Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) in 1855

I cannot conclude this paper without drawing the attention of medical men to the importance which the brine springs on the Continent have lately acquired, as, for instance, the springs near Kissingen, the Adelheids quelle, near Heilbroun, and above all, the springs of Kreugnach, which have been found highly beneficial in scrophulous diseases when internally administered, their action being dependent entirely on the chlorides, iodides, and bromides they contain. Seawater would afford similar advantages for bathing, and when evaporated to dryness, the residue might be kept in earthen vessels, and thus be conveyed to any distance; and as its constituents are very soluble, sea-water in perfection might be procured at any place. The evaporation of sea-water should be performed with care, and the ingredients kept by chemists. One great advantage would accrue from this method, viz. that sea-water could be had of any degree of concentration which the practitioner might deem necessary. At the baths of Kreugnach, for example, extraordinary effects have been produced when from 40 to 70 quarts of the mother liquor were added to the natural salt-water of that spring, and this mixture used for bathing.

It is amusing to note that the start of the development of artificial seawater for marine aquaria began

Robert Warington (1807-1867)

Now there are a number of reasons why aquarists might be interested in artificial seawater rather than using the real thing. The density of the final solution is controllable, it is more stable, the formula can be varied for specific uses (e.g., for marine plants versus for marine animals) and it is sterile and thus diseases cannot spread. In Gosse’s time, however, the main reason was economics. It was a lot less expensive to reconstitute the seawater with local freshwater than to bring seawater to the aquarium. Water is heavy, its salts are not.

Therefore, Gosse devised the following plan. He would visit Warington and steer the conversation in such a way that it would not be a consultation but Warington would talk about his experiences. Executing his plan, Gosse visited Warington in 1854 on two occasions at Apothecaries’ Hall: on January 16th and again on January 21st. As it turns out, however, Warington did consider Gosse’s visits to be consultations. During these “chats,” Warington had no idea that Gosse already knew about Schweitzer’s paper. However, Gosse did discover that Warington had no plans to publish a paper dealing with artificial seawater. Gosse then went ahead with his plan to write his article and by April 21, 1854 he had devised an artificial seawater formula, made up a tank with the solution and added some marine invertebrates. Everything went well and on June 9th he submitted his paper to The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. On July 1954 it was published (Gosse, 1854) and Gosse had achieved his goal. For once, he had beaten Warington to the printed page and went down in history as the first to write about - and to provide a formula for - artificial seawater for aquarists!

Apothecaries’ Hall where Gosse met with Warington on January 16 and 21, 1854, and discussed artificial seawater.

In any event, in the original source (Laurens, 1834) I found that Laurens was a pharmacy student in Marseille and had sent a note to the Socié- té de Pharmacie containing an analysis that he had made of the water of the Mediterranean Sea. The commentary on the article included the following (translated): “In summary, the note from Mr. Laurens, describing the composition of the water of the Mediterranean Sea in a new, well-done analysis, should interest those doctors who prescribe the use of sea bathing.” Thus, Laurens’ purpose was also the same as that of Schweitzer’s. Unfortunately, Gosse had included the following paragraph in his paper:

Several scientific friends to whom I mentioned my thoughts, expressed their doubts of the possibility of the manufacture; and one or two went so far as to say that it had been tried, but that it had been found not to answer; that though it looked like sea-water, tasted, smelt, like the right thing, yet it would not support animal life. Still, I could not help saying, with the lawyers,

From this, there were unexpected, disastrous consequences. One wonders what Warington really thought when he read Gosse’s paper. He must, at the very least, have been dumfounded but as will be seen, he actually only used the word “surprised.”

In any event, Gosse had miscalculated converting from grains to avoirdupois pounds and ounces, and had mistakenly assumed that the magnesium sulphate in Schweitzer’s paper represented the ordinary crystallized salt, and not the anhydrous sulphate that is always the case in giving analytical results. Furthermore, Gosse had eliminated the following from Schweitzer’s formula:

1. Magnesium bromide because of its small concentration and because Laurens did not find any in the water of the Mediterranean;

2. Calcium carbonate because calcium could be found in abundance in the fragments of shell, coral and calcareous material that made up the bottom of the aquarium;

3. Calcium sulphate because it was difficult to dissolve and because it was found by Laurens in a minute concentration.

Gosse’s decision to eliminate magnesium bromide and calcium sulphate simply because Laurens found them absent or in a minute concentration made no sense. The composition of Mediterranean waters differs from that of the water in the English Channel. The English Channel sits on top of layer of chalk and it was to be expected that its calcium content would be higher. Since Schweitzer’s analysis was appropriate for marine animals found off the southern cost of England where most specimens would be collected for British aquaria, it was the relevant analysis and logically the one that should have been followed.

