July, 1925
I S D C S T R I d L S S D E-VGISEERISG CHEJfISTRY
Synthetic Methanol Is Poisonous Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I have performed a number of experiments upon animals with the German (synthetic) methanol which you sent me. The results were the same (qualitatively and quantitatively) as those obtained with pure methyl alcohol obtained from wood distillates. The synthetic methanol showed the same characteristic differences from ethyl alcohol: when the two alcohols were given in equal doses the animals receiving a single (large) dose of ethyl alcohol were more profoundly affected-showing a greater degree of incoordination and a greater depth of narcosis-than did those that had received the methanol. When, however, these doses were repeated a few times a t 24-hour intervals the differences between the action of the two alcohols became very striking: the animals receiving the ethyl alcohol became less powerfully affected (tolerance) whereas those receiving the methanol became more deeply poisoned with each dose (cumulative action). Thus after the third or fourth administration of a comparatively large dose of methanol the animals passed into a state of coma, in which they died, whereas similar doses of ethyl alcohol had a progressively less effect and could apparently be continued indefinitely without obvious harm. -4lthough the lower animals can tolerate somewhat larger single doses of methyl than of ethyl alcohol, it is known that this is not true of man: the more highly developed nervous system of man is more seriously affected by methyl alcohol than is that of the lower animals and permanent blindness has often been reported from single, sometimes small, doses of methyl alcohol, whereas such results are unknown in the case of ethyl alcohol. I did not perform experiments to determine the effect of the synthetic methanol upon the eyes of the lower animals. Such experiments seemed unnecessary, for it was shown years ago that it is the methyl alcohol in wood alcohol which causes the injuries to the eye, and since synthetic methanol is simply methyl alcohol and has the characteristic physiological action of the hitter, there is no reason to suppose that it would spare the eye. It can confidently be predicted that the use of the synthetic methanol as a beverage or as an adulterant will be followed by the same disastrous effects to life and vision as have characterized such uses of wood alcohol. Those who are circulating the report that the synthetic methanol is not poisonous are not only stating an untruth but are assuming a grave responsibility, for death or blindness will inevitably be the fate of a number of those who may be misled by such statements and attempt t o use synthetic methanol as a beverage. R E r D HVNT HaRVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL BOSTON, Mass. June 8 , 1925
Synthetic Methanol and the Wood Distillers Editor of Indi~strialand Engineering Chemisiry: Most of the criticism which has been brought against the hardwood distillation industry in recent discussions of the German synthetic methanol invasion is based on wrong premises. The American hardwood distillers, it is argued, should have been carrying on research on the synthesis of methanol and beaten the Germans in the race. If that is the case, they should also have been conducting research on synthetic acetic acid and on fermentation processes for producing acetone, and perhaps even on synthetic guaiacol, creosol, methylethyl ketone, and higher ketones-all these being wood distillation products which may be synthesized. That would be rather a large order for one small industry t o undertake.
763
The absurdity of such criticism is further shown when we consider for a moment that the wood distillation industry has never been and never can be manufacturers of synthetic chemicals. They are, primarily, distillers of wood, with large investments in timber lands and wood distillation apparatus; and even if they had researched and discovered methods for making one or more of their products synthetically, they would have been where they seem to be now-with large investments in timber and apparatus on their hands, practically worthless. To be sure, they might have held the patents for the synthetic processes without using them, but such suppression is costly, since continued research is necessary under these conditions to keep the outsider from developing another and possibly a better process. It is unreasonable to expect the wood distiller t o undertake expensive investigations on the synthesis of his products. It might with just as much logic be demanded that the dairy farmer finance research on artificial butter, or that the sugar planter finance Balg’s work on photosynthesis of carbohydrates. Because the hardwood distilling industry ought not t o be taken t o task for neglecting research on synthetics is, however, no reason why it may not properly be criticized for neglect of research on its own processes for the purpose of making them more efficient against competition from synthetics Many opportunities for such studies have presented themselves in the past, and just now there is news of a process for recovering acetic acid direct from crude pyroligneous acid (instead of the former roundabout method through acetate of lime), which, if it turns out a success, may reprieve or save the industry. This is the kind of research that the wood distillers should have been financing for a long time-research on the process and its by-products, not research on the synthesis of its finished products. Perhaps American chemistry in general ought to be criticized for not beating the Germans to synthetic methanol, but critics should not place the entire onus on the wood distillation industry. L. F. HAWLEY FORESTPRODUCTS LABORATORY MADISON, WIS. May 29, 1925
Coke Yields b y Low- and HighTemperature Carbonization Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I n an article by Morrell and Egloff, THISJOURNAL, 17, 473 (1925), a comparison (Table 11) is made of the yield from one ton of average coal by various carbonization processes. Some of the figures quoted for carbonization in coke ovens are utterly ridiculous to anyone who is a t all acquainted with American practice. The table is copied from an article by a British writer and can refer only t o the results obtained in the antiquated British by-product coke oven industry. hloreover, the figures are doubtless based on British units of measurement-viz., the long ton and the Imperial gallon. Yet these figures are quoted by Morrell and Egloff in such a way that an ordinary reader would take them tu be based on American units and applicable t o American practice. I n America the amount of coal which is being carbonized in byproduct coke ovens per year is more than 66,000,000 tons. This is more than three times the amount annually carbonized in England. There is not a single modern by-product coke plant in America which is making gas as low as 450 B. t. u. per cubic foot. The usual heating value is about 550 B. t. u. per cubic foot, and many plants are regularly producing gas of still higher heating value. The fact that the American gas industry is rapidly adopting the by-product coke oven instead of the retort as the standard type of carbonization apparatus should be very convincing in disproving the absurd assertion that coke-oven gas is of “poor quality.”
