to be incomplete, and the character of the water would suffer a corresponding change. With regard to the particular case of Dr. Hill, it was lamentable to think that any professional chemist should have been ready t o appear for the defence of such a case. He could not quite understand how it was that there was no lawyer to conduct the case. Did Dr. Hill suggest that he could not have had the service of a lawyer if he desired? It seemed to him that the case was just one of those whore the recogniscd solicitor of the Society might have been advantageously retained.Mr. LLOYD proposed that the Society should act in conjunction with the Society of Medical Officers of Health in bringing the question before the Local Government Board, with a view to getting the objectionable clause altered. He protested against the ten- dency of magistrates to regard Somerset House as a court of appeal, and deplored the effect that Dr. Hill’s case would have on the future decisions of magistrates, who would take it as a precedent, making it difficult to close any well. It was well known that a polluted water might be drunk habitually with impunity by persons long accustomed t o it-probably having become so by degrees as its impurity increased-while a stranger coming into the district might experience very serious effects.He called attention to the terms of Dr. Bell’s report on the water-namely, that i t appeared to have filtered through a stratum charged with sewage or other decomposing animal matter’, whereby148 THE ANALYBT. it was rendered objectionable, though not absolutely dangerous to health. Some out- breaks of diphtheria have occurred in Halifax which are probably to be ascribed to the use of water from shallow wells contaminated with sewage. He concluded by empha- sizing the necessity of the case being taken up by the Society of Public Analysts. Dr. SEATON, speaking for the Council of the Society of Medical OfEicers of Health, agreed that the matter must be thoroughly looked into.A t Nottingham and Birming- ham many wells had been closed without trouble or dispute. Nuisances-e.g., those arising from the use of privy-middens-which are analogous to this, were satisfactorily dealt with at Nottingham, until the same point was raised, and with the same result- i.e., interruption of the work of alteration; but a t Bradford the Corporation came to the opposite conclusion on the same question. It was necessary, therefore, that a d&nite legal decision should be obtained. Prof. BISCHOF, though at first misunderstanding Dr. Hill’s position with regard to the use of the word ‘‘ dangerous ” instead of bb injurious,” on grasping his meaning, fully endorsed his views. He would suggest that an attempt should be made on the next occasion to induce the magistrate to accept the phrase, likely to be injurious to health,” as complying with the requirements of the Act.A well con- tained a large quantity of nitrates, and, as he could not swear that it was literally bb injurious to health,” the magistrates refused to close it. In consequence, the Local Government Board, who had instituted the case, announced it as their opinion that it should have been referred to a ‘‘ more capable man,” who would have been able to make a statement sufficiently posit,ive to cause the magistrates to close the well. Mr. Hehner and himself were engaged in a similar case some years ago in the Isle of Wight, when the magistrate, after hearing the case, said, ‘‘ Mow, sir, the case is dismissed, but if any one of your cus tomers is seized with cholera you will be held responsible,” and yet the magistrate did not feel justified in closing the well, He should like also to mention that some years ago he made a great number of analyses for Dr.Buchanan of waters purposely polluted. To one of these Dr. Cory had added a minute quantity of typhoid stool, and neither Dr. Frankland nor himself discovered the pollution, and this is what Dr. Buchanan wrote, chiefly in consequence of that analysis and of the outbreak which happened at Caterham, where a man suffering from typhoid fever had misconducted himself while down a well under repair :-“ The chemist can, in brief, tell us of impurity and hazard, but not of purity and safety.For information about these we must go, with the aid of what the chemist has been able to teach us, in search cif the surrounding water sources and affecting water services.”* Now it should be borne in mind that this was written, not in relation to a water obviously polluted, but mainly in regard to waters so slightly polluted that the chemist was unable to find it out. Dr. Buchanan is, therefore, strongly of opinion that whenever analysis shows sewage pollution the water might at any time become injurious to health. I n his (the speaker’s) reports, whenever he found evidence of sewage contamination he always emphasized the fact that the well being within the influence of sewage might at any time become injurious to health. So far as he knew there were no means a t present in the hands of the chemist to enable him to say that a water was polluted by any definite disease germs, and, therefore, whenever he could prove sewage pollution he should condemn the well, not because the water was necessarily injurious at that time, but because, in certain events, i.e., the occurrence of an infectious disease among the people contribating to the pollution of the well, it would become at once highly injurious.It should * Report of Medical Officer for 1881, p. 21. Mr. ADAMS related a similar case which had happened to himself. Dr. DUPR~ said this was not the first case of the kind.THE ANALYST. 149 also be borne in mind that an impure water might be drunk for years by people who have bsen accustomed to it, but strangers coming into the neighbourhood might suffer imme- diately.Mr. HEHNER urged the alteration of the word ‘I injurious ” to ‘‘ dangerous,” and moved areaolution to the effect that the change should be attempted to be made. Dr. HULSE asked Dr. Hill what was the attitude taken by the chemists who were on the side of the defence. Mr. CASSAL was of opinion that the phrase “ injurious to health ” was sufficiently elastic for the analyst to swear that such a water as that under discussion answered to that description. Mr. Fox bas said that no person habitually drinking diluted sewage is ever a picture of health. The question as to the ‘‘ injurious ” character of the water was eminently one for a medical man. What would hepay under the circumstances ? H e also asked Dr. Hill whether or no the water bediment was examined microscopically. Dr. HILL, in reply to Mr. Lloyd and Dr. Dupre, said that he also knew of a caw in which a stranger had suffered from drinking water innocuous to the inhabitants of R certain locality. He could not agree with Nr. Cassal as to the elasticity of the phrase “ injurious to health,” and thought that the position of a witness adopting that view would be untenable when exposed to cross-examination. He had not examined the deposit from the water, because it was only slightly turbid. With regard to what the President had said about the lead in Sheffield water, he did not think the cases were parallel. Lead is a tangible, easily detectable poison, but that present in impure water is not. He agreed that the nitrates should not be ignored; one could judge of a water, as of a man, by the company it kept. I n respect of the question why he had not obtained legal advice, he had suggested the desirability of having a solicitor or barrister to conduct the case to the Inspector of Nuisances, who, however, thought it unnecessary. The case was decided summarily, and the chance of appeal lost from want of legal advice. A t the conclusion of the discussion on Dr. Hill’s paper, Mr. Otto Hehner proposed, Dr. Bostock Hill seconded, and it was unanimously resolved, ‘‘ That a deputation from the Society of Medical Officers of Health and the Society of Public Analysts wait upon the President of the Local Government Board, and urge upon him the necessity of altering the wording of the 70th section, ‘ injurious to health ’ to ‘ dangerous to health.’ ”

