Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

_Second Process._—The method of which I am now going to speak is evidently superior to the preceding. The matters contained in the stomach and intestines, or the organs themselves, as well as the œsophagus, are macerated in water acidulated by pure and concentrated sulphuric acid, taking, for instance, four or five drops of acid to one hundred and fifty or two hundred grammes of water. At the end of twelve hours it is to be filtered; the liquid, which is generally of a yellow color, contains sulphate of nicotine and a certain quantity of organic matter. It is then to be {24} evaporated almost to dryness in close vessels over a water-bath; then treated with a few grammes of distilled water which dissolves the sulphate of nicotine, leaving the greater part of the organic matter undissolved; it is now to be filtered; the filtered liquor is to be saturated with a little pure hydrate of soda or potash, in order to take the sulphuric acid, and set free the nicotine. The mixture of nicotine and of sulphate of soda or potash is to be put into a retort, and heated as described in the first process; the distilled liquid is to be evaporated over a water-bath in order to concentrate the solution of nicotine.

Instead of distilling the liquor by heat, I have often treated it with ether; this latter decanted and submitted to spontaneous evaporation leaves the nicotine.

Everything tends to show that nicotine may be detected by other processes. Thus by treating the digestive canal with absolute alcohol, with the addition of a little soda, it would be dissolved, and by the reaction of the soda, a soap would be formed with the fatty matter, which would set free the nicotine; it would then only remain to distil it by heat, after having evaporated to dryness. Perhaps, also, it might be separated by acting on the tissues with pure soda or potash, then evaporating to dryness and heating it in closed vessels.

3. _It is sufficiently easy to prove the presence of nicotine in the liver and other organs after it has been absorbed._—In 1839 when I had shown that poisons after having been absorbed might be extracted from the organs where they had been carried with the blood, I insisted so strongly on the necessity of examining these organs with a view to the detection of poisons, that it has now become the custom to proceed in this way. How often does it happen, that, in consequence of repeated vomiting and action of the bowels, and also from complete absorption having taken place, there remains no trace of the poison in the digestive canal? Moreover, it is evident, that, in getting the poison from the organs to which it has been carried by absorption, we obtain, in reality, that portion of the poison which has been the cause of death, unless it be shown that it was carried to those organs after death by absorption. M. Stas has conformed, most wisely, to this precept. For my part, I could not, in my researches, neglect this important branch of the investigation. The livers of those animals which I had poisoned with twelve or fifteen drops of nicotine, when submitted to one or other of the processes I have described, furnished me with appreciable quantities of this alkali. I scarcely obtained any from {25} the blood contained in the heart, but I had only operated upon a few grammes. Moreover, experience teaches that a great number of poisons absorbed rapidly pass from the blood into the organs, and most especially into the liver.

It may be readily conceived that the research for absorbed nicotine might be fruitless in those cases where death was occasioned by only a few drops of this body; but then the presence of the alkali may be detected in the digestive canal.

Gentlemen, after results such as those obtained by M. Stas and myself, society may feel satisfied. Without doubt intelligent and skilful criminals, intent on puzzling the Chemists, will sometimes have recourse to very active poisons, but little known to the community at large, and difficult to detect; but science is on the alert to surmount all difficulties. Penetrating to the recesses of our organs, she extracts evidence of the crime, and furnishes one of the great elements of conviction against the guilty. Do we not know that at the present time poisonings by morphine, brucine, strychnine, nicotine, conicine, hydrocyanic acid, and many other vegetable substances which were formerly believed to be inaccessible to our means of investigation, may be discovered and recognised in a manner to be perfectly characteristic?

During my stay at Mons, and consequently since the deposit of this memoir, I have had at my disposal the complete and remarkable Report of M. Stas, and I have satisfied myself:―

1st. That this Chemist has obtained nicotine from the tongue, from the stomach, and liquids contained in it, and also from the liver and lungs of Gustave Fougnies.

2ndly. That he also obtained nicotine by properly treating the boards of the dining-room where Gustave died, although these boards had been washed with warm water, with oil, and with soap.—_Repertoire de Pharmacie._

The Count Hippolyte Visarte de Bocarmé confessed his guilt, and was executed at Mons.

{26}

ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE STRENGTH OF MEDICINAL HYDROCYANIC ACID, OF BITTER ALMOND WATER, AND OF CHERRY LAUREL WATER.

BY J. LIEBIG.

Liquids which contain prussic acid, and are mixed with caustic potash ley until they have a strong alkaline reaction, yield, on the gradual addition of a diluted solution of nitrate of silver, a precipitate, which, on being shaken, disappears to a certain extent. Alkaline liquids containing prussic acid, may also be mixed with a few drops of a solution of common salt without the production of any permanent precipitate, until at last, on an increased addition, chloride of silver falls down.

