512  Impurities  in  Chloral  Hydrate.  {^No^v.T'isn^"* 
Powd.  sugar       ......  24 
"       gentian         ......  8 
"       cochineal  .....  1 
M. 
This  is  about  as  harmless  a  preparation  as  is  ever  vended  by  self- 
styled  doctors,  charitable  missionaries,  etc.  The  above  compound 
may  be  obtained  of  J.  T.  Inraan,  M.  D.,  LL.  D.,  etc.,  New  York,  at 
$3.00  an  ounce. — The  Pharmaeist,  Sept.^  1871. 
Chicago,  August,  1871. 
IMPURITIES  IN  CHLORAL  HYDRATE. 
By  Fred.  Yersmann,  Ph.  D. 
In  a  discussion  on  chloral  hydrate  at  the  meeting  of  the  Pharma- 
ceutical Association  at  Edinburgh,  attention  was  drawn  to  certain 
impurities,  which  greatly  invalidate  the  application  of  the  remedy, 
and  hopes  were  expressed  that  the  matter  might  be  inquired  into.  I 
had  lately  occasion  to  inspect  large  quantities  of  such  impure  prepa- 
ration, partly  made  by  foreign  manufacturers,  but  partly  also  by  an. 
English  firm.  The ,  impurity  is  exactly  the  same  in  both  cases, — 
most  likely  a  result  of  the  manufacturing  process,  and  ought  to  be 
capable  of  being  remedied.  The  impure  hydrate  gives  off  dense, 
strongly  acid  fumes  as  soon  as  the  bottle  is  opened ;  these  fumes 
affect  the  eyes  and  the  skin  most  severely,  to  such  extent  that,  on 
manipulating  with  about  a  cwt.,  the  epidermis  of  the  operator's  hands 
was  completely  destroyed. 
I  purpose  sending  to  the  evening  exhibition  next  week  a  sample  of 
chloral  hydrate  in  this  state,  and  also  another  which  I  have  succeeded 
in  depriving  of  the  objectionable  character  above  mentioned.  The 
question  naturally  arises,  whether  the  f  irmation  of  the  foreign  com^ 
pound  cannot  be  avoided.  It  is  not  hydrochloric  acid,  as  has  been 
suggested,  but  an  organic  chlorine  compound  (perhaps  chlorpicrine) 
formed  together  with  chloral,  and  not  resulting  from  a  decomposition 
of  the  latter.  I  first  was  under  the  impression  the  fumes  were  due  to 
a  small  quantity  of  chloral,  not  hydrated,  the  strong  penetrating 
smell  of  which  is  somewhat  similar,  but  solution  in  water  does  not 
take  away  the  strong  smell.  In  a  short  time  I  hope  to  be  able  ta 
state  definitely  the  nature  of  this  impurity. — 
150  Fenchureh  Street,  E,  C,  Sept.  26th,  1871. 
Fharm.  Journ.  and  Trans.,  Sept.  30,  1871. 
