122 



A product, originally derived from a Leipzig firm, and submitted for our 

 opinion by a third party, was examined with the results set forth below. 

 For purposes of comparison we add the properties of a preparation 

 prepared by ourselves and actually containing 80 p. c. of linalyl acetate : 



Sample under 

 exam. 



80 p. c. linalyl acetate 

 Schimmel $ Co. 



diso 



«D 



n D20O 



Esters (calc. on the basis of linalyl 



acetate) about 



Soluble in 



0,9207 

 -f- 0°38' 



1,46360 



81 p. c. 



6 vols. a. m. 

 70 p. c. ale. 



Fractional Saponification 1 ) 



Ester v. after 2 hours' sap. with 40 cc. 



seminormal potash liquor .... 

 Ester v. after 1 hour's sap. with 20 cc. 



seminormal potash liquor +25cc. 



alcohol 



Difference 



242,5 



206,5 



36,0 



0,90 to 0,91 



According to the rot. 



of linalool used, 

 to the right or left. 



1,451 to 1,454 



about 80 p. c. 



3 to 5 vols. a. m. 

 70 p. c. alcohol. 



Under fract. saponific. dif- 

 ferences ranging from 0,7 to 

 5,8 were observed. 



The above table clearly shows the great difference between the two 

 products. The sp. gr. and the co-efficient of refraction of the sample were 

 too high, its solubility was somewhat less and the difference in fractional 

 saponification was much too great. The last-named value pointed to a 

 high terpinyl acetate content, a suspicion which was confirmed by the 

 odour of the sample. The behaviour on boiling afforded another proof of 

 its abnormal character. For whereas linalyl acetate boils between 79 and 

 81° at 4 to 5 mm. press., only 6,9 p. c. of the sample in question passed 

 over at that temperature, 5,4 p. c. passing over between 81 and 89°, and 

 71,8 p. c. between 89 and 98°. Closer examination of the separate fractions 

 showed that the preparation contained only very little linalyl acetate and 

 that it consisted chiefly of terpinyl and geranyl acetate. The non- 

 esterified portions consisted in part of hydrocarbons. 



After this result it was obviously impossible to pronounce a favourable 

 opinion. The manufacturer, we were informed, had given an assurance 

 that there was no question of any adulteration, and we must therefore 

 describe the preparation as a complete failure from the point of view of 



*) Comp. Report October 1911, 116. 