This phenomenon depends on the fact that oxide of silver and chloride of silver are soluble in the generated cyanide of potassium, until there is found a double salt, composed of equal equivalents of cyanide of potassium and cyanide of silver, which is not decomposed by an excess of alkali. Liebig’s method of estimating the prussic acid consists in determining the quantity of silver which must be added to an alkaline liquid, containing prussic acid, until a precipitate appears. Each equivalent of silver corresponds to two equivalents of prussic acid. Having caused several experiments to be made, which prove the efficacy of this method; and having carefully observed that the presence of formic acid and muriatic acid in the prussic acid, does not interfere with the correctness of this method, the author gives the following directions for examining different liquids containing prussic acid:—The _aqua amygdalarum amarum_ being turbid, must be clarified by the addition of a known quantity of water: 63 grs. of fused nitrate of silver are dissolved in 5937 grs. of water; 300 grs. of this liquid corresponds to 1 gr. of anhydrous prussic acid. Before applying the test, the vessel with the solution of silver is to be weighed, and of the latter so much is added to a weighed quantity (_e.g._ 60 grs.) of prussic acid, mixed with a small portion of potash ley and a few drops of a solution of common salt, shaking it in a common white medicine glass until a perceptible turbidness takes place, and does not disappear on shaking. The solution of silver is now again to be weighed; and supposing 360 grs. are found to have been employed for the test, the 60 grs. of the tested prussic acid contain 1,20 grs. anhydrous prussic acid, or 100 grs. contain two grains. {27}

_Aqua laurocerasi_, which the author examined, contained in one litre, one decigram, and the same quantity of _aqua amygdal. amar._ 7·5 decigrammes of anhydrous prussic acid.—(In Pharmaceutical Journal, from _Ann. de Chem. U. Pharm. Bd._ lxxvii.)

THE PHARMACOPŒIA OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. By authority of the National Convention, held at Washington A. D. 1850. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1851.

The appearance of a new edition of the Pharmacopœia is to the apothecary always a matter of high interest; to it he looks for the recognized improvements in the various processes which he has constantly to perform; by it essentially he is to be guided in all the officinal preparations which he makes; and from it he learns what new articles, by their intrinsic merits and through the vogue they have obtained, are deemed of sufficient importance to be recognized officinally as additions to the materia medica. The general arrangement of the new Pharmacopœia is the same as that of 1840. Owing to the wise principles which governed the earlier framers of the Pharmacopœia—though, from the progress of botanical science, the scientific names of the plants to which many of the articles of the vegetable materia medics are referred, have been changed, and with improvements in chemistry, the nomenclature of several salts has been altered—this has led to little alteration in the designations employed in the Pharmacopœia. Assafœtida is now referred to Narthex Assafetida, instead of Ferula A.; Diosma is, after the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia, termed Barosma; Camphor to Camphora officinarum; Cardamom to Elettaria Cardamomum; Cinchona flava to C. calisaya; Cinchona pallida to C. condaminea and C. micrantha, while the source of Cinchona rubra is not yet indicated. Colocynth is now termed the fruit of Citrullus colocynthis; kino is said to be the inspissated juice of Pterocarpus marsupium, and of other plants; quassia is referred to Simaruba excelsa, and uva ursi to Artostaphylos uva-ursi.

Of the names of the articles of the materia medica, as was before stated, very few are changed. Myroxylon, of the old Pharmacopœia, is now Balsamum Peruvianum, Tolutanum, Balsamum Tolutanum; Diosma, {28} after the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia, is now Buchu; Zinci carbonas is changed to the old name, calamina; iodinum, following the British Pharmacopœias, is iodinium, and brominum, brominium. Port wine has been introduced, and consequently, instead of the Vinum of 1840, we have now Vinum Album, Sherry, and Vinum Rubrum, Port Wine.

The secondary list of the materia medica, a peculiarity of our national pharmacopœia, is still retained, to what good purpose it is hard to understand. The framers of the book state that “it has the advantage of permitting a discrimination between medicines of acknowledged value and others of less estimation, which, however, may still have claims to notice.” The advantage is not a very evident one. The distinction that is attempted is very difficult to make satisfactorily; it will vary with individuals, and, we fancy, too, with the place at which it is made. Certainly few in New York would put Angostura bark with Horsemint (Monarda), and Queen’s root (Stillingia) in the primary list; while Apocynum cannabinum, one of the most active of our diuretics, and Malefern, in tape-worm, one of the most certain anthelmintics, are exiled to the secondary. If popular, instead of professional reputation, is to be the criterion, are not Arnica, and Matricaria, and Benne leaves, and horehound, quite as well entitled to a place in the primary list as many of the articles that now figure there? And are there not twenty simples in use among the old women of the country that deserve a place in the national Pharmacopœia as well as may weed, and frost wort, and fever root? Though, too, new articles should not readily be admitted until time has fixed their value, we should like to have seen some notice of Matico and of the salts of Valerianic acid. We are sorry, too, to see the old definition of rhubarb still adhered to; “the root of Rheum palmatum and of other species of Rheum;” that of the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia, “the root of an unknown species of Rheum,” thus rendering the Russian or Chinese rhubarb alone officinal, is very much preferable.

Of the substances introduced into the Materia Medica, the chief are Aconite root (aconiti radix), Extractum cannabis (extract of hemp), Oleum morrhuæ (cod liver oil), Oleum amygdalæ amaræ (oil of bitter almonds), and Potassæ chloras (chlorate of potassa). By Arnica in the last Pharmacopœia was understood the root and herb of Arnica montana; for these, in the present—the name remaining unchanged—the flowers are substituted. The additions to the Materia Medica have been made with judgment, and certainly nothing has been admitted with the exception perhaps of {29} Helianthemum (Frostwort), of doubtful utility, or that has not for some time been submitted to the test of experience.

