*24?Q OBSERVATIONS ON SALT. 



PutrcfaaioH is With regard to thcfeplic property of muriate of foda; it muft 

 haftencd by de- fe re fe r red to another caufe. The deflruaion of mufcular ir- 



ftroymg irritabi- ..... . . . 2 r c . , c 



jity. ritability appears to be a chief cauie ot accelerating putrefac- 



tion. This was afcertained by Mn John Hunter, who found, 

 that when death is occafioned by an electric (hock, by violent 

 exercife, by a blow on the llomach, or by any thing that de- 

 liroys the irritability of the mufcular fibre, putrefaction quickly 

 enfues. Fontana found that the fame effects were produced 

 by the poifon of vipers. It has been alio found by experiment, 

 that the compounds of potafh and foda deftroy mufcular irrita- 

 Commonfakin-bility. Now, is it not a fair inference from thefe premifes, 

 !ba 1 t e cfi^ r .° dUCC that a fma11 q ilailtit y ot " muriate of foda fliould poflefs a feptic 

 quality ? Upon thefe grounds, it will not be difficult to reconcile 

 Mucbfah re- the two oppofite actions of muriate of foda. When a large 

 tards putrefac- q Uan tity of this fait is applied to an animal fubfiance, it acts 

 and covering, merely by removing the indifpenfible conditions of putrefac- 

 more than it ac- ^ on> an - and moifture. The particles in contact with the fub- 

 hftmentioneT fiance may indeed a& in deftroying the irritability of the muf- 

 quality. cular fibre; but this being only a fecondary caufe of putrefac- 



tion, cannot operate unlefs in conjunction with air and moil- 

 Little faltacce- ture. On the other hand, when a Imall quantity of this fait in 

 lerates it for thef ] ul j on j s applied, it is inefficient either to exclude the air, or 

 «on raryreaon. ^ a kft ra & themoifture; its peculiar property, therefore, acts 

 in conjunction with the other caufes, and thefe caufes united 

 accelerate the putrefactive procefs much more than any of them 

 Separately. 



Such is the explanation of thefe phenomena which occurred 

 to me. Although it may be imperfect in many points, yet it 

 appears to involve no hypothefis, but to be a Uriel deduction 

 from facts. Should this attempt have the good fortune to meet 

 with your approbation, its infertion in the Philofophical Journal 

 may at leaft have the eflect of drawing the attention of fome 

 more eminent chemiit to this too much neglected fubject. 



I am, Sir, 



Your's refpectfully, 

 Edinburgh, July 12, 1802. D. H. 



VI. Account 