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN888130141b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 149 FURTHER NOTE ON PEPPER ANALYSIS. BY CHARLES HEISCH, F.I.C. (Read at Meeting, June, 1888.) WHEN some time ago I laid before you the results of some analyses of pepper, I considered that the relative amounts of starch formed a fair basis for calculating the amount OF many adulterants. It has been objected that the boiling with acid, and subsequent determination of rotating power, gave uncertain results. After carefully repeating my experiments, I have come to the conclusion that if always boiled for the samw time, the results do not differ materially from the *ruth when we work on pure starch. Having repeated the pepper expsriments, not only by boiling, as before, for three hours, but continuing the boiling for four hours without materially affecting the results, I still hold that much may be learned in this way.As, however, poivrette and some other adulterants consist in great part of cellulose, I thought it possible that the amount of that body might be taken as an index of the amount of adulteration with such matters as poivrette. I therefore determined the amounts of cellulose in many of the150 THE ANA1,YST. - pppers before analysed, but I found such wide variations in the amount in undoubtedly piire peppers, that I could not draw any very reliable deductions from it. PERCENTAGE OF CELLULOSE IN ASH AND WATER FREE PEPPERS. 1. Ashen Penang, black . . .. .. .. . . 15.08 2. Trang, 9 , 0 ' * . .. .. . . 11-58 .. .. .. , . 14.61 .. .. . . . . 12.92 3. Singapore, 7, ' . 4. ,, another sample, ,, . . .. . . I .. , 14.33 5. Tellichery, 9 , " 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Penang, 9 , * ' Light Dusty Singapore, >, * . 7, 7, 9 , white . . Penang . . .. Singapore .. Finest 9 , 2 9 .. Superfine 9 , $ 9 . ' Long Pepper . . .. .. Another Sample . . .. .. Black Poivrette . . .. a . White . . . . .. .. 10 Black Poivrette 90, No. 3 . . 10 White Poivrette 90, No. 9 . . 9 , * ' 97 - 0 Y, * * Siam .. .. Fine White (as ground for market) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. * . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. * . .. .. .. 27.82 19-58 5.1 5 4.48 6-72 6.74 5.42 3.44 11.42 12.96 68.80 61.94 16.24 8-56 - In white peppers the maximum of cellulose seems to be between 6 and 7 per cent., so that more may be learned from these than from the black, where the differences are much greater. I a m still, therefore, inclined to look more to the starch, in conjunction with the microscopic examination as an indication of the amount of an organic adulterant.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8881300149

