546 



ADVENTURES IX RADIOISOTOPE RESEARCH 



Table 7. — % or Labelled Sodium Phosphate, Administered 



PER Intravenous Injection to Human Subject, Excreted 



Within the First 24 Hours through the Kidneys 



Human subiect 



Weight in 



I 

 Volume of 

 urine in cc. 



Total P 

 in mgm 



% of 

 labelled P 

 recovered 



Specific 



activity of 



faeces P 



Excretion of labelled phosphorus through the bowels and the kidneys 



In the case of 2 female subjects, we investigated the excretion in urine and 

 faeces over a period of several weeks. The results are seen in Tables 5a and 5b, 

 resp. 6a and 6b. 



In the first experiment (Table 5), the labelled phosphorus found in the faeces 

 was partly non- absorbed P and partly such originating from the body proper. 

 In the second experiment, registered in Tables 6a and 6b, the labelled P being 

 not given by mouth, the labelled P present in the faeces must have originated 

 solely from the body phosphorus and got through the digestive juices into the 

 faeces. The lower total phosphorus excretion in the last mentioned case (Table 6), 

 is presumably partly due to the remarkable increase in weight of the subject in 

 question during the experiment. 



Comparison of excretion through the bowels and the kidneys 



From the labelled P administered by mouth, in the course of two months 

 6.7% were excreted in the faeces. When given by subcutaneous injection about 

 1.7% left through the bowels. The latter must have reached the intestinal tract 

 with the digestive fluids. These carry labelled P just as well, when the latter was 

 administered by mouth; we have, therefore, to assume that somewhat less than 

 \ of the 6.7% labelled P found in the faeces originated from the body proper. 

 The same ratio was found in our former experiments^i\ while the absolute amount 

 excreted in the course of the first week was in those cases 2.5 times as high as 

 found in the present cases. The labelled phosphate which left the body unabsorbed 

 was, therefore, 6.7%— 1.7% — 5.0%. We will now turn our attention to the result 



^1^ O. Chiewitz and G. Hevesy, loc. cit. 



