Not entirely your fault. It's partially due to KegConnection's crazy website using drop downs for mixed products, chrome and SS at various lengths. Chi Company is even worse, more convoluted and error prone. Clarity people, helps eliminating errors!
Examining possible solutions to issue of sulfur smell from Perlick 650ss faucets
- Thread starter agrazela
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Not entirely your fault. It's partially due to KegConnection's crazy website using drop downs for mixed products, chrome and SS at various lengths. Chi Company is even worse, more convoluted and error prone. Clarity people, helps eliminating errors!
jprank2
Member
Yes I was very careful to stir the powder into the water initially and there were no cracks up until that point. Only after heating the jar did I hear a distinct crack. I picked up the jar to test it, and it didn't drop out. Then later (presumably after it got hotter?) the bottom dropped out. I guess I'll try another jar tonight...
The only other thing I can think of is that the bottom of the jar was a lot hotter than the rest of the jar even in the double boiler configuration. In my setup I didn't have a wire screen separating the jar from the pot.
Perhaps I should heat the water first, and then put the jar in, and take the jar out if I have to heat the water up? It seems safer to get a wire screen of some sort...
The only other thing I can think of is that the bottom of the jar was a lot hotter than the rest of the jar even in the double boiler configuration. In my setup I didn't have a wire screen separating the jar from the pot.
Perhaps I should heat the water first, and then put the jar in, and take the jar out if I have to heat the water up? It seems safer to get a wire screen of some sort...
So you had the jar sitting directly on the bottom of the pot? That kind of defeats the purpose of using the double boiler, since the bottom of the pot can be much hotter than the water above when heating. As you suggested, the jar probably cracked because the bottom overheated relative to the rest of the jar.
I suggest getting a vegetable steamer or some other method of holding the jar off the bottom. Removing the jar when heating should also work as long as the jar is not too cold when you put it in, might crack if there's too much temperature difference.
I suggest getting a vegetable steamer or some other method of holding the jar off the bottom. Removing the jar when heating should also work as long as the jar is not too cold when you put it in, might crack if there's too much temperature difference.
Just read through the thread and applying the remnants of my chemistry degree from the 90s and a bit of googling about passivation procedures.
First thing to consider, acids are not equals. pH measures the H+ ion concentration in the acid solution, but that is only half of the chemical mix in the solution. Take HF (hydrofluoric) and HCl (hydrochloric), two hydrogen halide acids with two completely different corrosive behaviours. An HF solution at the same pH as an HCl solution will etch glass containers while the HCl will not. That's due directly to the free F- ions being a much more powerful oxidizing agent than free Cl- ions.
Using StarSan for passivation instead of citric acid may result in different metal compounds being formed in the passivated layer. Depending on solubility of these compounds, the proper formation of the oxide layer may be inhibited. The phosphoric acid in StarSan will result in insoluble ferric phosphate being formed, while the ferric nitrate formed with the original nitric acid passivation recipe and the ferric citrate from citric acid are more soluble. Presence of the insoluble ferric phosphate precipitated on the metal surface might well hinder the formation of a contiguous oxide layer.
Second thing, acid passivation is a timed process, not a continuous process. The passivated layer is assumed to be a layer of oxidized metal one or two atoms thick on the surface greatly reducing further corrosion from dissolved or atmospheric oxygen. Prolonged exposure to strong acids will slowly corrode both 303 and 304 stainless steels by destroying the passivated layer and replacing it with a new passivated layer from metal atoms lower in the crystalline structure of the alloy.
On 303 stainless, the removal of the sulphides by the acids leave microscopic holes in the machined surface which trap the acid even after a water rinse, allowing deep corrosion to form and exposure of more sulphides to the liquids (beer) being passed through. That is why the NaOH baths are essential to neutralize the acid trapped in the microscopic holes.
The same will happen if StarSan is left to stand in a 303 stainless valve, the phosphoric acid will erode the oxidized layer and expose more sulphide inclusions to the liquid. Once the sulphides are exposed to the liquid, the acid in the beer will form H2S with a more acidic beer forming more H2S faster. Any acidic sanitizer will do the same.