The preparations introduced are all familiar to the pharmaceutist, and have for a long time been kept in most good shops. It is singular that in the last Pharmacopœia, by nitrate of silver was understood the fused nitrate. This oversight has been corrected, and by Argenti nitras now is understood the salt in crystals, while the common lunar caustic is Argenti nitras fusa. Among the new preparations are the active principles of Aconitum Napellus (Aconitia), Oxide of Silver, Iodide of Arsenic, Chloroform, Collodion, a number of fluid extracts, Citrate of Iron, Glycerine, Solution of Citrate of Magnesia, the oils of Copaiba, Tobacco, and Valerian, Iodide of Lead, Potassa cum calce, Bromide of Potassium, Syrup of Wild Cherry bark—of gum—and Tinctures of Aconite root, Kino, and Nux Vomica, and compound tincture of Cardamom.

The Iron by hydrogen, as it has been sometimes rather awkwardly termed, the Fer réduit of the French, after the British Pharmacopœias, is termed Ferri pulvis, powder of iron. Soubeiran’s formula for the preparation of Donovan’s Liquor (Liquor Arsenici et Hydrargyri Iodidi) is given as much simpler and of easier preparation than the original formula of Donovan; there is, too, a good formula for the extemporaneous preparations of pills of iodide of iron. The solution of the Persesquinitrate of Iron, as it has been sometimes termed, appears as solution of Nitrate of Iron; it is a preparation that soon becomes altered by keeping. Tincture of Aconite root is directed to be made by macerating a pound of bruised Aconite root for fourteen days with two pints of alcohol, expressing and filtering. A process by percolation is also given. This is weaker than the tincture of either of the British Pharmacopœias, and weaker, we believe, than the tincture ordinarily employed here. As an external application, for which it is chiefly used, this is a great disadvantage, and when administered internally, the varying strength of a medicine so powerful will be attended with serious evils.

The old formulæ for the preparation of the alcoholic extract of aconite and of the extractum aconiti (expressed juice), are retained, both being made from the leaves. The extracts when thus made, even when properly prepared, are for the most part inert. No formula is given for the preparation of an alcoholic extract from the root.

There are three new preparations among the ointments:—Unguentum Belladonnæ, Potassii Iodidi, and Sulphuris Iodidi. The ointment of Iodide {30} of Potassium is directed to be made by dissolving a drachm of the iodide in a drachm of boiling water, and afterwards incorporating the solution with the lard.

On the whole, there is much more to praise than to find fault with in the Pharmacopœia. Upon some of the preparations we will hereafter find further occasion perhaps to comment.

PHARMACEUTICAL CONVENTION.

In pursuance of a call issued by the College of Pharmacy of the City of New York, a Committee of Delegates from the different Colleges of Pharmacy in the United States assembled at the College Rooms in New York at 5 o’clock P. M. on Wednesday, the 15th of October.

Delegates from Philadelphia and Boston were in attendance. The Maryland College (at Baltimore) and the Cincinnati College were not represented, although Delegates from each had been previously reported to the Committee of Arrangements in New York. A communication of some length was received from the Cincinnati Delegation.

The Convention was organized by the appointment of Mr. Charles Ellis of Philadelphia as Chairman, and Dr. Samuel R. Philbrick of Boston as Secretary, pro tem. A Committee was then appointed by the nomination of each delegation, consisting of Messrs. Samuel M. Colcord of Boston, Alfred B. Taylor of Philadelphia, and George D. Coggeshall of New York, to examine credentials and nominate officers for the Convention. The Committee retired, and on their return reported the credentials satisfactory, and proposed Dr. B. Guthrie of New York as President, and Mr. Alfred B. Taylor of Philadelphia as Secretary, who were unanimously confirmed.

Dr. Guthrie, on taking the chair, made a few remarks expressive of his sense of the honor conferred by appointing him presiding officer of the first Convention of the kind ever held in the United States, and explanatory of the objects of the Convention, which were in accordance with the growing feeling amongst druggists and pharmaceutists of its necessity to establish standards of the qualities of imported Drugs and Medicines for the government of the United States Inspectors at the different ports, and in addition to act upon such matters of general interest to the Profession as may be presented to the consideration of the Convention.

Reports were presented by the majority (Messrs. Guthrie and Coggeshall) and the minority (Mr. Merrick) of the New York delegates, embodying their views upon the subject of standards, and also in regard to false drugs which should be excluded.

A communication from the Cincinnati Delegates was read, and Mr. Restieaux of Boston read an interesting statement of the working of the Drug Law in that city. {31}

A general discussion ensued upon various topics connected with the business of the Convention, and resulted in the appointment of a committee, consisting of Messrs. Proctor of Philadelphia, Restieaux of Boston, and Coggeshall of New York, to consider the several communications, and to arrange the general plan of business, and report at the next sitting.

The Convention then adjourned to Thursday, at 12 o’clock.

_Second sitting, Oct. 16th._—The Convention met at 12 o’clock. The Committee appointed yesterday made a report, reviewing the numerous propositions presented by the different Colleges, and submitting a general system for regulating standards, which, in their judgment, should prevail uniformly at the ports of entry, with numerous specifications of prominent articles to which their attention was called by their importance, and the difficulty that has been sometimes found in deciding upon them.

The report was considered in sections in a lengthy and very interesting discussion, in which the members generally participated. With some amendments it was adopted.

The Committee also offered the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted, viz.