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

150 THE ANAT,YST. NOTES ON SENNA. BY CHARLES HEISCH, F.I.C. (Read at Meeting, June, 1888.) RAVING had some samples of powdered senna brought to me by one of my inspectors, I was somewhat puzzled what to do with them. Not only was it possible that other leaves might be'powdered with the senna, but that exhausted leaves might be also added. Nany varieties of cassia appear t o be sometimes found mixed with senna, and so long as you have the leaves you can mostly detect them, but when powdered you lose the characteristic appearances. The principal adulterants of which I can find any account are cynanchum argel and coriaira myrtifolia, the latter being zl poisonous plant used by dyers and tanners, sometimes called tanners' schumac. How argel is to be detected in powdered senna, I cannot at present say ; I have not yet got a specimen.Fortunately the worst adulterant-the coriaria, myrtifolia gives when infused precipitates with gelatine, bichloride of mercury, and antim. tart. which senna does not, and also a dark blue with salts of iron. The only bad case of adulteration which I have met with was with buchu leaves. These would have attracted the atten- tion of anyone on the look out, by their different shape and peculiar odour, but in the cwe referred to did not attract the attention of the purchaser, who made his senna tea, and suRered accordingly. Had the sample been in powder, the mistake would have beenTHE ANALYST. 151 almost unavoidable. As partially exhausted leaves would, of course, give less ash and oxtract than the senna unexhausted, I made some examinations of undoubtedly pure senna leaves, both Alexandrian and Tinnevelly, a d though the results show nothing very striking, I think they are of sufficient interest as a small contribution to our knowledge to be worth laying before you.On examining powdered senna under the microscope, one is struck by the fact that the white translucent hairs from the back of the leaf are quite unchanged by the powder- ing, so that if one is familiar with the appearance of undoubtedly genuine samples of powdered senna one can get an idea if any other samples contain about the right quantity of hair, which is some guide. I then took the ash in dried samples of the leaves ; the amount soluble in water and its alkalinity ; the amount sol. in HCl and the insoluble; and, finally, the amount of alcoholic extract calculated on the ash and water-free leaves.The results are contained in the accompanying table.* - NO - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 - Kind and Source, Tinnevelly, Brown and Smart . . Tinnevelly, Apothecaries’ Hall . . Powdered Alexandrian, Brown and Smart.. .. .. .. Alexandrian Apothecaries’ Hall . . Alexandrian, Allen and Hanbury Powder from Allen and Hanbury, believed to be mixed .. Powder No. 85, from Hampstead Same powdered . . .. a . Same powdered . . .. .. Ditto in powder . . .. Same powdered . . .. .. Ditto No. 88, ditto . . .. .. Buchu leaves . . .. Total. 11-48 11.22 11-34 11.39 11.69 11.64 11.35 12.36 12 54 13 98 19 01 12.89 6 06 Sol. i n Water 2.4 2.3 1 2.35 2.67 2.35 2.91 3.66 3 96 3.18 1.22 3.01 2 *48 2.73 Sol.in HCl. 8-86 8.77 8.72 8.3 1 7-86 8.36 7-98 9.02 9.12 11-91 12.86 9.05 3.25 Inso- luble. -2 -1 *2 -4 1-49 -37 -60 -38 -24 =85 3-14 1.36 0.07 Alkali nity as K2O 1-16 1-14 1-16 1.06 -8 4 1-06 2.0 6 1.54 1.76 1-69 1-22 1.25 1-47 Blcoholic Extract of Ash It Water- free. 30 29 9 30.19 31.78 33.3 29.04 30.13 35.5 35.41 27.75 29.55 30.00 17-49 It will be observed that the samples obtained from Messrs. Allen and Hanbury contain considerably more ash than the others, and with one exception yield more extract. I have added the results obtained from the two District samples of powder, which in point of extract closely resemble the majority, but one of them differs largely in ash. I have also added the results obtained from buchu leaves, which give about half, both ash and extract. * It will be observed that several are done in duplicate, one on the leaf whole and the other on the powdered leaf. I thought it just possible the results might differ, as in the powder the proportion of veins from the leaves might be differently distributed. When bought powdered, the samples mostly contained more ash. (Conclusion of the Xociety’s Proceedings.)

