Pe i! 
76 REPORT OF SCHIMMEL & Co. OCTOBER 1914/ APRIL 1915. : 
Piperonylidene desurethane as hypnotic. 
According to G. Bianchi’), piperonal (heliotropin) is physiologically speaking a4 
substance of little efficacy and which, if administcred to rabbits, is secreted in their 
- urine partly unchanged, partly as pipe- 
CH ’ ronylic acid. The hypnotical action of 
O—c VAN CrGH Coe -CO-OCG3Hs piperonylidene bisurethane 2) depends prob- - 
Hc | NH-CO-OC;Hs ably on the presence of ethyl groups and j 
ea ip CH of the two carbonyls. The preparation is 
CH dissociated in the. organism into ethylure- 
thane, piperonal and piperonylic acid; it 
promotes the formation of superfluous. 
urea and of two conjugated glucoronic acids, one of which contains the residue of 
the ethylurethane; the other, that of the piperonal. The presence of either substance 
in the urine can easily be proved. 
Piperonylidene bisurethane. 
Use of synthetic camphor for medicinal purposes. 
Whereas the chemical industry can make itself quite independent from other 
countries by using synthetic camphor, one cannot: avail oneself of this advantage as 
far as the supply of medicines is concerned, for the German Pharmacopoeia prescribes 
the exclusive use of the natural product of the camphor tree®). 
E. Deussen‘) is of the same opinion, as far as the internal use of synthetic camphor 
is concerned. He points out that the pharmacological action of the two kinds of 
camphor is different, as was proved at the time by Langgaard and Maass”®). Further- 
more, l-camphor is about 13 times more poisonous than d-camphor, as stated by 
Bruni®). It must here be remembered that inactive camphor is composed of equal 
parts of d- and /-camphor. Deussen is of opinion that artificial camphor may be used 
therapeutically for external purposes, but he thinks it rather daring to apply it in 
subcutaneous injections. 
In order to decide this question, the Prussian Scientific Committee for Medical 
Affairs has been called upon by the Home Secretary to pronounce an opinion as 
to whether there are objections against the use of artificial camphor in tending sick 
people. 
Prof. Dr. Heffter*) shares in his verdict Deussen’s opinion. He mentions e. g. that 
the same phenomena as with camphor have been noticed with suprarenine, in that 
the 7-suprarenine occurring in the suprarenal gland shows a very distinct action on 
the blood vessels, of which d-suprarenine is void, whereas i-suprarenine stands in 
between. It was true that, from the results of the experiments made with animals, only 
quantitative differences in the action might be deducted, but they alone did not entitle 
us to replace natural camphor without more ado by the artificial product for medicinal 
purposes. On the contrary, experiences as to the effect of artificial camphor in the 
treatment of human beings ought to be exacted first. On this point, however, literature 
fails us altogether. Only in the above-mentioned paper by Langgaard and Maass, it 
is said at the end that Grawitz tried artificial in the place of natural camphor, at the 
| 
1) Chem. Ztg. 88 (1914), 1112. — Boll. Chim. Farm. 58 (1914), 324; Chem. Zentralbl. 1915, I. 166. — 
2) Comp. Report October 1918, 144. — %) Pharm. Ztg. 59 (1914), 734. — 4) Ibidem 823. — 5) Therap. 
Monatsh. 20 (1907), 573; Report April 1908, 176. See also J. Hamaldinen, Skand. Arch. f. Physiol. 21 (1968), 64% 
Report April 1909, 113. — &) Gazz. chim. ital. II. 38 (1908), 1; Report November 1908, 161. — %) Viertel- 
iahresschr. f. gerichtl, Med. Il. 49 (1915), 1; Pharm. Ztg. 60 (1915), 6; Apotheker Ztg. 80 (1915), 10. 