WHEREAS, The advancement of the true interests of the great body of Pharmaceutical practitioners in all sections of our country is a subject worthy earnest consideration; and whereas Pharmaceutists, in their intercourse among themselves, with physicians and the public, should be governed by a code of ethics calculated to elevate the standard and improve the practice of their art; and whereas, the means of a regular pharmaceutical education should be offered to the rising Pharmaceutists by the establishment of Schools of Pharmacy in suitable locations; and whereas, it is greatly to be desired that the united action of the profession should be directed to the accomplishment of these objects; therefore,

_Resolved_, That, in the opinion of this Convention, much good will result from a more extended intercourse between the Pharmaceutists of the several sections of the Union, by which their customs and practice may be assimilated; that Pharmaceutists would promote their individual interests and advance their professional standing by forming associations for mutual protection, and the education of their assistants, when such associations have become sufficiently matured; and that, in view of these important ends, it is further

_Resolved_, That a Convention be called, consisting of three delegates each from incorporated and unincorporated Pharmaceutical Societies, to meet at Philadelphia on the first Wednesday in October, 1852, when all the important questions bearing on the profession may be considered, and measures adopted for the organization of a National Association, to meet every year.

On motion, it was resolved that the New York Delegation be appointed a Committee to lay the proceedings of this Convention before the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and afterwards have them published in pamphlet form.

Dr. Philbrick of Boston offered the following preamble and resolution, which were adopted:― {32}

WHEREAS, To secure the full benefits of the prohibition of sophisticated drugs and chemicals from abroad, it is necessary to prevent home adulteration; therefore,

_Resolved_, That this Convention recommend to the several Colleges to adopt such measures as in their respective states may be best calculated to secure that object.

On motion of Mr. Colcord of Boston, it was

_Resolved_, That a committee of three be appointed by this Convention to act as a Standing Committee to collect and receive such information as may be valuable, and memorials and suggestions from any Medical and Pharmaceutical Association, to be presented at the next Convention.

The President appointed G. D. Coggeshall of New York, S. M. Colcord of Boston, and W. Proctor, Jr., of Philadelphia, as the Committee.

A vote of thanks to the officers was passed, and then the Convention adjourned, to meet in Philadelphia on the first Wednesday in October, 1852.

The following circular letter has since been issued by the President of the Convention, and addressed to the leading Pharmaceutists throughout the Union:―

NEW YORK, November 25, 1851.

SIR:—At a meeting of Delegates from the Colleges of Pharmacy of the United States, held in this city on the 15th of October, 1851, the following preamble and resolutions, explanatory of themselves, was offered, and, after a free and full discussion, unanimously adopted:―

[Here follow the preamble and resolutions introduced by Messrs. Proctor, Restieaux, and Coggeshall.]

The objects set forth in the above, I trust, will meet the hearty approbation of yourself and the apothecaries of your place, and lead to the formation (if not already in existence) of such an Association as will co-operate in the furtherance of the proposed association.

Our medical brethren have, as you are doubtless aware, an organization, similar in character, holding its sessions annually, in which all matters pertaining to their profession are fully discussed—the beneficial effects of which are already apparent, though the association has been in existence but a few years.

They cannot give to the subject of Pharmacy the attention it requires and deserves, neither is it a matter legitimately falling under their cognizance, but belongs to Pharmaceutists themselves.

The medical profession and the community at large rightfully look to us for the correction of any existing abuses, the advancement of the science, and the elevation of the business of an apothecary to the dignity and standing of a profession.

To this end we invite you to the formation of such Associations, in view of the Convention, to be held in Philadelphia, on the first Wednesday of October, 1852.

Communications intended for said Convention may be addressed to William Proctor, Jr., Philadelphia, George D. Coggeshall, New York, or S. M. Colcord, Boston.

Any communication touching the subject of the above letter will be cheerfully responded to by the President of the Convention.

C. B. GUTHRIE, M. D., President Convention of Colleges of Pharmacy.

{33}

NEW YORK

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY.

FEBRUARY, 1852.

ON THE PREPARATION OF PURE HYDRATE OF POTASH AND CARBONATE OF POTASH.

BY HENRY WURTZ, A. M.

In preparing pure potash compounds, it is highly necessary, especially in order to avoid the possibility of the presence of soda, to select, as a starting point, some compound of potash which differs considerably in solubility from the corresponding soda compound. Either the bitartrate or the sulphate, therefore, is usually preferred.

The bitartrate is ignited; the carbonaceous mass, washed with water, and the solution of carbonate of potash, thus obtained, diluted and boiled with slack lime, in the usual way, in an iron kettle; the solution of hydrate of potash, thus obtained, is boiled to dryness, and the alcoholic solution of the residue evaporated in silver dishes, to obtain what is denominated _alcoholic potash_. This product should be, and most usually is, entirely free from sulphate of potash and chloride of potassium, since it is easy to crystallize the bitartrate free from these salts.

But an almost invariable accompaniment of this alcoholic potash is a trace of silicate of potash. The solution may assume no cloudiness on the addition of solution of chlorohydrate of ammonia, or upon addition of an excess of chlorohydric acid, and afterwards an excess of ammonia; but on adding excess of chlorohydric acid, and evaporation to dryness in a platinum {34} capsule, the aqueous solution of the residue will be found to have flakes of silica floating in it. Very few specimens that I have met with have stood this test. It is to be inferred that the soluble silicates of potash are not wholly insoluble in alcohol; but a question arises concerning the source from whence the silica is so frequently derived. It may be from the lime used, in some cases, or from silicium contained in the iron of the kettles employed. I am enabled to state, in addition, that of many specimens of commercial _carbonate of potash_ which I have examined, some of which purported to have been prepared from cream of tartar by the method above alluded to, none have been found entirely free from silica. I have even found traces of this impurity in crystals of commercial _bicarbonate of potash_.

