SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. Analyses of English Public Water Supplies in July, 1881. All results are expressed in GRAINS PER GALLON. SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. Analyses of English Public Water Supplies in July, 1881. All results are expressed in GRAINS PER GALLON. Abbreviations:-o., clear; f., faint; h., heavy; p., pale; v. h., very heavy; v. s., very slight. ERRATA.-In the June Table the Nitrogen in Nitrates in the Reading Water should have been 088 instead of 88, and in the Wolverhampton Water it should have been '073 instead of 051. NOTE UPON DETERMINATION OF NITROGEN AS NITRATES, &c. BY SIDNEY HARVEY, F.C.S. Read before the Society of Public Analysts, on 27th June, 1881. The figures appended to my successive reports upon the Canterbury water are bona fide, suspiciously close as they may appear. They have been determined with exceeding care, and illustrate, I think, the constancy and value of the aluminium process, which I have used for years and in which I have great confidence. 70 c.c. of water (or 7 c.c. diluted to 70 if nitrates are excessive in amount) are mixed with 20 c.c. of 10 per cent. caustic soda (free from N.) boiled to expel any free NH,, cooled and aluminium in thin sheet introduced and left to stand overnight. Distilled next day and distillate (200 c.c.) nesslerized as usual (an aliquot portion of course). The flask in which the reduction takes place is closed with a cork pierced with a short length of thermometer tube, and is set in a place free from ammonia fumes and kept for that purpose. WATER ANALYSIS.-If any of the Analysts engaged have used all the forms for the monthly reports and will send a line to the Secretaries, further copies will be sent to them. INSTRUCTIONS FOR WATER ANALYSIS.-On page 135 we print a further part of these At the Belfast Police Court, Michael Marley and Francis M'Atamney were summoned at the instance of Wm. J. Anderson, sub-sanitary officer, for selling sweetmilk which was adulterated by water. Mr. James M Lean, jun., prosecuted in this and the remaining cases. Mr. Harper appeared for the defendant. Mr. M'Lean said that this was about one of the worst cases of adulteration of sweetmilk that ever came before the Court since the Sale of Food and Drugs Act had come into force. The report of Dr. Hodges, the Borough Analyst, showed that in every 100 parts of milk there were 36 parts of water added as an adulterant. The second defendant was a servant of the first, and was selling the milk for him. He (Mr. M'Lean) thought that it was a case in which the full penalty of the statute should be inflicted. Mr. Anderson, having deposed to buying the milk and giving it to the analyst, said that the defendant Marley had been fined 40s. on a previous occasion for a similar offence. Captain Plunkett said that the public were defrauded by buying what they thought was a certain quantity of milk, and getting instead a quantity of milk and water. It appeared to him that a case of this sort should be in the other court, and not in the one it was. The defendant should be in the dock, as the offence was just the same as robbing a man in a clandestine manner. It was just the same with weights. The unfortunate public paid for one pound weight, and got a few ounces light, and the greater portion of them had no means of discovering it. The defendant Marley would have to pay a fine of £10 and costs, which was not a large sum, as it was only a matter of a few days' profit. The other case was dismissed. John Grant was summoned for a similar offence. Mr. M'Erlean defended. The analyst's certificate showed that a similar quantity of water had been added as an adulterant. As it was the defendant's first offence, he was only fined 40s. and costs. James Huddleston was also summoned by the same complainant for selling a quantity of butter. milk which contained 35 parts added water. A fine of 20s. and costs was inflicted. Question raised as to whether analysis personally made by Public Analyst himself : At the Aston Police Court, William Lewis, jun., wholesale milk dealer, Fordrough, Potter's Hill, Aston, was summoned for selling milk adulterated with water. According to the certificate of Dr. Bostock Hill, the County Analyst, the milk which was purchased by Mr. Bolt, the Inspector of Nuisances, was adulterated with 27 per cent. of added water. Dr. Hill, who was present, was put in the witness-box, and in reply to the cross-examination of Mr. Vachell, who defended, said he did not and could not do all the manual work connected with the analysis of every sample of milk. But he always superintended them, and was invariably in the laboratory when they were being made by his assistants. Mr. Vachell said although he did not wish for a moment to impeach the accuracy of the analysis, he still submitted that the conditions of the act had not all been complied with. The 12th and 13th sections provided that the analysis must actually be made by the analyst himself. It was not sufficient for him to have it made by others, however