Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Notices of judgment under the insecticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Insecticide and Fungicide Board
United States -- Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration
United States -- Food and Drug Administration
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Administration
United States -- War Food Administration. -- Office of Distribution
United States -- Office of Marketing and Services
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Production and Marketing Administration
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Insecticides -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with no. 73.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
-2041/2066 (Jan. 1951).
Numbering Peculiarities:
Some nos. issued together.
Issuing Body:
Issued by: no. 73-1100, U.S. Insecticide and Fungicide Board; no. 1101/1125-1166/1175, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration; 1176/1190-1731/1745, Food and Drug Administration; 1746/1762-1790/1800, Agricultural Marketing Service; 1801/1811-1812/1825, Agricultural Marketing Administration; 1826/1840-1885, Food Distribution Administration; 1886/1895-1896/1910, War Food Administration, Office of Distribution; 1911/1925, War Food Administration, Office of Marketing Services; 1926/1949-2041/2066, Production and Marketing Administration.
General Note:
Description based on: 1101/1125 (Dec. 1928); title from caption.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004700296
oclc - 13957905
lccn - sn 86034178
Classification:
ddc - 632.951 U61
System ID:
AA00008549:00030

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text
7 71-

NrJ^ Ib 1656-1665


**.~


-H.
*A~ ~ j
by i
-Np~~i~in ii
* fil i *vI ii
~ Yr!w X3i)
J}i~,t.%n *'j
.24.
fit 4'
ill's
I
:..~:.


-l" :=.. .


Issued


-

:1.~:1
Ii
*
ibJ~
* '"A
*1


United
I..t' ;
! >
',t : ... .


States


Depart lnt


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
.'


JUDGMENT


.THE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


.1.-


S- 1656-1665
.* th ":* ...
.. ** :
A*
.. Itppryed by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., April 22, 1939]
~~* Ution and mzabranding of Murphy's Dri-Disinfectant. U. S. v.
.;: ". Murphy Produets Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50. (L & P. No.
..;.. .S... .5. simple No. 20058--C.)
S..... contained less sodium phosphate and a larger proportion of inert
.: JatI~zmn. declared on the label. The labeling also bore false and mise-
I f _lrc~esentations regarding its alleged -sterilizing, disinfectant, and
,, roperties.
H..::..., June 4, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-
:: ::: ~:g upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
: 3a- j.tormnnation against the Murphy Products Co., a corporation, Burling-
W I., alleg'ing shipment by said company on or about December 28, 1936,
.tbo State of Wisconsin into the State of Iowa of a quantity of Murphy's
., ...f.afeetnt, which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the
***.o the Insecticide Act of 1910.
S. ewas alleged to be adulterated in that the following statements,
.. v i",,,:i. Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite _... over 2.5%. Alkalmine
.- 6 ate_ oe 9.0%. Inert Ingredients: Sodium Ohloride, Etc.
... under 5.0%," borne on the package labels, represented that the standard
" .*. Ii Of the article were such that it contained not less than 90 percent
... .u hosphate .and not more than 5 percent of inert ingredients and that
.::: lorite itn sodium phosphate were sterilizing ingredients; whereas
,nd purityiy fell below tte professed standard and quality under
::. .w s61d since it contained Iess than 90 percent of sodium phosphate
.... ..n. ients in excess of 5 present, and the sodium hypochlorite and
:. te present were not stbrllinig agents.
:. .... ..... was alleged in that the following statements borne on the peck-
y. e Steriung Ingredie tts: .Sodium Hypochlorite over 2.5%
:.. .Ph h.kover 90.' Inert Ingredients: Sodium Chloride,
" .. % "Contains 1'. no injurious substances," "Disin-
."',*" : .". ^ .* Milking Machine Parts': When through milking and before
:" ."' apd ties from macite, suck through cold wtr ,then hot
.:. .ed]hof water. Follow 18 by sucking.through M hy's Dri-Dis-