What Johnny-O discovered by accident was also passivation protection, the exposure to air in the taps allowed the undisturbed formation of an oxide layer that is properly sealing the microscopic holes in the 303 formed by the dissolving of the sulphides.
I think the takeway from this overly long post of mine is that acid sanitizers and 303 stainless steel parts dont mix well. A short exposure wont cause many problems, but prolonged exposure will continually corrode the SS, exposing more sulphide inclusions and, when beer is reintroduced and stands in contact with the sulphides, H2S will form and taint the beer.
Sanitizing using a base instead of an acid (like NaOH or similar) followed by a mild acidic flush and then a water flush would severely reduce the corrosion of the oxide layer and the possible exposure of fresh sulphide inclusions.
TL/DR Dont use acidic sanitizers on your Perlick 650SS taps.
First thing to consider, acids are not equals. pH measures the H+ ion concentration in the acid solution, but that is only half of the chemical mix in the solution. Take HF (hydrofluoric) and HCl (hydrochloric), two hydrogen halide acids with two completely different corrosive behaviours. An HF solution at the same pH as an HCl solution will etch glass containers while the HCl will not. That's due directly to the free F- ions being a much more powerful oxidizing agent than free Cl- ions.
Using StarSan for passivation instead of citric acid may result in different metal compounds being formed in the passivated layer. Depending on solubility of these compounds, the proper formation of the oxide layer may be inhibited. The phosphoric acid in StarSan will result in insoluble ferric phosphate being formed, while the ferric nitrate formed with the original nitric acid passivation recipe and the ferric citrate from citric acid are more soluble. Presence of the insoluble ferric phosphate precipitated on the metal surface might well hinder the formation of a contiguous oxide layer.
Second thing, acid passivation is a timed process, not a continuous process. The passivated layer is assumed to be a layer of oxidized metal one or two atoms thick on the surface greatly reducing further corrosion from dissolved or atmospheric oxygen. Prolonged exposure to strong acids will slowly corrode both 303 and 304 stainless steels by destroying the passivated layer and replacing it with a new passivated layer from metal atoms lower in the crystalline structure of the alloy.
On 303 stainless, the removal of the sulphides by the acids leave microscopic holes in the machined surface which trap the acid even after a water rinse, allowing deep corrosion to form and exposure of more sulphides to the liquids (beer) being passed through. That is why the NaOH baths are essential to neutralize the acid trapped in the microscopic holes.
The same will happen if StarSan is left to stand in a 303 stainless valve, the phosphoric acid will erode the oxidized layer and expose more sulphide inclusions to the liquid. Once the sulphides are exposed to the liquid, the acid in the beer will form H2S with a more acidic beer forming more H2S faster. Any acidic sanitizer will do the same.
What Johnny-O discovered by accident was also passivation protection, the exposure to air in the taps allowed the undisturbed formation of an oxide layer that is properly sealing the microscopic holes in the 303 formed by the dissolving of the sulphides.
I think the takeway from this overly long post of mine is that acid sanitizers and 303 stainless steel parts dont mix well. A short exposure wont cause many problems, but prolonged exposure will continually corrode the SS, exposing more sulphide inclusions and, when beer is reintroduced and stands in contact with the sulphides, H2S will form and taint the beer.
Sanitizing using a base instead of an acid (like NaOH or similar) followed by a mild acidic flush and then a water flush would severely reduce the corrosion of the oxide layer and the possible exposure of fresh sulphide inclusions.
TL/DR Dont use acidic sanitizers on your Perlick 650SS taps.
jprank2
Member
I agree. Something to keep in mind for people who are trying this out for the first time.
When re-hydrating yeast I usually do this so that the starter liquid maintains its temperature longer. Aside from thermal shock this is another benefit of the double boiler method.
I tried it again tonight and was successful. Definitely got a noticeable sulfur smell from the citric acid soak. I avoided cracking the bottom of the jar by picking up the jar an inch and gently stirring the water in the pot every few minutes or so. Then once I got the solutions up to temp I turned down the heat to low.
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
I just ran through the process using citric acid and lye. I can still run starsan through the taps when i clean them right?
I'm not sure you read some of the other information presented here. Pay special attention to the post two above your own.