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8881300150

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

152 THE ANALYST. ~ ~~ PEPSIN. BY A. PERCY SMITH, F.I.C., F.C.S., RUGBY. THE method usually adopted for estimating the peptonising power of pepsina porci consists in dissolving 1 to 2 grains in 8 to 12 ounces of water, to which 40 t o 60 minims of hydrochloric acid has been added. 500 to 1000 grains of hard-boiled white of egg, granulated by rubbing through a wire sieve, is immersed in the liquid, and the whole kept a t 98O to 130° F. for four hours, when the undissolved albumen is filtered off through muslin, and, after partial drying, is weighed to ascertain the amount dissolved. The variable numbers above quoted embrace various formuh recommended by different experimenters. This method of analysis is excessively crude and untrustworthy. .When hard- boiled white of egg is kept in warm water it absorbs a considerable quantity of that memtruum, as much as several units per cent.; consequently, on weighing the residual albumen, you may find that the weight is greater, instead ol less than that with which you started, the gain in weight due to absorbed water more than counterbalancing the loss obtaining through solution, as has happened with indifferent samples of pepsin. Then who shall say when, by simple air drying, the albumen has regained its former con- dition ? The enormous quantity of albumen is foreign to the usual habits of the scientific analyst, and involves an enormous waste of time in manipulation. The first modification I adopted consisted in substituting for the large quantity of granulated albumen a single half of the white of an egg in one piece.I likewise arranged a check experiment in which the pepsin was omitted, other conditions remaining unaltered. At the end of four hours the residual pieces of albumen were placed on blotting-paper to remove superfluous moisture, and weighed. The g a b in weight of the albumen in the check experiment, due t o absorbed water, was calculated into percentage, and the same deducted from the weights of the other portions which had been subjected to the action of various pepsins. This, although an improvement upon the old method, proved likewise unreliable, because the water absorbed was not equal in each experiment. The albumen which was immersed in acidulated water only quickly dried, superficially, when placed on blotting- paper, whereas that which had been acted on by pepsin was rendered glutinous and incapable of being dried in this manner.I n fact one sample weighed considerably more that it did a t starting, even after deducting the allowance for water absorbed. I next tried much smaller pieces of albumen, about 1 c.c., in hope that complete solution might ensue, and a time value be obtained. I soon found, however, that the solubility does not depend upon the mass, but upon the surface exposed. Finally I discarded altogether the use of fresh white of egg, and had recourse to dry powdered albumen, prepared by drying in a steam oven and levigation in a mortar. With this I succeeded in getting accurate comparisons between the digestive powers of various pepsins. Albumen in this form dissolves with rapidity, owing to its state of fine division.Any remaining undissolved can be filtered off on a counterpoised filter paper, and heated in ti water oven until absolutely dry. It is, however, unnecessary to do this when two samples only are compared against each other, nor ia it essential to know the ttotual weight of albumen employed, provided it be the same in each experiment. One trial of this method was enough for me.THE ANALYST. 153 This is ensured by placing some on the naked pan of the balance (there is no objection t o so doing, as it is a dry gritty powder, and does not adhere to the metal),and counter- poising by a similar addition to the other pan. Let the albumen fall on the centre of the filtered liquid, avoiding, if possible, contact with the glass of the beaker. It soon sinks, and after the lapse of some time, a simple inspection will show which is dissolving with the greater rapidity.Agitation assists solution, therefore take the two beakers, one in each hand, and rotate the con- tents equally. When one sample has dissolved all the albumen it is manifestly superior t o the other which has failed to do so in the given time. If many samples have to be compared it will be necessary to start with known quantities of albumen, and weigh the undissolved residues in the manner above indicated. An objection may possibly be raised to this modified method, viz., that albumen as ingested is not in the form of a dry powder, and that me ought to copy as nearly as possible the conditions existing in the stomach. To this I would reply that it does not matter in the least, to us, as analysts, what are the conditions which obtain in the stomach; since there is no absolute test for pepsin, we can only compare one sample against another, and that which dissolves the most albumen in the short time is taken to be the best. Another imperfect method of analysis is that employed in the examination of malt extracts for diastase; in which a certain weight of extract ought to dissolve a certain weight of starch in ten minutes, when if it does so dissolve it, the extract is a good one, if not it is to be condemned. The more correct way is to ascertain the reducing power on Fehling’s solution, before and after digestion with an excess of starch, and I intend to say a few words upon this subject on a future occasion, when I have ascertained the maximum amount of diastase existing in the best samples of malt,

