417 
yielded by the Stevens method, the Revision Committee pursued a 
conservative course and retained the assay method of the old pharma- 
copoeia for opium, modified only by subtracting from tne weight of 
crude morphine obtained the impurities insoluble in lime water. — 
Pharm. Rev., Milwaukee, 1906, v. 24, p. 270. 
Herting, Otto, suggests that the name “ Squibb ” be appended to 
the assay process for the determination of morphine in opium, as the 
process is essentially that proposed by Squibb. — D.-A. Apoth. Ztg., 
N. Y., 1906-7, v. 27, p. 15. 
Weigel, G., points out that the U. S. P. VIII directs that the 
morphine in opium be estimated in the hydrated form and that 9 per 
cent required corresponds to approximately 8.46 per cent, or that the 
12 to 12.5 per cent of morphine in granulated or in powdered opium 
corresponds to about 11.28 to 11.75 per cent of anhydrous morphine. — 
Pharm. Zentralh., 1906, v. 47, p. 64. 
Francis, John H., heartily commends a change in assay process but 
believes that the direct lime-extraction method advocated by Stevens 
is preferable because it is shorter, less complicated, and yields ap- 
proximately the same results. After all, none of the various opium 
assays are strictly accurate because they all depend upon crystalliza- 
tion to remove the morphine from solution. — Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 
1906, v. 20, p. 142. 
Eliel, Leo, criticises the method of opium assay. He recommends 
the obtaining of filtrates of respectively 50, 150, and 100 c. c., the use 
of taxed, glass-stoppered Erlenmeyer flasks, and of two counterpoised, 
rapid-acting filters. — Proc. Indiana Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 195. 
Asher, Philip, presents and discusses at length his modification of 
the Stevens process for the assay of opium and its preparations. — 
Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, pp. 262-267. 
Philipp Roder, Wien, recommends an assay process for opium that 
is practically identical with the TJ. S. P. process, and reports on 9 
samples of opium. — Pharm. Post., Wien, 1906, v. 39, p. 283. 
Lloyd, John Uri, asserts that chemists in the Orient who have 
made a specialty of the assay of opium assured him that the U. S. P. 
VIII, process was unsatisfactory in that the results were too low. — 
Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1906, v. 54, p. 454. 
Lyons, A. B., points out that in the washing of morphine with 
lime water precautions should be taken that there is no appreciable 
absorption of carbon dioxide, as this would obviously vitiate the 
result. — Ibid ., v. 54, p. 455. 
Fromme, G., discusses the conclusions offered by Bernstrom in 
Svensk Farm. Tidskr., 1905. — Geschafts-Ber., v. Caesar & Loretz, in 
Halle a. S., 1906, pp. 41-43. 
Picard, L., after reviewing the several methods for the determina- 
tion of morphine in opium, presents a modified Leger method and a 
11667— Bull. 58—09 27 
