248  Starch  and  Strontium  in  Opium.  {^^;^tva' 
potassium  sulphates.  Since  no  effervescing  was  produced  when  the 
ash  was  treated  with  acid,  there  was  probably  no  calcium  meconate 
present  in  the  original  precipitate. 
Several  experiments  were  now  undertaken  to  ascertain  the  cause 
of  the  variation  of  the  amount  of  impurity  contained  in  the  crystal- 
lized morphine.  One  case  was  sampled  twice,  by  two  persons,  each 
using  different  lumps.  These  samples  were  assayed  in  the  usual 
manner  with  the  following  results ;  average  of  duplicates : 
Morphine,       Morphine,  Crude  Morphine  Pure  Morphine 
Crude.  Pure.        Moisture,     in  Dry  Opium,    in  Dry  Opium. 
Sample  1  .  .  .  11*48  io*68  22*68  14*86  i3'8i 
Sample  2  .  .  .  10*83  IO*43  I9'52  x3'48  12*97 
The  variation  in  the  crude  morphine  is  chiefly  due  to  the  impurity 
present,  as  is  clearly  shown  from  the  fairly  uniform  results  obtained 
for  the  pure  morphine. 
These  same  samples  were  now  assayed  by  both  of  us,  varying  the 
conditions  of  precipitation,  such  as  temperature,  time  of  shaking, 
etc.,  with  results  as  follows : 
Crude 
Pure 
Crude  Morphine 
Morphine. 
Morphine. 
Moisture. 
in  Dry  Opium. 
11-48 
io-68 
22-68 
14-86 
Sample  1  . 
.{£ 
11*56 
10*81 
22-68 
14*96 
y  K. 
10*94 
10  58 
22-68 
14*16 
10*96 
10-58 
19-52 
13-63 
Sample  2  . 
10*90 
10-35 
19-52 
13*54 
1 1/. 
10*84 
io-43 
19-52 
13-48  * 
The  above  results  are  average  of  duplicates.  They  show  that 
ordinary  variations  in  assaying  influence  the  results  very  little, 
when  referred  to  pure  morphine.  The  greatest  variations  appear 
to  be  due  to  the  sampling,  and  to  the  impurity  associated  with  the 
morphine  as  obtained  by  the  U.S. P.,  method  of  assay.  The 
impurity  contained  in  the  crude  morphine  was  estimated  by  the  ash 
method.  This  method  probably  gives  higher  results  than  any  other, 
and  is  perhaps  the  best,  considering  the  present  impurities  in 
opium. 
In  order  to  ascertain  whether  or  no  we  had  unconsciously  lapsed 
into  a  trend,  Dr.  Squibb's  chemist,  Mr.  Smith,  kindly  checked  our 
work,  and  with  his  permission  we  append  his  results  below  in  con- 
nection with  our  own.  Mr.  Smith  employed  Dr.  Squibb's  process 
as  outlined  in  the  Ephemeris,  3,  p.  11 52,  and  the  U.S. P.  method 
with  the  lime  water  correction.    We  used  the  U.S. P.  process  and 