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8881300152

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 153 ON A NEW APPARATUS FOR FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION. * BY T. H. NORTON AND A. H. OTTEN. IN his ingenious apparatus for the technical transformation of ammonium sulphocyanide into calcium sulphocyanide (Wurtz, Dictimnaire de Chimie, Supplement,” p. 597), Dr. J. Tcherniac introduced an interesting feature, the so-called dherseur, designed primarily to prevent the frothing accompanying the rapid distillation of the ammoniacal liquor. This dGverseur consisted simply of a cylinder about two-thirds of the size of the retort containing the mixture of lime and solution of ammonium sulphocyanide, and was situated above this retort. The bottom of the cylinder was connected bya pipe with the bottom of the retort, while pipes from the upper portion connected with the top of the retort and with the condensing apparatus.The practical result of this arrangement was that the vapours from the retort entered the top of the cylinder by one opening, and left it by another opening for the condenser, while all liquid carried along mechanically, dropped to the bottom of the cylinder and returned to the retort. Distillation is carried on so easily and rapidly by means of this device that it seemed a matter of interest to experiment upon the adaptation of this principle of construction to the wants of the laboratory in the form of an apparatus for fractional distillation. * American Chemical J o u r ~ l .164 THE ANALYST. We are indebted to DP. Tchorniac for a glass model embodying the essential fca.tures of the apparatus just described, the details of which will be easily understood from the accompanying cut.The three bulbs, A , B, and C, are connected with each other by the curved tubes, E E E, the lowest connection entering the stem of the apparatus. Small tubes, D D D, 2 m.m. in diameter, likewise project from the bottom of each bulb. Their capillarity is increased by passing a platinum wire through the entire series. When the device is inserted into a distilling flask, it will be seen at once that the current of vapour takes a zig-zag course, passing through the tubes, E E E, and across the top of each bulb, while all condensed liquid returns directly by the route of the tubes D D D into the distilling flask, A fractional distillation performed by means of this apparatus would hence be conducted on principles directly contrary to those which underly the construction of our ordinary technical and laboratory stills, in which the central object is to bring the ascending current of vapour into as intimate contact as possible with the downward flow of liquid resulting from the condensation of less volatile constituents. In order to test the availability of the new design we brought it into direct corn- parison with two well known types of fractionating apparatus, viz., those of Hempel and of Linnemann, both based on the ordinary principle of a thorough washing of the vapour current by the products of partial condensation. The Linnemann apparatus used consisted of a tube, 1 em.in diameter, with three bulbs blown along a space of 16 em., and contained three cups of platinum gauze.The Hempel apparatus consisted of a similar tube, the cups being replaced by a, layer of glass beads, 7 c.m. deep. The