iv cough mixture, as much, if not as unpleasantly, as it would the Philadelphia physician for one of our brethren in that city to put
j of Majendie’s strength into a mixture of the same bulk. In New York the original strength of this solution has ever been preserved, notwithstanding the change made officinal in three editions of our Pharmacopœia, and it is generally understood and used accordingly. With us the change has been remonstrated against, as unnecessary, because the dose can be as easily regulated as that of Fowler’s, or Donovan’s, or Lugol’s solution, the tinctures of aconite root, belladonna, iodine, and many other potent preparations; it may just as easily be preserved from doing mischief, and has often the advantage in mixtures of not displacing desirable adjuncts with superfluous water. It is true, that owing to the great difference in strength of the solution commonly understood here, and that of the Pharmacopœia, our College has felt it incumbent to request physicians to designate the intended one, by affixing a term (in brackets or otherwise) as “Maj,” or “Ph. U.S,” to avoid the possibility of misconstruction, except in clear cases as that of the mixture above mentioned; and that we should not feel justified in dispensing an ounce of Majendie’s solution alone, (especially if the prescription was for “Liquor Morphiæ, Sulphatis”—the officinal term) unless with an understanding of the strength wanted, or of the use to be made of it. This great discrepancy between what is of original and continued use and what is officinal, requires watchfulness, on our part, against occasional exceptions to the general prescription of our physicians, and in putting up prescriptions written in other places, Philadelphia particularly. We must judge of the solution required, from the context.
Our Pharmacopœia, in most of its formulæ, is undoubtedly entitled to our full respect and adherence, exhibiting on the part of the Revising Committee, laborious research and patient adjustment of details. But some of them, I think, are fairly open to criticism and susceptible of improvement. The formula given for preparing “CARBONIC ACID WATER,” is one by which it {40} may safely be said, no practical man ever has made, or ever can make, the article commonly known as mineral, or soda water, the latter name given to it in its early manufacture; when a portion of carbonate of soda entered into its composition, which is now generally omitted, though the name is retained in many places. In the first United States Pharmacopœia, 1820, the formula given is as follows:—
“Take of water any quantity.
Impregnate it with about ten times its volume of carbonic acid gas by means of a forcing pump.”
That was, probably, about the strength it was usually made at that time. It is now, generally made about one fifth or one fourth stronger. In the revision of 1830, the formula was changed as follows:—
“By means of a forcing pump, throw into a suitable receiver, nearly filled with Water, a quantity of Carbonic Acid equal to five times the bulk of the Water.”
“Carbonic Acid is obtained from the Hard Carbonate of Lime by means of dilute Sulphuric Acid.”
The latter formula is repeated in the revisions of 1840 and 1850, substituting the term “Marble,” for “Hard Carbonate of Lime.” The strength was altered from “ten times” of the first edition to “five times,” in 1830, and reiterated in 1840 and 1850. Why? “Ten times” was, perhaps, sufficient in the early use of this beverage, but was hardly considered strong enough in 1830, certainly was not in 1840, and has not been since. It is difficult to conceive a reason for such change. Surely, it could not have been recommended by practical men; on the contrary it was supposed to have been made by mistake or inadvertance. It is still more difficult to find a good reason for repeating this formula in the revisions of 1840 and 1850. Upon each of the latter occasions the College of Pharmacy, in New York, remonstrated against it and pointed out fully its absurdity. Carbonic Acid Water of that strength, it was stated, would not be acceptable as a drink to any one familiar with it, {41} nor refreshing to the sick. The formula was also shown to be defective in several essential particulars, and where it was not defective it was wrong. But our remonstrance seems not to have been vouchsafed “even the cold respect of a passing glance.”
The formula is defective in not describing the vessel in which the preparation is to be made. In other processes, not so much involving the safety of those engaged in them, the vessels are specified, as “glass,” “earthen,” “iron,” &c. In this case it is indispensable that the vessel should be expressly and well adapted to the purpose. It should be of undoubted strength to sustain the pressure, and it should be of material not acted upon by the acid or water. These requisites should not be neglected. We need not concern ourselves much, to be sure, about “five times the bulk,” but to make carbonic acid water of good quality, the “receiver” should be of sufficient strength to ensure safety, and of internal material to avoid unpleasant or injurious contamination. Copper fountains, lined with tin, are mostly used. Cast iron, lined with tin, is also used, to some extent. So far the formula is defective,—in the proportion both of water and carbonic acid it is wrong. The “suitable receiver” should not be “nearly filled with water.” How near full that is, is left to the chance of different judgment in different persons; but if “nearly filled” should be understood to mean within a pint, and force enough could be applied, “the receiver” would burst before the “five times” could be got into it, though the breaking in this case would not, probably, be attended with danger to the operator, because it would be merely a dead strain without much expansive force.