Beginners Guide to Water Treatment (plus links to more advanced water treatment in post #1)

[strange-steve]

@MyQul when you do the alkalinity test, the sheet that comes in the test kit has values in dKH or meq/L, but presumably you convert that to ppm? That's the number (before acidification) that you multiply by 0.4 to give you a rough estimate for calcium.

 

[MyQul]

@MyQul when you do the alkalinity test, the sheet that comes in the test kit has values in dKH or meq/L, but presumably you convert that to ppm? That's the number (before acidification) that you multiply by 0.4 to give you a rough estimate for calcium.

I take the reading from the syringe. Then looking at the sheet, read across to meq/L and x 50 to give me my alkalinity in ppm. So instead of x 50 the meq/L figure I should x 0.4 instead?

 

[strange-steve]

I take the reading from the syringe. Then looking at the sheet, read across to meq/L and x 50 to give me my alkalinity in ppm. So instead of x 50 the meq/L figure I should x 0.4 instead?

No, sorry I realise the wording of my last post was a bit ambiguous. It's the ppm measurement that is multiplied by 0.4. So for example, if your syringe reads 0.4ml then it is 3.3 meq/L which equals 165ppm as CaCO3. That means a rough calcium estimate of 66ppm.

 

[MyQul]

No, sorry I realise the wording of my last post was a bit ambiguous. It's the ppm measurement that is multiplied by 0.4. So for example, if your syringe reads 0.4ml then it is 3.3 meq/L which equals 165ppm as CaCO3. That means a rough calcium estimate of 66ppm.

Ah, I see. :thumb:

 

[bobukbrewer]

The formatting has rendered that rather difficult to read, but if I'm reading it correctly your untreated tap water has the following composition:

Alkalinity as CaCO3 - 124ppm
Chloride - 82ppm
Sulphate - 129ppm
Calcium - 52ppm

that is correct

 

[MalvernDan]

Hi Steve,

I have just completed 2 brews, an Irish Red Ale, one with untreated Malvern Spring Water and the other with treated Malvern Spring Water.

I collected the water, from the highest Malvern spring, at the same time and then I tested using the kits and had the following:

Alkalinity 122.615ppm
Calcium 40ppm

For the brew that was to have water treatment I treated as follows:

25l water (BIAB)

9.2ml CRS to bring it to around 35ppm (amber ale)
4g Calcium Chloride for the Malts & 2g Gypsum for the hops to bring it to around 120ppm Calcium (Dublin water level)
I also added 1/2 campden tablet

I have tasted the beers this evening (4 weeks in the bottle) and I can't tell any difference at all! I have a few mates lined up to also do a taste test but I was just wondering if you could run an eye over the numbers and let me know.

Thanks

Dan

 

[private4587]

RO membranes are degraded and destroyed by chlorine compounds and RO systems typically include an activated carbon filter to remove those compounds prior to sending it to the membrane. So there is no need to treat RO water with Campden.

Thanks for your reply but I am still confused as read online that the carbon filter does not remove the Chloramine and neither will the RO element is this not correct?

 

[svenito]

I have a question about CRS. I've seen AMS (CRS), which I assume is the same or similar? It says however that it adds sulphate and chloride as well as lowering alkalinity.

Is this correct? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else that sells it.

Relevant link: https://www.themaltmiller.co.uk/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=388

 

[strange-steve]

Hi Steve,

I have just completed 2 brews, an Irish Red Ale, one with untreated Malvern Spring Water and the other with treated Malvern Spring Water.

I collected the water, from the highest Malvern spring, at the same time and then I tested using the kits and had the following:

Alkalinity 122.615ppm
Calcium 40ppm

For the brew that was to have water treatment I treated as follows:

25l water (BIAB)

9.2ml CRS to bring it to around 35ppm (amber ale)
4g Calcium Chloride for the Malts & 2g Gypsum for the hops to bring it to around 120ppm Calcium (Dublin water level)
I also added 1/2 campden tablet

I have tasted the beers this evening (4 weeks in the bottle) and I can't tell any difference at all! I have a few mates lined up to also do a taste test but I was just wondering if you could run an eye over the numbers and let me know.