new device contained three bulbs blown on a tube 1 c.m. in diameter, alongTirst 3ractionation. *Second Fractionation. A. 33. C. c* I A. B. 56 59" 31 40 33 5G-59" 46.6 53 47.5 59-68 46 38 39 59-62 28 24 5 23.5 62-65 14.5 13 5 16.5 62-65 8 9.5 11 65-67 8 8.5 11 65-67 14.5 11.5 1 6 5 --- --- 99.5 99 99.5 97 985 98.5 Third Fractionation. A. B. C. 56-59" 51 58.5 50.5 59-62 19.5 18'5 18 62-65 6.5 8 7.5 65-67 18 13 20 --- 95 98 96 Fourtlh Fractiomtion. A. B. C. 63-66" 70.5 64.5 71 66-69 16 21.5 14 69-72 3.5 6.5 5.5 72-75 2 1 2 75+ 3 0.5 3.5 -- -- -- 95 94 96 Fourt h Fractionation. A. B. C. 56-59O 57 61-5 55 59-62 11.5 13 13.5 62-65 6.5 7.5 6 65-67 18 1 4 5 21 --- 93 96.5 95-5 Third Frac!ionation A.B. C. 63-66' 60 56.5 61 66-69 24.5 30 21.5 69-72 6.5 6 8 72-75 2 I 2 75+ 3 0.5 4 5 --- 96 94 97 li'iftll Fractionation. A. B. C. 56-59' 58 63 55.5 59-62 9 5 12.5 12 62-65 5 5.5 4 5 65-67 20 14.5 24.5 --- 92.5 95.5 96.5 F@h Fractionation. A. B. C. 63-66' 74.5 65.5 75.5 66-69 13 2015 11 69-72 3.5 6 5 72-75 1 1 1 75 + 3 0.5 3.5 -- -- - 95 93.5 96 First flractionation. A. B. C. 63-66" 48 45.5 46.5 66-69 30.5 33 31.5 69-72 12.5 16.5 13 72-75 4 1.5 6.5 75+ 2.5 1 2 -- _- _- 97.5 97-5 ,99.5 Second Fractionation. A. B. C. 63-66" 57 50.5 52.5 66-69 26 30 27 69-72 6 12.5 11.5 72-75 3.5 1.5 4 75+ 3.6 0.5 3.5 96 95 98.5 - -- --156 THE ANALYST, THIRD SERIES. Mixture of 50 C.C. of ethyl alcohol, boiling point 78*3O, and 50 C.C.of water, boiling First Tractionation. A. B. C. 108-111* 40 42.5 43 111-114 20.5 19.5 1 5 5 114-117 6 9 9.5 117-120 2 4 5.5 120-123 2 5 4.5 123-126 5 4 4.5 126-129 22.5 14 16 --- 98 98 98.5 , point 100". First Paciionation. A. B. C. 79-82" 27 29.5 27 82-85 16.5 16.5 18 85-88 8 8.5 6.5 88-91 5 5 5 91-94 6 3.5 4 94-97 3-5 3.5 4-5 97-100 32 31.5 32 -- -_ 98 98 97 Second Fractiomtion. A. B. C . 105-11lo 49 42.5 47 111-114 8.5 11.6 10 114-117 4 7 6.5 117-120 3.5 5 4 120-123 3 4 3.5 123-126 3-5 4 3 126-129 26 23 23 97.5 97 97 --- Second Fractionation. A. €3. C. 79-820 33 42.5 39 82-85 13.3 7 8.5 85-88 4.5 4 5 88-91 4.5 2.5 3.5 91-94 1 1.5 8.5 94-97 1.5 1 1 *5 97-100 39.5 35 38 97.3 96.5 98 __ __ Fourth flractionat ion. A. B. C.79-82O 46.5 49 47 82-85 4 3 4 85-88 2 2 2.5 8s-91 0 0 0.5 91-94 0 0 0 94-97 0.5 1 0.5 97-100 42.5 41 42 -- -- L- 95.5 96 96.5 Third Fractionation. A. B. C. 79-82O 43.5 46 43 82-85 4.5 4.5 6 85-88 4 3 3 5 S8-91 0.5 1 2 91-94 0.5 0 0.5 24-97 0.5 1 0.5 97-100 41.5 41 41 -- -- -_ 95 96.5 9G.5 Fayth J'ra ct io n at ion. A. B. C. 79-82' 50 51 49 82-85 1.5 2 3.5 85-S8 0 0.5 0 88-91 0 0 0 91-94 0 0 0 94-97 2 2 1.5 97-100 43 40.5 42.5 -- - - 96.5 96 96.5 FOURTH SERIES. Mixture of 50 C.C. of toluene, boiling point 1 loo, and 50 C.C. of amyl alcohol, boiling Fourth Fractiojiation. A. B. C. 108-111° 52 48-5 53 111-114 4 5.5 3.5 114-117 2'5 7 3 117-120 2 1.5 3 120-123 1.5 3 3.5 123-126 1.5 3 1.5 126-129 33 29 2.75 --- 96.5 97-5 95 Third .Fractionation. A. B. C. 108-11lo 50 44 50 111-114 6 9.5 7 114-117 3.5 5.5 4 11'7-120 2.5 4 2 -5 120-123 2.5 4 2 123-126 1.5 3.5 4.5 126-129 31 27 26 --- 97 97.5 96 Fijth Fractionation.A. B. C. 108-111° 63 47.5 55 111-114 3.5 '7.5 3 114-117 3 3 2.5 117-120 0.5 4 1.5 120-123 0.5 1 1 123-126 2.5 2.5 1.5 126-129 34 31 31 --- 97 96.5 95.5THE ANALYST. 