For details of the analytical methods employed, Eitner’s original paper must be consulted, but the annexed table (see next page) summarises his results. The letters heading the columns have the following meanings. A. Hide substance precipitated by neutralisation of the lime with carbonic acid. B. A further precipitate obtained by slight acidification with hydrochloric acid. C. Soluble peptones precipitated by hypochlorous acid or mercuric nitrate. It is obvious that none of these figures represent the _total_ dissolved organic matter, and it is to be regretted that this was not determined. It is, however, fairly safe to assume that the table correctly represents the relative solubility in the different liquors. In each case 2 liters of liquor were used for each kilo of green hide. When old liquors were employed, the hide-substance they originally contained was determined, and deducted from the final result. -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------------+----- Hide | Description of | Days | Hide-substances in |Loss Used. | Lime Liquor. |Liming.| Grams per Liter. | per | | | |cent. | | | | on | | +-----+-----+-----+------+ Dry | | | A. | B. | C. |Total.|Pelt. --+----+-----------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+------+----- 1|Ox- |Fresh lime 30 grm. per}| 6[76] |1·068|0·324|2·370| 3·762| 2·35 |hide|liter }| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2| „ |Ditto | 9 |2·764|0·540|3·624| 6·928| 4·14 | | | | | | | | 3| „ |Fresh lime 30 grm., }| | | | | | | |¹⁄₂ grm. sulphide of }| 5[76] |0·852|0·172|1·816| 2·840| 1·75 | |sodium per liter }| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4| „ |Ditto | 8 |1·240|0·514|3·846| 5·600| 3·36 | | | | | | | | 5| „ |5 weeks old lime, }| | | | | | | |through which four }| 2 |0·180|0·212|0·988| 1·380| 0·87 | |packs had passed }| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6| „ |Ditto | 5[76] |0·868|1·318|3·356| 5·542| 3·46 | | | | | | | | 7| „ |5 months old lime, }| 2 |0·196|0·188|0·864| 1·248| 0·77 | |with sodium sulphide }| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8| „ |Ditto | 5[76] |0·928|1·198|3·004| 5·130| 3·06