The referee in charge of bismuth preparations submitted the following report of the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory which shows that Xeroform-Heyden and Bismuth Tri­brom­phenate-Merck do not comply with the adopted standards for bismuth tri­brom­phenate.

Some time ago a request was received from the Medical Section of the National Council of Defense for a report on a brand of bismuth tri­brom­phenate. In accordance with this request the firm’s product was examined, and at the same time and for comparison, an examination was also made of a specimen of bismuth tri­brom­phenate received from Merck and Company, October, 1915, and of another specimen of bismuth tri­brom­phenate “Xeroform-Heyden” obtained from the Chicago branch of the Heyden Chemical Works in April, 1918.

The examination brought out that the bismuth tri­brom­phenate submitted to the national Council of Defense contained a large amount of uncombined tri­brom­phenol, while the specimen of Xeroform-Heyden contained an excessive quantity of bismuth.

When the latter finding was submitted to the Heyden Chemical Works, the firm stated: “The product had to be made in this country after importations from Europe became impossible and the first lots were not fully up to the standard ...” The firm stated that it could now furnish a product which it considered fully equal to that which was previously imported, and offered to submit “samples of the new material.”

Having been requested to do so, a specimen of Xeroform-Heyden was received from the Heyden Chemical Works, New York. This and a second specimen, purchased from a Chicago wholesale drug house, were examined. Whereas the standards for bismuth tri­brom­phenate which had been formulated by the Laboratory and accepted by the Heyden Chemical Works required that the product should contain from 40 to 49 per cent. of bismuth and contain not more than 3.3 per cent. of uncombined tri­brom­phenol, the specimen purchased in Chicago contained 67.7 per cent. of bismuth, while the specimen received direct from the Heyden Chemical Works contained 24 per cent. of uncombined tri­brom­phenol. When this result was reported to the Heyden Chemical Works, the firm replied:

“It seems that we are not yet in a position to supply a product that answers a uniform standard and that we have to continue our efforts in this direction.

“We will take this matter up with you again as soon as we have been successful ...”

At the time when the preceding examination was being made, bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck could not be obtained from the Chicago wholesale houses. A request sent to Merck and Company for a specimen of the market supply brought the information that the product was temporarily unavailable. Though unable to supply the product, the firm gave valuable advice for a revision of the somewhat loosely drawn tests for bismuth tri­brom­phenate in New and Non­official Remedies, 1918.

Recently (November, 1918) Merck and Company sent a specimen of its product labeled “Bismuth Tri­brom­phenate-Merck” “Merck and Company, New York, Distributors and Guarantors,” and wrote “... You will notice this sample conforms in nearly all details to the tests we submitted with our letter of June 4th. We have been able to produce better goods, but just at present unsatisfactory starting material confronts us. The sample conforms to N. N. R., 1918, but will not meet the test for uncombined tri­brom­phenol submitted by you in your letter of September 4th ...”

Examination of the specimen demonstrated that it was soluble to a considerable extent in alcohol (the N. N. R., 1918, description provides that it should be only slightly soluble in alcohol) and according to the standards adopted for New and Non­official Remedies, 1919, contains 18 per cent. uncombined tri­brom­phenol (more than five times the permitted amount).