157 FIFTH SERIES. Mixture of 50 C.C. of benzene, boiling point 80*5", and 50 C.C. of toluene, boiling point (In this series the Linnemann tube (A) was provided with six platinum gauze l l O o , cups, instead of three, as in the preceding series.) First Fractionation. A. B. C. 81-84' 30 25 20 84-87 S 10.6 13 87-90 11 8 7 90-93 5 10.5 10 93-96 4 4 6.5 96-99 3 5 S-5 99-102 3 4 5 102-105 7.5 5.5 5 105-108 10 9 '7 105-111 13 14.5 14 - - - 94.5 96 96 Xecond Fractionation.A. B. C. 81-84' 32 37 28 84-87 10.5 7 6 5 87-90 5 6.5 G.5 90-93 5 4 6.5 93-96 3 1 6 96-99 2.5 3.5 5 99-102 2 4 4.3 102-105 4.5 5.5 6.5 105-108 6 (i 6 7 108-111 21 20 18 --- 91.6 95 94.5 .Fourth Practionation. A. B. C. 81-84O 41 41.5 34.5 84-87 4 4 5 87-90 4 3 4.5 90-93 3 4 4.5 93-96 2-5 2 2.5 96-99 0.5 2 3.5 99-102 1 1 2.5 102-105 2.5 2.5 3.5 105-108 3.5 4 4 108-111 29 26 27 Third Fractionation. A. B. C. 81-84O 38 39 32 84-87 3.5 6 5 87-90 5 4 6 90-93 4 3.5 5 5 93-9G 3 1.5 4-5 96-99 3 2 2 99-132 1 3 3 5 103-105 2 4.5 4.5 105-108 4.5 5.5 G 5 10s-111 27 23 24 -- -- 90 92 93.5 Fifth PracJionation. A. B. C. si-840 43 46.5 37 54-87 3 3.5 3.5 87-90 2 2.5 3.5 90-93 1 1 2.5 93-96 0 1 2.5 99-102 0 1.5 1.5 96-99 2.5 1 2 102-105 2.5 2.5 2.5 105-108 5.5 3.5 6 208-111 28 28.5 28.5 --- --- 91 90 91.5 I 8'7.5 89.5 8s-5 These experimental data are of interest as showing that no one form of apparatus is superior t o other forms for all cases.Thus in the series of distillations of mixtures of acetone and methyl alcohol, larger fractions of the latter constituent are separated by the use of the new apparatus than by the use of the other two forms. Hempel's apparatus yields a larger fraction at the boiling point of acetone in the above case than either of the other forms, while, on the contrary, in the case of wood spirit, its initial and terminal fractions are both inferior in amount to those of the other forms. Again, in the distillation of a mixture of alcohol and water there appears t o be but slight difference in the effects obtained by the three forms.In the case of a mixture of benzene and toluene, the two older structures permit the separation of decidedly larger benzene fractions, while the toluene fractions are about the same in all cases. When the toluene i s mixed with amyl alcohol, the new apparatus gives better results with the lower fraction than the other two forms, while it is behind them in the separation of the alcohol. As far as the power of rapid fractionation is concerned, the new form of apparatus, while giving results quite as satisfactory as those yielded by the two types hitherto regarded as the most efficient, certainly does not exceed them in the average thorough- ness of separation.153 THE ANALYST. With regard t o the simplicity of construction Hempel's apparatus still remains unsurpassed, while the lateral tubes of the new form render this type certainly more fragile than the original Linnemann apparatus, and place it rather in the category of such a device as that of Le Be1 and Henninger. Although the new type cannot claim advantages which should lead to its superseding the present forms of apparatus for fractional distillation, the experiments made with it show conclusively that the principle involved in its construction, of the rapid separation of vapour and condensed liquid, yields at least as satisfactory results in practice BY the totally opposite principle of a continuous washing of vspour in condensed liquid.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8881300153

