WORK OF C. M. STINE. 



49 



should be noted, also, that the hydrating power of the aluminium chloride appears to 

 be relatively less than that of the ferric chloride in the more dilute solutions, but that 

 this relation is reversed in the more concentrated solutions. This may be due to 

 hydrolysis, since, if the aluminium chloride hj'drolyzes more rapidly than the ferric 

 chloride, then, in the more dilute solutions, where the effects of hydrolysis would be 

 pronounced, the result would be to increase the value of L and, consequently, to 

 diminish the value of M, based upon it. 



In table 36 the abbreviations have the usual significance. The values are plotted 

 as curves in figs. 17 and 18. 



Table 36. Aluminium Chloride and Ferric Chloride. 



II 



Fig. 17. 



Difference between the Amount of Water 

 Present as Solvent in the Single Solution 

 of Aluminium Chloride and in the Mix- 

 ture of Ferric Chloride and Aluminium 

 Chloride. 



Difference between the Values of M for 

 Aluminium Chloride in Single Solution 

 and in the Mixture of Aluminium Chlo- 

 ride nnd Ferric Chloride. 



fc 600-1 



o 

 

 O 300 



1.5 



rt 

 



o 





 O 



Gram Molecules of Salt per Liter of Solution 



u 



V 



w 



K 



o 



CO 



E 



e 



600 



300 



.5 



i 

 1.5 





3 



o 







O 



II 



Fig. 18. 



Difference between Amount of Water 

 Present as Solvent in the Single Solu- 

 tion of Ferric Chloride and in the Mix- 

 ture of Ferric Chloride and Aluminium 

 Chloride. 



Difference between Values of M for Ferric 

 Chloride in Single Solution and in the 

 Mixture of Ferric Chloride and Alumin- 

 ium Chloride. 



Gram Molecules of Salt per Liter of Solution 