In the ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural History’ for July last, you published a short communication from Mr. Gosse, on the artificial formation of sea water, and having lately had my attention especially directed to this paper by a friend who wished to put the formula given into practice, I was surprised at the difference in the proportions of the ingredients as compared with what I had myself employed in the course of 1853, more particularly from the circumstance, that when Mr. Gosse called upon me in January last, and consulted me on the feasibility of the plan, I told him that there could be no difficulty in the matter, as I had made and had then in use several small quantities artificially produced, and that all that was required was that a good analysis should be taken as the basis for deducing the proportions, and at the same time referred him to the source from which I myself had worked, namely Dr. E. Schweitzer's analysis of the water of the English Channel taken off Brighton. Now, as numerous parties have been inquiring respecting this subject, and the erroneous formula has been copied into other journals, it may prevent much annoyance as well as disappointment if this matter is set right.

Upon reading Warington’s corrections to his paper, Gosse had two reactions, the first being a rather acrimonious one (Gosse, 1855):

If Mr. Warington supposes that I obtained from him one atom of information previously unknown to me, on the subject of making seawater from its constituent salts, he is most thoroughly mistaken. He is no less wrong in saying that I “consulted” him ; since I merely mentioned what was on my mind in familiar conversation. With this, however, the public are of course not concerned, and I shall say no more on that head.

That Mr. Warington's calculations are correct I do not at all deny; but that they convict mine of “error” I by no means admit; as my facts will presently show. The “error” (which is of that kind technically called “nidus equæ”) [a humorous comment meaning a “mare’s nest, implying that the criticism was a “humbug”] lies altogether on the other side.

Essentially Gosse claimed in his rebuttal that (1) his formula was “…for practical people, to whom minute accuracy is impossible and to whom a chemical formula expressed in quantities of four or five decimals would certainly act as a prohibition,” and (2) by actual experimentation, examples of Crustacea (crabs, etc.), Mollusca (sea snails, etc.), Annelida (worms, etc.) and Zoophyta (sponges, etc.), as well as Ulva and Conferva plants, thrived for over eight months. As can be seen from Table I, the differences between his formula and that of Schweitzer’s were large enough to raise some eyebrows. Ironically, with regard to simplicity it was Warington who suggested the simplest solution of all (Warington, 1854):

There cannot be a question that by far the simplest plan would consist in the evaporation of the sea water itself in large quantities at the source, preserving the resulting salt in closely stopped vessels to prevent the absorption of moisture, and vending it in this form to the consumer; the proportion of this dry saline matter being 56-1/2 oz. to the 10 gallons of water, less the 3 pints. This plan was suggested by Dr. E. Schweitzer himself

Now the major ionic components of seawater are the same as those ions responsible for maintaining the electrical and osmotic balance within the cells of living animals and for the transmission of nerve impulses. What is an ion? Well sometimes atoms gain or lose electrons. The atom then loses or gains a “negative” charge. These atoms are then called ions. For example, when common salt is dissolved the Na (sodium) loses an electron and the Cl (chlorine) gains an electron; the Na becomes Na+ (the sodium ion) and the chlorine becomes Cl- (the chlorine ion). The major ionic components are shown in Table II. The complete absence of any one of these major ions is fatal. A fish placed into an artificial seawater that contained

P.S. Some letters which have been lately published by Mr. W. A. Lloyd in the ‘Athenaeum’' confirm my experience. Perhaps I may be excused for citing a few words contained in a private letter from the same gentleman to myself: — “In reference to what has recently been published on an improvement (or a supposed improvement) on your receipt for the manufacture of sea water, a friend of mine took me by the button and said, ‘My dear Sir, Mr. Gosse is altogether wrong; he has not

salt enough; he has no—.’' To which I replied, pointing to two fine Actinia dianthus [an anemone] in full blow in one of my vessels, — ‘But if Mr. Gosse is altogether wrong, why do these Actiniæ flourish ?’ This was unanswerable.”

However, except for the Crustacea, all of the animals studied by Gosse and Lloyd were invertebrates; no fish were involved.

Dr. Wilson considers, however, that the less abundant, but still essential, constituents of sea-water—such as carbonate of lime, sulphate of lime, phosphate of lime, fluoride of calcium, silica, iodine, and bromine—should not be absent, as these latter substances are found in marine plants and animals; and it is therefore plainly evident that the medium in which they live ought to contain the same substances.