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

153 THE ANALYST. MONTHLY RECORD OF GENERAL RESEARCHES I N ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF SAFFRON SUBSTITUTE OR POTASSIC DINITI~O-CRESYLATE. VAL. GERLACH.---ZeitSChr. f. mgew, Chemie. No. 10.-This body,* now so largely used for colouring mustard and farinaceous foods, is of a decidedly poisonous nature. The author experimented on rabbits, cats, and dogs. Of these experiments a few will no doubt be interesting to analysts. Experiment No. 4.-Rabbit weighing 1,750 grammes. *25 of the compound is administered. After 15 minutes, difficulty in breathing ; after 25 minutes, passes intensely yellow-coloured urine, and motions become very uncertain ; after 30 minutes, its head hangs down, and the extremities get stiff; after 33 minutes, 60 diffi- cult respirations per minute ; after one hour, death.Post-mortem-stomach very yellow, its mucous membrane peels off, brain hypersmic. Experiment No. 5.--Dog weighing 11,200 grammes : 2.8 grammes of the compound are administered in a piece of meat. After a few minutes vomiting sets in, but the animal again swallows it. Other- wise it is all right and plays about, 23 respirations per minute; after 40 minutes, the animal rejects all its food, is very restless, and has many liquid stools; 132 respirations per minute. Violent cramps all through the body, and it seems to suffer constant fright; after 50 minutes, strong attack of cramp in the extremities; it throws itself on its back, and bends its head. The tongue has lost its yellow colour, attack passes off after 10 minutes, and it lies still, but after another 7 minutes another.attack comes on, and the tongue protrudes; still conscious, and attack again passes off in 5 minutes; after 1 hour and 17 minutes, the dog suddenly jumps up and atares at a spot on the wall as if it had a vision. It now falls again suddenly on its back with legs doubled UP; after 1 hour and 39 minutes, the animal jumps up in a great fright, but 7 minutes later it is on the road to recovery. Experiment No. &-A kitten eats some of the intestines of the poisoned rabbit and suffers from similar symptoms as the dog. Death occurred after 10 hours. Post-mortem-stomach and intestines yellow, vessels strongly injected, brain hyperzemic. Experiment No. 1 1.-Action of small contiliued doses. A dog weighing 7,120 grammes is given -1 gramme of the compound dissolved in water but mixed with its ordinary food.Notwithstanding it had been without food for 24 hours it refused to touch the mixture even after 3 x 24 hours. A second dog proving equally obstinate, the first dog, now weighing only '7,100 grammes, receives daily *1 gramme of the compound wrapped up in a piece of meat, which it swallows, and then * For distinguishing between this body and Welter's bitter, see ANALYST, January, 1887.the usual amount of ordinary food is given. After 29 days, when it has become much thinner, the animal is suddenly seized with spasms, and similar symptoms as already described are noticed, and after 48 hours it dies. Post-mortem-weight of body, 5,950 grammes. The stomach contains besides undigested matter, a thickish blackish-brown mass chiefly consisting of blood, no doubt caused through an ulcerated state of the mucous membrane.Kidneys normal, brain hyperzmic. Fat nearly disappeared, muscles still fairly well developed. Surely the use of this colouring matter should not be allowed. L. DE K. MONTHLY RECORD OF ANALYTICAL RESEARCHES INTO FOOD. DETECTION OF SEED OILS IN OLIVE OIL. M. BRULLE. Comptes Rendus, April, 1888. -Place into a test tube 10 C.C. of the oil to be examined, and add -1 gram. of dried and powdered albumen, and 2 C.C. of nitric acid, Heat until the acid boils, and then incline the tube so that the ebullition shall cause the oil and the albumen to mix together. If the olive oil is pure it will become faint greenish-yellow, but if it contain a notable propor- tion of seed oil the colour will be deep orange-yellow.Even five per cent. of such oil will muse a distinct amber-yellow tint. This test is applicable to the admixture of cotton, ground nut, shame, colza, and in fact all oils derived from seeds, excepting only an oil known in French commerce as ccveline exotipue, which latter gives a rose tint with whitish spots. The test works with nitric acid only if the adulterating oil be coloured, but with colourless oils like ground nut, etc., the addition of the albumen is necessary, and it is in this that the novelty of the process consists. The limit of delicacy is 6 per cent. of adulteration. W. H. D. MONTHLY RECORD OF ANALYTICAL RESEARCHES INTO DRUGS. DETERMINATION OF MORPHINE IN OPIUM. A. KREMEL.Cherniker 2eitung.-Five grammes of the opium powder are macerated in a small flask, with 75 C.C. of lime water, for 12 hours, with frequent shaking ; this is then filtered through a plaited filter. (The ratio 1 part of opium to 15 parts officinal lime water has been arrived at by practice, and in this way there is obtained a nearly neutral or slightly acid filtrate. Should the liquid after the maceration react alkaline, then less lime water should be used.) To 60 C.C. of the filtrate, corresponding to 4 gramrnes of opium, which is brought into a weighed flask of such a size as t o be nearly filled by the ether and ammonia, there is added 15 C.C. of ether and 4 C.C. of liquor ammonia. The flask is then well corked and the contents mixed. The flask is then set aside for 6 to 8 hours, the temperature being kept at loo - 15Q.At the end of that time the ethereal layer is removed, 5 C.C. of fresh ether added, and the flask gently shaken ; the ether is again removed, and finally the crystals of morphine, which have separated out, are collected on a small plaited filter. The crystals which remain in the flask are washed with 5 C.C. of distilled water j this wash-water is brought on the filter, and finally the flask, the filter, and its contents are dried at looQ. The crystals on the filter are transferred to the flask, and this is then dried until a constant weight is obtained. The morphine thus obtained is perfectly pure, and dissolves completely, though slowly, in 100 parts of lime water. The mode of pro- cedure is the same for opium extract, 1 part of extract is treated with 20 parts of lime water. Opium tincture is first mixed with powdered glass which has been washed with hydrochloric acid, and the mixture evaporated to dryness on the water-bath; the residue is then treated with a quantity of lime water equal to the quantity of tincture wed in the experiment. W. H. D,

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8881300158

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

160 THE ANALSST. CORRESPONDENCE, [ T?@ Editor is not in any way responsible for oliinions exiiressed by his cowespo?&nts.] To the Editor of the ANALYST. SrR,--In answer to Profemor Asboth’s paper on ‘‘ The Estimation of Starch,” which appeared in this month’s ANALYST, in which he says he does not agree with me in saying that the composition of the compound formed by baryta on starch varies, I think if Professor Asboth follows directly his odn instruction of simply standardising his baryta, and not making sure that it is in excess, he will find that it varies considerably. In my paper ‘I recommended the baryta t o be used of the strength capable of saturating 90 c,c. N/lO HCI, which strength I found was in excess, and therefore always gave the required compound,- Edinburgh, July 26th, 1888 am, yours truly, 3. NAPIER SPHNCE,

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN888130160b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1888

数据来源: RSC