There are countless threads documenting the lie that is 5-Stars 5.2 mash stabilizer, but what about other 5-Star products? According to the literature, Star San is "Accepted by U.S.D.A. as a General Sanitizer in all Departments" but has anyone tested it? Its probably not as straight forward as testing mash pH but I'm sure it can be done.
5.2 Stabilizer doesn't work, can we trust other 5-star products?
- Thread starter gbx
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
This is why I don't understand why they persist in selling this product with its current labeling. It clearly has an effect on their reputation which is, AFAIK, otherwise excellent. WRT to their sanitizer: again, AFAIK, no one is reporting failure of that product to do what it purports to do whereas with 5.2 no one is reporting that it does do what it is supposed to do.
Five Star PBW works well for me. Star San also works well for me (or at least I don't tend to get infections). I'd imagine the USDA would test something like Star San, since bacteria are a health risk. The pH not being exactly correct isn't going to hurt anyone.
Lets not compare apples to lima beans.
5.2 claims to do something that it very often doesn't do. It might work well for some people. The effectiveness is somewhat hard to qualify. IMO there are better ways of preparing water, but they are slightly more expensive and somewhat more involved.
StarSan HAS to have been tested by the USDA. They have to verify it's claims to kill bugs because otherwise it could endanger people's lives. StarSan is used in brewing, where there is little chance of something causing illness, but it's also used in other areas where nasty bugs could cause severe illness or even death.
If you don't trust the USDA's findings, then feel free to do some studies and let us know how it does.
Or, if you don't care to use it, you could always mix up some bleach and vinegar in some water. The guy from 5-Star advocated this concoction as an alternate to starsan on a podcast. It's supposed to be a very effective no-rinse sanitizer.
5.2 claims to do something that it very often doesn't do. It might work well for some people. The effectiveness is somewhat hard to qualify. IMO there are better ways of preparing water, but they are slightly more expensive and somewhat more involved.
StarSan HAS to have been tested by the USDA. They have to verify it's claims to kill bugs because otherwise it could endanger people's lives. StarSan is used in brewing, where there is little chance of something causing illness, but it's also used in other areas where nasty bugs could cause severe illness or even death.
If you don't trust the USDA's findings, then feel free to do some studies and let us know how it does.
Or, if you don't care to use it, you could always mix up some bleach and vinegar in some water. The guy from 5-Star advocated this concoction as an alternate to starsan on a podcast. It's supposed to be a very effective no-rinse sanitizer.
Seems to me it is pretty easy to verify whether 5.2 works or not. Add it to your mash and measure pH. Is it 5.2? If so it meets the label's claim that it "LOCKS" (caps theirs) your mash pH. If it isn't then the product does not meet the claim.
One can show theoretically why it should not work and demonstrate by simple tests in the lab that it doesn't. I have never seen anyone who actually measured mash pH show that it does do what it is supposed to do. One guy who made that claim turned out not to have calibrated his meter since he bought it or to be using the original buffers or something of the sort so we are still awaiting news from someone who knows how to use a pH meter and who has seen this product work.
The more alkaline the water the more poorly the product will perform. It has small buffering capacity by virtue of the fact that it uses a phosphate buffer which is a poor choice because the pK's of phosphoric acid are more than 1 from the target pH. The more alkaline the water the more buffering capacity the product needs in order to pull the pH to the design value.
One can show theoretically why it should not work and demonstrate by simple tests in the lab that it doesn't. I have never seen anyone who actually measured mash pH show that it does do what it is supposed to do. One guy who made that claim turned out not to have calibrated his meter since he bought it or to be using the original buffers or something of the sort so we are still awaiting news from someone who knows how to use a pH meter and who has seen this product work.
The more alkaline the water the more poorly the product will perform. It has small buffering capacity by virtue of the fact that it uses a phosphate buffer which is a poor choice because the pK's of phosphoric acid are more than 1 from the target pH. The more alkaline the water the more buffering capacity the product needs in order to pull the pH to the design value.
I said in my tests. I had a starting PH water of 8.7, it brought it down to 6, I had a 6, and it wouldn't bring it down to but 5.8. However I did not compare a full panel of the ions in each water, so I am sure there could have been other interactions I was unaware of. I wasn't stating theoretically, I was stating observationally. That with a bit more alkaline water that I had, it brought me into a range. I understand it is a buffer, but I go with the reactions I see. It has never brought any liquor or mash to exactly 5.2 for me. So I decided to use my tap water, got a water report and have been adjusting it with salts ever since. As with all things in life, with my available variables, I will trust the results that I get. I don't think it is a great product, but I think it is helpful, and it is being disingenuous to act like it is the worst thing in the world, especially for people who may not want to completely dive into water chemistry. I have a good PH meter, if you are brewing beer a lot, see what works for you, by measuring.
Oh, and I know how to use a PH meter, I measure soil PH, I measure PH for food products I produce, and I measured PH's under supervision of VDACS.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
My pH meter works, has been tested using 4.0 and 7.0 solutions under a variety of temps (40*F, 68*F, and ~160*F), and 5.2 has worked for me for certain beers to bring and hold the mash in the ~5.2 range. Now, if we want to have the discussion about whether or not "5.2" adds all sorts of potentially undesirable components to your beer, that's another discussion; but I stand by my assertation that 5.2 has worked for me.
I understand that the overwhelmingly conclusive data presented by you, Martin, and others shows that my situation is a bizarre anomoly, and certainly not the rule.
