DETERIORATION OF CHLORINATED LIME 15 
The winter-packed samples showed a regular rate of deterioration 
throughout the experiment. (Table3.) The rate of loss of available 
chlorine from them was more uniform than that from the summer- 
packed material. (Fig. 4.) 
EFFECT OF SIZE AND TYPE OF CONTAINER 
With any one type of container the size appeared to have little 
effect. The chlorinated lime packed in 5-ounce, 12-ounce, and 
5-pound fiber containers Beeniad to deteriorate at about the same 
rate. (Table 3.) 
cin 
ROM EARS G86: 
id 
Bre 
Bul 
mits 
ee | 
mane 
pel Ng 
SIE ee 
‘s 
AVAILABLE CHLORINE (PER CENT? 
10 24h f2 AP ~~ FF OOPS I 
a ae ee a 
STORAGE PERIOD (MONTHS) 
Fic. 3.—Loss of available chlorine in summer-packed chlorinated lime stored in 5 and 
12 ounce packages for 16 months 
The larger (5 and 10 pound) metal containers were slightly superior 
to the others from the standpoint of preventing decrease in available 
chlorine content. (Table 9.) The best container is evidently the 
tightly-stoppered glass bottle. This is to be expected from consid- 
eration of the fact that the deterioration rate seems to be hastened by 
the absorption of moisture. 
EFFECT OF LIGHT 
In one series of experiments, in which a sample of chlorinated lime 
was stored for 614 months, the material that was exposed to the light 
deteriorated much more rapidly than that which was kept in the dark. 
(Table 7.) In another series, however, in which eight samples were 
stored for 12 months, the material stored in the hght deteriorated 
only slightly more than that stored in the dark. (Table 8.) In the 
first series the average monthly deterioration was 1.37 per cent for 
