Galligu: An environmental legacy of the Leblanc alkali industry, 1814-1920
Introduction
The Leblanc alkali process was introduced into Britain in 1814 and it was to survive as a major industry until the early decades of the 20th century, by which time the technology had become obsolete. The importance of the Leblanc process was its use of salt to produce soda (sodium carbonate), replacing a reliance on natural sources such a barilla and kelp that were unable to meet the rapidly increasing demand for soda in the textile and soap industries.
The main soda production centres with Leblanc alkali works were Lancashire, Tyneside and Glasgow, all of which had easy access to the essential raw materials salt, coal and limestone. Almost from the start, and certainly by the early 1820s, as production of soda rose, people living close to the works began to accuse them of causing a “nuisance”. Initial accusations concerned hydrogen chloride (or muriatic acid gas as it was called in the alkali trade), produced during the first stage and then dispersed from tall chimneys that became an important feature of these works. Releasing hydrogen chloride in this way without any amelioration proved a constant scourge for landowners and people living close by the works who were affected by the debilitating effects of the gas, as well as for manufacturers fighting the legal redress for the alleged damage inflicted. Failure on the part of manufacturers to control these gaseous emissions led in 1864 to establishment of the Alkali Inspectorate, the appointment of Robert Angus Smith as the first Inspector and a legal requirement to remove at least 95% of the acid gas from the gas stream released from chimneys (1). However, another by-product, produced during the third stage, had not only just as deleterious an effect on the environment close to the works, but proved even more difficult to manage effectively. This was sulfur waste, or galligu as it was called by the people of Widnes, who were to suffer more than most from its unpleasant effects. In fact, effective treatment of galligu proved so elusive and the amounts of galligu produced were so great that remnants survive in the landscape to the present day.
Much has been written about pollution caused by acid gas (hydrogen chloride) and the associated court cases, but relatively little is known about galligu and the challenges it presented. This article considers the origin of galligu, its nature and chemical composition, its damage to the environment, the economic loss of sulfur in the waste, attempts to treat the waste, its removal in the 1970s and 1980s, and its environmental impact today.
The Leblanc alkali process was introduced into Britain in 1814 and it was to survive as a major industry until the early decades of the 20th century, by which time the technology had become obsolete. The importance of the Leblanc process was its use of salt to produce soda (sodium carbonate), replacing a reliance on natural sources such a barilla and kelp that were unable to meet the rapidly increasing demand for soda in the textile and soap industries.
The main soda production centres with Leblanc alkali works were Lancashire, Tyneside and Glasgow, all of which had easy access to the essential raw materials salt, coal and limestone. Almost from the start, and certainly by the early 1820s, as production of soda rose, people living close to the works began to accuse them of causing a “nuisance”. Initial accusations concerned hydrogen chloride (or muriatic acid gas as it was called in the alkali trade), produced during the first stage and then dispersed from tall chimneys that became an important feature of these works. Releasing hydrogen chloride in this way without any amelioration proved a constant scourge for landowners and people living close by the works who were affected by the debilitating effects of the gas, as well as for manufacturers fighting the legal redress for the alleged damage inflicted. Failure on the part of manufacturers to control these gaseous emissions led in 1864 to establishment of the Alkali Inspectorate, the appointment of Robert Angus Smith as the first Inspector and a legal requirement to remove at least 95% of the acid gas from the gas stream released from chimneys (1). However, another by-product, produced during the third stage, had not only just as deleterious an effect on the environment close to the works, but proved even more difficult to manage effectively. This was sulfur waste, or galligu as it was called by the people of Widnes, who were to suffer more than most from its unpleasant effects. In fact, effective treatment of galligu proved so elusive and the amounts of galligu produced were so great that remnants survive in the landscape to the present day.
Much has been written about pollution caused by acid gas (hydrogen chloride) and the associated court cases, but relatively little is known about galligu and the challenges it presented. This article considers the origin of galligu, its nature and chemical composition, its damage to the environment, the economic loss of sulfur in the waste, attempts to treat the waste, its removal in the 1970s and 1980s, and its environmental impact today.