INSECTICIDE





416


TISECTICIDE
-~~~x x i xpi~ xA


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


thrive in filth, dust and dirt. Clean up, swep up, scrub up, and disinfect. Spray
walls, ceilings, dropping board, etc., often. This will help to keep the house in
a good sanitary condition. Use it, too, to clean out waterers, mash hoppers,
and other vessels. It will help keep them sweet and clean. Use one heaping
tablespoonful to 4 gallons of water," "Murphy's Dri-Disinfectant elim-
inates foul odors," and "Disinfectant Use it around drains,"
were false and misleading, and h: reasqp of the said statements the article
was labeled so as to deceive and inilead the purchaser in that they represented
that it contained not less than 90 percent of sodium phosphate and inert ingredi-
ents in a proportion of not more than 5 percent that sodium hypochlorite and
sodium phosphate were sterilizing ingredients that the article was nonpoisonous;
that it was an effective disinfectant in theillutions specified; that it would
eliminate foul odors and would disinfect drains; whereas it contained less than
90 peteeit of sodium iphihte and inert 4nztedlehts in excess of 5 percent;
sodium hypochlbrite and sodium phosphate were not sterilizing ingredients; the
article was not non-poisonous; it was not an effective disinfectant in the dilu-
tions specified; and it would not eliminate foul odors and would not disinfect
drains.
The information also charged interstate shipment of various drug preparations
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 30201
published under that act.
On January 9 1939, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant and the ourt imposed a fine of $25 on each count, the fines on the
counts charging violation of the Insecticide Act amounting to $50.


HARRY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1657. Adulteration and misbranding of dry powdered arsenate of lead. U. S. v.
Sherwin-Willsams Co., Ine. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 on each of two
counts. Fine suspended on second count. (I. & F. No. 2023. Sample Nos.
837509-C, 37526-C.)


This product contained a smaller proportion of lead
portions of water-soluble arsenic oxide and water-sol
declared on the label. It would have been injurious to
used according to directions.
On November 16, 1937, the United States attorney
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricu


arsenate and larger pro-
uble arsenic than those
certain vegetation when
for the District of New
Iture, filed in the district


court an information against Sherwin-Williaans Co.. Inc., Bound Brook, N. J.,
alleging shipment by said cottmpany on or about May 19, 1937, from the State of
New-Jersey into the State of New York, of a quantity of dry powdered arsenate:
of lead that was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and qUiality under which it was sold, since it was
represented to contain not less than 98 percent of lead arsenate, and not more
than 1 percent of water-soluble arsenic oxide and not more than 0.65 percent of
water-soluble arsenic, expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic; whereas it
contained less than 9& percent of lead arsenate and water-soluble arsenic oxide
and water-soluble arsenic, expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic in propor-
tions greater than so. represented. It was alleged to be adulterated further in
that it was intended for use on vegetation aun4 contained a substancern
stances injurious to vegetation when used thereon as directed on the abe.
Misbranding was alleged i" that the statements, "Arsenate of Lead, *
98.0%'" "Total Water Solublq Arsenic Oxide not more than 1.0% which is equiva-
lent tp fA ct. Arsenic1" and "When used on tender foliage, like peach and
Japanese phim Mwe froni t 1 pound of Dry Arsenate of Lead combined with
es t.. C -, j .f c t ... .S T tt.. ft -? __ -- 9 t -- -__ -i- ^ S





16056-1665]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT
K Th


417


On December 1, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
and the court imposed a fine of $100 on each of the two counts
payment of the fine on the second count.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


-1053. MHisranding of B. & B. 5 X Insecticide. U. S.
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.
No. 17086-D.)
The label of this product bore false and misleading
its 'effectiveness in the control of bedbugs, moths, and


represented
On Janua
acting upon
an inform'
shipment or
:of Virginia


Within the me
Misbrandini
Bed Bugs, Moli
the drum labe
the article wa
iepresented ti
.be included u
human beings
*bugs, moths,
'ete.," and it
-: ,On January
mmnd the court
H x


it was not poisonous to human beings


ry 10, 1939, the United States attorney for


a report by th


i against B.
* about Apri
a quantity
ning of the
was alleged
is, Etc." and
were false
labeled so
it it would e
ider the abl


e Secretary of Agri
& B. Exterminato
l 2, 1938, from the
of B. & B. 5 X I
Insecticide Act of 1'
in that the statemi
"Not )poisonous to h


and misleading,


and


culture,
rs. Inc.,
State of


usec
910.
cents
unia
by


:icide


the defendant,
and suspended


Agriculture.


v. B. & B. ExterminatorS,
(I. & F. No. 2072. Sample


representative
other insect
or animals.
the District
filed in the
Baltimore,
Maryland i


which


s regarding
and falsely


of Maryland,
district court
Md., alleging
nto the State
s misbranded


. "For The Extermination of
n beings or animals," borne on
reason of the said statements,


as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they


xter
rev


or animals; whe
and all insects
was poisonous to
26, 1939, a plea


minate bedbugs
nation "etc.," a
reas it would n
that might be
human beings
of guilty was e


, moths, an]
nd that it
ot be effect
included u
and animals
entered on b


imposed a fine of $100 and casts.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Seer


I all insects that might
was not poisonous to
ve to exterminate bed-
nder the abbreviation
.
ehalf of the defendant

etary of Agriculture.


