384 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



For the sake of comparison, a like process was: carried out, with 

 filtered portions of each sample. The analyses lA, 2A, etc., are the 

 analyses of the original solutions. IB, 2B, etc., are the analyses of the 

 solutions that have stood in contract with the sediment. IC, 20, etc., 

 are the analyses of the corresponding filtered solutions. Samples 1, 

 3, 5, and 7 were made up according to the formula 60-125-60 and the 

 samples 2, 4, 6, and 8 according to the formula 50-100-50. The results 

 are given in grams per 100 cc. of solution. See table VIII on opposite page. 



A number of interesting observations may be drawn from the study of 

 the above table. First, with the exception of samples 6B and 80 the 

 amount of total sulfur in solution decreased both in the sample stand- 

 ing in contact with its sediment and in the filtered sample. In case of 

 the two exceptions mentioned, the amount of total sulfur in solution 

 remained constant; with a few exceptions, the amount of decrease in 

 the other samples was small. Second, in all except the first two samples 

 the filtered solution was found to have a greater concentration than the 

 unfiltered. There is however, only a slight variation in favor of the 

 filtered solution, except in samples 3B and 4B. These latter variations 

 may be easily explained. A portion of the liquid was removed from each 

 of the two barrels containing tliese solutions for use by the Horticul- 

 tural Department, thus leaving a large air space over the liquid. In 

 the first sample, the filtered solution was found to be much weaker than 

 the unfiltered solution. This is explained by the fact that the glass 

 stopper of the bottle containing the filtered solution did not fit tightly 

 thus allowing the solution to be more or less exposed to the air. These 

 results confirm the conclusions of other experiments, viz. : that the lime 

 sulfur solutions should be stored in containers that will leave the solu- 

 tion as free as possible from the action of the air. Third, it is found 

 on examining the columns headed monosulfide sulfur and total sulfide 

 sulfur that the changes follow in a general way the changes noticed in 

 the total sulfur column. There is, however, a much larger proportional 

 falling off in the monosulfide and total sulfide sulfur in the filtered sam- 

 ples than in the unfiltered samples. For example, take sample 2, in 

 the total sulfur column we fi'nd a falling off of 0.7% in the unfiltered 

 solution and 0.9% in the filtered. These quantities are 4.0% and 5.1% 

 respectively of the total sulfur in the original solution. In the mono- 

 sulfide column, we find a slight gain in the unfiltered solution and a de- 

 crease of 0.22% in the filtered solution. This decrease being about 

 8.0% of the sulfide sulfur in the original solution. In the total sulfide 

 sulfur column there is a dropping off of 0.41% in the unfiltered solution 

 and 1.00% in the filtered solution, these quantities being respectively 

 2.9% and 11.4% of tlie amount of sulfide sulfur in the original solution. 

 On examining the thiosulfate sulfur column we find that the changes 

 here do not follow the changes in the total sulfur column. With the 

 exception of 4B we find a decrease in the amount of thiosulfate sulfur in 

 the unfiltered solution as compared with the original, while in the fil- 

 tered solution we find an increase. This would indicate tliat in the un- 

 filtered solutions the decrease in total sulfur goes on at the expense of 

 the thiosulfate sulfur, while in the filtered solutions it goes on at the 

 expense of the sulfide sulfur. The small decrease in the amount of the 

 sulfide sulfur in the unfiltered solution may be due to an interaction 

 l>etween the thiosulfate sulfur and the sulfur in the sediment, a part 

 of the thiosulfate sulfur being reduced to the sulfide form. It is of 



