First report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into arsenical poisoning [1900] from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink.

Great Britain. Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning.

Date:: 1901-1903

Credit: First report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into arsenical poisoning [1900] from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

180/872 (page 94)

$Dr. ' T. StevemgiiH. IS Mar. 1901, eaters—we do not meet them in this country ; I have only met one—and the oixiinary medical experience shows that if you give considerable quantities day by day exceeding the ordinary dose, you very quickly arrive .it a, time at which the patient shows signs of being poisoned by it. Individua) 2452. {Sir William Church.) Do you Jinow the largest suBceptibiliiy dose anyone has taken with impunity for any length to arsenic. of time?—have heard of 30-minim doses being given, which is heroic treatment. 2353. How many times in the 24 hoiirs'?—Two or three times. 2454. (Chairman.) Of Fowler's solution?—Yes ; 30 minims at onoe ; over a quarter of a grain. 2455. That would be a quarter of a grain a diayT— That is given twice or three times a day, but T do not think the majority of people would becir chat quantity. 2456. In that way in four days 3 grains of axsenic would be taken into the system 1—Yes. 2457. And some of it would have perhaps disap- peared ?—^Yea. 2458. Your statement is that 8 minims three times a day is a full dose ?—thint that is the ordinary full dose you give to outpatients. 2459. It means a little- more than l-5th of a grain per day?—Yes. It is the maximum pharmacopoeia dose. I particularly enquired for the dose of the Man- chester physicians, and the largest dose I heard they had been given was 30 minims, a quantity iwhich Sir William Church has given, but I find it was common to out-patients to begin and continue 8-minim doses. 2460. (Sir William Church.) I do not think that is common in London?—I do not think so either. I was rather surprised to find the amount wasi so large. I should have thought four or five minims to begin with, and then rise to eight, was the usual thing. 2461. (Dr Whitelegge.) What is the smallest amount of arsenic that has been found to- prove harmful in me- dico-legal imvesibigations—^one dose or repeated doses? I am thinking of chronic arsenical jDoisoning?—I have known f of a grain bring a person within an ace of her death. 2462. That you would consider an acute case ?—Yee. 2463. There are no figures you can g;ive to us about clironic arsenical poisoning, are there?—No, except ox- oeptional cases. I think Dr. Dixon Mann will tell you about a servant of a friend of hi^ to whom he gave a 5 niiniim dose of liquor arsenicalis, which would be equal to someithing less than l-20th of a gifein, three times a day, and she had arsenical Hashes' on the second day. But ■that is an exceptional case. I think one of the Ameri- cans says that the smallest dose wliich has produced de- cidedly poisonous symptoms wa*) about something less than half a grain given in divided dos'es for several days. 2464. (Chairman.) Half a grain per day for sevBral days?—No', half a grain in total. But that is very ex- ceptional. 2465. (Dr. Whitelegge.) The ajsendoal poisoning we have under consideration in connection with this epideimic is one of very ismia-ll doses, is it not ?—^I do not know. We do not know how much the beer contained which most of them <irank, and how much they drajik. I know in going round the Crumpsall Infirmary I aisiked each patient how much they took, and they would say, How can we tell you, doctor? Anything we ctould get. One man, a man out of work, admitted 15 pints a day. which is nearly two gallons. That was his nsiial tipple. Heavy 2466. (Chairman.) That is within a pint of two gal- drinkers Ions?—^I have not seen the cas-e myself, but I know a affected l>y brewer's man in the liverpool disiaiat where the beer the epidemic, contained on artalysds of two samples l-7th and l-6th of a grain per pint respectively per gallon, and lie drank usually, he sacxi, two gallons per diem. 2467. Six pints, therefore, will contain a grain of arsenic ?—'Yes'. He took, according to his own account, a&suming the beer when he 'began to suffer contained tJie same amount, two grains of arsenic per day. 2468. Was he poisoned on the first day?—No. 2469. Did he get very ill on the first day ?—N'o ; he suffered from neuoritis after drinking tlits Lees' for some time. Then you must remember that the man who drink.:! that large quan-tity also must excrete a laj-ge am'ount of Drine. and 3js arsenic is ohieflv excreted by the urine the presumption is that it very quickly ran through Dr. T. Stm him. The arsenic must have been in a very limited con dition. 