Page:Treatise on poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence, physiology, and the practice of physic (IA treatiseonpoison00chriuoft).pdf/130

 2. When diluted, it may be distinguished from all ordinary acids by solution of nitrate of baryta occasioning a heavy white precipitate of sulphate of baryta, which is insoluble in nitric acid. Selenic and sulphurous acids, however, and also, as Mr. Alfred Taylor informs me he has lately found, the fluo-silicic acid, are similarly acted on in all respects. But selenic and fluo-silicic acids in all forms, and sulphurous acid in a state of solution, are so seldom met with, being known only in the laboratory of the scientific chemist, that they can scarcely be considered sources of fallacy. Sulphuric acid may at once be distinguished from sulphurous acid, by the latter possessing a peculiar pungent odour. From the two other acids it may be distinguished by collecting and drying the barytic precipitate, mixing this with charcoal, converting it into sulphuret of barium by heating it in a platinum spoon before the blowpipe, and then adding diluted muriatic acid to the sulphuret, so as to disengage sulphuretted-hydrogen-gas,—which again is easily known by its odour, or its property of blackening paper dipped in solution of acetate of lead. A much more important source of fallacy than these is the possible presence of a bisulphate in solution, or a neutral sulphate along with any other free acid; for these substances will present the same reactions with litmus and barytic salts as free sulphuric acid itself. Much has been published lately upon this point; but the difficulty has not yet been satisfactorily overcome. It may be got rid of indeed by proving, that no bisulphate or neutral sulphate is present. Their absence may be shown by no solid residuum being left on evaporating the suspected fluid, or at least no more than a mere haziness, owing to the sulphate of lead which commercial sulphuric acid always contains in small quantity. Or as Orfila suggests, we may establish their absence still better by concentrating the fluid, and finding that neither carbonate of soda, which would cause a precipitate with earthy or metallic bases, nor chloride of platinum, which would do so with potash or ammonia in combination, nor fluo-silicic acid, which precipitates soda salts, has any effect when applied to separate portions of the subject of inquiry. But suppose it appear in the course of these trials that one or more bases are actually present, how is it to be settled whether the sulphuric acid, indicated by litmus and a salt of baryta, is really free or not? To this question I must reply, that no method has yet been proposed, which is at once satisfactory and easily available. Mr. Alfred Taylor proposes to concentrate the fluid, and agitate it with alcohol, in the hope that the alcohol will remove sulphuric acid, and not a sulphate, from the water. But it removes sulphuric acid from a bisulphate even when dry, and still more when a little water is present. Orfila proposes, in the case of sulphuric acid in vinegar,—where there is both a vegetable acid and a neutral sulphate of lime,—to concentrate to a sixth, and agitate the residuum with four times its volume of sulphuric ether, in the expectation that this fluid will remove the free acid alone, and separate it from sulphates. But notwithstanding the authority of his