I have likewise observed, that a mouse will live almost as long in inflammable air, when it has been agitated in water, and even before it has been deprived of all its inflammability, as in common air; and yet that in this state it is not, perhaps, so much diminished by nitrous air as common air is. In this case, therefore, the diminution seems to have been occasioned by a contraction of dimensions, and not by a loss of any constituent part; so that the air is really better, that is, more fit for respiration, than, by the test of nitrous air, it would seem to be. If this be the case (for it is not easy to judge with accuracy by experiments with small animals) nitrous air will be an accurate test of the goodness of _common air_ only, that is, air containing a considerable proportion of fixed air. But this is the most valuable purpose for which a test of the goodness of air can be wanted. It will still, indeed, serve for a measure of the goodness of air that does not contain fixed air; but, a smaller degree of diminution in this case, must be admitted to be equivalent to a greater diminution in the other. As I could never, by means of growing vegetables, bring air which had been thoroughly noxious to so pure a state as that a candle would burn in it, it may be suspected that something else besides _vegetation_ is necessary to produce this effect. But it should be considered, that no part of the common atmosphere can ever be in this highly noxious state, or indeed in a state in which a candle will not burn in it; but that even air reduced to this state, either by candles actually burning out in it, or by breathing it, has never failed to be perfectly restored by vegetation, at least so far that candles would burn in it again, and, to all appearance, as well, and as long as ever; so that the growing vegetables, with which the surface of the earth is overspread, may, for any thing that appears to the contrary, be a cause of the purification of the atmosphere sufficiently adequate to the effect. It may likewise be suspected, that since _agitation in water_ injures pure common air, the agitation of the sea may do more harm than good in this respect. But it requires a much more violent and longer continued agitation of air in water than is ever occasioned by the waves of the sea to do the least sensible injury to it. Indeed a light agitation of air in _putrid water_ injures it very materially; but if the water be sweet, this effect is not produced, except by a long and tedious operation, whereas it requires but a very short time, in comparison, to restore a quantity of any of the most noxious kinds of air to a very great degree of wholesomeness by the same process.