T H E JOURNAL OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Apr., 1921
’
total cellulose by Johnsen and Hovey’s method yields only 0.33 per cent less furfural than that by Renker’s process. The same table shows a variation of 0.33 per cent between the highest and lowest of four determinations of furfural yield on material prepared by Renker’s process. No significance can be attached, therefore, to a diminution of a few tenths of 1 per cent in furfural yield, and the results indicate that a t most only a trifling reduction in furfural yield is accomplished by the Johnsen and Hovey method. It is claimed for the Johnsen and Hovey method that it gives a residue corresponding closely to that obtained in manufacturing wood pulp, and that i t is therefore “very useful in the valuation of woods for the commercial paper pulp processes.” I do not dispute the possible value of this method as a technical method in pulp mill practice. The residue, however, does not conform to any recognized conception of cellulose and should not be SO designated. Johnsen does not claim that the residue by the Johnsen and Hovey process is “pure” in the same sense that he regards. the Renker residue as “impure.” He claims that the former is purer, but the most favorable data show that a t best it can be regarded as only slightly purer. Furthermore, the reduced yields of total and a-cellulose by the process show that true cellulose is partly destroyed. (This statement rests upon the experimental data which Johnsen has quoted. It has been questioned by him but not disproved.) It is my contention, therefore, that however useful the Johnsen and Hovey method may be for judging the paper-making qualities of woods, it is unsuitable for scientific investigations on the chemical nature of woods or other cellulosic materials. Johnsen has taken exception to my statement that “cotton sheeting which had been repeatedly laundered” might be considered “a residue of highly resistant cellulose mostly of the normal type.” The fact that the residue on chlorination yielded 95 per cent of a-cellulose shows both a high degree of resistance and a high proportion of a- or normal cellulose. No claim has been made that i t was in any sense a chemically pure cellulose, and it was not necessary that i t should be such for the purpose in mind, namely, to determine whether cellulose from an unlignified source showed the same behavior as wood cellulose. The data show that this cellulose, as well as wood cellulose, gives less total and less a-cellulose when treated by the Johnsen and Hovey method. The reduced yields of a-cellulose indicate that the normal cellulose is attacked by this process. Experiments with highly purified cellulose are undoubtedly capable of contributing greatly to our knowledge of fundamental cellulose chemistry. It is unfortunate that the valuable data to which Johnsen has referred have not been published in detail, and it is to be hoped that they soon will be made completely available. WALTERH. DORE UNIVERSXTY
CALIFORNIA EXPERIM~NT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA January 31, 1921
OF
Phthalic Anhydride Derivatives Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.
I noted with interest the list of phthalic anhydride derivatives appearing in THISJOURNAL,I3 (1921), 274. I was surprised to note that some of the commercially most important derivatives have been omitted. I am listing below certain of these products and the literature references for the same, and suggest that these be added to the list already published. Naphthoyl benzoic acid Naphthanthraquinone Schultz’ “Dyestuff Tables,’’ 260. Also, under the dyestuffs should be added the product known and sold as Sirius Yellow G, which is produced from the above-mentioned intermediates, and is an important dyestuff in the lake pigment industry.
363
Anthraquinone a-Benzoylbenzoic acid
z. angew. Chem., 19 (19061,669;Bey., 41 (1908),3631 Quinizarin (1,4-Dihydroxy-anthraquinone) Ber., 6 (1873),508; U. S. Patent 708,142. This product is used in the production of two very important dyestuffs, namely, Alizarin and Cyanine Green, and Alizarin Direct Violet, also known as Alizarin Irisol 2-Methylauthraquinone Ber., 41 (1908j,3632. This very important intermediate is used in the manufacture of three well-known vat dyes, namely, Anthrdflavone G, Cibanone Orange R, and Cyananthrol R and G. This last-named intermediate is used in the production of other intermediates, from which are produced other vat dyes such as, for example, Indanthrene Gold Orange G Hydron Yellow D. R. P. 1,055,287 A very good reference on all the above-mentioned products may be found in “The Manufacture of Intermediate Products for Dyes,” by J. C. Cain, 2nd Ed., Macmillan & Co., 1919. You may see from the above list, which is by no means complete, that there are some very important products among them, from the standpoint that they are the starting points for the manufacture of dyestuffs, a great proportion of which have not as yet been produced in this country. ARTHUR LINZ THE CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC. 81 FULTOM ST., NEW YORK,N. Y. March 5, 19?1
A Memorial of Sir William Ramsay It has just been learned that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey have decided to place a bronze medallion in the Abbey as a memorial of Sir William Ramsay. The news of this tribute to the genius of the brilliant English chemist will be received with the deepest and most sympathetic interest among his many American friends, who regarded him so highly as a scientist and loved him so truly as a man.
Federal Trade Commission Rulings The Federal Trade Commission has denied the application of the Meadows Oil and Chemical Corporation for license under the Trading-with-the-Enemy Act to use trade-marks covering ichthyol. A former application made in November 1920 was denied, but the company applied for a re-hearing, which took place on January 25. The Commission says “it is not to the public interest to grant the desired license.” Last December the War Trade Board called the company’s attention to the fact that a bulletin issued by the company regarding importations of ichthyol had been so worded as to mislead a number of firms into thinking it an official statement of the War Trade Board. The Meadows Company has issued a statement explaining that this impression was not intentionally created. According to a statement bv the Board. “Information received Iby the War Trade Board would tend to show that American ammonium-ichthyol-sulfonate and other substitutes for German ichthyol-satisfactory physically, chemically, and therapeutically-are obtainable from domestic sources on reasonable terms as to price, quality, and delivery. It is understood, of course, that the American product is not derived from the bituminous shale found in Seefeld, Tyrol, but is derived from a somewhat similar fossiliferous rock found in Texas. Any statements which we may make regarding the issuance of licenses to import German ichthyol are subject to revision upon the receipt of new information which may tend to prove that the American product is or is not a satisfactory substitute in all respects for the German ichthyol.” The Commission has cited the Winthrop Chemical Company? Inc., New York City, in complaint of unfair competition in the drug trade. The company is charged with falsely advertising that genuine veronal is sold exclusively by that company. Prior to the war veronal was sold in the United States under a German patent, and during the war three American manufacturers, not including the Winthrop Chemical Co., were licensed by the Federal Trade Commission to make and sell veronal. Subsequently the Winthrop Company bought from the Alien Property Custodian the German trade-mark with the right to make and sell veronal. April 12, 1921, or shortly thereafter has been set for the hearing of the complaint.
‘
