Paper · 2026 · Cereal Chemistry

Soil Sulfur and Nitrogen Affect Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics and Protein Features in Flour and Dough

E. T. Quayson; G. A. Annor; D. Kaiser; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives Sulfur and nitrogen affect wheat yield and the protein content and quality. Hard red spring wheat (Albany cultivar) grown under six different soil nitrate application levels (0, 60, 120, 180, 240, and 300 lbs/acre) and two sulfur levels (0 or 20 lbs/acre) was used. Mixing characteristics of flours were determined using the Brabender Farinograph AT, while flour and dough were studied for their thiols and SDS cold protein solubility with or without dithiothreitol. Findings Nitrate‐only at 180 lbs/acre and nitrate and sulfur at 60:20 lbs/acre (3:1) flours had desirable mixing performance. Nitrate‐only fertilization did not affect cold protein extractability in dough and compacted flour proteins so that thiols could not be exposed even in the presence of chaotrope. Nitrate and sulfur application affected protein compactness but for 120:20 lbs/acre (A63) and 180:20 lbs/acre (A64) applications, while exposable thiols further decreased, decreasing as nitrate levels increased. Exposable thiols decreased in nitrate‐only doughs, with the no‐nitrate (A55), 120 lbs/acre (A57), and 180 lbs/acre (A58) showing greater decrease. Conclusions Sulfur singularly increased exposable thiols in dough and was not affected by presence of nitrate. Indeed, nitrate only or nitrate and sulfur together application seems to produce wheat flour that has a more ordered protein structure and improved association with solvent (water) when mixed into dough. Significance and Novelty: This has significance in fertilizer application in fields for wheat cultivation for specific end‐use.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate-only fertilization at 180 lbs/acre gave flour with desirable mixing performance.

Treatment
Nitrate‐only at 180 lbs/acree1
Outcome
mixing performancee1
Qualifier
desirablee1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Nitrate‐only at 180 lbs/acre and nitrate and sulfur at 60:20 lbs/acre (3:1) flours had desirable mixing performance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–626 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate and sulfur at 60:20 lbs/acre (3:1) gave flour with desirable mixing performance.

Treatment
nitrate and sulfur at 60:20 lbs/acre (3:1)e1
Outcome
mixing performancee1
Qualifier
desirablee1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Nitrate‐only at 180 lbs/acre and nitrate and sulfur at 60:20 lbs/acre (3:1) flours had desirable mixing performance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–626 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate-only fertilization did not affect cold protein extractability in dough and compacted flour proteins.

Treatment
Nitrate‐only fertilizatione2
Outcome
cold protein extractability in dough and compacted flour proteinse2
Direction
did not affecte2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Nitrate‐only fertilization did not affect cold protein extractability in dough and compacted flour proteins so that thiols could not be exposed even in the presence of chaotrope”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–805 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiols could not be exposed in nitrate-only flour even in the presence of chaotrope.

Treatment
Nitrate‐only fertilizatione2
Outcome
thiolse2
Qualifier
even in the presence of chaotropee2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Nitrate‐only fertilization did not affect cold protein extractability in dough and compacted flour proteins so that thiols could not be exposed even in the presence of chaotrope”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–805 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate and sulfur application affected protein compactness at 120:20 and 180:20 lbs/acre.

Treatment
Nitrate and sulfur applicatione3
Outcome
protein compactnesse3
Qualifier
for 120:20 lbs/acre (A63) and 180:20 lbs/acre (A64) applicationse3

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Nitrate and sulfur application affected protein compactness but for 120:20 lbs/acre (A63) and 180:20 lbs/acre (A64) applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 807–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Exposable thiols decreased as nitrate levels increased.

Treatment
nitrate levelse4
Outcome
exposable thiolse4
Direction
decreasede4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“exposable thiols further decreased, decreasing as nitrate levels increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1017 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Exposable thiols decreased in nitrate-only doughs compared with the no-nitrate, 120 and 180 lbs/acre doughs.

Treatment
nitrate‐only doughse5
Outcome
Exposable thiolse5
Direction
decreasede5
Qualifier
greater decreasee5
Comparator
no‐nitrate (A55)e5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“Exposable thiols decreased in nitrate‐only doughs, with the no‐nitrate (A55), 120 lbs/acre (A57), and 180 lbs/acre (A58) showing greater decrease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1019–1164 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfur increased exposable thiols in dough and was not affected by nitrate.

Treatment
Sulfure6
Outcome
exposable thiols in doughe6
Direction
increasede6
Qualifier
was not affected by presence of nitratee6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“Sulfur singularly increased exposable thiols in dough and was not affected by presence of nitrate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1178–1275 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate-only or nitrate-plus-sulfur application seems to give wheat flour with a more ordered protein structure.

Treatment
nitrate only or nitrate and sulfur together applicatione7
Outcome
more ordered protein structuree7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“nitrate only or nitrate and sulfur together application seems to produce wheat flour that has a more ordered protein structure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1411 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat Flour Mixing Characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–66 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

454 papers: 400 positive, 54 negative or no effect

53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 400 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

450 papers more in this group

See all 454 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 501 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.