This constant contamination of potash, and carbonate of potash with silica, being a very important matter in consideration of the frequent use of these two substances in chemical analysis, I have been induced to devise a means of separating the silica from the carbonate. This I have accomplished by the use of carbonate of ammonia.

An aqueous solution of the carbonate which is to be freed from silica is evaporated to dryness on the sand bath (best in a sheet iron dish), adding from time to time lumps of carbonate of ammonia. The silicate is thus converted into carbonate, and on dissolving the residue of the evaporation in water, the silica appears in the form of flakes floating in the liquid, and may be separated by filtration. This solution of carbonate of potash, free from silica, may now be used for the preparation of pure hydrate of potash, taking care to use lime which is also free from silica.

I may here introduce a few words with regard to the preservation of hydrate of potash for use in analysis. Its preservation in the solid form is evidently no difficult matter; but when we attempt to keep the solution in glass bottles for the sake of convenience in using it as a re-agent, we generally find that it very soon takes up silica from the glass. I have found, however, that flint glass bottles will preserve such a solution much {35} longer than any other, lead glass not being easily acted upon, probably because it contains very much less silica. It might not be useless to make a trial of bottles made of thin soft iron, or sheet iron, for this purpose; but it is probable that pure _silver_ is the true material for bottles, in which solution of potash is to be preserved. A very thin shell of silver might first be made, and afterwards strengthened by coating it thickly with galvanic copper.

The ease with which sulphate of potash can be obtained, in a state of purity, has long ago suggested its use as a material from which to prepare pure potash. Schubert[6] proposed to treat pulverized pure sulphate of potash with a concentrated solution of pure baryta, the latter somewhat in excess, and during the evaporation of the solution of hydrate of potash, thus obtained, the excess of the baryta is precipitated by the carbonic acid of the air. This, however, appears to be very expensive process. I have devised another method of treating pure sulphate of potash so as to obtain pure hydrate of potash therefrom; it consists merely in operating upon the sulphate of potash in a manner similar to that in which sulphate of baryta is operated upon to procure hydrate of baryta, that is in converting the sulphate into sulphide by the conjoined application of a reducing agent and a red heat, and to decompose the aqueous solution of the sulphide by the action of an oxide of a metal whose sulphide is insoluble, such as oxide of iron (?), oxide of copper or deutoxide of manganese. I use as a reducing agent, instead of charcoal, oil, rosin, etc., _coal gas_. This application of coal gas was proposed by Dr. Wolcott Gibbs. If it is found that the decomposition is not perfect, and that the solution of sulphide of potassium contains some sulphate of potash, or if a little sulphate is formed in the solution by oxidation, it is removed by the introduction of a little solution of baryta, according to the method of Schubert. I am not yet prepared, however, to give the details of this method.

[6] Erd. und Mar. Jour. 26, 117.

{36}

ON THE PREPARATION OF CHEMICALLY PURE HYDRATE AND CARBONATE OF SODA.

BY HENRY WURTZ, A. M.

The remarks made in the last article with reference to the presence of silica in alcoholic potash, apply also, though not so generally, to commercial alcoholic soda. Few specimens of this product are met with which are so free from silica that it cannot be detected by saturation with chlorohydric acid, evaporation to dryness in a platinum vessel, and redissolution in water. Whatever may be the origin of the silica in this case, it is very often present.

I have selected, as the most convenient substance from which to prepare pure hydrate and carbonate of soda, a product which occurs very abundantly in commerce under the name of “carbonate of soda.” It is in the form of a very fine white powder, and on examination turns out to be the ordinary monohydrated _bicarbonate_ of soda.

NaO, 2 C.O^2 + H.O.

For, upon ignition, 7.756 grns. lost, 2.7595 grns. of carbonic acid and water, which is equal to 35.60 per cent.; bicarbonate of soda should lose 36.88 per cent. It may be mentioned, in this connection, that a preparation sent over here by Button, a London Pharmaceutist, under the appellation of “Chemically Pure Carbonate of Soda,” upon examination turned out to be also _bicarbonate_. 2.324 grns. lost by ignition; 0.845 grn. = 36.45 per cent.

The commercial bicarbonate above mentioned, contains, of course, all the impurities of the carbonate from which it is made, this being an inevitable consequence of the method by which it is manufactured, which, as described in Knapp’s Chemical Technology, is simply to expose commercial crystals of carbonate of soda to the action of carbonic acid gas, which it takes up to the extent of one equivalent, falling into a fine powder, with evolution of heat and loss of water of crystallization. These impurities, in the case of the specimen operated upon by {37} me, were, besides considerable silica, sulphate of soda, chloride of sodium, a trace of phosphoric acid detected by monohydrate of ammonia, and a little organic matter which imparted to the mass a soapy smell.

The sulphate, phosphate and chloride are easily removed by washing with water by decantation, with a loss, however, of at least one half of the material. When the washings, after addition of excess of nitric acid, no longer react with nitrate of silver, or with chloride of barium, the mass is introduced into porcelain dishes, and dried on the sand bath; when dry it is exposed to a high sand bath heat, though not to a red heat, for two or three hours. By this treatment, not only are one equivalent of carbonic acid, and one equivalent of water expelled, but the greater part or the whole of the silicate is decomposed and converted into carbonate, so that a solution of the mass in water will now be found full of flakes of silica.

