752 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXXI, No. 8 
Table III .—■Effect of chloropicrin on glutens washed from treated flours 
No 
Treatment 
Wet gluten 
per 100 
gms. flour 
Dry gluten 
per 100 
gms. flour 
Water held 
by gluten 
from 100 
gms. flour 
1 
Control,untreated-..__ .. ... 
Grams 
36.3976 
Grams 
12. 5760 
Grams 
23.8216 
2 
_do_ 
36.3424 
33. 5232 
12. 5160 
12.3352 
23.8264 
21.1880 
3 
Treated with chloropicrin vapor and aerated_ 
4 
Treated with chloropicrin vapor and not aerated_ 
31. 5992 
11.9352 
19. 6640 
5 
___do.... __ .. 
34.8200 
13 6784 
21.1416 
18.7560 
6 
Treated with aqueous chloropicrin solution__ 
30.4440 
11 . 6880 
For the study of the effects of the chloropicrin on the gluten, por¬ 
tions of this same flour were treated in several different ways and 
glutens were washed from these treated flours. The gluten repre¬ 
sented by No. 3 in Table III was prepared from a flour treated in the 
following manner: 700 gms. of the control flour was placed in a 3,000 
c. c. Erlenmeyer flask, and chloropicrin soaked up in filter paper 
was placed above the flour, care being taken that no liquid chloropicrin 
should come in contact with the flour. The flour was allowed to 
remain in the flask for 3 weeks. At the end of this time the flour 
was removed from the flask, spread out in a thin layer, and breezed 
with an electric fan for 9 hours. The flour was exposed to the air for 
24 hours longer, and then portions of it were used for the experiment. 
A comparative study of the gluten washed from this treated flour 
and that washed from the control flour indicated that the quantity 
of dry gluten obtained from the two flours was approximately the 
same—12.5 and 12.3 gms. of dry gluten from 100 gms. each of the 
control flour and the treated flour, respectively. There was, how¬ 
ever, a significant difference in the quantity of moist gluten obtained 
from these two flours, the moist gluten prepared from the control 
flour having the greater weight. This meant that the chloropicrin 
treatment affected the water-holding capacity of the flour. Hence, 
comparing these same two flours again, tne gluten prepared from 100 
gmSi of the control flour was capable of holding 23.8 gms. of water, 
while that prepared from the same quantitv of treated flour held but 
21.2 gms. 
Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in Table III show the same effect of the chloro¬ 
picrin in varying degrees. Nos. 4 and 5 represent glutens washed 
from nonaerated chloropicrin-treated flours, while No. 6 represents 
the gluten washed from the control flour which had been doughed up 
with 13 c. c. of aqueous chloropicrin solution. 
The most notable effects on the gluten are, however, not evident in 
the numerical values which have been given. These effects are 
physical. The glutens prepared from the untreated flour are elastic 
and tenacious, while those washed from treated flours lack these prop¬ 
erties so desirable in gluten. 
It was suggested that the chloropicrin might change the hydrogen- 
ion concentration of the doughs from which the glutens were washed; 
and since it was known that changes in hydrogen-ion concentration 
effect a dispersion of the gluten, this factor was investigated. It was 
found, however, that chloropicrin effected no significant change in 
hydrogen-ion concentration of dough suspensions, hence the chloro¬ 
picrin must owe its deleterious action on the gluten to some other 
property. 
