Bogus Water report? Murphys

[mgkpancake]

Back in March I had a water report done through Brewuk and Murphy & Son's performed the water test.

The numbers I received back from my kitchen tap in south west London:

pH 7.19
Nitrate 33.50
Total Hardness (as CaCO3) 263
Calcium 93.08
Magnesium 93.08
Chloride 46.04
Sulphate 49.39
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)

They are suggesting that my magnesium and calcium are at 93.08 mg/L. Thats about 620 mg/L total hardness. :lol: I didn't think I was pissing myself that much at night?

ANyways, probably a typo. Doesn't give me confidence in their process though. Just thought I would share my experience.

I requested a refund and going rounds with their customer service department at the moment :-( has anyone else had a similar experience?

I have since sent off my water to Phoenix Analytical. Will report results back. :drunk:

Here's a link to the water report:
https://dochub.com/magicalpancake/5DkwkO/cjf-5075?dt=x2j8enplafq2ecy9

 

[terrym]

Have you compared your result to your local water company analysis for your area (Thames Water?). They should compare reasonably well I would have thought
In your case your analysis states the total hardness (as CaCO3) is 263 mg/l, which I would have thought is about right for a very hard water area which is my understanding of water quality in SW London. Clearly 263m/l is not 620 mg/l as calculated using your Mg and Ca readings.
Your Ca and Mg readings are identical so I think that's where the error lies, since thats too much of a coincidence.
Or am I missing something?

 

[mgkpancake]

Have you compared your result to your local water company analysis for your area (Thames Water?). They should compare reasonably well I would have thought
In your case your analysis states the total hardness (as CaCO3) is 263 mg/l, which I would have thought is about right for a very hard water area which is my understanding of water quality in SW London. Clearly 263m/l is not 620 mg/l as calculated using your Mg and Ca readings.
Your Ca and Mg readings are identical so I think that's where the error lies, since thats too much of a coincidence.
Or am I missing something?

Haven't. Will compare and post once other results get back in.

 

[simon12]

There were a few threads on here or jims beer kit recently with a few people saying murphys had done inaccurate tests on there water.

 

[trueblue]

Water company results can't be relied on they generally are compiled over a large area over a period of time. Phoenix Analytical are the only one I have found I can trust.

 

[strange-steve]

Yeah there's something definitely wrong there. Assuming the magnesium is wrong (I agree with terrym, that's most likely) then to get a balanced profile the mg needs to be about 28ppm, but that then gives total hardness of 347, which is still much higher than the 263 they have quoted. To get a total hardness of 263 with 93ppm of calcium, then the mg would have to be about 8ppm, however this doesn't give a balanced profile and so isn't right either.

In other words, there's no way to get a balanced profile with the figures they've given you even if magnesium is the only error, something else must be wrong too (hardness, alkalinity, calcium??).

A bigger problem for me though is their suggested treatments. The lager and pilsner recommendations are crazy, a lager should have soft water so why do they suggest adding salts to your already hard water? And the lactic acid addition, what the hell are they thinking :wha: 17ml/25L is by my calculation exactly twice as much as you'd need to reduce the alkalinity to 35, not to mention being way over the taste threshold. I dread to think how a pilsner would turn out if you followed those recommendations.

 

[Simonh82]

I had a water report done for my South West London tap water and the numbers are very similar bar the magnesium. Mine was 3.9ppm if that is a help until you get it corrected. I'm in Southfields.

I also read some threads by people who were questioning the Murphy's reports but when they got it done by Phoenix it was very close.

 

[Clint]

263/620....haven't swapped the 2 and the 6 round have they?

 

[mgkpancake]

Phoenix just received my water, I will post the results along with local water supply averages for my area as well. Murphys just confirmed they screwed up finally and they are filing a refund for my water test through Brewuk.

 

[simon12]

Did murphys say how they screwed up? ie was the test bad or they recorded something wrong?

 

[mgkpancake]

Did murphys say how they screwed up? ie was the test bad or they recorded something wrong?

The technical sales rep said: "[FONT=&quot]Please accept our apologies, I am assuming that this was a typo, the magnesium is 3.08 ppm and not 93.08ppm, I have no idea how the 9 has got there and all I can do is apologise"

But even if that was the case, another user pointed out that would still be imbalanced
[/FONT]

 

[strange-steve]

It'll be interesting to see how the Phoenix analysis compares :hmm:

 

[terrym]

Water company results can't be relied on they generally are compiled over a large area over a period of time. Phoenix Analytical are the only one I have found I can trust.

That's an interesting comment which made me think.
Folks have a spot sample tested by a lab and presumably then use that as their bench mark for any water treatment.
But that sample is only representative of the water coming through the tap on that day, or even that moment.
As far as I am aware water companies do change their water sources to accommodate changes in their stock levels, so what comes through the tap on one day may not necessarily come through the tap next week or next month and so on.
So unless you sample each batch of water for each brew and treat accordingly you may as well just use the averaged out figures if that's what water company analyses represent, since what you had tested may not necessarily be identical to what you are going to brew with.

 

[strange-steve]

@terrym I agree, that's why I recommend using the Salifert KH and Ca test kits for every brew, or even better, get yourself an RO unit.

 

[trueblue]

That's an interesting comment which made me think.
Folks have a spot sample tested by a lab and presumably then use that as their bench mark for any water treatment.
But that sample is only representative of the water coming through the tap on that day, or even that moment.
As far as I am aware water companies do change their water sources to accommodate changes in their stock levels, so what comes through the tap on one day may not necessarily come through the tap next week or next month and so on.
So unless you sample each batch of water for each brew and treat accordingly you may as well just use the averaged out figures if that's what water company analyses represent, since what you had tested may not necessarily be identical to what you are going to brew with.

I get my water tested once a year. As Steve says I test the alkalinity and calcium every brew. If they were to deviate significantly from my previous test I would re-test straight away. So far the deviation has only been slight.

 

[mgkpancake]

Alright got my water report back from Phoenix Analytical.

Here are the numbers for West Norwood as of July 2017

36.5 Sodium as Na, mg/L
7.1 Potassium as K, mg/L
4.6 Magnesium as Mg, mg/L
95.0 Calcium as Ca, mg/L
50.7 Chloride as Cl, mg/L
28.6 Nitrate as NO3, mg/L
4.7 Phosphate as PO4, mg/L
51.9 Sulphate as SO4, mg/L 1
82 Total alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/L
7.67 pH
605 Conductivity,
uScm-1 at 20C 0.02
Total residual chlorine as Cl2, mg/L

Here's the file:
https://dochub.com/magicalpancake/6Q24kb/july17-west-norwood-water-report?dt=mj06bs473puhgpft

 

[strange-steve]

To be fair to Murphy's then, other than the typo with the magnesium they were pretty close. The thing they were missing though, which caused the imbalance, is your fairly high sodium content. Would have been useful if they'd included that.
Anyway your water isn't bad, pretty easy to adjust with a little treatment.