The filtered solution should now be tested for silica, and if not yet entirely free from it, must be evaporated again to dryness, with addition of lumps of carbonate of ammonia, exactly as proposed by me, in the last article, to separate silica from carbonate of potash. The residue of this last evaporation, on solution in water, filtration and evaporation in platinum, silver, or even clean sheet iron (never in glass or porcelain) dishes, will give pure carbonate of soda, from which may be prepared the pure hydrate of soda, observing the precaution of using lime which is free from silica.

{38}

REMARKS UPON SOME OF THE PREPARATIONS OF THE PHARMACOPŒIA OF THE UNITED STATES, 1851.

BY GEORGE D. COGGESHALL.

The Pharmacopœia of the United States is, or should be, to the Pharmaceutist of the United States, his text book and standard. In making its preparations he should not vary from the letter of its directions, unless a change of process effects a quicker, more uniform, or more elegant result; in regard to strength he should not vary at all, except upon distinct understanding with the physician prescribing, or with his customer. It is much to be regretted that perfect conformity throughout the United States, with our National Pharmacopœia should not prevail, so that our citizens, traveling or removing with prescriptions, or copies of them, might not be subjected to inconvenient, and even in some cases to dangerous alterations, impairing confidence in the medicine relied upon, or involving the safety of the patient in using it. With these important considerations in view, the apothecary should, as far as circumstances permit, conform strictly to the acknowledged standard, giving up his own opinions, if need be, for the general good. But strict adherence to the formulæ of our Pharmacopœia seems not to be practicable in all cases, in all localities. When there is such diversity of practice in the City of Philadelphia and in New York, within five hours of each other, with intercommunication five times a day, in each of which the formation and subsequent revisions of the Pharmacopœia have been of such especial interest and attention, how can it be expected that in our widely extended country, in communities diversified almost as much as those of different nations, with many local habits, set by time and many prejudices, a full and uniform compliance with the official standard should prevail.

In New York it would disappoint the physician to put ʒss of the officinal Solution of Sulphate of Morphia into a {39} prescription of ℥iv cough mixture, as much, if not as unpleasantly, as it would the Philadelphia physician for one of our brethren in that city to put ℥j of Majendie’s strength into a mixture of the same bulk. In New York the original strength of this solution has ever been preserved, notwithstanding the change made officinal in three editions of our Pharmacopœia, and it is generally understood and used accordingly. With us the change has been remonstrated against, as unnecessary, because the dose can be as easily regulated as that of Fowler’s, or Donovan’s, or Lugol’s solution, the tinctures of aconite root, belladonna, iodine, and many other potent preparations; it may just as easily be preserved from doing mischief, and has often the advantage in mixtures of not displacing desirable adjuncts with superfluous water. It is true, that owing to the great difference in strength of the solution commonly understood here, and that of the Pharmacopœia, our College has felt it incumbent to request physicians to designate the intended one, by affixing a term (in brackets or otherwise) as “Maj,” or “Ph. U.S,” to avoid the possibility of misconstruction, except in clear cases as that of the mixture above mentioned; and that we should not feel justified in dispensing an ounce of Majendie’s solution alone, (especially if the prescription was for “Liquor Morphiæ, Sulphatis”—the officinal term) unless with an understanding of the strength wanted, or of the use to be made of it. This great discrepancy between what is of original and continued use and what is officinal, requires watchfulness, on our part, against occasional exceptions to the general prescription of our physicians, and in putting up prescriptions written in other places, Philadelphia particularly. We must judge of the solution required, from the context.

Our Pharmacopœia, in most of its formulæ, is undoubtedly entitled to our full respect and adherence, exhibiting on the part of the Revising Committee, laborious research and patient adjustment of details. But some of them, I think, are fairly open to criticism and susceptible of improvement. The formula given for preparing “CARBONIC ACID WATER,” is one by which it {40} may safely be said, no practical man ever has made, or ever can make, the article commonly known as mineral, or soda water, the latter name given to it in its early manufacture; when a portion of carbonate of soda entered into its composition, which is now generally omitted, though the name is retained in many places. In the first United States Pharmacopœia, 1820, the formula given is as follows:―

“Take of water any quantity.

Impregnate it with about ten times its volume of carbonic acid gas by means of a forcing pump.”

That was, probably, about the strength it was usually made at that time. It is now, generally made about one fifth or one fourth stronger. In the revision of 1830, the formula was changed as follows:―

“By means of a forcing pump, throw into a suitable receiver, nearly filled with Water, a quantity of Carbonic Acid equal to five times the bulk of the Water.”

“Carbonic Acid is obtained from the Hard Carbonate of Lime by means of dilute Sulphuric Acid.”

The latter formula is repeated in the revisions of 1840 and 1850, substituting the term “Marble,” for “Hard Carbonate of Lime.” The strength was altered from “ten times” of the first edition to “five times,” in 1830, and reiterated in 1840 and 1850. Why? “Ten times” was, perhaps, sufficient in the early use of this beverage, but was hardly considered strong enough in 1830, certainly was not in 1840, and has not been since. It is difficult to conceive a reason for such change. Surely, it could not have been recommended by practical men; on the contrary it was supposed to have been made by mistake or inadvertance. It is still more difficult to find a good reason for repeating this formula in the revisions of 1840 and 1850. Upon each of the latter occasions the College of Pharmacy, in New York, remonstrated against it and pointed out fully its absurdity. Carbonic Acid Water of that strength, it was stated, would not be acceptable as a drink to any one familiar with it, {41} nor refreshing to the sick. The formula was also shown to be defective in several essential particulars, and where it was not defective it was wrong. But our remonstrance seems not to have been vouchsafed “even the cold respect of a passing glance.”

