266 
Solution  of  Chlorinated  Soda. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1904. 
atcd  lime,  and  part  lost  by  vaporization ;  this  loss  being  shown,  not 
only  in  the  finished  solution,  but  also  in  the  intermediate  product, 
solution  of  calcium  hypochlorite. 
(3)  The  process  of  U.S.P.,  1880,  is  even  more  wasteful  of  chlorine 
than  is  that  of  1890.  The  loss  is  chiefly  from  one  cause,  however — 
retention  of  chlorine  by  the  lime  residue.  The  loss  by  evaporation 
is  much  less  than  in  the  process  of  1890,  and  altogether  it  is  a  more 
sensible  process,  the  chlorine  strength  being  easily  within  the  limits 
required  by  the  Pharmacopoeia. 
(4)  While  the  process  of  1 880  is  more  wasteful  of  chlorine,  the 
finished  Labarraque  is  a  stronger  body  than  that  yielded  by  the 
process  of  1890. 
(5)  A  comparison  of  chlorine  loss  in  the  process  of  the  two  Phar- 
macopoeias is  shown  in  the  following  tabulation  of  experimental 
data  : 
u.  s.  p.,  1890. 
Per  Cent,  of 
Gms.  CI.    Total  Chlorine. 
A.    100  gms.  Labarraque   *  ==  2*0089 
Lost  in  lime  residue   =     '2751  10*4 
"     by  evaporation  =     '3420  13.0 
io'i  gms.  lime  contained   2  "6260  
Chlorine  loss  during  entire  operation   23*4 
C.    100  gms.  Labarraque  =  17183 
Lost  in  lime  residue  =     '1895  87 
"    by  evaporation  =     "2517       11. 6 
7*5  gms.  lime  contained   2*1600  
Chlorine  loss  during  entire  operation   20*3 
D.   1000  gms.  Labarraque  =  17*1887 
Lost  in  lime  residue  =  1*2839  6'°5 
"    by  evaporation  =  27524  12  96 
75  gms.  lime  contains   21*2250  ■  
Chlorine  loss  during  entire  operation   19* 
K.    1000  gms.  Labarraque  =  17  "8564 
Lost  in  lime  residue  .  .  .  =   1*6825  7*9 
"    by  evaporation  =   i*536t  6*2 
75  gms.  lime  contained   21*0750  
Chlorine  loss  during  entire  operation   14*2 
