Nov., 1915
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D C S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CH E M I S TR Y
cement is used primarily on account of its germicidal properties. Therefore, such tests must be relied upon to secure firsthand cvidence in this direction. In surgical practice the carbolic coefficient of a disinfectant is accepted as a reliable criterion of its efficiency, and likewise the germicidal efficiency of a copper cement can be accepted as a reliable indication of its clinical efficiency. I n connection with this letter Xmes reproduces an illustration which he says is “ t h e one illustration criticized by Mr. Poetschke, the criticism being mostly that only comparative inhibition has been shown and that there had been no bacterial count.” Here again, Ames attempts to minimize the criticism which I made of his paper. This illustration was the only one which appeared in Ames’ paper, and therefore the only one which was open for consideration. However, reference t o my article will show t h a t every statement made by Ames, bearing directly on the subject of germicidal properties, was fully quoted and criticized in my papel A copper cement exerts its germicidal effect in two distinct stages, that is, both in “plastic” and “ s e t ” condition. It thus exerts an initial sterilizing influence when inserted and a permanent germicidal influence after it is set. The initial sterilizing influence is not of much importance because the local application of a liquid disinfectant would accomplish the same purpose. The permanent germicidal action of the cement in the set condition is the main desideratum. Ames apparently fails to appreciate these facts in referring to “ a cavity from which all infected material had not been removed, there being, for this reason, a need of a sterilizing filling.” Ames further states in his letter: “ I t is well known by the dental profession t h a t a real copper oxid cement mill furnish the means of sterilizing of such an infected area, and yet furnish a mass, after proper setting, which is so highly insoluble that it w-ould show potency only in the hardened state equal to the best of the so-called copper cements tested by XIr. Poetschke, including t h a t made by the I,. D. Caulk Co., the employers of RIr. Poetschke.” I n this statement Ames intends t o create the impression t h a t the dental profession accepts and knows these statements to be facts, when as a matter of fact, the dental profession does not know or accept these statements, Nowhere in the dental literature does any authoritative statement or proof appear which substantiates this assertion. Arnes insinuates t h a t the black copper cement of his manufacture, which is referred to in the illustration, is not more highly germicidal in the hardened state, because of its “highlr insoluble ” character. M y experimental data, which I shall shortly publish, shows that this black copper cement, made by Ames and referred to as so “highly insoluble,” suffers the greatest relative loss in strength in saliva of twelve copper cements which are on the market to-day with but one exception, and that is also a black copper cement. Ames has attempted t o claim the authority of the dental profession for a statement which has absolutely no basis in fact. The ambiguous statements made by Ames regarding the “ cement-making property of the cuprous and cupric oxids” have absolutely no relation to the subject under discussion, because a copper cement need not contain cuprous or cupric oxides in order t o possess the requisite germicidal power, strength, resistance to saliva, or any of the properties demanded of a copper cement. It is immaterial whether a copper cement contains cuprous or cupric oxide, but it must contain some compound of copper which in itself has sufficient germicidal power to secure the required germicidal efficiency in the finished cement. Of course, it is understood that any copper cement must have, in addition to germicidal power, secured by the addition of a potent compound of copper, all of the other physical and chemical properties demanded of a product of this character. My investigations, which will be published shortly, show t h a t cuprous
IO01
and cupric oxides need not be depended upon for any cementmaking property which they may possess, and their elimination from copper cements, as Ames infers, is greatly desired by the dental profession, because of the limitation imposed on copper cements containing cuprous and cupric oxides on account of their color. Ames refers to a “difference in germicidal efficiency between a real copper oxid cement and an oxyphosphate of zinc cement, more or less modified by a copper compound, each in the freshly mixed state” as being “so great t h a t results may be shown which appeal to the naked eye instead of needing microscopical count.” I have referred a t length, in my paper, to the fallacy of testing a dental cement for its germicidal efficiency in the “freshly mixed state,” and I wish to emphasize the statement contained in my original article, namely, t h a t the tests employed by Ames failed t o give any information concerning the germicidal efficiency of a dental cement. I fail to understand Ames’ reference to “ microscopical count” except to assume t h a t Ames does not know that the colonies of bacteria are not counted by the aid of the microscope, but by the naked eye. In the last paragraph of his letter Ames describes his illustration in part by stating, “ N o . 