W. p. LARSON 187 



The mechanism of the action of soaps upon toxins provides interesting specula- 

 tion since some toxins are neutraUzed while others are rendered more active. A theory 

 on the basis of the charge carried by the soap, on the one hand, and the toxins, on the 

 other, may supply a partial explanation of the phenomenon. If it be assumed that 

 soap and diphtheritic toxin are oppositely charged they will attract each other and 

 enter into some relationship which we have chosen to term an "adsorption reaction." 

 If, as may be the case with the mushroom toxins, they bear the same charge, the 

 tendency would be toward dispersion with resultant increased toxicity of the toxin. 

 If we accept the theory of dispersion as the mechanism by which the toxin is ren- 

 dered more toxic, it will be necessary to assume further that the mushroom toxin 

 normally exists not only as free toxin molecules, but in molecular aggregates as well, 

 otherwise there would be no dispersion. 



If this assumption, for which there is some experimental support, be accepted, it 

 may be assumed further that all toxins may exist in the form of molecular aggregates, 

 and that such aggregates act as a unit, or as a single toxin molecule. In the light of 

 this theory, toxins which are charged oppositely to the soap would be dispersed by 

 being attracted to the soap and condensed — adsorbed — about the soap molecule. The 

 like charged toxins, on the other hand, would be repelled by th» soap, and in this way 

 the molecular aggregates dispersed. Halvorson and Green have shown by mathe- 

 matical deductions that the charge on the surface of a particle or molecule must be 

 considered as a part of the surface energy. It is not contended that the charge of the 

 molecules is the only force which brings about the reaction between the toxin and soap 

 molecules. It is undoubtedly only one factor in the interplay of the forces of surface 

 energy. 



