Apr. 15. 1915 Disinfection of Hides 91 



of the Bureau of Chemistry, has been kind enough to furnish the following 

 memorandum in regard to the tanning of small pieces of normal hide 

 treated by the Seymour- Jones and Schattenfroh processes of disinfection. 



No marked differences in color were noted among the various pieces of tanned 

 leather. Slight differences, due to difference in thickness, were noted in pliability, 

 but these did not appear to be connected with the disinfecting treatment. No marked 

 difference could be detected in the appearance of the grain of the leather. All the 

 pieces cracked when severely bent, owing probably to excessive tannin in the grain 

 of the leathers. The treated leathers did not display more pronounced cracking than 

 those which were not treated. Microscopical examination of the hide fibers after 

 deliming and of the leather fibers after tanning shows no marked differences among 

 the several pieces of hide. 



The results in general seem to indicate that the several treatments have not injiu-ed 

 the hides. The evidence, however, is not sufficient to permit of definite conclusions 

 being drawn at this time. More extended work in commercial tannery, using w^hole 

 hides, has been planned to determine definitely whether any of the disinfectants 

 result in the production of inferior leather. Since tanning is a slow process, it will 

 require from nine months to a year to secure these data. 



Mr. Veitch also states that all the leathers gave reactions for chlorids, 

 but that the leathers treated with disinfectants apparently contained larger 

 amounts of chlorids than the other leathers. 



It seems, then, so far as the evidence at hand permits any conclusion at 

 all, that neither the Seymour-Jones method nor the Schattenfroh method 

 exerts any injurious effect upon hides or leather. 



LITERATURE CITED 



(i) Anthrax Investigation Board for Bradford [England] and District. 

 [1908.] Third Annual Report. [igoyJ/oS, 15 p. 



(2) Eurich, F. W. 



1912. The prevention of " woolsorters' disease" (anthraxj. In Jour. Roy. 



Sanit. Inst. [London], v. 2,Z< ^O- iOj P- 507~5I4- 



(3) GegenbauER, Viktor, and Reichel, Heinrich. 



1913. Die Desinfektion milzbrandiger Haute und Felle in Salzsaure-Koch- 



salzgemischen. /w Arch. Hyg., Bd. 78, Heft 1/3, p. 1-128. Literatur, 

 p. 123-126. 



(4) Hilgermann, R., and Marmann, J. 



1913. Untersuchungen iiber die durch Gerbereicn vcrursachten Milzbrand- 

 gefahren und ihre Bekampfung . . . /« Arch. Hyg., Bd. 79, Heft 4/5, 

 p. 168-258. Literatur verzeichnis, p. 256-258. 



(5) Hill, H. W. 



1898. A method of preparing test objects for disinfection experiments. In 

 Pub. Health Papers and Rpts. Amer. Pub. Health Assoc, v. 24, p. 

 246-249, I pi. 



(6) Kronig, B., and Paul, Th. 



1897. Die chemischen Grundlagen der Lehre von der Giftwirkung und Desin- 

 fection. In Ztschr. Hyg. u. Infektionskrank., Bd. 25, Heft i, p. 

 1-112, 2 fig., pi. I. 



(7) MoeglE, Erich. 



1912. Zur Desinfektion milzbrandsporenhaltige.- Haute und Felle. In Centbl. 

 Bakt. [etc.], Abt. i, Orig., Bd. 66, Heft 5/6, p. 442-462. Literatur, 

 p. 462. 



