INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
952
32-Novaspirin: Rayer, U. S. Patent 858,142 (1907). 33-Saligenin: Hirschfelder, Ind. Eng. Chem., 15, 457 (1923). 34-Sulfonal: Baumann, Ber., 19, 2808 (18%). 3 e T r i o n a l : l‘romm, A n n . , 263, 150 (1889). 36-Tetronal: Baumann and Kast, Z . physiol. Chem., 14, 64 (1890). 37-Veronal: Bayer, U. S. Patent 782,739 (1905). 38-Luminal: U. S. Patent 1,025,872 (1912). U. S. Patent 1,042,265 (1912). 39-Dial: IO-Adalin: Bayer, U.S. Patent 983,425 (1911). U. S. Patent 914,518 (1909). 41-Bromural: 42-Iodival: Ernert, Pharm. ZentraZhaZle, 49, 873 (1905). 43-Nirvanol: Anon, Yearbook, Am. Pharm. Assoc., 7, 162 (1918). 44-Chloralamide: Rabon, A m . Druggisl, 18, 190 (1889). 4 6 U r a l : Poppi, Chemist and Druggist, 34, 406 (1889). 4B-Chloretone: Anon, A m . Druggist, 36, 12 (1900). 47-Methylene blue: Ehrlich and Leppmann, Proc. A m . Phaum. Assoc., 38, 689 (1890). 48-Pyoktanin: Merck, A m . J . Pharm., 6 2 , 295 (1890). 4 9 4 c a r l e t red: Anon, Drug. Circ., 66, 201 (1912). 5 h A c r i f l a v i n e : Browning, A m . Druggist, 66, 400 (1917). 51-Proflavine: Pearson, A m . J. Pharm., 90, 428 (1918). 52-Brilliant green: Browning (see 50). 53-Apomorphine: Matthiessen and Wright, Proc. A m . Phaum. Assoc., 17, 260 (1869). 54-Homatropine: Ladenburg, Ber., 13, 1340 (1880). &&Heroin: Dresen, Proc. A m . Pharm. Assoc., 47, 735 (1899). 5 6 D i o n i n e : Anon, Ibid., 49, 630 (1901). 57-Euquinine: Merck, U. S. Patent 585,068 (1897). 58-Optochin: Oliver, Yearbook, Am. Pharm. Assoc., 6, 377 (1916). 59-Vuzin: Schaeffer, I b i d . , 7, 522 (1918). 60-Eucuprin: Bylsma, 2. exptl. Med., 11, 257 (1920); C. A , , 15, 1575 (1921). 61-Beta-eucaine: Merling, Pvoc. A m . Pharm. Assoc., 46, 727 (1894). 62-Alpha-eucaine: Merling, I b i d . 63-Alypine: Bayer, U. S. Patent 808,748 (1906). 64-Stovaine: Poulenc, U. S. Patents 828,846; 829,262; and 829,374 (1906). 6,+Eckaine: Wichura, J . SOC.Chem. Ind., 38, 598 (1919). 6 6 A n e s t h e s i n e : Hirschfelder, Ind. Eng. Chem., 15, 456 (1923).
Vol. 18, No. 9
67-Butyn: Abbott, U. S. Patent 1,358,751 (1920). 68-Phenacaine: Anon, Yearbook, Am. Pharm. Assoc., 9, 177 (1920). 69-Novocaine: Anon, Ibid., 3, 650 (1914). 7O-Butesin: Abbott, U. S. Patent 1,440,652 (1923). Anon, New and Non-Official Remedies, 1924, p. 60. 71-Eucatropine: 72-Atophan: Nicolaier and Dohrn, Deut. Arch. kZin. Med.. 93, 231 (1908); C. A , , 2 , 2832 (1908). 73-Novatophan: Schering, U. S. Patent 1,045,759 (1912). 74-Benzosol: Anon, Chemist and Druggist, 37, 102 (1890). 75--Duotal: Ehlert, Pharm. Rev., 20, 211 (1902). Anon, Proc. A m . Pharm. Assoc., 42, 715 (1594). 76-Creosotal: 77-Thiacol: Roche, U.S. Patent 650,218 (1901). 78-Calcreose: Maltbie, U. S. Patent 1,047,961 (1912). 79-Salvarsan: Ehrlich, Ber., 42, 17 (1909). 8 G N e o s a l v a r s a n : Anon, J . A m . Med. Assoc., 69, 323 (1912). 81-Tryparsamide: Jacobs and Heidelberger, J . A m . Chem. Soc., 4 1 1587 (1919). 82-Stibacetin: Fargher, J . Soc. Chem. Ind., 39, 333R (1920). 83-Mercurochrome: Young, White, and Swartz, J . A m . Med. Assoc., 73, 1483 (1919). 84-Mercurophen: Schamberg, Kolmer, and Raiziss, I b i d . , 68, 1458 (1917). 85-Mercurosal: Rowe, J . A m . Pharm. Assoc., 12, 8 (1923); 14, 317 (1925). 8 6 A d r e n a l i n e : Takamini, A m . J . Pharm., 73, 523 (1901); Abel, Ibid., 76, 301 (1903); Anon, Pharm. Ztg., 62, 466 (1907); Flaecher, Proc. A m . Pharm. Assoc., 67, 404 (1909). 87-Tyramine: Barger, J . Chem. SOC.(London), 96, 1123 (1909). 88-Tethelin: Robertson, J . B i d . Chem., 24, 397 (1916). 89-Insulin: Banting and Best, J . Soc. Chem. I n d . , 41, 537R (1922). Q&Thyroxin: Kendall, Yearbook, Am. Pharm. Assoc., 7,312 (1918); 8, 503 (1919). 91-Urotropine: Nicolaier, Proc. A m . Pharm. Assoc., 44, 494 (1896). 92-Chaulmoogra esters: Dean and Wrenshall, J . A m . Chem. Soc., 42, 2626 (1920). 93-Calioben: Bayer, U. S. Patent 839,509 (1906). 94-Sabromin: Bayer, U. S. Patent 848,230 (1907). 95 and 96-Chloramines: Dakin, Cohen, Daufresne, and Kenyon, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, ( B ) ,89, 232 (1916); C. A . , 10, 2912 (1916).