Origin and nature of galligu
Galligu was produced during the third stage, when the black ash (the product after heating salt cake, coal and limestone to high temperature in a revolver) was agitated with water (or lixiviated as it was known in the alkali trade). The sodium carbonate dissolved in the water, and the remaining residue was galligu ‒ a wonderful onomatopoeic word to describe this black, evil-smelling, viscous material. In the alkali trade this waste was also referred to as sulfur waste, alkali waste, tank waste and vat waste, confirming its ubiquitous occurrence.
Galligu was produced during the third stage, when the black ash (the product after heating salt cake, coal and limestone to high temperature in a revolver) was agitated with water (or lixiviated as it was known in the alkali trade). The sodium carbonate dissolved in the water, and the remaining residue was galligu ‒ a wonderful onomatopoeic word to describe this black, evil-smelling, viscous material. In the alkali trade this waste was also referred to as sulfur waste, alkali waste, tank waste and vat waste, confirming its ubiquitous occurrence.
|
Production of a ton of soda was accompanied by about 1.75 tons of galligu that contained about 15-20% of sulfur (originating from the sulfuric acid) (2). No attempt was made to recycle the sulfur in the waste, and while some galligu was dumped at sea, most was deposited on waste land adjoining the works, scarring the landscape and polluting the surrounding land, air and water (Figure 1) (3). As demand for soda for both consumption in Britain and for export rose dramatically during the nineteenth century so the quantities of galligu grew. By the 1870s the annual amount of this waste produced in Britain is estimated at close to 500,000 tons.
Over time galligu lost its sulfur content because of the chemical reactions with the atmosphere, ultimately yielding a white and rather friable material unable to support any significant load. |
Figure 1: Sulfur waste heaps in 1985 at the Newton works of James Muspratt abandoned in 1851. Photo courtesy of Catalyst Science Discovery Centre.
|
Damage to the environment
When freshly deposited, the sulfur waste was mainly calcium sulfide. This was unstable in the atmosphere and by a series of chemical reactions, which were dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, formed a friable mixture of undecomposed sulfide, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide.4 In wet weather, any acid gases such as carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) or, as frequently happened, hydrogen chloride from the alkali works reacted in the rain with the sulfur waste to release copious quantities of hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic gas recognized by its characteristic smell of bad eggs. The reaction with acidic rain is exothermic, but even in very dry weather the waste was found to heat up and could eventually catch fire, releasing large quantities of the pungent gas sulfur dioxide. The Alkali Inspector reported some fires burning almost continually for several years.
The environmental consequences of galligu in Widnes are vividly described by Robert Angus Smith in his report to the 1876 Royal Commission on Noxious Vapours:
The town of Widnes is very frequently, if not at all times, subjected to the influence of sulfuretted hydrogen [hydrogen sulfide] … The tank waste, composed of sulfur and lime in various states of oxidation, is used for raising up the low lands on the Mersey and forming a foundation for future buildings. The drainage of lands thus treated is offensive: it has a yellow colour, and on exposure to air gives out the gas complained of. At certain spots the streams meet with acid streams, and the gas is then given out in enormous quantities. I have observed one spot, but I believe there must be others underground, perhaps also over-ground (5).
The copious quantities of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide added to the black smoke from burning coal to produce a cocktail of pollutants that gave Widnes (and some other towns) its characteristic unpleasant smell and pall of black smoke. It may be because of the presence of these gases that Robert Angus Smith reported:
It is true that those coming to Widnes even from very dark and gloomy skies enter that town with a certain awe and horror … and wonder if life can be sustained there (6).
Economic loss of sulfur
Galligu contained up to 90% of the sulfur from the sulfuric acid in the first stage, yet until the later 1830s no attempts were made to regenerate any of the sulfur and recycle it to produce more sulfuric acid. Sulfur was not only an important raw material but also very expensive. It was mainly imported from Sicily and the price could fluctuate wildly; in 1832 the price rose by 163% (7). To safeguard regular supplies at stable prices, several manufacturers, including James Muspratt (Liverpool and Newton works) and Charles Tennant (St. Rollox works in Glasgow), purchased sulfur mines in Sicily, but in retaliation the King of Naples sequestrated all the sulfur mines to preserve his monopoly. This intervention provoked action by the British Foreign Secretary, and part of the British fleet was dispatched in an attempt to enforce extant trading agreements between Britain and Naples, but to no avail. The uncertainty of supplies from Sicily prompted British manufacturers to turn to iron pyrites (and later copper pyrites) as a source of sulfur, and this spawned a separate industrial sector within the Leblanc alkali industry concerned with processing metals that included copper, silver and gold (8). Later in the nineteenth century when the alkali and bleaching powder products became uneconomic, the Leblanc industry survived through the sale of these metal products.