Professor George Wilson, of Edinburgh, read a paper on “The Chemical Changes undergone by Artificial Sea Water after Ten Months’ Use in the Marine Vivarium.” The author stated that the communication which he now made to the section was in continuation of one read to it at the meeting in Liverpool last year. Mr. Gosse, the distinguished naturalist, who has done so much for the improvement of marine vivaria, had given him two specimens of artificial sea water, in which living plants and animals had been kept in full vigor for periods respectively of ten and six months. On analysis, it appeared that, whereas magnesia, sulphuric

George Wilson (1818-1859)

Wilson, therefore, found trace elements of calcium, phosphorus, silica, iodine and iron in the sample, and offered some ideas on how they arrived there. He neglected, however, to mention the impurities of the constituents and also that trace elements could find their way into the artificial seawater through the foods and the water used to reconstitute the seawater. He did note that most likely other substances, such as bromides, fluorides, ammonia and nitrates, were in the samples but the samples were small, defying detection using the analytical tools available at the time.

Aquarists were satisfied by this report coming from a scientific person of such high stature and began to experiment themselves with Gosse’s formula. However, a year later, Hibberd wrote (1856):

“But artificial water is quite unsuited for animal life of any kind, until it has been brought into condition by means of growing weeds for eight or ten days, and for Crustaceans, Starfishes, and Fishes proper, it is not suitable till it has been in use for many months, and even

However, by 1879 Lloyd had changed his mind. He had secured the post of Superintendent of the Aston Aquarium and since it was located far from the coast where seawater was easily obtained and transportation of the water from the coast would be expensive, Lloyd decided that the use of artificial seawater was justified and selected the Schweitzer formula. Thus was the first use of artificial seawater in a public aquarium in England. In an article titled, “The Artificial Sea-Water at the Aston Aquarium”, William Southall (1879) wrote:

My firm (Southall Bros. and Barclay) was appointed to manufacture the water, and about fifty tons of chemical substances have been used. Each ingredient was subjected to analysis, and allowance made in every case for water of crystallization, hygroscopic moisture and impurities, and the various constituents of the well-water used were also allowed for in calculating the working formula. The analysis of Dr. Schweitzer was taken as a basis, supplemented by our own analysis of water recently taken near Brighton, a mile from the shore; and from the latter the data necessary for the required amounts of iodine, &c., were obtained.

Table III provides a comparison between the Schweitzer and Aston Aquarium formulas, the latter being supplied to Lloyd by H. W. Jones, analyst to Messrs. Southall Brothers and Barclay

It is clear from these measurements that the water added to a basic group of components is a major consideration with regard to trace elements. All freshwater contains one or more of those used in the Aston Aquarium, more or less, but usually more. Lloyd pointed out that the Thames at London contains about 0.02 or 0.03 pounds of trace elements instead of the roughly 0.01 lbs. per 100 lbs. of water of the Aston well water (Lloyd,1879). Considering the accuracy required for the correct

Also, the reports written by members of the Challenger expedition provided rich descriptions of the flora, fauna and cultures of the lands visited. Photography - new at the time - was highlighted as well, along with scientific illustration.

The HMS Challenger originally was designed as a British warship - a steam corvette in the Royal Navy - outfitted with 17 guns and an engine capable of over 1,200 horsepower. The 200-foot ship was three-masted, square-rigged and built of wood.

In 1870, Dr. Charles Wyville Thomson, a Scottish natural historian and marine zoologist, suggested that the Royal Society of London ask the British government for the use of one of its ships for an extended research cruise. The government agreed, and the HMS Challenger was modified to conduct oceanic research. Ammunition and 15 of the guns were removed from the ship and replaced with laboratories, workrooms, and storage space. The HMS Challenger used sails rather than the steam engine most of the time to allow for frequent stops when collecting data. The steam engine was used only during dredging operations to collect samples from the depths of the ocean.

At the start of the voyage in 1872, the science and ship crew consisted of six civilian/scientific staff, led by Dr. Thomson. It also included 21 naval officers, including

HMS Challenger, 1872

Dr. Charles Wyville Thomson (1830-1882)

The physical and chemical investigations conducted by Mr. J. Y. Buchanan, during the three and a half years’ cruise of H.M.S. Challenger, are among the most important and valuable of the Expedition.

