“In conclusion, it will be of interest to compare the charcoals manufactured and used by the principal belligerent nations, both with one another and with the above mentioned laboratory preparations. Data on these charcoals are given in the following table:

Comparison of Typical Production Charcoals
of the Principal Belligerent Nations

Country DateRaw Material Apparent
Density
Service
Time
Corr.
to 8-14
Mesh
Remarks
U. S. A.Nov. 1917Cocoanut0.6010Air activated
U. S. A. June, 1918 Mixed nuts, etc. 0.5818Steam activated
U. S. A.Nov. 1918Cocoanut0.5134Steam activated
England1917Wood0.27 6Long distillation
EnglandAug. 1918Peach stones,
 etc.
0.5416
France1917-18Wood0.23 2
GermanyEarlyWood? 3Chemical and
 steam treatment
GermanyJune, 1917Wood0.2533Chemical and
 steam treatment
GermanyJune, 1918Wood0.2442Chemical and
 steam treatment

“It is at once evident that the service time of most of these charcoals is very much less than was obtained with the laboratory samples. However, in the emergency production of this material on a large scale, quantity and speed were far more important than the absolute excellence of the product. It will be noted, for instance, that the cocoanut charcoal manufactured by the United States, even in November, 1918, was still very much inferior to the laboratory samples made from the same raw material. This was not because a very active charcoal could not be produced on a large scale, for even in May, 1918, the possibility of manufacturing a 50-min. charcoal on a large scale had been conclusively demonstrated, but this activation would have required two or three times as much raw material and five times as much apparatus as was then available, due to the much longer time of heating, and the greater losses of carbon occasioned thereby.

“It should furthermore be pointed out that the increase in the chloropicrin service time of charcoal from 18 to 50 min. does not represent anything like a proportionate increase in its value under field service conditions. This is partly due to the fact that the increased absorption on the high concentration tests is in reality due to condensation in the capillaries, which, as has been pointed out, is not of much real value. More important than this, however, is the fact that most of the important gases used in warfare are not held by adsorption only, but by combined adsorption and chemical reaction, for which purpose an 18-min. charcoal is, in general, almost as good as a 50-min. charcoal.”

Typical Absorptive Values of Different Charcoals
Against Various Gases

No. Charcoal Nation (A) (B) Service Time, Minutes
Standard Conditions
(C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I)
1Poor cocoanutU. S. A.01012017520 185550270
2Medium cocoanutU. S. A.03035026025 256565370
3Good cocoanutU. S. A.06062031027 307570420
4Same as No. 2 but wet U. S. A.12 1832033035 163595
5No. 2 impregnatedU. S. A.0354007007040070190 510
6WoodFrench0 2.5 25 75 9  0 120
7WoodBritish0 6 70 9018  4 530
8Peach stoneBritish01619013530 256560
9Treated woodGerman04223010520 202225
10 No. 9 impregnatedGerman 30  9 9032016  1110 120 

Standard Conditions of Tests

Mesh of absorbent8-14
Depth of absorbent layer10 cm.
Rate of flow per sq. cm. per min.500 cc.
Concentration of toxic gas0.1 per cent
Relative humidity50 per cent
Temperature20°
Results expressed in minutes to the 99 per cent efficiency points.
Results corrected to uniform concentrations and size of particles.