This paper presents an in depth analysis of the DCB (dithionite-citrate-bicarbonate) method popularly adopted for iron oxide removal from clays as outlined by Mehra and Jackson (1960). We reviewed the reaction conditions of the DCB method and found several inconsistencies in the selection of procedures such as pH, method of washing, etc. We then carried out a theoretical analysis of the chemistry of dithionite reduction, deduced the effect of pH on the reduction potential and studied the fundamental mechanisms of iron dissolution. Analysis indicates that the basic arguments on which the DCB method is based, is not in agreement with theoretical facts. These flaws are discussed. To overcome the shortcomings of the DCB method, an alternative DCO (dithionite-carbonate-oxalate) method as proposed by Goswami et al. (1995) is briefly described here. Iron oxides in soils not only occur as discrete phases, but are also closely associated with silicate clays on the surfaces of which they may form coatings (Greenland and Hayes, 1978). By virtue of their ability to adhere to the surfaces of clay minerals, iron oxides may greatly modify their properties, particularly ion exchange behaviour and surface charge. The presence of iron oxides also complicates spectroscopic studies (XRD, IR, Mössbauer, etc.) of soil clays. Therefore, for the purpose of many investigations, the selective dissolution of iron oxides from the silicate clays, is an essential feature. Iron oxide removal procedures have been routinely adopted since several decades both for characterising silicate as well as for quantifying the influence of iron oxides on various chemical properties. All the methods proposed till date, for selective dissolution of iron oxides, utilise reducing agents or complexants or a combination of the two. The notable earliest attempt was by Tamm (1922) who proposed the use of acid ammonium oxalate at pH 3.3. This method is popularly used even today, for evaluating amorphous iron oxides in soils; crystalline materials are, however, incompletely extracted by this method. The subsequent proposal of considerable importance appears to have been by Galabutskaya and Govorova (1934) who suggested the use of sodium dithionite at 40 o C. This report left largely unrecognised by the rest of the world for about 16 years.