1. For a survey of the literature on the history of the blowpipe, see Brian Dolan, “Blowpipe,” in A. Hessenbruch, ed. Reader’s Guide to the History of Science (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001), 87–88; useful studies which should be mentioned include U. Burchard, “The History and Apparatus of Blowpipe Analysis,” The Mineralogical Record, 25 (1994) 251–277; W.B. Jensen, “The Development of Blowpipe Analysis,” in J.T. Stock and M.V. Orna, eds., The History and Preservation of Chemical Instrumentation (D. Reidell Publishing Company, 1986), pp. 123–149; and W.A. Campbell, “The Development of Qualitative Analysis 1750–1850: The Use of the Blowpipe,” The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Philosophical Society, 2 (1971–2), 17–24.
2. G. von Engeström, Description and Use of a Mineralogical Pocket Laboratory,and especially the use of the Blowpipe in Mineralogy (London, 1770), added as an addendum to his translation of A.F. Cronstedt, Försök till Mineralogie eller Mineral-Rikets upstâllning (1758).
3. [Thomas Thomson] “Improvements in Physical Science during the Year 1816,” Annals of Philosophy, 9 (1817), 6–13, 8.
4. Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 17601820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), particularly chap. 6, for good discussion of analytical community, although he simplifies debates over blowpipe results.
5. Ian Inkster, "Science and Society in the Metropolis: A Preliminary Examination of the Social and Institutional Context of the Askesian Society of London, 1796-1807," Annals of Science, 34 (1977), 1-32