Attempts at treatment
Most Leblanc manufacturers were not trained chemists, and they used the process as a simple recipe, following the different stages with the set quantities of raw materials and appropriate operating conditions to produce soda and disregarding other products that were deemed waste. Even with the important economic value of sulfur for sulfuric acid, it is very unlikely that any consideration was given to recycling the sulfur from galligu. Developing suitable recycling processes was left to a few inventive geniuses.
In 1837 William Gossage, who had invented the acid tower for condensing hydrogen chloride in 1836, patented a process for treating sulfur waste after suffering the problems of disposal and costs at his alkali works in Worcestershire (9). Gossage’s approach was to treat the waste with carbonic acid (an aqueous solution of carbon dioxide) to produce hydrogen sulfide. This was then burnt to form sulfur dioxide, which was fed back into the lead chamber for the production of further quantities of sulfuric acid. His patent included the enlightened proposal to store the hydrogen sulfide in a gasholder until it was needed as a way of controlling the reuse of the gas.
The process worked well on the small scale, but proved much more difficult to operate effectively when scaled up, given the sheer quantity of waste to be processed. There were two main drawbacks: the technical inability at the time to pump large quantities of gases, and the gradual dilution of the hydrogen sulfide in the gas stream due to the large quantities of carbon dioxide. James Muspratt was persuaded by Gossage to start using this process but it proved an expensive error of judgement:
You are aware that Mr. Gossage stated to me that £500 worth of apparatus would recover the sulphur from our waste, and about £5000 now has been expended, and the tenth part of sulphur is not yet recovered, though we are nearly at full work (10)
For Gossage the cost was much greater. Having persevered for some time he was reputed to have spent £22,000 over many years trying the perfect the process (10).
The next major process was developed by Ludwig Mond and patented in 1861. Mond was born in Cassel, Germany and studied with Hermann Kolbe in Marburg and with Robert Bunsen in Heidelberg. Like Gossage, Mond had an inventive and tenacious mind when it came to finding working solutions to technical problems. Mond’s process involved blowing air through the sulfur waste to convert the calcium sulfide into “calcium sulphydrate” [probably a mixture of polysulfides and sulfur oxyanions, which included ‘calcium thiosulfate’; see J. Chem. Soc., 1873, 26, 197-200] and then precipitate the sulfur by treatment with excess hydrochloric acid (available in large quantities from “acid towers” at the alkali works).11 Mond claimed the process could recover 50-60% of the sulfur, but in practice it was closer to 40% (11). The process was taken up by several manufacturers, but Mond had hoped to persuade Robert Angus Smith and the Alkali Inspectorate that the process should ‘be adopted by law to prevent the loss of sulphur … just as the 1863 Act had tackled the release of hydrogen chloride gas with the adoption of Gossage (or “acid tower”)’ (12). Unfortunately the process proved too expensive and not sufficiently reliable to be included in the regulations of the Alkali Inspectorate, although in 1869 the Rivers Pollution Commission did endorse Mond’s process (12).
Another approach to regenerating the sulfur from waste was developed in 1871 by James McTear, manager at Tennant’s St. Rollox works, near Glasgow. It involved pumping the liquors from the waste heaps into special vessels, treating them with sulfurous acid and then precipitating the sulfur with hydrochloric acid. It proved reliable in operation and cheap to install; it was adopted by many manufacturers even though it only recovered between 27 and 30% of sulfur. Without more effective treatment processes, galligu continued to be dumped in ever-increasing quantities, adding to the unhealthy atmosphere surrounding the alkali works. The Annual Report of the Alkali Inspector for 1885 highlighted that:
There were nearly four and a half million tons of alkali waste in Lancashire alone and that it was increasing at the rate of 1,000 tons a day (13).