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
That post is part of the reason why I asked, it's not clear to me. Says short exposure is probably fine but what is short?
I plan to still use starsan to sanitize, I thought the whole passivization process was to eliminate the problems of acids causing the reaction that creates the sulfur smell? If your not going to ever run acid stuff through the tap, then why bother to passivate it as you will never have the problem anyways? Isn't this supposed to fix that problem?
Running starsan through the taps is fine, never caused any issues for me. I don't always do it but if I'm going to leave a line empty for a while I'll cycle starsan through for 15 min then drain it. Just don't leave the starsan solution sitting in the lines for an extended period - this could be hours, could be days, I'm not sure exactly how long it would take. As bruce_the_loon says, the starsan will eventually eat away the protective oxide layer, exposing more sulphides
The safest thing is to not use Starsan. Use something like Beer Line Cleaner which is meant to be in contact with this equipment. With respect to @sctcts you can find anyone on the Internet willing to tell you what you want to do is fine. It might be that you'd get away with it. In my mind however there's a chemical reaction taking place whether I'm really quick about it or not. Eventually that will catch up with me. If I avoid it, especially after going through all the trouble to eliminate the issue in the first place, it just makes more sense and provides more peace of mind.
How pissed would you be if you had to disassemble everything and re-passivate the tap later on because you used Starsan for sanitizing?
Beer is acidic, some beers more so. If you don't have the smells then you don't have to (re)passivate but just running some beverages through the tap is enough to cause the issue for a lot of us.
I rarely have issues when I use the right tool for the job, be it a screwdriver, a hammer, a wrench, or beer line cleaner. When I was a child I thought a steak knife was a multitool. My projects go much better now that I have the right tools.
Beer line cleaner is not a sanitizer, it's a cleaner, there is a difference. One could argue you're being less safe since you could be harbouring microorganisms in your lines! I'm being a bit facetious, there shouldn't be anything growing in your lines that isn't in your beer unless you're leaving them empty and exposed to atmosphere.
If you're really worried about it, you could use IOstar or one of the other non-acid sanitizers out there. I'm not 100% sure IOstar isn't acidic though, it's just the only other sanitizer that comes to mind
Lol true, I did mention it was in my experience. This is a forum, basically everything is anecdotal and should be taken with some question.
True. Although, it's primary effective ingredient is Potassium Hydroxide and KOH itself is considered a disinfectant (Römpp Chemie-Lexikon, 9th Ed.) at solutions as weak as 0.1% (Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 69, No. 7, 2006). I'm at work and don't have a bottle handy so I can't determine if the recommended dilution would qualify.
Thanks for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended.
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
The safest thing is to not use Starsan. Use something like Beer Line Cleaner which is meant to be in contact with this equipment. With respect to @sctcts you can find anyone on the Internet willing to tell you what you want to do is fine. It might be that you'd get away with it. In my mind however there's a chemical reaction taking place whether I'm really quick about it or not. Eventually that will catch up with me. If I avoid it, especially after going through all the trouble to eliminate the issue in the first place, it just makes more sense and provides more peace of mind.
How pissed would you be if you had to disassemble everything and re-passivate the tap later on because you used Starsan for sanitizing?
Beer is acidic, some beers more so. If you don't have the smells then you don't have to (re)passivate but just running some beverages through the tap is enough to cause the issue for a lot of us.
I rarely have issues when I use the right tool for the job, be it a screwdriver, a hammer, a wrench, or beer line cleaner. When I was a child I thought a steak knife was a multitool. My projects go much better now that I have the right tools.
BLC is very expensive, its almost cheaper to replace all my lines than clean with BLC lol.
BLC is a cleaner not a sanitizer.
My processes for clean and sanatizing keg, lines and tap is to run blc throught hem, then run starsan through them. I don't think beer line cleaner is a sanitizer, but even if it is it is expensive and complicates things. I then need to find a new way to pump starsan through the the diptube int eh keg using a seperate tap, then I need to buy a pump or something to run the BLC through the lines and ball lock connections (which means I probably need to buy or make some kind of manifold with ballock fittings on it so I can clean the full line, or run the BLC before I run starsan through the keg, which also doubles the amount of work (3 things I have to run), plus my lines will still not be sanitized.
edit: oops just realized I was repeating the above!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you ... if you already run BLC through your lines, why does that make three things you need to do? Why would it be more expensive?
