November 6, 1772, I had the curiosity to examine the state of a quantity of this air which had been extracted from saltpetre above a year, and which at first was perfectly wholesome; when, to my very great surprize, I found that it was become, in the highest degree, noxious. It made no effervescence with nitrous air, and a mouse died the moment it was put into it. I had not, however, washed it in rain-water quite ten minutes (and perhaps less time would have been sufficient) when I found, upon trial, that it was restored to its former perfectly wholesome state. It effervesced with nitrous air as much as the best common air ever does; and even a candle burned in it very well, which I had never before observed of any kind of noxious air meliorated by agitation in water. This series of facts, relating to air extracted from nitre, appear to me to be very extraordinary and important, and, in able hands, may lead to considerable discoveries.
3. There are many substances which impregnate common air in a very remarkable manner, but without making it noxious to animals. Among other things I tried volatile alkaline salts, and camphor; the latter of which I melted with a burning-glass, in air inclosed in a phial. The mouse, which was put into this air, sneezed and coughed very much, especially after it was taken out; but it presently recovered, and did not appear to have been sensibly injured.
4. Having made several experiments with a mixture of iron filings and brimstone, kneaded to a paste with water, I had the curiosity to try what would be the effect of substituting brass dust in the place of the iron filings. The result was, that when this mixture had stood about three weeks, in a given quantity of air, it had turned black, but was not increased in bulk. The air also was neither sensibly increased nor decreased, but the nature of it was changed; for it extinguished flame, it would have killed a mouse presently, and was not restored by fixed air, which had been mixed with it several days.
5. I have frequently mentioned my having, at one time, exposed equal quantities of different kinds of air in jars standing in boiled water. Common air in this experiment was diminished four sevenths, and the remainder extinguished flame. This experiment demonstrates that water does not absorb air equally, but that it decomposes it, taking one part, and leaving the rest. To be quite sure of this fact, I agitated a quantity of common air in boiled water, and when I had reduced it from eleven ounce measures to seven, I found that it extinguished a candle, but a mouse lived in it very well. At another time a candle barely went out when the air was diminished one third, and at other times I have found this effect lake place at other very different degrees of diminution.
This difference I attribute to the differences in the state of the water with respect to the air contained in it; for sometimes it had stood longer than at other times before I made use of it. I also used distilled-water, rain-water, and water out of which the air had been pumped, promiscuously with rain water. I even doubt, not but that, in a certain state of the water, there might be no sensible difference in the bulk of the agitated air, and yet at the end of the process it would extinguish a candle, air being supplied from the water in the place of that part of the common air which had been absorbed.
It is certainly a little extraordinary that the very same process should so far mend putrid air, as to reduce it to the standard of air in which candles have burned out; and yet that it should so far injure common and wholesome air as to reduce it to about the same standard: but so the fact certainly is. If air extinguish flame in consequence of its being previously saturated with phlogiston, it must, in this case, have been transferred from the water to the air, and it is by no means inconsistent with this hypothesis to suppose, that, if the air be over saturated with phlogiston, the water will imbibe it, till it be reduced to the same proportion that agitation in water would have communicated to it.
To a quantity of common air, thus diminished by agitation in water, till it extinguished a candle, I put a plant, but it did not so far restore it as that a candle would burn in it again; which to me appeared not a little extraordinary, as it did not seem to be in a worse state than air in which candles had burned out, and which had never failed to be restored by the same means.
I had no better success with a quantity of permanent air which I had collected from my pump-water. Indeed these experiments were begun before I was acquainted with that property of nitrous air, which makes it so accurate a measure of the goodness of other kinds of air; and it might perhaps be rather too late in the year when I made the experiments. Having neglected these two jars of air, the plants died and putrefied in both of them; and then I found the air in them both to be highly noxious, and to make no effervescence with nitrous air.
I found that a pint of my pump-water contained about one fourth of an ounce measure of air, one half of which was afterwards absorbed by standing in fresh pump-water. A candle would not burn in this air, but a mouse lived in it very well. Upon the whole, it seemed to be in about the same state as air in which a candle had burned out.
6. I once imagined that, by mere stagnation, air might become unfit for respiration, or at least the burning of candles; but if this be the case, and the change be produced gradually, it must require a long time for the purpose. For on the 22d of September 1772, I examined a quantity of common air, which had been kept in a phial, without agitation, from May 1771, and found it to be in no respect worse than fresh air, even by the test of the nitrous air.