A really effective process to handle the large quantities of waste did not emerge until 1888, when the Claus-Chance process was developed, based in part on Gossage’s process of 1837. On 29 June 1882, C. F. Claus registered a patent for ‘obtaining sulfur from sulphide of hydrogen’ (BP 3608/1882), following his work on the removal of hydrogen sulfide from coal gas. But Alexander Chance (alkali manufacturer at Oldbury) had seen this patent listed in the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry of 29 April 1883 and felt it might be relevant to the recovery of sulfur from alkali waste. Claus’s patents were controlled by Ammonia Gas Purifying and Alkali Company Limited, and on 10 July 1883, Chance finalized terms for a licence. Two days later, while attending the Annual Meeting of the Society of Chemical Industry in London, several members visited the works of the South Metropolitan Gas Company to inspect the experimental set-up of the Claus kiln.
Even though the principles of the process were straightforward, getting it to operate efficiently on a continuous basis with the large quantities of alkali waste proved elusive. Chance confessed that ‘though the problem seemed simple on paper, four years of labour and the further expenditure of several thousands of pounds were necessary before he was able to make pure sulphur from alkali waste on a manufacturing scale and at an economical cost’ (14). Claus registered another four patents in perfecting the process. As Alexander Chance described the overall operation:
The process is performed by mixing sulfuretted hydrogen with a regulated quantity of air, and sending the mixture of sulfuretted hydrogen and air through a layer of anhydrous oxide of iron, which, by the heat generated by the reaction itself is maintained at a dull red heat, the oxide of iron itself undergoing no change. Free sulfur being obtained in the fused or sublimed form, according to the temperature of the kiln and of the depositing chamber (15).
It was found that 60-80% of the sulfur could be recovered from the waste, a much more effective process than any of its predecessors, and it proved more reliable.
When freshly deposited, the sulfur waste was mainly calcium sulfide. This was unstable in the atmosphere and by a series of chemical reactions, which were dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, formed a friable mixture of undecomposed sulfide, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide.4 In wet weather, any acid gases such as carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) or, as frequently happened, hydrogen chloride from the alkali works reacted in the rain with the sulfur waste to release copious quantities of hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic gas recognized by its characteristic smell of bad eggs. The reaction with acidic rain is exothermic, but even in very dry weather the waste was found to heat up and could eventually catch fire, releasing large quantities of the pungent gas sulfur dioxide. The Alkali Inspector reported some fires burning almost continually for several years.
The environmental consequences of galligu in Widnes are vividly described by Robert Angus Smith in his report to the 1876 Royal Commission on Noxious Vapours:
The town of Widnes is very frequently, if not at all times, subjected to the influence of sulfuretted hydrogen [hydrogen sulfide] … The tank waste, composed of sulfur and lime in various states of oxidation, is used for raising up the low lands on the Mersey and forming a foundation for future buildings. The drainage of lands thus treated is offensive: it has a yellow colour, and on exposure to air gives out the gas complained of. At certain spots the streams meet with acid streams, and the gas is then given out in enormous quantities. I have observed one spot, but I believe there must be others underground, perhaps also over-ground (5).
The copious quantities of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide added to the black smoke from burning coal to produce a cocktail of pollutants that gave Widnes (and some other towns) its characteristic unpleasant smell and pall of black smoke. It may be because of the presence of these gases that Robert Angus Smith reported:
It is true that those coming to Widnes even from very dark and gloomy skies enter that town with a certain awe and horror … and wonder if life can be sustained there (6).
Economic loss of sulfur
Galligu contained up to 90% of the sulfur from the sulfuric acid in the first stage, yet until the later 1830s no attempts were made to regenerate any of the sulfur and recycle it to produce more sulfuric acid. Sulfur was not only an important raw material but also very expensive. It was mainly imported from Sicily and the price could fluctuate wildly; in 1832 the price rose by 163% (7). To safeguard regular supplies at stable prices, several manufacturers, including James Muspratt (Liverpool and Newton works) and Charles Tennant (St. Rollox works in Glasgow), purchased sulfur mines in Sicily, but in retaliation the King of Naples sequestrated all the sulfur mines to preserve his monopoly. This intervention provoked action by the British Foreign Secretary, and part of the British fleet was dispatched in an attempt to enforce extant trading agreements between Britain and Naples, but to no avail. The uncertainty of supplies from Sicily prompted British manufacturers to turn to iron pyrites (and later copper pyrites) as a source of sulfur, and this spawned a separate industrial sector within the Leblanc alkali industry concerned with processing metals that included copper, silver and gold (8). Later in the nineteenth century when the alkali and bleaching powder products became uneconomic, the Leblanc industry survived through the sale of these metal products.
