- Email: [email protected]
Volumetric Analysis. Vol. II. Titration Methods. By I. M. KOLTHOPP and V. A. STBNGER. Inter science Publishers, New York, 1947. xiii + 374 pp. 15 × 23 cm. Price $6.00
368
JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICANPHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION
large numbers of preparations are assayed annually such practices would be too time consuming. Table VI reveals that the standard error in our series of assays lies between 6-870 with a mean standard error of 7.1O/,. Ten guinea pigs were used in each assay. In fifteen consecutive U. S. P. XI1 cat assays, the standard error of the assay ranged from 47.5% with a mean standard error of 5.5%
when six t o eight cats were used for each assay. In our opinion, a n extensive comparative study of a large number of digitalis preparations of various types should be conducted by both the guinea-pig method and the cat method. Only after such an investigation will one be able t o determine how closely the potency estimates obtained by the two methods check.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Some of the factors causing variation in the guinea-pigmethod for the standardization of digitalis have been studied. 2. The lethal dose determined in the conventional manner was high for light guinea pigs and low for heavy animals. A correction was made for such sensitivity. This adjustment is called the size factor and for the guinea pig equals 0.64 0.039. 3. Fasting, sex, and source of supply are without influence on the results of the assay by the guinea-pig method. 4. The adjusted lethal dose remained constant when 1: 15 and 1:30 dilutions of digitalis were infused into the animals a t a constant rate. 5. Ether and sodium phenobarbital yield f
approximately the same lethal doses for the samples of digitalis tested. 6. %Thecoefficient of variation of this method in our hands ranged from 13.Syo to 17.4%. 7. Five preparations of digitalishave been assayed by the guinea-pig method and have been compared with the U. S. P. XI onehour frog method and the U. s. P. XI11 intravenous cat method. Four of the five preparations show good agreement in the potency estimates between the cat and guinea-pig methods. The potency of the fifth assayed by the guinea-pig method yielded a result differing by more than 20 per cent from that obtained by the intravenous cat method.
REFERENCES (1) Bliss, C. I., THIS JOURNAL, 33, 225(1944). ( 2 ) KnafB-Lenz, E . J., J . Pharmacol., E x p f l . Thcrap.. 29, 407(1926). (3) KoafB-Lenz, E. J., Arch. c x p f l . Path. Pharmakol., 135, 259(1928). (4) Hatcher, R.,and Brody, J., Am. J. Pharm., 82, 360 (1910). (5) de Lind van Wijngaarden, C., Arch. e x p t l . Palh. Pharmakol.. 113, 40(1926). (6) Bliss, C. I . , J . E x p f l . B i d . . 13, 95(1936). (7) Dawson, W. T., Ann. Inlcrnal Med., 13, 1594-1615 (1940). (8) Goldberg. L.,A c f a Physiol. Scand., 4, 178(1942) (9) Otterstrom, M. K . , Quart. Bull. Health Organiealion Leaguc Nafions, 4, 523(1935).
(10) Levy J and OtterstrBm, M. K.. Bull. soc. chim. blol., 16, 151k(lkd34). (11) Bruo, J. C., Quart. J . Pharm. Phavmacol., U,169 (1939). 12) Gaddum, J. C. ibid. 5 274(1932). t13) Trevao, J., Bdock, E.: Burn, J. C . , and Gaddum, J. H. ibid. 1 6(1928). (14j Gra'm,'L, Norsk. Mag. Lacgevidcnskap., 99,23(1938). (16) Marri, R., and Ciappi, J., Boll. soc. i f a l .b b l . spcr., 14, 169(1939). (16) Straub. W.,Kaona, Z . . and Ziooitz, F., Arch. c x p f l . Pafh. Pharmakol. 194, l(1940). 117) Eichbaud, F.. Rco. b a s i l . biol., 5, 283(1945). 18) Allmark, M., and Bachinski, W., Rev. can. biol., 5, 570(1946).
Book Review Volumetric Analysis. Vol. II. Titration Methods. By I. M. KOLTHOPP and V. A. STBNGER. Inter374 science Publishers, New York, 1947. xiii pp. 15 x 23 cm. Price $6.00.
+
The authors, in bringing this volume up t o date, have given particular attention not only to the fundamental principles of volumetric analysis, but to the practicability and reliability of the methods included therein.
A particularly good discussion of indicators is included in the chapter 011 Acidimetry and Alkalirnetry. This is followed by a terse presentation of the principles of Acid-Base displacement titrations, titrations involving hydrolytic precipitations or complex formation, special methods of Acidimetry and Alkalimetry, argentmetric titrations, other precipitation methods, and the formation of slightly dissociated or complex compounds.-NEuLoN DEAHL.
JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICANPHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION
large numbers of preparations are assayed annually such practices would be too time consuming. Table VI reveals that the standard error in our series of assays lies between 6-870 with a mean standard error of 7.1O/,. Ten guinea pigs were used in each assay. In fifteen consecutive U. S. P. XI1 cat assays, the standard error of the assay ranged from 47.5% with a mean standard error of 5.5%
when six t o eight cats were used for each assay. In our opinion, a n extensive comparative study of a large number of digitalis preparations of various types should be conducted by both the guinea-pig method and the cat method. Only after such an investigation will one be able t o determine how closely the potency estimates obtained by the two methods check.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Some of the factors causing variation in the guinea-pigmethod for the standardization of digitalis have been studied. 2. The lethal dose determined in the conventional manner was high for light guinea pigs and low for heavy animals. A correction was made for such sensitivity. This adjustment is called the size factor and for the guinea pig equals 0.64 0.039. 3. Fasting, sex, and source of supply are without influence on the results of the assay by the guinea-pig method. 4. The adjusted lethal dose remained constant when 1: 15 and 1:30 dilutions of digitalis were infused into the animals a t a constant rate. 5. Ether and sodium phenobarbital yield f
approximately the same lethal doses for the samples of digitalis tested. 6. %Thecoefficient of variation of this method in our hands ranged from 13.Syo to 17.4%. 7. Five preparations of digitalishave been assayed by the guinea-pig method and have been compared with the U. S. P. XI onehour frog method and the U. s. P. XI11 intravenous cat method. Four of the five preparations show good agreement in the potency estimates between the cat and guinea-pig methods. The potency of the fifth assayed by the guinea-pig method yielded a result differing by more than 20 per cent from that obtained by the intravenous cat method.
REFERENCES (1) Bliss, C. I., THIS JOURNAL, 33, 225(1944). ( 2 ) KnafB-Lenz, E . J., J . Pharmacol., E x p f l . Thcrap.. 29, 407(1926). (3) KoafB-Lenz, E. J., Arch. c x p f l . Path. Pharmakol., 135, 259(1928). (4) Hatcher, R.,and Brody, J., Am. J. Pharm., 82, 360 (1910). (5) de Lind van Wijngaarden, C., Arch. e x p t l . Palh. Pharmakol.. 113, 40(1926). (6) Bliss, C. I . , J . E x p f l . B i d . . 13, 95(1936). (7) Dawson, W. T., Ann. Inlcrnal Med., 13, 1594-1615 (1940). (8) Goldberg. L.,A c f a Physiol. Scand., 4, 178(1942) (9) Otterstrom, M. K . , Quart. Bull. Health Organiealion Leaguc Nafions, 4, 523(1935).
(10) Levy J and OtterstrBm, M. K.. Bull. soc. chim. blol., 16, 151k(lkd34). (11) Bruo, J. C., Quart. J . Pharm. Phavmacol., U,169 (1939). 12) Gaddum, J. C. ibid. 5 274(1932). t13) Trevao, J., Bdock, E.: Burn, J. C . , and Gaddum, J. H. ibid. 1 6(1928). (14j Gra'm,'L, Norsk. Mag. Lacgevidcnskap., 99,23(1938). (16) Marri, R., and Ciappi, J., Boll. soc. i f a l .b b l . spcr., 14, 169(1939). (16) Straub. W.,Kaona, Z . . and Ziooitz, F., Arch. c x p f l . Pafh. Pharmakol. 194, l(1940). 117) Eichbaud, F.. Rco. b a s i l . biol., 5, 283(1945). 18) Allmark, M., and Bachinski, W., Rev. can. biol., 5, 570(1946).
Book Review Volumetric Analysis. Vol. II. Titration Methods. By I. M. KOLTHOPP and V. A. STBNGER. Inter374 science Publishers, New York, 1947. xiii pp. 15 x 23 cm. Price $6.00.
+
The authors, in bringing this volume up t o date, have given particular attention not only to the fundamental principles of volumetric analysis, but to the practicability and reliability of the methods included therein.
A particularly good discussion of indicators is included in the chapter 011 Acidimetry and Alkalirnetry. This is followed by a terse presentation of the principles of Acid-Base displacement titrations, titrations involving hydrolytic precipitations or complex formation, special methods of Acidimetry and Alkalimetry, argentmetric titrations, other precipitation methods, and the formation of slightly dissociated or complex compounds.-NEuLoN DEAHL.