skilled they might be. The Bench said they were quite satisfied Dr. Hill had complied with all the requirements of the Act. He told them that he employed competent assistants, and they (the Bench) thought it would be unreasonable that he should be required to actually perform every detail himself—it would be utterly impossible. The defendant would be fined 40s. and costs. Mr. Vachell asked for a case. He said the point was of some importance to milk sellers in general. The Bench granted a case. At the Town Hall, Leeds, lately, Mr. Bruce gave judgment in a case which was before him on the 15th March, and in which Jabez Smith Blanchard, provision dealer, Kirkdale, was summoned for selling as butter an article known as butterine. Mr. Beverley, barrister, who appeared for the defendant (having been instructed since the case was last before the Court), contended that as the defendant had affixed to the article which he sold a label intimating that it was butterine, he had complied with the Act as much as if he had labelled it as a "mixture." The Town Clerk (Mr. G. Morrison), who prosecuted on behalf of the Corporation, objected to Mr. Beverley addressing the Court after the case had been heard. Mr. Bruce in giving judgment, said this was an information against the defendant for selling, to the prejudice of the purchaser, an article of food which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. In this case the article demanded by the purchaser was 1lb. of shilling butter. The article sold was 1lb. of something which, on analysis, turned out to be: Moisture 9.37, curd 3·06, salt 3.55, and fat 84-02. Of the fat at least 90 per cent. was foreign fat-not butter at all. If any real butter entered into the composition of the mixture it must have been infinitesimal in quantity. The defendant did not, in fact, pretend that the mixture thus sold was butter, but he sought to protect himself from the operation of the statute by the fact, which was admitted by the prosecution, that the shopman by whom the sale was effected handed the mixture to the purchaser, who could not read, in a paper upon which were endorsed in legible printed characters the words, "Extra superfine butterine," and by the alleged fact, which, however, was disputed by the prosecution, and as to which he (Mr. Bruce) found for the prosecution, that on the purchaser asking for shilling butter, the seller said, "Do you want the shilling butterine?" He (Mr. Bruce) had reserved his judgment in order that he might consider whether the defendant was protected by 38 and 39 Vict., chap. 63. He was of opinion that the mere words Extra superfine butterine on the paper did not amount to a notice to the effect that the same was mixed, but as the defendant had merely substituted the word "butterine " for "butter," it would not necessarily convey to the mind of the purchaser the fact that the article was a mixture of butter and something else, or a mixture in which the something else was everything and the butter nothing. There was nothing on the label necessarily to convey to the mind of the purchaser the idea that he was buying anything but pure butter with a finer name. The Town Clerk said he understood that the defendant had filed a petition. The defendant was fined £5 including costs. Adulterated Cayenne Pepper: 66 At the Sheffield Town Hall, a grocer was charged with selling cayenne pepper which was certified by Mr. A. H. Allen to contain 6 per cent. of red lead. The defendant pleaded ignorance of the fact, and said he had had the pepper in stock for upwards of ten years. He was fined 5s. and costs At the Birkenhead Borough Police Court, lately, before Mr. Samuell, the adjourned summons against James Stewart, of 3, Claughton Road, milk seller, for selling skimmed milk, came on for hearing. Mr. Waln prosecuted on behalf of the local authorities, and Mr. Spence appeared for the defendant. At the previous hearing, Mr. Smith, inspector of milk, had proved the purchase of a pint of milk on the 27th May, and had put in a certificate from Dr. Vacher, the Borough Analyst, stating that the milk had been deprived of 15 per cent. of its cream. Mr. Moore, who appeared for the defence on the previous occasion, had produced a certificate from Dr. Campbell Brown, Public Analyst for Lancashire and Liverpool, relative to the quality of the milk, but this had been ruled to be inadmissible, unless Dr. Brown was present. Dr. Campbell Brown was now in court. Mr. Spence urged a number of minute technical objections, all of which were overruled, except one as to the inadequacy of the certificate. With regard to this the magistrate expressed his opinion that the certificate was all that the act required; but, as it might be desirable to have more information as to the constituents of the milk, he was willing to adjourn the case in order that it might be more fully set out. Dr. Vacher said he had his laboratory book in court, and was quite prepared to give any particulars. Having been sworn, he stated in answer to Mr. Spence that in analysing the milk