The formula is defective in not describing the vessel in which the preparation is to be made. In other processes, not so much involving the safety of those engaged in them, the vessels are specified, as “glass,” “earthen,” “iron,” &c. In this case it is indispensable that the vessel should be expressly and well adapted to the purpose. It should be of undoubted strength to sustain the pressure, and it should be of material not acted upon by the acid or water. These requisites should not be neglected. We need not concern ourselves much, to be sure, about “five times the bulk,” but to make carbonic acid water of good quality, the “receiver” should be of sufficient strength to ensure safety, and of internal material to avoid unpleasant or injurious contamination. Copper fountains, lined with tin, are mostly used. Cast iron, lined with tin, is also used, to some extent. So far the formula is defective,—in the proportion both of water and carbonic acid it is wrong. The “suitable receiver” should not be “nearly filled with water.” How near full that is, is left to the chance of different judgment in different persons; but if “nearly filled” should be understood to mean within a pint, and force enough could be applied, “the receiver” would burst before the “five times” could be got into it, though the breaking in this case would not, probably, be attended with danger to the operator, because it would be merely a dead strain without much expansive force.

I do not propose to detail the process of making soda or mineral water, “Carbonic Acid Water,” as it is properly called in the Pharmacopœia. The minutiæ of its preparation may well be left to the experience and practice of the operator. But the formula given in our standard book should not be defective or wrong in prominent principles, it should accord with experience and the improvement of the times. There does not appear to {42} be any good reason for altering the formula of 1820, which was comparatively “well enough” to that of 1830, ’40 and ’50, which is of no value. After designating the description of fountain required, so far, at least, as regards strength (which ought to be equal to the pressure of twenty atmospheres), and material, it should direct it to be supplied with water to the extent of about five sevenths of its capacity, in order to allow of due admixture of gas and water, and of agitation which greatly facilitates it, and the forcing carbonic acid into it to the extent of at least twelve times the bulk of the water. Thirteen or fourteen times is often employed for draught, and seventeen or eighteen times for bottling. It may be, as it has been, said that “a formula for this preparation is not of great moment.” It may be so; it may, perhaps, as safely be left to the skill of the manufacturer and the taste of the consumer, as “Mistura Spiritus Vini Gallici;” but “if it be worth doing at all, it is worth doing well;” if placed in the Pharmacopœia, it should be in accordance with knowledge, and the experience of practical men.

THE SOLUTION OF ARSENITE OF POTASSA has been made by some Apothecaries, with myself, for several years, by substituting 92 grs. of bicarbonate of potassa, as the equivalent of 64 grs. of the carbonate, by which we feel more confident of obtaining a definite compound than by the employment of the Carbonate, as generally procured, which mostly contains silica and other contaminations. The resulting compound is quite satisfactory, and keeps well. We also omit the compound spirit of lavender, making up the measure of a pint with water. Our object in this is two-fold. The solution is more permanent, according to our observation, and the compound spirit of lavender only renders it (if anything) more attractive in taste and smell, to children and ignorant persons.

In making MISTURA FERRI COMPOSITA, it is peculiarly necessary to proceed exactly according to rule, both in the order of its components and in the method of adding them, to produce a correct result. In the Pharmacopœia the six ingredients are set down thus:― {43}

“Take of Myrrh a drachm. Carbonate of Potassa twenty-five grains. Sulphate of Iron, in powder, a scruple. Spirit of Lavender half a fluid ounce. Sugar a drachm. Rose Water seven fluid ounces and a half.”

We are directed to rub the first with the last, “and then mix with these” the fourth, the fifth, the second, and “lastly,” the third.

In the written process for making a mixture, which more than most others, requires exact method, and the adding of each of its numerous components in its right order, it would seem to be desirable, for the sake of perspicuity, to set them down in the order in which they are to be used. Here we have to chase about, forwards and backwards, for the one wanted next, and to read over and over the directions, to make sure of getting them right; for few of us make this mixture so often as to be perfectly familiar with the process, without referring to the text. It is not less awkward in this case from the directions chancing to be over leaf. But the formula is otherwise defective, I think, not being quite equal to that of 1830, in which the rose water and spirit of lavender are directed to be added together. Not only should these be mixed before using, but the myrrh, carbonate of potassa and sugar should be triturated well together, and rubbed with successive portions of the mixed liquids, effecting thereby a better solution of the myrrh. The mixture, then complete, except the sulphate of iron, should be put into the vial, and the salt should, by all means, be directed to be selected in clear crystals, to avoid any per salt of iron; it should be quickly powdered in a clean mortar, and added to the contents of the vial. The result is a bluish colored mixture, soon changing to olive green. If the sulphate of iron be not properly selected, or if it be rubbed in the mortar, as inferred from the formula, the mixture is more or less brown and proportionably deteriorated. Of course, we should not “take sulphate of iron in powder.” {44}

In giving directions for making a compound, something, certainly, is to be expected from the knowledge and skill of the manipulator. But essential points should not be left to him, and a formula for a mixture, probably not very often made by Apothecaries throughout our country towns, should be set down so clearly, that a person competent to put up mixtures generally, could make this one the first time he was called upon for it, without needless perplexity, and with sufficient detail of essentials to ensure its being made correctly. I have been frequently told by physicians that, even here, this mixture, requiring so much nicety of manipulation, does not appear to be made right one time in ten. This may not be so much the fault of the Apothecary as of his guide. He makes the mixture but seldom, and if he make it by his Pharmacopœia he does not make it as well as it can be made. For convenient use in the shop, I have the following process written out:―

“Take of Myrrh,
Sugar each one drachm,
Carbonate of Potassa twenty-five grains,

_Triturate together, and add gradually_:
Rose Water seven ounces and a half,
Spirit of Lavender half an ounce, mixed.