Thanks

Dan

It's a shame you didn't have a noticeable difference, though I am a little surprised. I ran a typical Irish red recipe through Bru'n Water with the alkalinity and calcium values you gave, and the untreated water gives a predicted mash pH of 5.9, whereas the treated water gives 5.5 pH (for a more indepth look at why pH is important see Braukaiser - pH). That plus the increase in chloride should have made some difference I would have thought.

However I'm just supplying a method of treatment, whether you think it's worth the extra effort or not is entirely up to you :)

 

[strange-steve]

I have a question about CRS. I've seen AMS (CRS), which I assume is the same or similar? It says however that it adds sulphate and chloride as well as lowering alkalinity.

Is this correct? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else that sells it.

Relevant link: https://www.themaltmiller.co.uk/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=388

As far as I'm aware AMS is just Murphy's brand of CRS, so they are both the same product. It is a blend of hydrochloric (hence the chloride increase) and sulphuric (hence the sulphate) acids.

 

[BeerCat]

Do you have an alkalinity test kit?

Hi Steve. I presume you mean one of the cheap £10 fish ones? In the end we decided to brew with tap water and see what happens as was a lot easier than buying 100l from the shop. Funny thing about my mates water is its very hard and could not get the wort to run clear using it. Also a film on top of HLT when heating up. Thank God i don't have to drink that anymore. Wort tasted nice though so fingers crossed.

 

[svenito]

Ok thanks. So you'd have to account for the sulphate and chloride additions of the CRS in that case too?

So far no calculators I've seen have an option for CRS additions. Anyone know of one, or a workaround?

 

[mabrungard]

Thanks for your reply but I am still confused as read online that the carbon filter does not remove the Chloramine and neither will the RO element is this not correct?

It is incorrect to say that activated carbon does not remove chloramines. What is correct is that the destruction rate for chloramines is quite a bit slower than that for chlorine. That means that the contact time between the carbon and chloramines needs to be substantially longer for the destruction reaction to occur.

Functionally, that means that you have to reduce the flow rate through a carbon filter to an incredibly low rate when using the typical 10-inch filter. Reducing the flow rate to 1/3 liter per minute will remove all chloramines from water when using a 10-inch filter. Most people would consider that rate agonizingly slow. But that is about the flow rate through the typical home RO unit, so the filter will work then for chlorine and chloramines removal and protect the RO membrane.

 

[private4587]

It is incorrect to say that activated carbon does not remove chloramines. What is correct is that the destruction rate for chloramines is quite a bit slower than that for chlorine. That means that the contact time between the carbon and chloramines needs to be substantially longer for the destruction reaction to occur.

Functionally, that means that you have to reduce the flow rate through a carbon filter to an incredibly low rate when using the typical 10-inch filter. Reducing the flow rate to 1/3 liter per minute will remove all chloramines from water when using a 10-inch filter. Most people would consider that rate agonizingly slow. But that is about the flow rate through the typical home RO unit, so the filter will work then for chlorine and chloramines removal and protect the RO membrane.

Mabrungard thanks for your quick and informative reply, I am really looking forward to getting your spreadsheet in the new year once i have my RO unit set up

 

[svenito]

Can anyone give any insight into the effectiveness of a 5.2 pH Stabiliser? I've read different accounts on its use, both good and bad.

My tap water (basic overview from water report) is:

Ca+2 Mg+2 Na+ Cl- SO4-2 Alkalinity pH
135 23 43 71 104 317 (CaCO3) 7.2

I'm planning to get some AMS(CRS) and a Salifert kit to see what I can muster up with that. I'm just a but concerned about the increase in Sulphates and Chloride from using it, although it seems there's a bit of room still until I go over the acceptable brewing ranges for these.

Would a stabiliser work for this profile too, or shall I just skip it and use the AMS?

 

[strange-steve]

@svenito
I've never used it, but everything I've read from well respected and knowledgeable brewers on the subject suggests that it a) doesn't work and b) adds a ton of sodium to your water.

Aleman:

DO NOT USE 5 STAR PH5.2 STABILISER, IT IS A TOTAL PIECE OF **** AND A WASTE OF TIME!!!

Several of us with different water types have tried it , and every time the mash pH was way out even using an excess of the stabiliser . . .it can't even produce a buffer at pH5.2 using distilled / deionised water.

