ABSORPTIVE POWER OF THE SOIL. 341 
solution having been employed—the bases were displaced 
in quantities that bear to each other no obvious relation. 
Another fact which follows from the rule just illustra. 
ted, is the following: Any base that has been absorbed by 
the soil, may be released from combination partly or en- 
tirely by any other. 5 
Peters subjected a soil which had been saturated with 
potash and subsequently washed copiously with water to 
the action of various solutions. The results, which exhib- 
it the principle just stated, are subjoined. The soil was 
employed in portions of 100 grams, each of which con- 
tained 0.204 gram of absorbed potash. These were di- 
gested for three days with 250 c.c. of solutions (of ni- 
trates) of the content below indicated. 
For sake of comparison the amount of matters taken up 
by distilled water is added. 
Dissolved by the solution. 
Content 9 ‘ Magne- | Ammo- Absorbed 
eed Lime. | sia, | Potash. Soda. | “neq. by the soil. 
gram. 
0.2808 soda. 0.0671(?)} 0.0006 | 0.0983 | 0.2197 | —— |/0.0611 soda. 
0.2165 ammonia.|| 0.0322 — | 0.1455 | 0.0024 | 0.1596 |/0.0569 ammonia. 
0.2996 lime. 0.2380 | 0.0020 | 0.1252 | 0.0252 | —— ||0.0616 lime. . 
O 2317 magnesia.|| 0.0542 | 0.1726 | 0.1224 | 0.0245 | —— |,0.0591 magnesia. 
Dist. water. trace ——_ | 0.0434 | 0.0004 | —— — 
We notice that while distilled water dissolved about '|, 
of the absorbed potash, the saline solutions took up two, 
three, or more times that quantity. We observe further 
that soda liberated lime and magnesia, ammonia liberated. 
lime and soda, lime brought into solution magnesia and 
soda, and magnesia set free lime and soda from the soil 
itself. 
Again, Way, Brustlein, and Peters, have shown in case 
of various soils they experimented with, that the satura- 
ting of them with one base (potash and lime were tried) 
increases the absorbent power for other bases, and on the 
other hand, treatment with acids, which removes absorbed 
bases, diminishes their absorptive power. 