2 , a zinc oxid cement carrying a small percentage of oxid of mercury (yellow),” whereas his original paper read, “ N o . 2 , oxyphosphate of zinc containing a small percentage of mercurous iodid.” This certainly cannot be a typographical error and it is needless for me to call attention to the radically different character of these two compounds of mercury. This does not inspire confidence in the illustration. Ames states that this illustration shows “inhibition of bacterial growth ” and that the “inoculation was overwhelming,” yet reference to the illustration fails to show a single colony of bacteria, notwithstanding the fact t h a t it is supposed to depict a n inoculated Petri dish. The illustration is plainly not a photograph and naturally cannot be accepted as showing “inhibition of bacterial growth.” Even if i t did show what is intended. the test is of no value as regard establishing germicidal efficiency of the material. In conclusion, I wish to point out that Ames does not present a single criticism of my article but merely repeats and adds t o the statements contained in his article which I fully criticized as being of pseudo-scientific character. In this letter additional erroneous statements and conclusions are presented by Ames which have no basis in fact and are unsupported by any evidence whatever. The illustration presented is not worthy of consideration, because it does not show “inhibition of bacterial growth,” and further, the description does not agree with Xmes’ original article. PAULPOETSCHKE, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, THE I,. D. CAULKCo. MILFORD, DELAWARE. AUGUST 26, 1915
THE “PURE FOOD LAW” E d i t o r of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: For the past nine years i t has been of profound interest to follow the prosecutions under the “Pure Food Laws.” Being of an analytical mind I carefully went into the fundamental conceptions of the lam, its rigid legal and logical interpretation, its effect upon commerce, international and interstate, and finally I examined the details of the administration of this, and attempted to ascertain, as nearly as possible, whether justice or injustice had been inflicted on those who had come into contact with the law as defendants in criminal prosecutions brought by the government. lLIy conclusions, after t h e nine years of investigation, are t h a t in many cases the defendants pleaded guilty to the charges brought against them, although they were neither legally nor morally guilty, merely to escape the annoyance of a trial, always distasteful to busy and enterprising men of affairs.
I002
T H E J 0 I’ R ATA L 0 F I ATD U S T RI A L A N D ENGINEERILVG C H E M I S T R Y
To confirm my conclusions, I shall give a strict legal interpretation of the law in such particulars as are of essential importance for the views advanced above. Section 3 of the law does ~ z o tconfer legislative power on the three secretariesPurely executive powers are conferred, and therefore the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Chemistry are of a similar nature, as rules and regulations enacted by the district attorney of New York County for the purpose of administering the executive functions of his office. The legal reasoning is clear, for Congress cannot delegate i t s legislative powers to any other body. Kotwithstanding the efforts of certain editorial writers on various trade journals, no decision of the Supreme Court exists which contradicts this statement: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers. The second point I wish to make is the definition of the word, Drug. Many definitions for various purposes may be found but for the enforcement of the “Pure Food Law” only the definition given by t h a t law may be used. I t has surprised me how rarely, if a t all, courts have attempted to dwell on this point. Section 6 of the law reads: That the term Drug “as used in this Act shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopeia or National Formulary for internal and external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animal.” Let us examine this definition. The phrase, “all medicines and preparations recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia or hTational Formulary for internal or external use” requires t h a t the prosecution must prove I-That i t is medicine or preparation. a-That said medicine or preparation is recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia. 3-That it is so recognized for internal or external use. What a medicine or preparation is the law does not say, and that question is, therefore, a question of fact for the jury and not a question of legal definition. But whatever a medicine or preparation is, it must be such as is recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia or Xational Formulary. Now examining the history of pharmacopeia for the