154 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



melted quietly, after which it was dissolved in a little water, filtered, 

 and the filtrate heated with excess of sulphuric acid until the nitric 

 acid was expelled. The diluted acid solution was then added to the 

 Marsh apparatus and gave no mirror iu 30 minutes. After establish- 

 ing the absence of arsenic in the urine of the case where six weeks 

 had elapsed before collection of the urine, an analysis was made, two 

 weeks later, of ten pounds of faeces. These were heated two days 

 with dilute potassic hydroxide, and chlorine led in.. The brown mix- 

 ture was decanted from the sediment, saturated with hydrochloric 

 acid, and chlorine passed until quite clear. After driving out excess 

 of chlorine, the solution was treated with sulphuretted hydrogen, and 

 thereafter as in the urine analyses. A heavy mirror was obtained. 

 This is interesting as showing the elimination by the faeces after the 

 elimination by the urine had ceased. 



In no other case, however, was there any attempt to show elimina- 

 tion of the arsenic, on removal of the cause of poisoning and cessation 

 of the symptoms. The results of the analyses agree with those of 

 Kletziusky and Fabian in that only small quantities of arsenic were 

 found. The quantitative determination was impossible as before. 



Clarke,* in 1873, gives the case of a woman living in a badly 

 ventilated room papered with a highly arsenical paper, who had 

 symptoms which he said might be attributed to a mild case of typhoid 

 fever ; great prostration, headache, wakefulness, great nervous excite- 

 ment, irritable stomach, and coated tongue. An analyst found the 

 dust of the room to contain about 0.2% of arsenic, and in 48 oz. 

 (1,700 c. c.) of urine he obtained 0.26 grain (16.8 mgr.). The sputa 

 contained a trace. Unfortunately, the method of analysis is not given, 

 and we have no means of accounting for the great difference between 

 this amount of arsenic (9.2 mgr. per litre) and the amounts in all the 

 other cases we have to deal with. Yet, in the ordinary quantitative 

 methods, which were the only ones available, 16.8 mgr. is a small 

 amount to determine accurately, and it is quite possible that a serious 

 error was made. This view is supported by the amount of arsenic 

 found in the dust, which is, comparatively, very large. 



On removal, the patient grew better, but no further test of the 

 urine was made. 



M6rner,f in 1876, gives some analyses of urine which are open to 



* British Med. Journ., June 21, 1873. 



t Upsala lakarefuren. Forhand., XI. 527 ; also, ref., Virchow-Hirsch, Jahresb., 

 XI. 405. 



