(742) 
whether the intestinal juice possessed the power of increasing the 
fat-splitting action of the pancreatic juice. 
It was possible to solve both questions at the same time. 
The following mixtures were prepared : 
(1) 2ee. intestinal juice + 0.25cc. monobutyrin. 
(2) 2ee. boiled intestinal juice + 0.25ee. monobutyrin. 
(3) 2ee intestinal juice + 0.01cc fresh pancreatic juice + 0.25cc. 
monobutyrin. 
(4) 2ee. boiled intestinal juice + 0.01cc. fresh pancreatic juice 
+ 0.25ee. monobutyrin. 
(5) 2cc. intestinal juice + 0.OLee. fresh pancreatic juice + 0 25 
almond-oil. 
(6) Zee. boiled intestinal juice + 0.0lcc. fresh pancreatic juice 
+ 0.25 almond-oil. | 
After these liquids had been allowed to stand for 24 hours at 
room-temperature, they were titrated with decinormal potash, phenol- 
phtalein being employed as indicator. The results were as follows: 
For (1) were necessary 0.3cc. 1/;9n. KOH for saturation 
” (2) n ” 0.3 , ” n 
n (3) ” „ DA , ” ” 
n (4) ” ” 5.3 n n wn 
” (5) ” ” 24, n ” 
n (6) ” ” 2.4 ” n 
From these numbers the following conclusions may be drawn: 
(1) and (2) show that whether boiled or unboiled intestinal juice 
is used, acid is present and that its proportions are equal ; this leads 
us to suppose that the monobutyrin was already acid and that the 
unboiled intestinal juice had not exercised any fat-splitting action. 
This supposition was confirmed by titration of the monobutyrin itself. 
(3) and (4) show that the mixture of pancreatic juice and intes- 
tinal juice brings about a considerable amount of splitting but that 
the intestinal juice is not concerned in this action since the same 
result is obtained whether the intestinal juice is boiled or unboiled. 
It is therefore the pancreatic juice which has here effected the 
divison. 
(5) and (6) show that the same holds true for almond-oil, except 
that this fat is not as quickly decomposed as monobutyrin. 
The intestinal juice has therefore neither the power to split fats 
= 
