Document ppQjrY1Boj4VX5GEDjzR14mow

FILE NAME: Johnson & Johnson (JAJ) DATE: 1973 Apr 19 DOC#: JAJ066 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Dispersion-Staining Examination of Retained Samples of Johnson's Baby Powder cc : Mr. W. H. Ashton to Mr. R. S. Russell Or. R. A. Fuller Dr. E. R. L. GaughrBP Dr. A. J. Goudie Dr. G. Hildick-Smith Dr. W. Nashed Dr. T. H. Shelley Dr. D Dr. S u b je ct: DISPERSION-STAINING EXAMINATION OF RETAINED SAMPLES OF JOHNSON'S* BABIY POWDER - PROJECT NO. 503 R. Petterson H . Goodman New Brunsw ick, N.J. April 19, 1973 Dr. F R. Rulle Twenty-five samples of J0K^QN'S* gaby Powder representijng retained samples from both ESDP and Chicago facilities were examined, myjrgsficr o a liy by the ftr the presence of traiwD^ite. Four of these samples* are suspected of containing tremolite based on the Einding of one or two "fibers" per sample which sati 3fy the color/morphology criteria. , This determination of the presence of tremolite is subject to the limitations describ id in my letter to you dated January 19, 1973 and in letter from W. C. McCrone to A. J. Goudie dated Januh;ry 30, 1973. Many of the samples contain calciti which under the conditions of the study gives dispersion colors identical to tremolite. The morphology of a suspect particle was therefore the final factor influencing its identifica tion. It is quite probablf that a thin,, lath-like, calcite fragment would be wrongly identified by this technique. The Dispersion-Staining method is by no means infallible McCrone describes it as "an indefinite method for chrysotile or tremoliti" - and these results should be consid ered as a preliminary screening rather than as a defini tive analysis. A careful and detailed petrographic study may clarify the situation. "''"David H Hamer ab *A Trademark of JOHNSON & JOHNSON. aESDP 285S -ESDP 307R ESDP 068Z ESDP 086Z 10/11/72 11/2/72 3/9/73 3/27/73 2nd shift 1st shift 3rd shift 3rd shift Protected Docum ent-Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000016471