84 REPORT OF SCHIMMEL & Co. APRIL 1914. 
H. Helch') has now tried to discover whether it would not be possible to trace 
the addition of turpentine oil by estimating the bromine value. He estimated this 
value by the method worked out by Mossler’). The results obtained were not very 
satisfactory, because pure conifer-needle oils are found in commerce with bromine 
values corresponding to those of certain turpentine oils. The values ascertained by 
the author included the following: oil of Pinws Pumilio from 212 to 243, a sample of pine- 
needle oil 255, three samples of Siberian pine-needle oil from 110 to 122, turpentine 
oils from 227 to 268*). In the fraction with b. p. below 105°, which contains the pinene, 
the bromine value was invariably higher, and in that with b.p. above 105° it was 
invariably lower, than in the original sample. From these results, Helch has acquired 
the conviction that for the oils of the conifers the estimation of the bromine value is 
but a very imperfect addition to the existing methods of testing and that, taken by 
itself, it affords no criterion to the purity of such oils. 
We further find in Helch’s lecture the statement that in the case of pure oils of 
conifer there was but little difference between the optical rotation of the original sample 
and that of the fraction with b.p. below 165°. All the samples of oil of Pinus Pumilio 
examined by him contained fractions boiling below 165°, but as a rule such fractions 
did not exceed 10 p.c. by volume of the sample. 
We have recently received a claim relating to oil of Pinws Pumilo which appears 
to us to be rather comical, inasmuch as it showed that the person who bought the article 
had no idea what the smell of a really pure oil distilled from Pinus Pumilio was like. 
The details of the incident are as follows: We had supplied oil of Pinus Pumilio to 
a pharmacist, who in turn had sold it to a hospital. By the last-named the oil was 
rejected, on the ground that owing to its bad smell it was quite unfit for clinical 
purposes, and it was suggested that there had been some mistake. As a matter of 
fact there was no fault to find with the smell of the oil, which had the typical 
aroma of a good oil distilled in Tyrol, and we therefore procured from our pharmacist- 
client a sample of the pine-oil which had been previously used and approved by the 
Doctor in charge of the clinic. We examined the sample, and found that this oil 
(which, by the way, had been supplied by a Hamburg firm), was adulterated, and that 
consequently, its aroma differed from that of pure oil of Pinus Pumilio. Its characters 
were as follows: dis0 0,8868, #) — 12°24’, acid v. 0,9, ester v. 35,3 = 12,4 p.c. esters 
(as bornyl acetate), soluble in 7 vols. a.m. of 90p.c. alcohol with opalescence. That 
the oil was adulterated is clear from the mere fact that both the sp. gr. and the 
ester-content are much too high. Apparently it had been doctored with Siberian 
pine-needle oil; at any rate such an addition would make a mixture with the con- 
stants enumerated above. 
The case quoted shows clearly the conditions which prevail in the pine-needle 
oil trade, and indicate how imperfectly the consumer is sometimes able to judge the 
quality of these oils. It is to be regretted when this ignorance goes as far as it did 
in the present case. To be sure, one cannot reproach a person because he does not 
like the aroma of oil of Pinus Pumilio, for that is a matter of taste, and there may 
be many who for certain purposes would give the preference to oil from the cones 
1) On the Examination of Pine Needle Oils. A lecture given before the 8 Section (Pharmacy, Pharma- 
cognosy and Pharm. Chemistry) of the 85th Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians at Vienna. From 
a reprint from the Pharm. Post. 1918, kindly sent to us. Also comp. Chem. Ztg. 87 (1913), 1176. — Apotheker Ztg. 
28 (1913), 806. — Zeitschr. f. angew. Chem. 26, I (1913), 579. — *) Comp. Report October 1907, 116. — 
3) Wolff found for pure oil of turpentine 215 to 230, Vaubel 220 to 240. Comp. Report October 1918, 101. 