2470. (Sir William Church.) It is also probable, is it ^.^ — not, that the beer did not always contain that amount ' of arsenic ?—It is probable it did not. When he was ill, a former assistant of mine examined the beer, and I saw the results of two samples of beer taken on two sejmrate occasions. One was '14, and the other '17 of a grain per pint. 2471. One-sixth of a grain per pint is one and a-half grains per gafion, and that 17 of a grain per pint is on« and a-'third grains per gaillon ?—^Yes. It must be taken into conaideration witih regard to this 'epidemic tlliat the beer was oniy taken at ithat one partioulair time, and. it is quite a matter of speculation whether the beer always contained as much, or dess, or more than on those pajr- ticular days when^ Mr. Groves and others stopped th« beer. The beer that had Ijeen hrewed two or three months before would -be all iConsimied, as these light ales are consumed witliin a fortnig^ht of their 'being breiwed, very often. 2472. How many specimens of beer 'have shown so large a proportion of arsenic as that?—do not know. I did not myself analyse any of 'these highly larseiucated beers in Manchester, but I siliould have thought you had evidenoo that 'they did contain, some of them, over a grain per gallon. 2473. (Sir If'ilUam Church.) One and a-half grsiins. Practically that was the amount found in the case I have menltioned. 2474. (Chairman.) We Qiave not heard- of as mudi as Ma.xim two grains per gailon, but we have heard of as much as quantit one and a-ihailf grains per gaJllon in Liverpool. You give arsenic us in one case one and a-tliird grains, and in another one found ill and a-half grains per 'ga:llon ?—^Ye-s. 2475. Have you anything to say about the detection Tests fJ of arsenic in beer and its quantitative determination? arsenici —There are three tests commonly employed for the beer, detection of arsenic when mixed with organic matter in small amounts, and tliey have been employed for esti- mating its amount. The results thus obtained are, how- ever, estimates only, good approximations at the best, and not reliable absolute determinations of amounts. In beer, with a limited amount of material, say, one-third of a quart—which has been a very usual amount to be sent to the public analyst—and the arsenic present in the proportion of a few hundredths, or even tenths of a gram per gallon, absolute and accurate determinations of the quantity of arsenic present are impossible, and approximate estimates only can he made. When present in the proportion of a grain and upwards per gallon, th? ars'ermio may, however, be separated as a weighalble stil- phide. The tests referred to are Guitzeifs, Reinsch^s, and Marsh's tests. Gutzeit's test, based upon the libera- tion of arsenetted hydrogen, and the yellow colour pro- duced by the action lof this gas upon mercuric chloride, is delicate, subject to the same limitations as Marsh's test, and may mislead, since other substances besides arsenetted hydrogen strike a yellow colour with mercuric chloride. Unfortunaitely, when the colour is produced the test cannot be pushed further for confirmation that the yellow colour is due to arsenic. Marsh's well-known lest in its modern modified form is very -delicate, except in the presence of som-e sulphur compounds. It needs great care and much time, skill, and experience to work it successfully, and avoiid error ;and it is troublesome for -beers. It should, 'however, be used where estimates of minute amounts of -arsenic are needed, and -by way of confirmation. Reinsch's test is ahout as delicate as Marsh's tost, is easier to perform, more rapid, less liable to error, and -more reliable than the other two tests men- tioned. It succeeds where the other 'tests may fail, that is, in the presence of sulphur compounds. It succeeds when you have present the yellow sulphide of -arsenic. It is not a quantitative test, but may be used to ascer- tain whether arsenic is present or absent in more than a given small -proportion, and roughly an estimate otf quantity must be made from its result. It is applicable with care when the arsenic is present in the form of its h:iwher oxide—ithe arseniates—when properly applied, 'but these are, -perhaps, never fomid in beer—at all events as accidental contamination. By it (as also by Marsh's test) the arsenic may be obtained in visible crystals, and these -may -be sulbjected to further conifirmatorv tests. 'Phe reasons why Reinsch's test was recommended by the Brewers' Oomimission were these: —We found that Marsh's test, which was being generally used in Man- chester, was giving much trouble ; that beers brewed rn fresh, cleansed apparatus, and Tiartly from arsenic —free sugar, and even all malt and hops, often contained$