'St. Adullteration and misbranding of Bleach-Ox Snow White Javelle Water.
U. S. v. Albert Amiueel and John Amileuei (Wonder Chemical Co.).
Tried to the court. Judgment of guilty. Fines, $5. (I. & F. No. 2067.
Sample Nos. 9788-D, 29818-D.)


".* phis product contained a smaller proportion of
larger proportion of inert ingredients than declared.


and misleading r
On September
Pennsylvania, act
zdftrict court an
partners, trading


epr
28,
[ing
in
as


esentations regarding it
1938, the United States
; upon a report by the
formation against Albe
the Wonder Chemical


leodorizing
attorney for
:-retary of
Amicucci
.. Philadel


active ingredient and a
Labeling also bore false
Properties.
'the Eastern District of
Agriculture, filed in the
and John Amicucci, co-
phia, Pa., alleging ship-


ment.by said defendants on or about April 15 and May 25, 1938, from the State
of Peansylvania into the State of New Jersey of quantities of the above-named
product, which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning
.of .the ..Insecticide Act of 1910.


Alteration was alleged in that the strength an
bic.W the professed standard and quality under
e l.aeled "Active ingredient-Sodium HypochloI
Zt-L-r96%. Total 100% *"; whereas it coi
A an .active ingredient in a proportion of less than
eiits in a proportion of more than 90 percent.
2,.. Misbranding was alleged in that the statement,
,;pochlorite 4% Inert Ingredients 96% Total 100
S.:spread its odor,. purifies the air," born
and misleading and by reason of the said statement
.s to.deceive and mislead the nurchaser. since it con


id purity of the article fell
rhich it was sold, since it
rite_ 4%. Inert Ingredi-
ntained sodium hypochlorite
4 percent and inert ingredi-

"Active Ingredient-Sodium


% *
ne on the
t the arti
itanined a


* Eveyvhere it
label, were false
cle was labeled so
small" nronortion


I
I


I






418

other shipment entaihedt
certain barrels and failed
ingredients.
-On or about July 26 am
Northern District of Califh


USECTIC1I3 &UkTt:


let mediumm *bI'Jde
6bera on! any of the

1 August 10, 19 thh
rnia, acting uponw rep


thao declared on the
barrels a statement of


[N. J..1.1.

Label o
the inert


United States attorney for the
rts by the Secretary of Agricul-


ture ted in the district court Jibels prgng seizure andi condemnation of 84
barrels of sodium fluoride atSan randio, n.if. alleging that the article had
been shipped in interstate commerce by the Sterling Products Co. from Easton,
Pa., )n part on or about Febritry 0 and k part pn or about June 17, 1938; and
cliarging adulteration and misbrandig nviolatiofno the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be atIfterated i that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold in that the
labeling on certain barrels bore the statements, "Active uing. 95-97%.
Sodium fluoride inert 3-5%," and the lates on other barrels bore the state-
ment "Sodium fluoride 95 percent"; whereas the former lot contained sodium
fluoride in a proportion less than 95 to 9 percent and an inert ingredient in a
proportion more than 3 to 5 percent, and the latter lot contained sodium fluoride
in a proportion less than 95 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Active ing.
95-97%. Sodium fluoride inert 3-5%," with respect to a portion of the article,
and "Sodium fluoride 95%" with respect to another portion, were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of the said statement it was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since the product in the former lot contained lea
sodium fluoride and more of the inert ingredient than declared, and that in the
latter lot contained less sodium fluoride than declared. One lot was alleged to
be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely,
substances other than sodium fluoride which substances do not prevent, destroy,
repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage amount of each such
inert substance or ingredient were not stated plainly and correctly on the label;
nor in lieu thereof were the name and the percentage amount of each substance
or Ingredient of the article having insectilidal properties and the total percent
of the inert ingredients stated plainly kadprrectly on the label.
On September 7, 1938, Braun-Knecht-Hfleimann Co. having appeared as claim-
ant, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product, with the excep-
tion of any barrels found to conforn with Ae law and not requiring relabeling,
was ordered released under bond on condition that it be relabeled.
BABBY e. BBRWN, Acting Secretary of Agrficulture.
1661. Miabranifag of Egyptian DeodoriserjInecnse Candles. U. S. v. 104 Cartonu
of Egyptian Deodorizer Incense Candles. Default decree of condemnua-
tion and destruction. (I. & P. 2071 Sample No. 32475-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-
garding its effectiveness as a deodorant and to control insects. It also failed to
indicate the presence of the inert ingredients contained in the article.
On August 30, 1938, the United States attorney for the Northern District it
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court a libel praying sire i irid condemnation of 104 cartons of the abofe-
described product at Chicao, L; alleging that the article had been shipped bi
interstate commerce on or about July 21, 1938, by the Cando Corporation frmi
Cambridge, Mass.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Inseetiiddet--
of 1910.
The erle was alleged to be misbranded i that it consisted partially of inert
Ssubs c ingredients namely, substuqts other than essential oils, and the
name and ne#cdtare amount mf each such i rt substance were not stated nlainlv


