82 MINERAL WATEKS OF THE UNITED STATES. 



per million, while the Bureau of Chemistry results show 12.6 parts. 

 However, with the amount present as found by the Bureau of Chem- 

 istry, the water may be considered fairly rich in this element, as it 

 amounts to 1.05 per cent of the total salts present. 



CROCKETT ARSENIC LITHIA WATER (No. ]119 I. & W. ). 



On the whole, the advertised analysis of this water agrees very well 

 with that found by the Bureau of Chemistry, differing no more than 

 would perhaps be expected of samples taken at different times. How- 

 ever, it is a misnomer to term such a water as this a lithia water. 



PLUTO CONCENTRATED WATER (No. 1126 I. & W.). 



The advertised and Bureau of Chemistry analyses of this water 

 differ quite materially from one another. This is, however, to be 

 expected in the case of so concentrated a sample. The following state- 

 ment was received from the owner: t4 We are having the water reana- 

 lyzed to ascertain what change, if any, has taken place." 



RED HAVEN APERIENT WATER (No. 1121 I. & W.). 



The Bureau of Chemistry was unable to obtain the advertised analy- 

 sis of this water. 



AUGUSTA WHITE LITHIA WATER (No. 1122 I. & W.). 



While there is some little variation between the advertised and 

 Bureau of Chemistry analyses, it is no more than would be expected 

 from two samples taken at different times. However, it is a misnomer 

 to call such a water as this a lithia water. 



BEAR LITHIA WATER (No. 1123 I. & W.). 



The same may be said of this water as was said in the paragraph 

 preceding in regard to Augusta White Lithia Water. 



SHEBOYGAN WATER (No. 12201. & W.). 



The authors were unable to obtain the advertised mineral analysis 

 of this water. The sanitary analysis made at the Bureau of Chemis- 

 try, while not necessarily meaning that the water is contaminated in 

 any way, does not show the water in quite so favorable a light as does 

 the advertised analysis. The following letter was received from the 

 owner in regard to this matter: 



Referring to your analysis of Sheboygan mineral water, we herewith beg to sub- 

 mit reports on bacteriological and chemical analysis of the same water, one made by 



Professor on October 25, 1902, and two reports by Doctor , made a short 



time ago. The report of Doctor , marked No. 3, was of water taken from our 



stock bottled six weeks ago. Doctor 's report, No. 4, was bottled on the 20th 



instant, 



