Antimony in the organs and tissues. 287 
considerably greater than in the muscle tissue. Undoubtedly, the 
greater vascularity of the former has much to do with its greater 
content of the metal, but even this is not sufficient to account for all 
of the antimony found; for whenever blood itself has been analyzed, 
the amount of antimony has not been large. Unquestionably then, 
we must assume special absorptive action on the part of the epi- 
thelial cells of the stomach and small intestines. In this connection 
it is well to notice the work of Brinton, who proved that when 
tartar emetic was injected into the vein of an animal, it was very 
freely and rapidly eliminated by the stomach. This was also cor- 
roborated by Dr. Richardson who, in addition, found that a simi- 
lar elimination followed the inhalation of antimoniuretted hydro- 
gen.“ In addition, it may be that absorption of antimony from 
the alimentary tract goes on slowly and that hence only a por- 
tion was removed. This idea has considerable to support. it, 
when we consider the distribution of the absorbed antimony. 
Remembering that in this experiment, a larger amount of anti- 
mony was used than in any of the preceding ones, and that there 
was apparently ample time for absorption, one cannot help but think 
that the content of antimony in the remaining tissues and organs is 
very small. This is very evident, and must be due to one of two 
causes; either there has been a lack of absorption or else elimination 
has been going on very rapidly. The brain contains a noticeable 
amount of antimony, larger than found in any preceding case, while 
the liver and kidneys both contain a comparatively small amount. 
The amount of antimony in the kidneys and particularly the amount 
in the urine, plainly indicates that elimination was going on rapidly; 
but the fact that the percentage content of antimony in the liver is 
greater than in the kidneys, would perhaps indicate that at the time 
of death, absorption was not completed. Such being the case, the 
only inference to be drawn from the two preceding experiments, is 
that the introduction of tartar emetic into the rectum leads simply 
to a much slower absorption and distribution of the antimony than 
by hypodermic injection, but that there is no essential difference in 
the relative distribution of the poison under these two conditions. 
* Quoted by H. C. Wood, Therapeutics, p. 159. 