Attempts at treatment
Most Leblanc manufacturers were not trained chemists, and they used the process as a simple recipe, following the different stages with the set quantities of raw materials and appropriate operating conditions to produce soda and disregarding other products that were deemed waste. Even with the important economic value of sulfur for sulfuric acid, it is very unlikely that any consideration was given to recycling the sulfur from galligu. Developing suitable recycling processes was left to a few inventive geniuses.
In 1837 William Gossage, who had invented the acid tower for condensing hydrogen chloride in 1836, patented a process for treating sulfur waste after suffering the problems of disposal and costs at his alkali works in Worcestershire (9). Gossage’s approach was to treat the waste with carbonic acid (an aqueous solution of carbon dioxide) to produce hydrogen sulfide. This was then burnt to form sulfur dioxide, which was fed back into the lead chamber for the production of further quantities of sulfuric acid. His patent included the enlightened proposal to store the hydrogen sulfide in a gasholder until it was needed as a way of controlling the reuse of the gas.
The process worked well on the small scale, but proved much more difficult to operate effectively when scaled up, given the sheer quantity of waste to be processed. There were two main drawbacks: the technical inability at the time to pump large quantities of gases, and the gradual dilution of the hydrogen sulfide in the gas stream due to the large quantities of carbon dioxide. James Muspratt was persuaded by Gossage to start using this process but it proved an expensive error of judgement:
You are aware that Mr. Gossage stated to me that £500 worth of apparatus would recover the sulphur from our waste, and about £5000 now has been expended, and the tenth part of sulphur is not yet recovered, though we are nearly at full work (10)
For Gossage the cost was much greater. Having persevered for some time he was reputed to have spent £22,000 over many years trying the perfect the process (10).
The next major process was developed by Ludwig Mond and patented in 1861. Mond was born in Cassel, Germany and studied with Hermann Kolbe in Marburg and with Robert Bunsen in Heidelberg. Like Gossage, Mond had an inventive and tenacious mind when it came to finding working solutions to technical problems. Mond’s process involved blowing air through the sulfur waste to convert the calcium sulfide into “calcium sulphydrate” [probably a mixture of polysulfides and sulfur oxyanions, which included ‘calcium thiosulfate’; see J. Chem. Soc., 1873, 26, 197-200] and then precipitate the sulfur by treatment with excess hydrochloric acid (available in large quantities from “acid towers” at the alkali works).11 Mond claimed the process could recover 50-60% of the sulfur, but in practice it was closer to 40% (11). The process was taken up by several manufacturers, but Mond had hoped to persuade Robert Angus Smith and the Alkali Inspectorate that the process should ‘be adopted by law to prevent the loss of sulphur … just as the 1863 Act had tackled the release of hydrogen chloride gas with the adoption of Gossage (or “acid tower”)’ (12). Unfortunately the process proved too expensive and not sufficiently reliable to be included in the regulations of the Alkali Inspectorate, although in 1869 the Rivers Pollution Commission did endorse Mond’s process (12).
Another approach to regenerating the sulfur from waste was developed in 1871 by James McTear, manager at Tennant’s St. Rollox works, near Glasgow. It involved pumping the liquors from the waste heaps into special vessels, treating them with sulfurous acid and then precipitating the sulfur with hydrochloric acid. It proved reliable in operation and cheap to install; it was adopted by many manufacturers even though it only recovered between 27 and 30% of sulfur. Without more effective treatment processes, galligu continued to be dumped in ever-increasing quantities, adding to the unhealthy atmosphere surrounding the alkali works. The Annual Report of the Alkali Inspector for 1885 highlighted that:
There were nearly four and a half million tons of alkali waste in Lancashire alone and that it was increasing at the rate of 1,000 tons a day (13).
A really effective process to handle the large quantities of waste did not emerge until 1888, when the Claus-Chance process was developed, based in part on Gossage’s process of 1837. On 29 June 1882, C. F. Claus registered a patent for ‘obtaining sulfur from sulphide of hydrogen’ (BP 3608/1882), following his work on the removal of hydrogen sulfide from coal gas. But Alexander Chance (alkali manufacturer at Oldbury) had seen this patent listed in the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry of 29 April 1883 and felt it might be relevant to the recovery of sulfur from alkali waste. Claus’s patents were controlled by Ammonia Gas Purifying and Alkali Company Limited, and on 10 July 1883, Chance finalized terms for a licence. Two days later, while attending the Annual Meeting of the Society of Chemical Industry in London, several members visited the works of the South Metropolitan Gas Company to inspect the experimental set-up of the Claus kiln.