Mr. Buchanan collected daily, with much care, samples of the surface, water, and determined the specific gravity. At all Stations, a slip water bottle was attached to the sounding line, and the specific gravity of the specimen of bottom

Wilhelm Dittmar (1833-1892)

It should be noted that the analysis of seawater is primarily concerned with its ions, notably chloride, sodium, sulphate, magnesium, calcium and potassium. To construct a formula useful for the manufacture of artificial seawater, however, this information must be translated into specific chemical compounds. This is an arbitrary procedure since it doesn’t make any difference what chemical compounds and their concentrations are chosen as long as the mixture after being dissolved contains the ions in their correct amounts. An example is potassium. Schweitzer added it as potassium chloride and adjusted the amount of chloride elsewhere; Dittmar added it as the sulphate and adjusted the amount of sulphate elsewhere. Thus, combining the acids and bases in the arbitrary mode shown in Table IV, Dittmar held that the seven numbers in the table expressed as percentages of the total salts -

From my analysis (which I do not pretend exhaust the subject), it would appear that the composition of seawater is independent of the latitude and longitude whence the same is taken. Nor can we trace any influence of the depth from which the same comes, if we confine ourselves to the ratio to one another of chlorine, sulphuric acid, magnesia, potash and bromine. I emphasize the bromine because, while present in very small proportion, it is taken up preferably by sea-plants, and consequently must be presumed to be more liable than any of the major components to at least temporary local diminution. And yet my analyses of the three mixtures of Challenger waters, and of the Arran water referred to, gave identical values for the bromine present per 100 of the chlorine. [As shallow shore waters did not occur in the series of Challenger samples, Dittmar also analyzed a water that had been collected for him near Port Arran, Scotland, at a shallow place where there was an abundance of marine vegetation.] But the determination of the lime in the same set of waters make it most highly probable that the proportion of this component increases with the depth.

In order to derive a formula for artificial seawater, one has to know the salinity, i.e., the total amount of the salts in the water. For Table IV, I chose the average ocean salinity of 3.5 grams of salts per 100 grams of seawater. By multiplying the percentage figures in Column (1) of Table IV by this number, I obtained the gram weights for each compound; these are listed in Column (2) as grams per 100 grams of seawater. As Warington showed in his critique of Gosse’s paper, we can consider these numbers as lbs./100 lbs. of water and the Dittmar and Schweitzer formulas, therefore, can be compared directly in Table IV. There are some significant differences, mainly in the magnesium sulfate, calcium carbonate, and magnesium bromide.

Something’s Latest addition to the Fleischmann Aquarium at the Cincinnati Zoo is a collection of tropical fish, some of which are pictured on these pages. The first of their kind to be shown in Cincinnati, these specimens were flown here from the gulf of Mexico. Special water prepared from a formula, is required to keep the marine inhabitants who are used to a saltier atmosphere than Cincinnati.

The caption under one of the pictures read: J.F. Heusser, Zoo Director, checks the temperature of the artificial sea water in one of the seven new exhibition tanks for tropical fish in the Fleischmann Aquarium.

After my tour of duty ended (I had been Commanding Officer of the 501st Chemical Depot Company), I spent a year in graduate school and returned to Cincinnati at the end of August 1955. I renewed my acquaintances with the Cincinnati Zoo and Fleischmann Aquarium staff and was able to examine the seven tanks that utilized the formula that I had provided. Everything was fine; the vertebrates, were in good health, as well as were the anemones and other marine creatures. The Lilly Ackerland Fleischmann Memorial Aquarium at the Cincinnati Zoo.

The Lilly Ackerland Fleischmann
Memorial Aquarium at the Cincinnati Zoo

First, some biographical information. Dr. John Lyman (1915-1977) directed studies of the ocean for three agencies in the course of 20 years with the federal government. Born in Berkeley, Calif., Lyman did undergraduate work there and received his master's and doctorate degrees from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, part of the University of California in Los Angeles. He began his career in Washington in 1946, when he became director of oceanography for the Navy Hydrographic Office. He later became director of oceanography at the National Science Foundation and then chief adviser for oceanographic research at the Bureau

Dr. John Lyman (1915-1977) in 1936

Richard Howell Fleming (1909-1989), was a Canadian-born American oceanographer who conducted wide-ranging studies in the areas of chemical and biochemical oceanography, ocean currents (particularly those off the Pacific coast of Central America), and naval uses of oceanography. He joined the Scripps Institution in La Jolla, California, in 1931 and served as assistant director from 1946 to 1950, when he left to become professor of oceanography at the University of Washington. Fleming measured the amounts of chemical elements in sea water and in marine life. His work on ocean currents included measurement of tidal current velocities, description of upwelling of seawater, and observations of seasonal variations in currents. He also explored sedimentation in moving

Those aquarists not interested in an arithmetic exercise can safely skip this part of the Addendum and go directly to Column (2) of Table V.

