1923] SEIFRIZ— SALTS 



401 



in physiologically balanced solutions is not yet fully understood. 

 The antagonistic action of salts was first thought to be " largely 

 or entirely due to the fact that they hinder or prevent one another 

 from entering the protoplasm" (4). This assumption was thought 

 to be incompatible with the normal diosmotic functioning of the 

 protoplast, and the theory of antagonism was changed. It is now 

 believed that "salts antagonize each other because they produce 

 opposite effects on the protoplasm" (5). While it is still possible 

 that the original theory of antagonism is the correct one, namely, 

 that the two substances in solution mutually hinder one another 

 at the surface (or in the surface layer) of the protoplast, without 

 totally preventing each other from entering in small quantities, 

 yet between alcohol and sodium one is inclined to regard the 

 antagonism as due to opposite effects of the alcohol and the salt 

 on the protoplasm. 



The variability in the behavior of sodium as an inhibitor of the 

 toxicity of alcohol can only be explained on the assumption that it 

 is due to a variability in the physiological state of the cells. The 

 great variability in the resistance of cells to alcohol, where, for 

 example, actively streaming cells are found next to dead ones, 

 justifies such an assumption. 



The behavior of sodium plus calcium in alcohol is equally puz- 

 zling. Calcium alone never inhibits the poisonous effect of alcohol, 

 while sodium alone usually does, although it sometimes is as ineffec- 

 tive as calcium. Yet the two ions together always serve as almost 

 perfect inhibitors of the toxicity of alcohol. It is possible that the 

 sodium ion, which when alone usually prevents alcohol from causing 

 death, is always able to exercise this inhibitory influence in the 

 presence of the calcium ion. This suggestion is, in principle, sup- 

 ported by a very interesting hypothesis made to me by Professor 

 Chodat. It was suggested that, by virtue of Gibb's law, the Xa 

 and the Ca ions occupy different regions in the cell, whence the 

 additive protective effect of the two when in solution together. 

 If the monovalent ion is more in the periphery and the bivalent 

 ion more toward the center, this would explain why the Ca ion when 

 alone is unable to exercise any inhibitory influence. 



