NEW YORK JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. APRIL, 1852.

REMARKS UPON SOME OF THE PREPARATIONS OF THE PHARMACOPŒIA OF THE UNITED STATES, 1851. BY GEORGE D. COGGESHALL. (Continued from page [44.])

In giving formulæ it is to be supposed that the purpose of a Pharmacopœia is to be practical, responding to the every day wants of the associated professions of medicine and pharmacy. It would seem to be in no case of practical utility to retain a formula that is not used, and of this character I think is the one for “MUCILAGE OF GUM ARABIC.” It does not appear to be employed of the consistence directed except as a paste. Nor is this consistence understood when mucilage of gum arabic is prescribed by physicians, but by some apothecaries a solution of only one eighth, and by others, one fourth the strength is put up. If physicians are expected to prescribe, and apothecaries to compound according to the letter of the Pharmacopœia, this is certainly a daily and unfortunately, owing to the want of a standard, a variable exception. The formula in our Pharmacopœia is substantially the same as in those of London and Edinburgh, while that of Dublin is one half stronger. In the latter three it enters into other officinal preparations, but in every case it is combined with water, which appears to be a needless multiplication of the process, as the proper proportions of gum and water for the whole might as well be directed at once. Nor, is it probably used in {98} extemporaneous prescription without similar addition of water, unless it may be to form pills, for which it is rarely, if ever, well adapted, or employed by the apothecary when it is prescribed, as it makes, with most substances, an intractable mass. I have been told by a highly intelligent and well educated English apothecary, that “it was formerly the practice of English physicians to prescribe one ounce of mucilage of gum arabic with seven ounces of water, (or in that proportion,) making a solution of the strength now commonly used here, and that it had become gradually the practice to direct the whole quantity required, under the term of ‘mucilage of gum arabic,’ with the general understanding that the diluted strength was intended.” As this seems to be now the universal practice in prescribing and putting up mixtures, the officinal directions are practically useless, and lead to the adoption of various proportions by different apothecaries, to produce the mucilage to complete mixtures.

Another circumstance may be noticed. The Pharmacopœia directs the use of powdered gum and of boiling water, whereas gum, in its ordinary condition or coarsely broken, and cold water make a clearer solution. Cold water is directed for the solution of the gum by the Edinburgh process, and in our present formula for “Syrup of Gum Arabic;”—if appropriate for the latter, it is quite as much so for the forming of mucilage. When the gum has been ground in a mill it appears to have been a little charred and forms a somewhat turbid solution; if powdered by hand, and rather more coarsely, its solution is clearer.

Upon the whole it seems desirable that there should be a uniform strength for the mucilage of gum arabic, prescribed by physicians in mixtures, which the officinal preparation evidently is not. Our mucilage does not enter into any other officinal preparations, and if it did, the combination of gum and water had better be made in the general process, as in our almond mixture.

“COMPOUND SPIRIT OF LAVENDER” appears to be but seldom {99} made according to the officinal directions, owing to the difficulty of procuring the simple spirit of lavender. On this account most apothecaries use a proportion of the oil of lavender and of spirit, variable no doubt in different private recipes. The oil makes a decidedly inferior preparation, separating upon admixture with water, and even the best English oil—which is probably never used—is less congenial to the stomach than the distilled spirit. But the difficulty may be overcome, and an excellent preparation, essentially the same and perhaps quite equal in quality and flavor to that of the Pharmacopœia, may be made by the employment of recently dried flowers. The following is the formula I have used for several years, with an entirely satisfactory result:—

THE “SYRUP OF GUM ARABIC,” unaccountably withdrawn from the Pharmacopœia in 1840, when it had become a familiar favorite, comes to us again in the new revision, not at all improved by seclusion. It is changed in its proportions, but not for the better, as it now has too little gum and too much sugar in its composition. Of numerous formulæ by which I have made this syrup, I have always found that from our Pharmacopœia of 1830, the best in proportions, consistence and flavor. It is defective however, in one point of construction, and incorrect in the use of boiling water to make the solution of gum. The syrup is probably not better in any essential particular, but it is clearer, and therefore more pleasing in {100} appearance, when it is constructed by making the solutions of gum and sugar separately, that of the gum in half the water cold, and that of the sugar in the remainder of the water boiling, then immediately combining the two and bringing to the boiling point. It may then be easily filtered through flannel.

In preparing “SYRUP OF CITRIC ACID,” it would be preferable to use, in place of the oil of lemon, a tincture made from the outside yellow part of the rind of the fresh fruit, made by covering it with pure alcohol. Two drachms of this tincture are about equivalent to four minims of the oil of lemon.

The formula for “SYRUP OF IPECACUANHA” is one of the most objectionable we have to notice, and the least calculated to answer medical wants in regard to its importance. There is a verbal error, either in the list of components or in the directions, which leads to some confusion. Amongst the former we find “diluted alcohol,” and in the latter, we are told to “macerate the ipecacuanha in the alcohol, &c.” The same error occurs in the edition of 1840. This formula is unnecessarily complex, and yields an inefficient preparation of about half the strength of the wine of ipecac, which it was intended to equal at its origin, about twelve years before its introduction into our Pharmacopœia. Previously to this it had, for six or eight years, been made here of about double the strength of the wine, in accordance with the general plan of forming medicinal syrups, by combining as large a proportion of the remedial agent in them as can readily be done, to obviate at once the necessity of bulky doses, and the exhibition of undue quantities of sugar. I cannot discover the advantage of making a pint of tincture with an ounce of the root, evaporating the filtered tincture to six fluid ounces, filtering again, and then adding water to bring back the measure of a pint. If the object be to get rid of the alcohol, it is an unnecessary exposure of the soluble principles of the ipecac to heat, for half a pint of diluted alcohol, especially with four ounces of water added by way of displacement, would exhaust the root equally well; so that the evaporation need not {101} be carried so far. There is no mention of a water bath, which should be used by all means.