60 GIBBS. 
C. Neuberg”~” obtained formaldehyde and acetaldehyde by the action of 
sunlight on aqueous solutions of methyl and ethyl alcohols in the presence 
of oxygen and uranium salts, while in the absence of uranium salts no 
action was observed. The methods he employed for testing for formal- 
dehyde are not stated. 
Brochet * found that under the influence of sunlight the reaction between 
chlorine and methyl alcohol proceeded with explosive violence. When 
restrained by diluting with water, formaldehyde was formed. 
With bromine he observed no reaction in the sunlight at ordinary 
temperatures, at 100° a slight reaction, and at from 130° to 150° an 
energetic one with the production of some formaldehyde. 
Oechsner De Coninck” found that methyl and ethyl alcohols are decom- 
posed by ferric chloride in presence of light, with the formation of 
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde respectively. 
Benrath™ studied the oxidation of methyl alcohol in the presence of 
sunlight and ferric chloride. A solution of 25 grams of sublimed ferric 
chloride in 90 grams of water-free methyl alcohol was decolorized after 
fourteen days’ exposure to the sunlight. The products formed were methyl 
chloride, chlormethyl alcohol, hydrochloric acid, and ferrous chloride with 
4 molecules of methyl alcohol in combination. When methyl alcohol in 
aqueous solution was employed, the hydrate FeCl.<-4H.0 was formed. 
Formaldehyde is regarded as an intermediate product, and first formed as 
a result of the oxidation. 
Ciamician and Silber“ have found isobutyleneglycol, ethyleneglycol, 
isopropyl alcohol, and formaldehyde to be the products of the action 
between methyl alcohol and acetone exposed to sunlight for over one year. 
Beilstein* states that pure ethyl alcohol is unchanged in the air and 
that methyl alcohol is in general less oxidizable than ethyl alcohol.” 
Richardson and Fortey™ exposed pure methyl, ethyl, propyl, and amyl 
alcohols to the action of sunlight, in the presence of an excess of water and 
of oxygen, for a period varying from a few days to six months and tested 
for the presence of hydrogen peroxide by means of the titanic acid reaction. 
Methyl alcohol showed no hydrogen peroxide and remained neutral to 
litmus. Ethyl alcohol ‘seemed to show the presence of a trace of hydrogen 
peroxide at the end of a few weeks,” but after prolonged exposure was free 
from it and was neutral to litmus. N-propyl, iso-propyl, and iso-butyl 
alcohols gave negative results in every case while amyl alcohol showed 
large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and valerianic acid. 
In view of the following experimental work it is not unreasonable to 
expect that hydrogen peroxide would not be detected even though it were 
the principal oxidizing agent. 
* Biochem. Zeit. (1908), 13, 305. 
“Compt. rend. Acad. sci. (1895), 121, 130. 
*~ Compt. rend. Acad. sci. (1900), 131, 275. 
* Journ. f. prakt. Chem. (1905), II, 72, 220; and Ann. d. Chem. (Liebig) 
(1911), 382, 222. 
“ Ber. d. deutschen chem. Ges. (1911), 44, 1280. 
* Handbuch Org. Chem. (1893), 1, 228. 
* Tbid., Ergn. (1907), 1, 71; Lobry de Brun, Ber. d. deutschen chem. 
Ges. (1893), 26, 272. 
“ Journ. Chem. Soc. London (1896), 69, 1351. 
¥ 
