18 TECHNICAL DRUG STUDIES. 



been in Co.'s possession one year and two months before you received it 

 During the fall of 1906 and spring of 1907 we removed ou"r manufacturing plant from 

 Brooklyn, N. Y., to Richmond County, N. Y., and when our manufacturing operations 

 began at the new plant we started a new series. It was during the confusion of this 

 period that this lot, from which the bottle your department has examined came, was 

 made. 



Under these circumstances, we respectfully request you to eliminate this test from 

 your published report. If it is the purpose of this report to supply information as to 

 the quality and character of goods of the different manufacturers, then we respectfully 

 point out that a bottle of a product of the character of peroxid of hydrogen, which is 

 over a year old before the test is made, is not fairly illustrative of average conditions 

 or quality. If other tests which you have made from time to time indicate that such 

 a variation as this particular sample shows might be reasonably expected, we with- 

 draw the request. 



If in your judgment it is reasonable to expect that goods would be more than one 

 year old before they reach the consumer's hands, as was this sample, then we withdraw 

 the request. 



If you in your experience with our product have found anything that would indi- 

 cate that the result of this sample conveys a true estimate of the actual quality of 

 dioxogen, we withdraw the request. 



Comment ~by authors. Considerable care was exercised to secure 

 fresh samples. There was nothing on the package in this case to 

 indicate possible deterioration from age. With justice to all, no one 

 sample could be eliminated, but the explanation offered by the 

 manufacturer is given in full. 



PARKE DAVIS & Co. 



* * * On the whole we feel very much pleased to note a statement from the 

 Bureau of Chemistry which so nearly confirms our claim that we are marketing a 

 high-grade hydrogen peroxid and one which is remarkably stable, considering the 

 nature of the substance. 



The amount of acetanilid reported is in each instance somewhat less than the 

 quantity originally added to the solution of peroxid at the time of manufacture. Our 

 formula calls for the addition of three-sixteenths grain of acetanilid per liquid ounce 

 of the peroxid solution, this being equivalent to 0.41 gram per 100 cc. In each case 

 the amount reported by you is less than this. It is entirely possible that in some 

 cases a portion of the acetanilid has been destroyed by the action of the hydrogen 

 peroxid, particularly in the old samples. 



In examining the proportion of acid reported for the five different samples we note 

 that this is in every instance high. We presume that the figures given are the direct 

 statement of the acid in terms of cubic centimeters tenth-normal acid in 25 cc of the 

 hydrogen peroxid, and are consequently not an indirect statement of the number of 

 cubic centimeters of tenth-normal acid required to titrate back, as directed in the 

 Pharmacopoeia. If our first supposition is correct, we beg to say that the amount of 

 acid reported by you is in every instance undoubtedly excessive in that you have 

 estimated not only the amount of free acid present, but have also estimated as well 

 the acid produced from the acetanilid which has decomposed by heating with alkali 

 in carrying out the test as stipulated in the Pharmacopoeia. 



We have had occasion to refer in one or two previous instances to this error in esti- 

 mating acid by the official method in hydrogen peroxid preserved by the use of ace- 

 tanilid. Theoretically the acid in three-sixteenths grain of acetanilid will neu- 