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
I bought some BLC but have never used it, seems it's made to be mixed as 1 gallon batch, then cycled through the system with a pump.
I clean my lines by filling kegs of PBW or starsan and pumping it through the lines as I also shake it around in the keg. As of late though, when I see a dirty line I just replace it, it's easier and cheaper than cleaning them.
I use my BLC in the same manner as you do - mix it, store in a keg, and pressure through the lines as needed. I should note that I use a hand-pump from an old keg tap to do this. Even though I've never heard of it happening, it's "chemically possible" that dissolved CO2 and an alkali cleaner will react. In theory this could happen with PBW or any of the other caustics.
BLC (and removing beerstone in general) calls for a 15 minute soak so I run it till it starts to come through, close the tap and let it sit, then 15 minutes later I rinse. I also put a few drops of food coloring in it so I know when it runs through and when it's cleared out.
Beerstone will build up eventually in your taps and connectors even if you are replacing your lines. You need a longer soak with alkali or acid solutions to dissolve beerstone. Since we've already said a long soak with Starsan is bad, that leaves an alkali solution as your best bet with these taps.
My $0.02 anyway.
BLC (and removing beerstone in general) calls for a 15 minute soak so I run it till it starts to come through, close the tap and let it sit, then 15 minutes later I rinse. I also put a few drops of food coloring in it so I know when it runs through and when it's cleared out.
Beerstone will build up eventually in your taps and connectors even if you are replacing your lines. You need a longer soak with alkali or acid solutions to dissolve beerstone. Since we've already said a long soak with Starsan is bad, that leaves an alkali solution as your best bet with these taps.
My $0.02 anyway.
In case some aren't aware, 5 Star Chemical PBW is NOT the same as National Chemical BLC. PBW is a non-caustic cleaner, while BLC is a caustic cleaner. PBW is mostly silicates, phosphates, and surfactants according to the SDS sheet and is an oxygen-generating cleaner according to people on the internet. BLC is similar to the NaOH used for cleaning in passivation, BLC contains KOH as LBussy mentioned earlier. I was previously confused since 5 star's website lists it as Beverage Line Cleaner/PBW – apparently Beverage Line Cleaner is an old name for PBW or something.
I don't have my bottle of BLC anymore, but I am pretty sure it called for 15 minute recirculation through the lines rather than just a soak. Makes sense to me that some mechanical agitation would help loosen beerstone and other buildup.
I agree, even though I have all the equipment for cleaning my lines (pump w/ manifold), I'm thinking of just going back to replacing lines when they get too dirty since it's cheaper and I don't have to spend an hour cleaning (10 min setup cleaning, 15 min BLC circulation, 5 min water change, 15 min rinse water circulation, 10 min teardown cleaning/reconnect kegs).
This is true about needing to clean connectors but I don't think starsan will dissolve beerstone no matter how long you leave it, that's definitely not it's intended purpose. People should be using a proper cleaner for removing buildup, but ya, alkali-based cleaners are safest with these taps.
I don't have my bottle of BLC anymore, but I am pretty sure it called for 15 minute recirculation through the lines rather than just a soak. Makes sense to me that some mechanical agitation would help loosen beerstone and other buildup.
I agree, even though I have all the equipment for cleaning my lines (pump w/ manifold), I'm thinking of just going back to replacing lines when they get too dirty since it's cheaper and I don't have to spend an hour cleaning (10 min setup cleaning, 15 min BLC circulation, 5 min water change, 15 min rinse water circulation, 10 min teardown cleaning/reconnect kegs).
This is true about needing to clean connectors but I don't think starsan will dissolve beerstone no matter how long you leave it, that's definitely not it's intended purpose. People should be using a proper cleaner for removing buildup, but ya, alkali-based cleaners are safest with these taps.
Yup, the BLC label does call for recirculation...
I have a manifold-based cleaning rig that'll recirculate through all six faucets and lines in parallel.