Vi/" :*****!** **


w


C




-
* 1656-1665]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


419


-4eceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the article
'would purify air, would destroy odors, ani.iwould keep closets fresh and sweet,
and when used as directed, would be effective in dispersing all insects in cottage,
-camp, and home; whereas the article would not be effective for such purposes.
On October 18, 1938, no claimant having ,appeared, judgment of condemnation
Swas entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HAinY L. Bnoww, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
. 1@2. Misbranding of Puro Perfumed Paradlchlorobenzene. U. S. v. 11 Dozen
Packages of Puro Perfumed Pamadichlorobenzene. Default decree of
- condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2066. Sample No. 17913-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-


ing its effectiveness as a control foi
- On August 17, 1938, the United
frnia, acting upon a report by the
'court a libel praying seizure and
ubove-named product at San Franci
1" interstate commerce on or about
-. -- -


Smoths.
attorney for
Secretary of
condemnation
sco, Calif.; a
June 8, 1938,


, Mb. ; and charging misbranding in violation
e article was alleged to be misbran n


the Northern District of Cali-
Agriculture, filed in the district
i of 11 dozen packages of the
alleging that it had been shipped
by the Puro Co., Inc., from St.
n of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
that the statements. "Puro Per-


fimed Paradichlorobenzene Kills Moths Used as Directed Puro Perfumed Para
is powerful and effective in killing moths and larvae. Use Puro Cakes at the
flte of one to every twenty cubic feet of tightly enclosed space," borne on the
label were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that
the article, when used as directed, would be effective against moths; whereas
'ttitld not be effective against moths when used as directed.
SiOn January 14, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
*asf entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HAanY L. BgOWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
l,: Misbranding of Standard Compound. UI. S v. 21 Cans and 11 Cans of Stand-
'. ard Compound. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. &
,'" F. No. 2069. Sample No. 23098-D.)
r Sihe labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
iSug its effectiveness as a bactericide and failed to declare its inert ingredients.
On or about September 8, 1938, the United States attorney for the District of
..kntana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
: district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of twenty-one 10-pound
S1d eleven 5-pound cans of Standard Compound at Kalispell, Mont.; alleging
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the. period from
ta. about August 29, 1937, to on or about May 13, 1938, by the Standard
-etnieail Co. from Aberdeen, Wash.; and charging misbranding in violation of
:- e Insecticide Act of 1910.
^ 'Ifr article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted of inert sub-
sapes (substances other than sodium hydroxide) which do not prevent, de-
iW repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount
-C h such inert substance were not stated plainly and correctly on the label;
lit In lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each substance or
tbndi ent of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the total
S* ; en tAge'of filthe inert substances present therein stated plainly and correctly
|.:.i' the label. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement, "A
.. id entlfc Compound for Removing Slime, Spore, Yeast Growth and Al Foreign
-_ aQ Prom Beer Colls," borne on the can label, was false and disleAding and
, Wte sesbsn of the said statement, the article was labeled so as 'to deceive and
.. tE. ad the mnrehamer in that it renrenmnted that the article would kill lnotprial