Influence of Chemistry on Ceramics’ By Ross C. Purdy 252s
NORTH
HIGHST..COLUMBUS, OUIO
UCH of fable, romance, and drama has been told of the beginning of clay and glass working. The claim that ceramics is the “oldest of the arts” is plausible but not certain. Bricks with straw and the potter’s craft are mentioned in prehistoric records. Recent excavations prove for man of the early centuries a high degree of ski11 and considerable knowledge of compounding for quality and color. The story of Pallisy sacrificing his flammable possessions to gain a n effect in enamels and that of TT’edgewood discovering potter’s flint in the dust prepared for treating the eyes of his horse typify the legends of the beginning of ceramics. Varying properties in the body of the ware and differing color effects were produced in clay and glass long before the chemistry of the elements was known. As in metallurgy, men for several centuries have fashioned useful and decorative ceramic wares of distinctive merit from minerals by empiricism of scientific caliber. They could neither analyze nor synthesize in any other than the most simple cut-and-try empirical manner. The wonder of it all is that no record has been found of the experiments made and mixtures used, for these early ceramists were anything but quacks; they were real scientists. Highly educational would be the stories of how they discovered the way to work minerals and ores into usable condition and how t o compound them to obtain such perfection in form, quality, and decoration. These stories would,
*M
1
Received August 4, 1926
no doubt, shame most of the present-day ceramic experimenters on the score of resourcefulness and imagination. They did not have means of knowing what ceramic workers in other parts of the world were accomplishing, and quite evidently not one of them thought he could afford to tell the world his secrets. There was neither means nor incentive to exchange information. The museum samples of the wonderful ware occasionally made in clay and glass in the years prior to the development of chemical knowledge and methods have given rise to the notion by many collectors that these specimens represent a lost art. It is often said that modern ceramists cannot reproduce the properties, tints, and decorative processes of some of these ancient museum samples. Such statements are folly. Chemistry of materials and material-compounding is a knoivledge so generally possessed, and the methods and equipment so finely developed, that ceramic wares which rival in every way the finest that man has ever made are produced today in carload lots. The most direct answer to a query regarding the influence of chemistry on industrial ceramics is that, rather than now and then one skilled in synthetic impericism, today a n accurate knowledge of mineral compositions and properties and of what is produced when mixtures of silicate minerals are heated to a degree of fusion, is quite general. The shop-trained ceramist can and usually does know more about the chemistry of materials and mat erial-compounding required for specified properties than did the best informed ceramist of fifty years
.