Five star produce some truly excellent products, PBW, Starsan, io star etc, but this is not one of their best products and quite frankly they really shoud withdraw it, because, despite the wild claims for it, it does not do what it says on the tin.

Denny Conn:

I haven't found 5.2 to be at all effective in controlling pH. In addition, the buffers it uses add a large amount of sodium, which isn't a good thing for flavor. Since you're treating your water anyway, I recommend you ditch the 5.2.

Braukaiser:

As far as I know 5.2 doesn’t buffer the mash pH at 5.2. It’s more like keeping it from going above 5.8 and doesn’t do anything if the pH is too low. If you use it and the mash tests at 5.2, try brewing w/o it. Chances are that the mash will still be at 5.2. It is also made of sodium phosphate salts. So when you use it you bump up the sodium content of your beer. …. by a lot.

Martin Brungard:

By the way, the Five Star website says of the product: "will lock in your mash and kettle water at a pH of 5.2 regardless of the starting pH of your water". Since we know that this cannot be true based on the chemistry and is not true based on observations, I have to wonder about the Federal Trade Commission's Truth in Advertising rules. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising Someone should look into that.

And again:

Five Star 5.2 Stabilizer is indicated by its manufacturer to "lock in your mash and kettle water at a pH of 5.2 regardless of the starting pH of your water". Evidence by homebrewers indicates that this product does not produce a mash pH in the preferred room-temperature range of 5.3 to 5.5. That evidence shows this product does produce some pH moderation in waters with high Residual Alkalinity. However, the mash pH tends to center around 5.8 (room-temperature measurement). While 5.8 pH is acceptable, it is at the upper end of the desirable mashing range. The evidence also shows that in waters with low Residual Alkalinity, this product shows little effect on mash pH. Since Five Star 5.2 Stabilizer is a compound with high sodium content, its use will elevate the sodium concentration in the brewing water. High sodium content can be undesirable from a taste standpoint in beer. Proper alkalinity control of mashing and sparging water may produce more acceptable brewing results for most brewers than with the use of 5.2 Stabilizer. To add emphasis to difficulty in using this product, the following conversation posted on Homebrew Talk between noted brewing water expert, AJ DeLange and the chemist from Five Star Chemical regarding their 5.2 Stabilizer product. "Tipped a few last night with the chemist who designed this product and was able to confirm that it is indeed a mix of phosphates (mono and di basic) that accounts for the presence of the malt phosphate. This is something I have long suspected and am pleased to have finally confirmed. Good manners prevented me from pressing him on it's efficacy and suitability relative to the statement on the label. But his comments on it were basically that most brewers shouldn't use it/need it and that it was put together for a particular brewery that had variable source water and no desire to make any effort to track that variability."

AJ Delange:

To be really certain I did test mashes with and without the product and found nothing that even remotely approached "locking in mas pH at 5.2".

Finally, i went out and had dinner and beers with the guy that invented and makes the product. He indicated that he would not recommend it to most home brewers and indicated that he had formulated it for a particular craft brewery that was having trouble with low mash pH. Given its alkaline nature I have no problem believing that it will increase mash pH if the untreated mash pH is below 5.2.

 

[mabrungard]

5.2 Stabilizer: User's like to say 'works great' if they don't check pH and 'doesn't work at all' for those who do check pH.

It's a fraud.

 

[Piperbrew]

Just looked at this thread, well most of it, but I just bought the two kits as if I am going to the trouble of trying to improve I might as well! Do I have to test the water each time I brew as I think someone said it varies??

Cheers

 

[strange-steve]

I would say yes, for a while at least. Eventually you'll have an idea of the variability of your water and so could reduce the frequency. It only takes a few minutes to do the tests anyway.

 

[Gunge]

I would say yes, for a while at least. Eventually you'll have an idea of the variability of your water and so could reduce the frequency. It only takes a few minutes to do the tests anyway.

To save me the trouble of scouring this thread ( and I can't find a definitive answer on the 'net ), what are the consequences of too low a mash pH? I don't bother treating the water for dark beers but for all else I find the addition of a mere 1/2 tsp citric acid gets 5.2 - 5.5pH, but occasionally flirts with 5.2 dead. What if it goes below by a fair bit? Presumably not a lot cos all the fuss seems to be about too high a pH but there must be a lower 'limit' for a reason??