The Phlogiston Theory and the Modern Chemistry

Whereas a large proportion of chemical reactionschemistry, by being the devil's advocate against the
involve changes in oxidation states, one of the mostAntiphlogistians, and by discovering important
vehement disputes, in the history of chemistry,experiments. And, for almost the entire 18th century,
concerns the nature of oxidation. In 1718, Georgethe phlogiston theory was more satisfying than the
Stahl, a German Chemist, proposed that metals formalternative, in some ways. The Antiphlogistians
from oxides that are heated with charcoal becausededuced that combustion was combination of a
the metals absorb a substance that he namedsubstance with oxygen (Priestley's dephlogisticated
Phlogiston. He also proposed that the heating of aair). But, they could not tell why substances combined
metal in air to form its oxide caused the release ofwith oxygen, or even why all substances didn't just
phlogiston to the atmosphere.burn up. Phlogiston theory explained this by saying
Phlogiston theory evolved throughout the 18ththat it was because some substances were rich in
century, because many experiments were beingphlogiston, and burned. It was only later that more
performed which needed to be explained. Thoughsatisfactory explanations were discovered.
phlogiston theory made some sense, theIt may seem hard to believe that phlogiston theory,
experiments which, more and more, convincedwhich is incorrect, was so persistent. How could it
chemists that phlogiston was incorrect, weresurvive all of the attacks, and come back for more?
quantitative experiments. Most of these experimentsPeople think that the answer is that phlogiston
were being performed by Antoine Lavoisier who istheory is actually very close to the truth. If we
called as the father of modern chemistry and hisconsider a chemical's tendency to take up oxygen,
followers, known as the Antiphlogistians. They wouldand call its lack of oxygen "phlogiston," we can
come up with an objection to phlogiston theory, anddescribe absolutely any chemical reaction involving
the Phlogistians (usually Priestley) would modify theoxygen. Instead of putting oxygen on one side of
theory to fit the new experiment. As the years wentany chemical equation, we can put this anti-oxygen
on, more and more Phlogistians becameon the other side. It will always balance. One atom of
Antiphlogistians, until only Priestley was left. Thephlogiston would always have an atomic weight of
Antiphlogistians measured the weight of every-16, and the weights will always balance, too. So, we
substance involved in the experiment, even thecan always construct a self-consistent phlogiston
gasses. When iron rusts away completely, the rusttheory, even today. We can go about disproving the
actually weighs more than the original iron. Whentheory of phlogiston if we merely burn carbon in
charcoal burns, the resultant carbon dioxide (fixed air)oxygen, and accurately measure all of the gasses
weighs more than the original charcoal. So, in everyand solids, before and after. We would find that
case, phlogiston would have to have a negativecarbon plus oxygen became carbon dioxide. We can
weight. This disturbing attribute convinced most ofdetermine that the final gas contains carbon dioxide.
the last Phlogistians to abandon their theory.If we start with the right amounts of carbon and
Fifty four years later, the French chemistoxygen, we may be able to show that the final gas
Louis-Bernard Guyton de Moravia stated thatis nothing but carbon dioxide. 
phlogiston has a negative weight in order to explainIt is worth mentioning that taking it for granted that
his findings that during combustion metals increase inthe editors of the French Science Journal would not
weight. Soon after, it was Antoine Lavoisier whopublish his proposal due to his phlogiston Inclination,
dared to question the phlogiston concept andLavoisier, with his new converts and associates, had
proposed that combustion was due to addition ofto establish a new journal to publish his new
oxygen to the metal (oxidation) and that theChemistry. Fortunately, it was the overthrow of the
formation of a metal from an oxide corresponded tophlogiston theory that caused chemists to realize that
the loss of oxygen (reduction). The Phlogistians wereelements were the fundamental substances in
not a bunch of cranks. They were serious scientistschemistry and the modern chemistry came into being.
who helped resolve some of the basic questions of