By R. WARINGTON.

In the following brief notes I propose to consider in the first place the present position of the theory of nitrification, and next to give a short account of the results of some recent experiments conducted in the Rothamsted Laboratory.

The Theory Of Nitrification

The production of nitrates in soils, and in waters contaminated with sewage, are facts thoroughly familiar to chemists. It is also well known that ammonia, and various nitrogenous organic matters, are the materials from which the nitric acid is produced. Till the commencement of 1877 it was generally supposed that this formation of nitrates from ammonia or nitrogenous organic matter was the result of simple oxidation by the atmosphere. In the case of soil it was imagined that the action of the atmosphere was intensified by the condensation of oxygen in the pores of the soil; in the case of waters no such assumption was possible. This theory was most unsatisfactory, as neither solutions of pure ammonia, nor of any of its salts, could be nitrified in the laboratory by simple exposure to air. The assumed condensation of oxygen in the pores of the soil also proved to be a fiction as soon as it was put by Schloesing to the test of experiment.

Early in 1877, two French chemists, Messrs. Schloesing and Müntz, published preliminary experiments showing that nitrification in sewage and in soils is the result of the action of an organized ferment, which occurs abundantly in soils and in most impure waters. This entirely new view of the process of nitrification has been amply confirmed both by the later experiments of Schloesing and Müntz, and by the investigations of other chemists, among which are those by myself conducted in the Rothamsted Laboratory.

The evidence for the ferment theory of nitrification is now very complete. Nitrification in soils and waters is found to be strictly limited to the range of temperature within which the vital activity of living ferments is confined. Thus nitrification proceeds with extreme slowness near the freezing-point, and increases in activity with a rise in temperature till 37° is reached; the action then diminishes, and ceases altogether at 55°. Nitrification is also dependent on the presence of plant-food suitable for organisms of low character. Recent experiments at Rothamsted show that in the absence of phosphates no nitrification will occur. Further proof of the ferment theory is afforded by the fact that antiseptics are fatal to nitrification. In the presence of a small quantity of chloroform, carbon bisulphide, salicylic acid, and apparently also phenol, nitrification entirely ceases. The action of heat is equally confirmatory. Raising sewage to the boiling-point entirely prevents its undergoing nitrification. The heating of soil to the same temperature effectually destroys its nitrifying power.

Finally, nitrification can be started in boiled sewage, or in other sterilized liquid of suitable composition, by the addition of a few particles of fresh surface soil or a few drops of a solution which has already nitrified; though without such addition these liquids may be freely exposed to filtered air without nitrification taking place.

The nitrifying organism has been submitted as yet to but little microscopical study; it is apparently a micrococcus.

It is difficult to conceive how the evidence for the ferment theory of nitrification could be further strengthened; it is apparently complete in every part. Although, however, nearly the whole of this evidence has been before the scientific public for more than seven years, the ferment theory of nitrification can hardly be said to have obtained any general acceptance; it has not indeed been seriously controverted, but neither has it been embraced. In hardly a single manual of chemistry is the production of saltpeter attributed to the action of a living ferment existing in the soil. Still more striking is the absence of any recognition of the evidence just mentioned when we turn to the literature and to the public discussions on the subjects of sewage, the pollution of river water, and other sanitary questions. The oxidation of the nitrogenous organic matter of river water is still spoken of by some as determined by mere contact with atmospheric oxygen, and the agitation of the water with air as a certain means of effecting oxidation; while by others the oxidation of nitrogenous organic matter in a river is denied, simply because free contact with air is not alone sufficient to produce oxidation.

How much light would immediately be thrown on such questions if it were recognized that the oxidation of organic matter in our rivers is determined solely by the agency of life, is strictly limited to those conditions within which life is possible, and is most active in those circumstances in which life is most vigorous. It is surely most important that scientific men should make up their minds as to the real nature of those processes of oxidation of which nitrification is an example. If the ferment theory be doubted, let further experiments be made to test it, but let chemists no longer go on ignoring the weighty evidence which has been laid before them. It is partly with the view of calling the attention of English and American chemists to the importance of a decision on this question that I have been induced to bring this subject before them on the present occasion. I need hardly add that such results as the nitrification of sewage by passing it through sand, or the nitrification of dilute solutions of blood prepared without special precaution, are no evidence whatever against the ferment theory of nitrification.

If it is to be shown that nitrification will occur in the absence of any ferment, it is clear that all ferments must be rigidly excluded during the experiments; the solutions must be sterilized by heat, the apparatus purified in a similar manner, and all subsequent access of organisms carefully guarded against. It is only experiments made in this way that can have any weight in deciding the question.