Even though the principles of the process were straightforward, getting it to operate efficiently on a continuous basis with the large quantities of alkali waste proved elusive. Chance confessed that ‘though the problem seemed simple on paper, four years of labour and the further expenditure of several thousands of pounds were necessary before he was able to make pure sulphur from alkali waste on a manufacturing scale and at an economical cost’ (14). Claus registered another four patents in perfecting the process. As Alexander Chance described the overall operation:
The process is performed by mixing sulfuretted hydrogen with a regulated quantity of air, and sending the mixture of sulfuretted hydrogen and air through a layer of anhydrous oxide of iron, which, by the heat generated by the reaction itself is maintained at a dull red heat, the oxide of iron itself undergoing no change. Free sulfur being obtained in the fused or sublimed form, according to the temperature of the kiln and of the depositing chamber (15).
It was found that 60-80% of the sulfur could be recovered from the waste, a much more effective process than any of its predecessors, and it proved more reliable.
|
Removal and amelioration
Sulfur waste has remained very resilient in the environment from its 19th century production. Its presence survives to the present day even though it is now in a chemically stable state. While its use in farming failed and some was dumped at sea, galligu found application in a number of places for levelling ground (see Figure 2). The main phase of removal came with the major land reclamation schemes of the late 1970s and early 1980s, which made a concerted effort to remove the blight of derelict industrial sites. Although the Muspratt works on the banks of the St Helens Canal at Newton was dismantled in 1851, the mounds of sulfur waste were still present in the early 1980s and were only cleared as a result of a land improvement scheme for the St. Helens Canal. As part of the amelioration of industrial sites, the Botany Department at the University of Liverpool under Professor Tony Bradshaw conducted many studies to discover whether it was possible for plants to grow on different waste tips and derelict land left from industrialization As we have seen, areas used to dump galligu became very calcareous and the pH changed over time from below 7 to above 7. One study on a galligu waste area in Bolton showed a rich diversity of plant species, including some quite rare orchids (16). |
Figure 2: The extensive area of sulfur waste in Ditton (Widnes) designated the Ditton Alps by the Planning Department of Halton Borough Council. Image courtesy of Halton Borough Council
|
Impact today
The initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s removed the major heaps of galligu but not the vast majority of the galligu used to level ground or dumped near former sites of alkali works, and so galligu can be found today in Widnes, a major centre for the Leblanc industry during the nineteenth century. It is not readily evident to the naked eye but lies just beneath the surface of golf courses, parkland and other open ground. Its hidden presence is evident from the undulating road surfaces and the warning road signs on the A562 main road between Liverpool and Widnes. The galligu will remain for some time as a legacy of a once important industry that has long disappeared.
References
1. Alkali Works Act 1863 and appointment of Robert Angus Smith in 1864.
2. C. T. Kingzett, The History, Products and Processes of the Alkali Trade, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1877, pp. 133-134.
3. Letter to James Muspratt from John Clow, dated 4 August 1836. (Ref: 920/MUS/2-37, Muspratt Papers, Liverpool Record Office.). Some sulfur waste from Tyneside works was dumped at sea.
4. The chemical composition of sulfur waste was complex. Besides containing unreacted coal, the waste contained about 40% of calcium sulfide when first deposited. Over time and under the action of carbon dioxide in the air (or carbonic acid in rainwater), the waste became calcium carbonate. By the 1980s, the surviving mounds had a very friable consistency.
5. Robert Angus Smith, Intermediate Report of the Chief Inspector, 1863 and 1874, of his proceedings since the passage of the latter Act. Parliamentary Paper 1876 (165), p. 3.
6. 12th and 13th Annual Reports of the Alkali Inspector to Parliament. Parliamentary Paper 1878-79 (C.2199), pp. 10.
7. “On the Sulfur Trade of Sicily and the Commercial Relations with that Country and Great Britain,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1839, 2, 449.
8. The introduction of iron pyrites required a redesign of the hearth used for burning sulfur.
9. On 17 August 1837, William Gossage filed British Patent 7416/37 for the treating sulfur waste and regenerating the sulfur as sulfur dioxide.