Despite the product appearing to "work" for me; I still recommend folks learn about water adjustments that bring all of your parameters to where you want them and to not rely on a Tbsp. of something that clearly doesn't work for everyone.
wailingguitar
Well-Known Member
In the pro community, 5-Star is sort of the McDonald's of chemical suppliers. People like BIRKO and Loeffler have a better rep.
The discussion I'd like to have concerns the details of your water, your grist and how you measure pH. When someone's experience runs counter to what most others see and counter to what theory predicts we like to understand why.
Given its formulation that's exactly what should happen. It is a buffer set for about 5.8 or 5.9 - don't remember exactly which. Thus it tries to bring water to that pH. When mash gets involved that's a different matter. The phosphates is the malt presumably change the ratio of mono to dibasic phosphate in the raw product such that the 'design' pH is lower. At least that's the only theory that I can come up with as to how a product which buffers water to 5.9 is supposed to buffer mash to 5.2.
The statement that it is becomes less effective with alkalinity still stands. It would have more trouble buffering a high alkalinity water from a close pH to 5.9 than a low alkalinity water from a higher pH. Don't confuse pH and alkalinity. It is possible to have high pH and low alkalinity and conversely.
I love theory, especially physics and chemistry, water chemistry I am just getting into the past couple years. People always forget variables though, and then speak dogmatically. Try it, buy a little bit and see if it helps with your mash. I have had no decidedly negative experiences with it. It has helped me bring the mash into a range better with higher PH levels >7<9, and seems to work fine. Albeit not perfect. If you really want to get into it then use some calculators to figure out ratios of salts and other things to add to get your mash "perfect". I use a Hanna HI 9813-6n. I got this one so I could test EC/TDS in soil slurries as well.
wailingguitar
Well-Known Member
To be clear, I have never used the 5.2 stabilizer. I don't know how it performs specifically. I just don't have a very positive view of 5-Star. I wish some of the other manufacturers (you hear me BIRKO?!) would sell to homebrewers/in homebrewer sized containers. Of course, it would probably lead to higher costs through associated marketing, etc. which is one of the issues with 5-Star *SIGH*
I posted this in Brew Science because I figured it would just turn into a debate about whether or not 5.2 stabilizer works if I put it in the Sanitation forum....but here we are... There are countless threads about how and why it doesn't work (see similar threads below), I was hoping someone who knows something about microbiology could chime in about the effectiveness of Star San at sanitizing or how to go about testing it. Personally, I haven't had an obvious infection since I started using star san a couple years ago but I doubt the claim that it doesn't add any taste to your beer. Get 2 glasses, rinse one in star san and then fill them both up...you can taste it...whether or not that taste will fade is a little harder to test.
The general drift in testing sanitizers is to prepare a culture, count the viable organisms, expose the culture to the sanitizer at a particular concentration and sample the number of viable organisms over time. The log kill (if 99% are killed that's '2 nines', if 99.9% - '3 nines' and so on) is then plotted vs. the C x T (Concentration times Time) it took to produce it. Now how the viable organisms are detected and counted I don't know. I'm sure there are standard methods for that as there are for everything else. A home brewer might make a suitable dilution and then pour it onto an agar plate and count colonies before and after treatment. How one stops the action of a sanitizer after a certain time would be a problem with that method. A more sophisticated method of testing the effectiveness of a spray on sanitizer involves treating the surface to be sanitized and then looking for ATP remaining on the surface using the scintillations it triggers when exposed to luciferrin (the stuff that makes fire flies wink). This requires an expensive (to the home brewer's perspective) instrument.
KevinW
Well-Known Member
From what I have read is most bacteria do not tolerate an acid environment, which is the joy of brewing yeasts as they can tolerate down to about a 2.5 PH (toxic to most bacteria).
Starsan is basically phosphoric acid (and some other acid that I cannot spell) and when mixed (1oz to 5 gallons of water) properly should provide (and is most effective at) a PH that is 3.0 or less. With that PH range and a contact time of 1 to 2 minutes most bacteria should be eliminated.
I have sprayed star san solution (properly diluted of course) on my tongue and it is about the the tartness of lemon juice, which coincidentally has a PH of about 2.5! I DO NOT advocate the spraying of Star San on any living organism, except bacteria
Trencher
Well-Known Member
StarSan is easy to test. As noted above, it is an acid sanitizer, and its pH must be below 3(ish?) to work effectively. I have some pH test strips which work in that range so I can confirm my StarSan will still sanitize effectively after sitting for weeks or months. It always reads below 3, and I typically throw it out after several months because of the junk floating in it and not because its pH is too high.
Actually, it's even easier to test... I use StarSan and my beer is not infected. Therefore, StarSan works!
Actually, it's even easier to test... I use StarSan and my beer is not infected. Therefore, StarSan works!
http://www.fivestarchemicals.com/wp-content/uploads/Star-San-HB4.pdf does not support a lot of the commonly held beliefs about the product (ie. the foam sanitizes on contact, it works when applied via spray bottle) due to the 3 to 5 minute contact time it recommends.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
How about you link to the product most of us actually buy instead of the dumbed down HB version?
http://www.fivestarchemicals.com/wp-content/uploads/StarSanTech5.pdf
And, remember this is "contact time" not submersion time. My Star San does not evaporate on contact. In fact, it takes several minute to dry off.
