MOLASSES 447 



otherwise cause the solution of sugar. The water in the complex appears 

 in analysis, and hence the solubility of the sugar in the water as returned 

 appears lower than the normal solubility in water alone. In place of referring 

 the dominant factor to the reducing sugars /non-sugar ratio, Geerligs con- 

 siders that the deciding factor is the reducing sugars to ash ratio, or more 

 exactly the alkalinity of the ash as representative of -the amount of organic 

 salts present, as it is these that enter largely into the formation of the syrupy 

 compound. The position of the reducing sugars is also discussed by Geerligs. 

 He recalls the older idea that glucose was a molasses-former, and in a series 

 of experiments shows that this idea is ill-founded.* In one series of experi- 

 ments he dissolved cane sugar in a specially purified honey and allowed the 

 excess of sugar to crystallize out. As indicated in the table below, the effect 

 of the reducing sugars in increasing the solubility of the cane sugar is zero. 



EFFECT OF GLUCOSE ON SOLUBILITY OF CANE SUGAR. (GEERLIGS.) 

 Sucrose crystallized . . 9-3 9-1 10 -o 8-9 9-8 9-2 9-0 



Sucrose dissolved .. 15-7 15*9 15*0 16 -i 15 -2 15-8 16 -o 



Glucose . . . . 25 -o 12-5 6 -o 3-0 i -o 0-5 



Water .... .. 7-5 7 '5 7 '5 7 "5 7 "5 7 '5 7 '5 



In another series of experiments he showed that it is possible under 

 certain conditions to " salt " cane sugar out from solutions by the addition 

 of glucose, thus affording experimental evidence in favour of the actual 

 existence of the postulated sugar-salt-water complex. 



On the other hand Williams 4 has observed that, if a commercially ex- 

 hausted molasses be boiled almost dry and then be allowed to stand for some 

 weeks, there is a formation of small impure sugar crystals that can be re- 

 covered in centrifugals after " pugging " the mass with a small quantity 

 of cold water. He considers that this observation negatives the existence 

 of the complex demanded by Geerligs' theory, and goes so far as to accuse 

 the water of being the only molasses-former. Some controversy over the 

 matter has resulted, but in the opinion of the writer both observations are 

 consonant with each other. Evidently if all the water is removed the com- 

 plex must be broken up, and it should be possible by rapid work to separate 

 the sugar crystals before the syrupy compound is formed, since the time 

 element must enter into its formation. In addition it is possible that the 

 molasses used by Williams while being commercially exhausted may not 

 have been absolutely so. 



In the early days of research in sugar technology, viscosity as preventing 

 the movement of sugar molecules was considered to be one of the chief 

 factors in molasses formation. Geerligs has shown that eventually even in 

 jellies all the sugar capable of crystallization does so, and accordingly vis- 

 cosity can only be of influence in determining the time taken for complete 

 crystallization. Technically this influence is not unimportant, and is par- 

 ticularly noticeable in a comparison of the rapidity of crystallization in 

 refineries and in raw sugar houses, material of equal purities (but with the 

 41 gums " removed by char filtration) crystallizing much more rapidly in 

 the refinery than in the raw sugar house. The purity of the refinery 

 " barrel syrup " is, however, substantially the same as that of the molasses 

 afforded in the houses where the raw sugar was produced. 



* All non-sugar is a molasses-former since the water required to keep it in solution will also dissolve sugar. 

 The old idea of positive and negative molasses-formers referred to those bodies which increased and decreased the 

 solubility of the sugar in water. In the former class were included the organic salts of the alkalies, which in Geerligs' 

 theory are responsible for the formation of a very soluble complex. 



