11th hour water help needed

[WeThirst]

Good morning everyone!

We get the Aurora IL quarterly water reports and use them to determine the needed water additions in Bru’n Water (generally just gypsum and lactic acid) for our full volume, 11 gallon eBIAB recipes. For the most part, we’re just trying to adjust for pH & sulfate and accepting whatever chloride we get. We also know our sodium is quite high and that RO water might be the best option, but we’re trying to make our water work for now.

So far, 17 batches in, we're very happy with the final results, even though we've not been able to verify the mash pH (meter not yet purchased). The issue is the last water report we received. When the numbers are transferred into Bru’n Water, we’re significantly out of balance (2.21) and aren’t sure how we should go at tomorrow’s brew if we’re not able to get a new report or clarification from the city by then. The reported numbers are:

Ca: 13.7
Mg: <0.005
Na: 56.3
K: 5.5
Fe: <0.05
Bicarbonate (HCO3): 85.4 (Total Alkalinity (as CaCo3) 70*1.22)
Carbonate (CO3): unknown
SO4: 35.0
Cl 117
Nitrate & Nitrite unknown individually, but NO3 + NO2 (as Nitrogen) = 1.31
F: 1.01
pH: 9.09

Using this report, even though out of balance, we would need 7.7 g gypsum & 13.1 mL lactic acid to bring the pH down to 5.4. Using the prior quarterly report, gypsum would be 7.1 g & lactic acid would be 8.6 mL.

Is the Cation/Anion imbalance less important than the estimated pH and we’re better to err on the side of caution with the higher lactic acid addition, or should we split the difference and hope that the pH comes down to a reasonable, though maybe not ideal, level? Guessing is not what we really want to do, but we’re running a bit short of time now.

Sorry for the long post, but I was trying to give any/all info needed the first time. Thanks!

 

[mabrungard]

That is way out. The Cl content seems suspicious to me. If it were from road salting or natural NaCl deposits, I would expect the sodium to be around 75 ppm or that the Cl would be down around 85 ppm. The other possibility is that the Ca and/or Mg are incorrect.

That report is not very useful. You need a better lab.

 

[WeThirst]

Hi Martin, thanks for looking at this for us!

The Cl is fairly close to the two prior reports (111 and 147), but I now see that the Ca had been 32.8 on both and the Na 78.5 & 81.8. If I use the Ca and Na from the prior report, the imbalance is much, much better at .30, which is about where they have been in the past.

Does that sound like a reasonable quick-fix for today?

I will definitely continue to follow up with the city for confirmation and/or a new report. They've been very responsive in the past, not sure why they haven't gotten back to me this week.

Thanks again!
Chris