10. J. Fenwick Allen, Some Founders of the Chemical Industry, Sherrard and Hughes, London, 1906, pp. 88-89.
11. L. F. Haber, The Chemical Industry during the Nineteenth Century, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, p. 99.
12. Peter Reed, “Entry for Ludwig Mond,” The Dictionary of 19th Century British Scientists, Bristol, 2004, pp. 1416-1419.
13. 21st Annual Report on Alkali etc, works by the Chief Inspector. Parliamentary Paper 1885 (C. 4461), pp. 10-11.
14. W. A. Campbell, The Chemical Industry, Longman, London, 1971, p. 46.
15. Alexander M. Chance, The Recovery of Sulphur from Alkali Waste by Means of Lime Kiln Gases, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, Jubilee Number, July 1931.
16. E. F. Greenwood (ed.), Ecology and Landscape Development: The Mersey Basin, Liverpool University Press and National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, Liverpool, 1999, p. 74.
This article is based on a presentation by Peter Reed at the Royal Society of Chemistry Historical Group Meeting: “Where there’s muck there’s brass”, which was held the Chemistry Centre, Burlington House, London, on March 23rd, 2012.
The initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s removed the major heaps of galligu but not the vast majority of the galligu used to level ground or dumped near former sites of alkali works, and so galligu can be found today in Widnes, a major centre for the Leblanc industry during the nineteenth century. It is not readily evident to the naked eye but lies just beneath the surface of golf courses, parkland and other open ground. Its hidden presence is evident from the undulating road surfaces and the warning road signs on the A562 main road between Liverpool and Widnes. The galligu will remain for some time as a legacy of a once important industry that has long disappeared.
References
1. Alkali Works Act 1863 and appointment of Robert Angus Smith in 1864.
2. C. T. Kingzett, The History, Products and Processes of the Alkali Trade, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1877, pp. 133-134.
3. Letter to James Muspratt from John Clow, dated 4 August 1836. (Ref: 920/MUS/2-37, Muspratt Papers, Liverpool Record Office.). Some sulfur waste from Tyneside works was dumped at sea.
4. The chemical composition of sulfur waste was complex. Besides containing unreacted coal, the waste contained about 40% of calcium sulfide when first deposited. Over time and under the action of carbon dioxide in the air (or carbonic acid in rainwater), the waste became calcium carbonate. By the 1980s, the surviving mounds had a very friable consistency.
5. Robert Angus Smith, Intermediate Report of the Chief Inspector, 1863 and 1874, of his proceedings since the passage of the latter Act. Parliamentary Paper 1876 (165), p. 3.
6. 12th and 13th Annual Reports of the Alkali Inspector to Parliament. Parliamentary Paper 1878-79 (C.2199), pp. 10.
7. “On the Sulfur Trade of Sicily and the Commercial Relations with that Country and Great Britain,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1839, 2, 449.
8. The introduction of iron pyrites required a redesign of the hearth used for burning sulfur.
9. On 17 August 1837, William Gossage filed British Patent 7416/37 for the treating sulfur waste and regenerating the sulfur as sulfur dioxide.
10. J. Fenwick Allen, Some Founders of the Chemical Industry, Sherrard and Hughes, London, 1906, pp. 88-89.
11. L. F. Haber, The Chemical Industry during the Nineteenth Century, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, p. 99.
12. Peter Reed, “Entry for Ludwig Mond,” The Dictionary of 19th Century British Scientists, Bristol, 2004, pp. 1416-1419.
13. 21st Annual Report on Alkali etc, works by the Chief Inspector. Parliamentary Paper 1885 (C. 4461), pp. 10-11.
14. W. A. Campbell, The Chemical Industry, Longman, London, 1971, p. 46.
15. Alexander M. Chance, The Recovery of Sulphur from Alkali Waste by Means of Lime Kiln Gases, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, Jubilee Number, July 1931.
16. E. F. Greenwood (ed.), Ecology and Landscape Development: The Mersey Basin, Liverpool University Press and National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, Liverpool, 1999, p. 74.
This article is based on a presentation by Peter Reed at the Royal Society of Chemistry Historical Group Meeting: “Where there’s muck there’s brass”, which was held the Chemistry Centre, Burlington House, London, on March 23rd, 2012.