420


JNSECTIOIDE ACT


1664. Misbranding of Kovam Disinfectant-Germnicide. U. S. v, 4 nDrumas of
Kovam Disinfectant-Germicide. Default decree of condemnation and
destruction. (I. & F. So: 2089. Si No. Who 4-0D64.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its phenol coefficient and its effectiveness as a disinfectant, and it failed to
bear a plain and correct statement of the inert ingredients present.
On November 15, 1938, the TUnited States attorney for the Northern District
of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fited 'i.
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of four o55-gallon rums of
Kovam Disifetant-Germici t Dalla Tx.; alleging that the article had
been shipped in interstate commew on o about February 17 1938 by the Kovam
Co. from New York, N. Y.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Tseehti-
cide Act of 1910. ^ ,
The article was alleged ta be misbranded in that the statements "Inert Mate-
rial 84%," "Kovam has a Phenol Co-efficient of 6 (E-Typhi) and 1.7 to 2 Staph.
Aureus F. D. A. method," and "Disinfectant Germicide Powerful
* for Hospital Institutional and Industrial Use Directions: Mix four
fluid ounces of Kovam to each gallon of water. For use in Hospitals, Sani-


tariums, Hotels, Municipal Br
Buildings, Factories, Homes, G
and Club Rooms, Railroad St*
Institutions," were false and x
it was labeled so as to deceive
that it contained not more th


ildings, Court
government Bui
nations, and all
misleading and
and mislead th
an 84 percent


Houses, Penal Institutions, Office
ildings, Schools and Colleges, Halls
other Business, Private or Public


by reason of the
e purchaser since
of inert material


sa1d st ai lmen nfst,
they represent ted
that itbtayan


E. [Eberthella] typhi F. D. A. coefficient of not less than 6 and a Stap.
[Staphylococcus] aureus F. D. A. coefficient of not less than 1.7 and that it was
an effective and powerful disinfectant in the dilution specified; whereas it con-
tained more than 84 percent of inert material, it had an E. typhi F. D. A.
coefficient of less than 6, and a Steph. aureus F. D. A. coefficient of less than
1.7, and it was not an effective and powerful disinfectant in the diluton -spe-
fled. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partialy of
inert substances, namely, water and glycerin, which substances do not prevent,
destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria) and did not have the name and
percentage amount of each of such inert ingredients stated correctly on the
label; nor in lieu thereof did the label bear a statement of the name and er-
centage amount of each ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properes
and the total percentage of the inert ingredients so present thereint
On January 9, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BRown, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1605. Misbranding of Sanifume Crystals. U. S. v. Royal Manufacturing Co. of
Duqasuene., Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (1. & F. No. 2065. Sample No.
21602-D.)
*^^^-'~~~~~ .....**^^ .....'- f *t JBU^JTcrJHi-^^"J f
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representaious regard-
ti i l Sf S


nlg As5 A ec1tiness U the MoLU Ur olUmULs.
On October 10, 1988, the United States attorney for the Northern Distriet of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Royal M acaturing Co. of Duquesue, a cor-
poration trading at Chicago, IlL, alleging sMhpment by said company on or about
March 18, 1938, from the State of Illinois into the State of Indiana of a quantity
of Sanifume Crystals which were a misbranded insecticide within the meaning
of th- I eticide Act of 1910. i|
i 156t g was alleged in that the statements, "In the new type of vacuum
lomnti it mnirvA hInuwn nut in the form t nowdilAr whirh nonstrntan inn n wv-


*


I




































INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1656-1665


Arsenate of lead: N. J. No.
(Sherwin-Williams Co., Inc.... 1657
B. & B. 5X Insecticide:
B. & B. Exterminators, Ine--J 1658
Bleach-Ox Snow White Javelle Water:
Amicueci, Albert ............ 1659
Amicucci, John ..- ----....... 1659
Wonder Chemical Co--....... 1659
Egyptian Deodorizer Incense Candles:
Cando Corporation 1661
Kovam Disinfectant-Germicide:
Kovam Co- -.. .. .--- ---- 1664


Murphy's Dri-Disinfectant: N
Murphy Products Co-----...
Puro Perfumed Paradichlorobenzene:
Puro Co., Inc.--............- -
Sanifume Crystals:
Royal Manufacturing Co. of Du-


quesene--- --..... --........--
Sodium fluoride:
Sterling Products Co-_
Standard Compound:
Standard Chemical Co._


- -

- --- -

--- -


- -

- -

- -


.J. No.
1656

1662

1665

1660

1663





~K~7


. ::"l:i"3t. .
. *.
.. .....
S" 1


UNIVERSITY OF FL

f 1 JINIlill1111111 11111111111H 111|11
3 1262 08582 4968