he first weighed out 10 cubic centimetres of milk, which weighed 10-829 grammes. In ascertaining the proportion of solids, instead of totting up to 100, he totted up to 102.9, a very usual mode, and then the constituents came out:-Water, 90-21; Fat, 1.70; Solids, not fats, 10.99; total, 102.90. The ash was 0.70. The result of the analysis was to show that 15 per cent. of fat had been abstracted from the milk. The standard amount of fat that he required was 2.00 but the sample showed but 1.7. He had analysed milk in which the fats were as high as 6.08, but if the sample had come up to 2:00 he should not have certified against it. Mr. Spencer asked Dr. Vacher what was his experience as an analyst, and if he had not been unsuccessful in three or four examinations; but Mr. Samuell said he could not go into that, and it was not a proper question to ask. He was satisfied that the Corporation of Birkenhead had appointed a fit and proper person to be the Analyst of the Borough, and he was not the person to examine Dr. Vacher as to his qualifications. He might as well ask Mr. Spence if he knew more law than Mr. Waln, or vice versa. Dr. Vacher said it was not the fact. He was never plucked at any examination. Dr. Campbell Brown, was then called and stated that on the 4th of June he received a bottle of milk from Mr. J. Stewart, who was accompanied by another farmer. The bottle was sealed with a red seal marked " C.I.N. Borough of Birkenhead." The seal was intact and had not been tampered with. He produced the bottle. When he received it the seal was in better condition than that of the third, and as yet untouched, sample produced by the Inspector. Mr. Samuell said it appeared a very insecure method of sealing the articles. He could draw the cork of the third sample without injuring the seal. Dr. Vacher, who was examining the empty bottle produced by Dr. Brown, said it appeared to have previously contained sweet oil, which would add to the quantity of fatty ingredients in the milk. Chief Inspector Smith said the bottle was clean when he filled it. He believed it previously contained spirits. Dr. Brown said it was butter and not oil that was in the bottle. He analysed the milk. He found lumps of butter floating about in it, caused by the churning it had received in its journey, sufficient to show that it must originally have been a rich milk. Having taken out the lumps of butter he ascertained the quantity of fat in them, and found it of itself to be more than Dr. Vacher had extracted from the whole of the milk. Then he analysed the milk that remained and found an additional quantity of fat which had not been converted into butter, and that, added to the butter found floating, made a total of 2.83 per cent. of fat, a standard somewhat above the average of good Cheshire milk. He did not at all find fault with Dr. Vacher's standard, it was rather lower than his own; therefore it was merely a question whether Dr. Vacher got the whole of the fat out of his sample of milk. There was internal evidence quite sufficient to show that Dr. Vacher failed to get the whole of the fat out. The proof of that was that he found 10-99 solids not fat. That was almost the total solids found in ordinary pure milk as it came from the cow with the fat still in it. Whenever he got a result like that from an analysis he knew that he had failed to get the whole of the fat from the preparation, and he did the analysis again. It was an exceedingly rare thing to get anything like 10·9 solids not fat; 9.2 or 9.3 were much more common. Deducting 9.3 from 10.9 left a difference of 1.6, and this was probably the quantity of fat that Dr. Vacher failed to extract. Mr. Samuell: Then your contention is this: that a portion of the solids which Dr. Vacher classed as solids not fats ought to have been a portion of fat? Dr. Campbell Brown said there was no doubt about it in his mind, from Dr. Vacher's own analysis, and that allowance would make it correspond with his, or, in fact, show the milk to be somewhat richer. That would be accounted for by the fact that when he analysed the milk it was a fortnight old, and the solids, not fats, had decreased by decomposition. Dr. Vacher said he could not think with Dr. Brown that the solids not fats never reached beyond the point of 9.2 or 9.3. Dr. Brown said it was extremely rare for them to be beyond 9.5. The standard adopted by the Society of Public Analysts was 90. Dr. Vacher quoted a work by Dr. Wanklyn, but Dr. Brown said Wanklyn was not worth anything for judicial purposes, because he put forward a number of analyses of milks at much higher standard than were commonly met with. If Dr. Vacher would become a member of the Society of Public Analysts, he would be aware that the matter had been very fully discussed by them, and that they had fixed on a standard of 2.20 for fats, and 9.00 for solids not fats. Dr. Vacher, by working up his standard, would in two cases out of ten prosecute for the addition of water where no water had been added. He (Dr. Brown) had done over 9,000 milk analyses |