_Rub each portion well together, pour into the vial and add_:
Sulphate of Iron one scruple,

_To be selected in clear crystals, powdered in a clean dry mortar, and thrown in powder into the vial; then cork, shake well, and cover the vial with buff colored paper._”

I have often thought that if our formulæ, especially those that are complicated, were given in proper rotation, placing the component first to be used, first in the list, the second next, and so on, with intermediate lines of direction, which might be in smaller type or italics, it would derogate nothing from the dignity of the book, while it would facilitate the process, and might sometimes obviate misconstruction, or neglect of particulars essential to the best result.

The consideration of some few other preparations, I must defer to another number.

{45}

LETTER ON OPIUM, &c.

[THE following letter, addressed to a Commercial House in this City, will be found to communicate some interesting information. We print it as it is written. Perhaps our readers may derive some information from the prices given; we can make nothing of them.]

CONSTANTINOPLE, May 10, 1851. To ———— TRIESTE,

We received your honored letter, dated Messina, with great pleasure, and hasten to give you the information you desire, hoping and wishing that both an agreeable and useful connection may arise from it, for which purpose we shall not fail to give your House direct information, respecting the articles you mention. Opium is found here in different qualities, the goodness of which chiefly depends on the conscientiousness of those who prepare it. The best quality coming from some districts of Asia consists of the pure juice, which flows spontaneously from the incisions made in the poppy heads, is inspissated and formed into little balls. It has eminently all the qualities which are requisite in good opium, and contains from 8 to 10 per cent, and more, of morphia. This sort is the most in request among the druggists in Germany and France, to be sold by retail to the apothecaries, but scarcely forms the 8th or 10th part of all the Turkish opium which comes to the market. Next to this is the ordinary quality, coming from the other provinces of Asia Minor; where in preparing it, they are less cautious, partly pressing the poppy heads, in order to get as much juice as possible, partly scraping the juice that has oozed out too hard, by which certain mucilaginous parts of the plant, and shavings of the rind get mixed up with it; in this way that kind of opium is produced, which is so often sold, and at Trieste bears the name of Tarense opium.

By this proceeding, of course, the morphia is lessened, and often in a great degree; but in the Chinese market, in proportion to which, the consumption of the article in all other countries is scarcely to be reckoned, little or no regard is paid to {46} this, which explains why the latter inferior article always brings nearly as high a price as the former pure quality. Besides these, several sorts of adulterated opium are sold, some of which are prepared, (principally for the North American market,) by mixing in the juice of the whole plant, or other substances.—The difference of the qualities would be best perceived by a collection of samples, which we should be glad to send you, if you would tell us where to direct them. The price of the aforementioned prime quality, which we call “Gúeve,” from the district which chiefly produces it, is now 10 2/3c. for the English pound, free on board. The current second quality, 10 1/3c. The price of the adulterated is much lower, in proportion to the amount of the adulteration; which, however, in most cases, is not discernible by the exterior. The prices are, of course, principally regulated by the Chinese market; yet the more or less considerable crop produced is not without influence. So especially now, the growers show little inclination to sell, as the new plantations are endangered by a continual want of rain.—Nevertheless, probably after two months, when the new crop begins to come to market, we may be able to buy cheaper than now, if the news from China should not cause the price to rise.

As regards scammony, almost everything that has been said respecting opium is literally applicable. The difference in quality depends upon the way of preparing it, while the plant from which it is taken is always the same. The best sort is the pure dried juice, which spontaneously flows from the incisions made in the root of the plant; the next quality is produced by a strong pressure of the root. These two qualities go in commerce by the name of the 1st and 2nd scammony d’Aleppo, which name, however, is wrong, as Aleppo produces the 1st quality, but only in a very small quantity, whilst the greater part comes from several districts of Asia Minor. Then follows the so called quality of Skilip, a district that produces much, but where they have the bad habit of trying to gain in the weight, by adulterating the pure substance. The adulteration is made in several ways; the least injurious of which perhaps is, {47} that they add (as in opium), the pressed or boiled out juice of the whole plant; the not inconsiderable quantities of this sort, which are yearly brought from the interior, find a good sale in Europe, which would hardly last, if a sufficient quantity of the before mentioned finer qualities were to be had. Besides these, a number of other sorts are sold in Europe, under the name of Smyrna scammony, which consist of a hard and heavy mass, but contain only a very small part of the real scammony.

With this article it would also be necessary, as we said with the opium, to explain our statements by sending you samples, which we will do if you desire it. The finest prime sort is seldom found, and is now entirely wanting. It would sell readily at the rate of 21 1/2c. per pound, English. The good second quality brings according to the sort, from 18c. to 15 3/4c. a pound, free on board, but is also now very scarce, and will, in the course of two or three months, be more abundant in fresh quality. Of the Skilip sort, there are several quantities in the market, according to the quality, at the price of 13 to 10s. 10d. an English pound, free on board.