Referring to Table V, lines 1-10 in Column (1) comprise the Lyman and Fleming formula; lines 11 -17 are my additions. The sum of lines 1-10 in Column (1) is 34.481 grams. This, by the way, rounded is a salinity of 34.5 (in grams of salts per 1000 grams of seawater). Subtracting this from 1000 grams (1 kilogram) we obtain 965.519 grams of water. (Items 11-17 were not included since they are in quantities too small to have any effect on these calculations.) Since 1 gallon of water = 3.79 kilograms, 965.519/3790 = 0.2547543 gallons. (At this stage in the computations I like to keep as many decimal places as possible in order to minimize rounding errors.)

Now I wanted a formula for 10 gallons of water, not 0.2547543 gallons. Therefore, I multiplied the lines 1-17 in Column (1) by 10/0.2547543 = 39.253508 and obtained the final formula for Marine Mix shown in Column (2). The salinity of this formulation was not affected and remained at 34.5. There has always been controversy over the relative merits of natural and synthetic seawater, especially with regard to trace or minor elements. Most synthetic seawaters have at some stage failed in

Richard Howard Fleming (1909-1989) in 1935

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon., “A List of the Officers and Members of the Chemical Society of London. June 1843,” The Chemical Society of London, Richard and John E. Taylor, London, 1843.

Anon., “Scientific Pickings from The British Association Papers,” The Eclectic Magazine, p. 1071, December, 1855.

Forchhammer, George, “On the Constitution of Sea-Water, at Different Depths, and in Different Latitudes,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 12, pp. 129-132, 1862-1863.

Gosse, Philip H., “On keeping Marine Animals and Plants alive in unchanged Sea-water,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Vol. X, Second Series, pp. 263-268, October, 1852.

Gosse, Philip H., “On Manufactured Seawater for the Aquarium,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 14, Second Series, 65- 67, 1854.

Gosse, Philip H., “On Artificial Sea Water ,” Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Vol. XV, Second Series, No. 85, pp. 17-19, 1855.

Hibberd, Shirley, “The Book of the Aquarium and Water Cabinet,” Groombridge & Sons, London, pp. 59-60, 1856.

Lloyd, William Alford, “Sea-Water for Aquaria,” The Boy’s Own Paper, No. 49, Vol. II, p. 190, Saturday, December 20, 1879.

Lyman, John and Fleming, Richard Howell, “Composition of Sea water,” Journal of Marine Research, vol. 3, pp. 134-146, 1940.

Mallet, Robert, “Second Report upon the Action of Air and Water, whether fresh or salt, clear or foul, and at various temperatures, upon Cast Iron, Wrought Iron, and Steel,” Report of the Tenth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Glasgow in August 1840, p. 223, John Murray, London, 1841.

McClendon, J. F., C. C. Gault, and S. Mulholland, “The hydrogen-ion concentration, CO2− tension, and CO2−content of sea water,” Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication no. 251, Papers from the Department of Marine Biology, pp. 21-69, 1917.

Schweitzer, Edward G., “Analysis of the Bonnington Water, near Leith, Scotland,” Memoirs and Proceedings of the Chemical Society of London, II, pp. 201-217, 1843.

Southall, William, “The Artificial Sea-Water at the Aston Aquarium,” Read before the Birmingham Natural History and Microscopial Society, September 23, 1879, The Midland Naturalist, Volume II, p. 246-247, 1879.

Subow, N. N., “Oceanographical tables. U.S.S.R.” , Oceanographic Institute, Hydrometeorological Commission, 208 pp., Moscow, 1931.

Warington, Robert, “Notice of Observations on the adjustment of the relationship between the Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms, by which the vital functions of both are permanently maintained.” A paper read before the assembled members of the Chemical Society on the evening of the 4th March, 1850.

Warington, Robert, “The Aquatic Plant Case, or Parlour Aquarium, “The Garden Companion, and Florists’ Guide, William S. Orr and Co., Amen Corner, Paternoster Row, p. 7, January, 1852.

Warington, Robert, “On preserving the balance between the animal and vegetable organisms in sea -water,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Second Series, Vol. 12, No. 71, pp. 319-324, 1853.

Warington, Robert, “On Artificial Sea Water,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 14, No. 84, pp. 419-421, 1854.

Wilson, George, “On the Artificial Preparation of Sea-water for Marine Aquaria,” Report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Notices and Abstracts of Miscellaneous Communications to the Sections, p. 77, Liverpool, September, 1854.