I basically get it running then go back to work for a half-hour before draining and running a rinse cycle...
Cheers!
I have a manifold-based cleaning rig that'll recirculate through all six faucets and lines in parallel.
I basically get it running then go back to work for a half-hour before draining and running a rinse cycle...
Cheers!
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about getting some more. I keep a keg of carbonated water with citrus zest and lemon juice (home made La Croix) on tap, and this is when I noticed the sulfur smell. After a few kegs it went away on it's own. (or maybe it was due to passivating the tap via PBW then starsam, enough times.) I decided to re-passivate anyways because I never did anything with the second tap that just had a brown ale on it and it never had the issue due to what I was serving. The flow control is great for the carbonated water because I can push high pressure to the keg and keep the restriction low without excessive length of beer line.
passivating
I also found the flow control great if you get the growler fillers, it allows you to fill slowly without messing with purging the tank and wasting CO2. I thought about replacing all taps with the flow controls but I probably wouldn't suggest doing that, but it depends what your serving I suppose. I still like them, but there's certainly room for improvement.
I did not care for the intertaps with flow control. They did not have the sulfur problem but the perls are better quality.
I bought three more after passivating my first two.
Justintoxicated
Well-Known Member
Just a heads up, I ran starsan through the tap I passivated and have no sulfur smell with my citris infused carbonated water. I wouldn't let them soak in starsan though. YMMV
Do the newer 650ss still have the problem? My old one never quite got completely rid of the bad odor, despite going through the lye/citric acid treatment. I really like the functionality, but I'm hesitant buying a second one now that I'm looking to get a double tap tower.
The new ones don't have this problem. The lye/citric acid treatment worked for me so i bought 3 new ones a year ago and was going to do the same thing. Somewhere I read that they fixed the issue. Also when you take it apart, there are a couple parts that look a little different.
I'll edit this post if i can remember where i read this...
Edit:
So, i think after i noticed some of the internal parts looked different i realized that the 650ss are being advertised as now using new 304 steel rather than 303 (which was likely the cause of the problem). Then came across multiple reddit posts with people saying new ones didn't have the problem.
Specifically what is different (other than the washer/oring being a diff color):
The flow control levers on the old ones turn 90 degrees (flow 100% open to flow 100% closed). The flow control levers on the new ones turn 270 degrees (closed to open to closed, front to back).
I started looking at why this is and it appears the flow compensator (diagram here: https://www.morebeer.com/images/file.php?file_id=3061) on the old ones sticks out more in the on position that prevents the 270 deg rotation when attached to the shank.
Last edited:
I edited my post above. They now use "new 304 steel".
Its a bit early for me to take apart my taps, but i took a video showing the flow control lever now works differently. The new one has a wider angle of rotation. The flow compensater (the half spherical metal part that sticks out the back of the tap where it would screw into the shank) on the new ones doesn't stick out as far.
https://www.homebrewing.org/Perlick-650SS-flow-control-faucet_p_4896.html
I the QA section on that site, they say it's been updated to fix sulfur taste. Also notice they say "new 304 stainless".
Here is the video:
https://imgur.com/gallery/aCqTeKQ
From the outside they otherwise look the same.
A gentleman at Perlick reached out to me about an article on the BrewPi Remix website where I shred a passivation process. He's informed me that as of May 2017, faucets in stock at Perlick were all 304 SS which eliminated this issue. To identify the newer 304SS taps, he shared:
ETA: I removed the Perlick rep's name at his request, and published a new version of the article.
I have also updated my article to reflect this information.
ETA: I removed the Perlick rep's name at his request, and published a new version of the article.
Last edited:
cheesebach
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 86
Thanks for sharing! Just to help in case anyone is wondering which version they have - the date code on my 2 faucets is "17J". They have the characteristics of the older type (90 degree rotation when put on the shank, can smell the sulfur when soaking the 303 parts in an acidic solution). Not sure why "17C" would indicate a more recent date than "17J", but that's what it looks like if "17C" is actually the updated version. I followed the passivation process on mine and haven't noticed any issues in actual use, but I haven't had any sours on tap since I did this a couple years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