last two centuries throughout all parts of the world, i t must be agreed upon t h a t no pharmacopeia recognizes any commodity that does not comply with its tests or definitions. Therefore, a n article of commerce that does not comply with such tests or definitions cannot be defined as a drug under that part of the laws, phraseology as stated above. Furthermore, such medicines and preparations must be recognized for internal or external use. There are many substances in the U. S. P. not recognized for internal or external use. Clearly, then, if a n article of commerce does not come under the phrase, of the laws’ definition, as stated above, we may proceed and examine the definition as it continues: “And any substance or mixture of substances intended t o be used for the cure, mitigation or prevention of disease of either man or animal .” We note the words “intended to be used,” and also the words, “for the cure, mitigation or prevention of disease.” A mere intent to be proven by the circumstances of each particular case is all t h a t is necessary, but i t must be a direct intent; of indirect intent the law takes no notice. Furthermore, i t must be for the cuye, mitigation or prevention of disease. Therefore, articles of commerce used or intended t o be used for manufacturing, even though the products resulting from such manufacture are substances intended t o be used as a cure, mitigation or prevention of disease, do not come under the law. I call particular attention to this fact, because
irol. 7 , No. r i
the administration and enforcement of the law has not always been conforming to this legal conclusion, especially in cases of importations of articles of commerce into United States. Finally, Section I I of the law deserves some notice. The notice has gone abroad as evidenced by numerous communications on the subject, that executive officers have absolute legislative and executive powers to exclude goods offered to be imported into this country, t h a t there is no legal remedy for any wrongful acts on the part of such executive officers. Let me say that the writ of injunction still exists, and t h a t it is applicable where “there is no adequate remedy at law,” a statement that should be considered where a n executive officer is about t o usurp legislative functions. 1221 L I N C O L N PLACE.BROOKLYN. h’. Y. LOUIS HOGREFE September 3, 1915
PAPER REAGENT Some time ago the writer noticed the following article in a drug journal, the name of which he does not a t present recall: “Detection of Wood Pulp in Paper: The Repertoire de Pharmacie republishes from the B u l l e t i n de la Socie‘tk de Chemie Belge a reagent for the detection of wood It consists of paranitroaniline, 2 0 cgm., dispulp in paper. solved in 80 cm. distilled water and sulfuric acid, sp. gr. I , 7 6 7 : 2 0 milligrams. This has the advantage over the alcoholic solution of phloroglucin and hydrochloric acid in t h a t it may be kept for years. It is also preferable t o anilin sulfate, which, although i t is stable, gives with wood pulp a yellow color, which is not easily distinguished by artificial light. The paranitroaniline colors wood pulp orange to brick-red, and it can be seen under any mode of illumination. The reagent has the further advantage of yielding a color to unbleached cellulose.” The writer made up this reagent and tested different papers and pulps with the following results: ‘ I
I-Mechanical wood-pulp dull orange t o orange. 2-Unbleached sulfite pulp very similar t o above. 3-Bleached sulfite pulp -3 yellow.
+
The writer found t h a t the distinction between the mechanical wood pulp and the unbleached sulfite pulp was not very marked and proved rather troublesome when testing unknown pulps. The writer has discovered, however, a method whereby the detection is made plainer. He used the above reagent in conjunction with ammonium molybdate solution and obtained the following results: 1-Mechanical wood-pulp ----f bright reddish orange. 2--Unbleached sulfite pulp dull orange, f a i n t ; or f a i n t brown. 3-Bleached sulfite pulp colorless.
By experiment it was found t h a t when the ammonium molybdate is applied first and then the paranitroaniline, better results are obtained. Also, on waiting for one or two minutes, the reaction is complete and the distinction is then very sharp. The above certainly seems t o be a n excellent test for distinguishing paper pulps, and could no doubt be applied t o certain other substances as a test for presence of lignin. NATIONAL CLOAK& SUIT Co. NEW YORK CITY September 28, 1915 -.
Wu. J. SCHEPP Chief Chemist and T e x t i l e Expert ..
THE SCHOOL OF CHEMISTRY OF T H E UNIVERSITY PITTSBURGH
OF
The new professional School of Chemistry of the University of Pittsburgh began its work on Spetember 2 7 , 1915, under the deanship of Dr. Raymond Foss Bacon, Director of the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. A prescribed four-year undergraduate curriculum leads t o the degree of Bachelor of Chemistry; the staff of instruction includes the regular faculty of the University and fellows from the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research who are especially qualified in various theoretical