September, 1926
-
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEAUISTRY
ago. This chemical knowledge generally possessed makes it possible to produce on a large scale ceramic wares of definite properties within exacting limits of variations. Freak effects due to combination of several factors in materials and processing are obtained today as in ancient times. These factors and their individual influence can be determined and evaluated, so that in place of museum freaks, the ceramists today, by machinery and shop men, fill repeat orders for large quantities of wares of surpassing quality, properties, design, and decoration. Chemistry has not only made easily available a production knowledge of ceramic wares of all sorts, but it has made possible a ready response for new wares called for by all sorts of human and industrial activities. The spark plug is typical of such new products. The increasing exactness in specifications of all things to meet the ever-increasing service severity has called for specific properties in ceramic wares. The promptness with which present-day manufacturers produce on a large scale and a t low cost the ceramic wares and parts
953
required to meet severe service needs iq creditable to the wide spread knowledge of the chemistry of materials and products, translated and directed by the accumulated experience through centuries by ceramists who, prior to chemistry, were guided alone by intuition and empirical knowledge. Modern chemistry and its ally, physics, have given means of determining what transpires and transforms when silicates are fused. With the knowledge and tools thus proTided, ceramists are able to keep within hailing distance of the industrial demands. No study in silicate fusions has been so profoundly abstract or scientific but that almost instantly it has made it possible more quickly and surely to meet the more severe service requirements of ceramic wares. Ceramic science and technology have not been trailing the developments in chemistry. Chemical and ceramic science have developed together, first one then the other impelling or leading. The science of chemistry as we know i t today owes a great deal to ceramics-but that is the other side of the story, not to be told here.
Standardization and Evaluation of Medicinals’ By Paul Nicholas Leech CHEMICAL LABORATORY, AMERICANMEDICALASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL.
VEN fifty years ago the Pharmacopeia of the United States was a highly regarded book of standards. Today it is still highly regarded, but possesses the added prestige of being an integral part of the Pure Food and Drugs Act; furthermore, it enjoys the distinction of reflecting progressive medical opinion better than any foreign pharmacopeia.
E
Standardization
To the chemist, the outstanding developments of standardization during this period as reflected by the Pharmacopeia are: (1) I n 1876 assay by any other means than chemical was considered as rank heresy. Now biologic standardization is so important that it is used not only to control the toxicity of certain substances, but as a method of estimating the active ingredients. It is, in the last analysis, a n ever-present reminder to the chemist that his methods for determining certain substances are still crude. It may be conjectured, however, that fifty years from now the biologic method of standardization will hare been superseded in a large measure by refined chemical and physico-chemical procedures. By that time also it is hoped that indefinite vaccines or biologic products will have given way to definite chemical compounds chemically assayed, as has happened notably in the case of epinephrine. The recent work of Abel on crystalline insulin is a step in this direction. (2) The old Pharmacopeia contained drugs of vegetable origin which today have gone into the therapeutic scrap heap. Assays of these were lacking-many of them possessed no definite active principle. The Pharmacopeia of 1880 contained mainly acid and alkali volumetric determinations and certain alkaloidal assays. There was a good sprinkling of qualitative tests, but relatively few tests for limits of impurities. The advent of synthetic organic chemistry within the past two or three decades has led to the formulation of methods of control which find their best expression in the new tenth edition of the Pharmacopeia. Consequently, the purveyors of pharmaceutics, large and small, are realizing more and more the necessity of adequate scientific staffs to insure the reliability of their products. I Received June 21, 1926.
Besides contributions for standardizing the newer materia medica, which have had their genesis in the laboratories of manufacturers, other scientific agencies have elaborated methods which make the U. S. P. X the peer of any in the world in this regard. Notable have been the contributions of the Bureau of Chemistry, particularly the methods worked out by W. E. 0. Emery and associates. The chapters on General Tests, Processes, and Apparatus, in the tenth revision, are excellent guides for high-grade analytic work. Even tests for absence of chlorides or sulfates are worked out to precision values. There is no doubt that American chemists have had a profound influence in making the U. S.Pharmacopeia the authority of the world on chemical standardization of drugs. The outstanding criticism of the assay methods in the new Pharmacopeia is the use of methyl orange as an indicator, when the more modern indicators are much more satisfactory. I n fact, methyl orange is practically a discarded indicator in progressive institutions. (3) The Pharmacopeia, official this year, also has the advantage that most of the additions are products which had previously been standardized and included in New and Non-Official RemediesS2 As the latter book is revised annually, there is opportunity to “try out” standards before inclusion in the Pharmacopeia. This aids in making the U. S. Pharmacopeia extraordinarily stable and is of service both to pharmaceutical manufacturers and to chemists engaged in drug control and research. Chemists have been slow to appreciate the value of the Pharmacopeia as a book of standardized reagents. Except in those few instances where the purity limits have been set by the Committee on Standardization of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,the term C. P. means little. On the other hand, the designation U. 8. P. insures a product of definite strength and purity; in a number of laboratories the U. S. P. products are ordered whenever possible, thus avoiding haphazard standards.
* Published b y the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Association. In the last revision of the Pharmacopeia forty new drugs and preparations were added; of these thirty-one had been previously described in N e w and Non-Official Remedies, the standards for which had either been elaborated or verified Ln the A. AI A. Chemical Laboratory
