Independent herbal reference infrastructureOpen the registry
Historical source record Botanical preparation archive

Powder of Sulphate of Potash

An automatically extracted historical preparation published directly for live editorial review. Botanical identity, formula structure and safety may be incomplete; this is not treatment or dosage guidance.

Use not statedUse not stated PreparationPowder RouteInternal use

No specific intended use is stated in the extracted passage

The extracted preparation passage does not state a specific intended use.

It documentsA historical source passage and its preparation structure.
It does not establishModern effectiveness, an individual dose, diagnosis or personal suitability.
Use relationship map

Exact source claims and related context are never blended together.

This hierarchy shows why a use appears beside the preparation. The strongest relationship comes first; contextual links remain explicitly labeled.

Use not stated in the extracted passage.

The preparation remains searchable as an archival method record without an invented indication.

Automated live-review record

This formula was extracted automatically from a historical source and published directly for live editorial inspection. It may contain OCR, title, botanical-identity, ingredient, structure or safety errors. Do not use it as treatment, dosage or self-care guidance.

Source: Companion to the latest edition of the British Pharmacopoeia : comparing the strength of its various preparations with those of the London, Edinburgh, Dublin, United States, ... by Squire Peter, d.1884; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1873), materia-167-3.

Ingredients or materials as extracted

  • Sulphate of Potash: Dover was prepared by fusing 4 parts of Nitrate of Potash with 4 of Sulphate of Potash together, and reducing the product to fine powder ; to this was added 1 of Ipeca- cuanha, 1 of Opium, and 1 of Liquorice.

Method as extracted

  1. Grind according to the source passage: Dover was prepared by fusing 4 parts of Nitrate of Potash with 4 of Sulphate of Potash together, and reducing the product to fine powder ; to this was added 1 of Ipeca- cuanha, 1 of Opium, and 1 of Liquorice.

Live editorial status

This record was published without a human-review gate by site policy. Automated flags at publication: non botanical title identity, quality score below 70, primary taxon poison flag, not marked promotable, critical hazard archive only. Publication makes the source extraction inspectable; it does not verify identity, completeness, efficacy or safety.

Modern safety boundary

Toxic / do not self-use

Do not self-use. The record remains public for historical, botanical and hazard research.

  • Unreviewed automated import: this record is public for live editorial inspection and has not passed manual identity, formula or safety review.
  • Historical formula: ingredient identity, strength, contamination risk and terminology may differ from modern practice.
  • Do not use this record as dosage or treatment guidance. Every ingredient, route and contraindication requires qualified editorial verification.
  • The historical use wording does not establish modern clinical effectiveness.
  • Automated review flags: controlled or narcotic.
Sources & editorial standard

Primary wording. Visible interpretation. No borrowed certainty.

The public record separates the historical passage, structured preparation data, use relationship and modern safety boundary. Same-plant context is presented as context, never as proof that this preparation was intended for that use.

Primary and supporting references

  1. Companion to the latest edition of the British Pharmacopoeia : comparing the strength of its various preparations with those of the London, Edinburgh, Dublin, United States, ... — Companion to the latest edition of the British Pharmacopoeia : comparing the strength of its various preparations with those of the London, Edinburgh, Dublin, United States, ...Primary source for the extracted ingredients and method at materia-167-3.
Read editorial standards