Question on Bicarbs

[trimixdiver1]

So I finally got Bru n Water. Using RO as a base (zero in every mineral) Got a good adjustment, but bicarbs are -90, everything is green except when I try to correct the bicarb and it goes red.

Am I doing it right?

 

[mchrispen]

Don't target bicarbonate or RA, ignore them in the spreadsheet. The beauty of RO is its low to no alkalinity. Target the primary flavor ions and get your Ca at least 30-50 ppm for most beers. Then use acid to adjust to a target mash pH. For highly mineralized profiles, like the Pale Ale profile, you might need to add a tiny bit of baking soda or pickling lime (and no acid!) to raise the mash pH into the right range.

BWS uses bicarbonate as a proxy for alkalinity. You are correct there is no such thing as negative bicarbonate and reporting it as such can be confusing. RA, however is valid as a negative number. Despite this, the spreadsheet can be accurate when estimating mash pH and used properly.

 

[trimixdiver1]

Thanks! I thought I was over thinking it.

 

[ajdelange]

It is certainly lamentable that Brun water chooses to express proton surfeit as negative bicarbonate but Martin is quite insistent that this is how it is to be done though no one else so does it (that I know of). Hence the confusion it causes. Best to just ignore the bicarbonate field in that particular spreadsheet. RA isn't really very helpful either though many of the spreadsheets and calculators do use that to calculate mash pH (and it is implicitly a part of a robust mash pH calculation).

 

[trimixdiver1]

It is certainly lamentable that Brun water chooses to express proton surfeit as negative bicarbonate but Martin is quite insistent that this is how it is to be done though no one else so does it (that I know of). Hence the confusion it causes. Best to just ignore the bicarbonate field in that particular spreadsheet. RA isn't really very helpful either though many of the spreadsheets and calculators do use that to calculate mash pH (and it is implicitly a part of a robust mash pH calculation).

Is there a spreadsheet out there that is more ideal?

 

[ajdelange]

Yes but practically speaking the answer is "No". Just ignore this ugly wart.

 

[trimixdiver1]

Yes but practically speaking the answer is "No". Just ignore this ugly wart.

So I just waisted 10 bucks....

 

[mchrispen]

No you didn't ... BWS is a tool hundreds use to estimate mash pH with great success. It works very well for me and has greatly improved my results. I have used it now for about 35 brews... Only two measured significantly off the estimate and in both cases I entered something incorrectly. All of these tools estimate... So measure and confirm to build your confidence.

AJ is simply pointing out his disagreement with the alkalinity model in BWS... And the idea of chasing an ideal water profile.

 

[ajdelange]

Yes, you wasted $10 in the sense that you can get the same info from any of numerous free spreadsheets that are equally or more accurate than Bru'n water but Bru'n water does have lots of features with respect to the user interface. Many people (e.g. Matt above) think this is well worth the $10. The silliness re bicarbonate certainly shouldn't be a factor. Just ignore that field. Someday Martin will see the light and change that field's label to (in order of desirability) 'alkalinity, mEq/L' or 'alkalinity as CaCO3' or 'alkalinity as bicarbonate'. The confusion will go away and the world will be a better place.

 

[mchrispen]

Just to clear something up... bicarbonate is part of the ionic report, alkalinity is a measure made up of carbonate and bicarbonate ionic content. A lab report will provide carbonate, bicarbonate and total alkalinity as CaCO3 (usually) or as mEq/L. When these are stacked in the spreadsheet and the math is attempting to compute the ionic content and then factor both the water's Alkalinity and Residual Alkalinity, the result can be a negative ion number when compared to a given target water profile. BWS at least shows those differences. In the latest version, RA and Alkalinity are removed from the Water Adjustment tab, however Bicarbonate remains at the top as an ion... attempting to show the differences between the target profile, your existing water, dilution water and the final water result. >>> Hence confusion. BWS asks for Total Alkalinity as CaCO3, not as bicarbonate as inferred. I have found the spreadsheet to be a very useful and accurate tool as I have been exploring water chemistry. I also found AJ's proton deficit spreadsheet useful and educational, but without the proper reporting from maltsters or the time to run test mashes on every malt I use, BWS's model is working for me. Brewer's Friend or EZWater can likely provide good results once you have used them enough to understand their particular behavior.

In my opinon, when matching a water profile (should you choose to do so) priorities should be Sulfate, Chloride and Calcium. You may choose to also match Sodium and Magnesium or ignore them. After you have matched your ionic targets, you need to adjust your Estimated Mash pH (after your grist and mash/sparge water volumes are entered) to your desired level. In most cases, you will simply need Lactic or Phosphoric acid to drop to your preferred estimated mash pH. If you are using 100% RO, you may need to raise your mash pH with an alkali (or reduce your use of calcium bearing mineral salts) when using a particularly "hard" water profile like that Pale Ale profile, which will affect your ionic concentrations and require some tweaking to the salt additions. Never use both acid and an alkali in the same mash.

As for how or what profile or any treatment, that is a personal choice. As you can see by looking at the many recommendations throughout this forum - everyone has different ideas of levels of sulfate or chloride or even what mash pH to target. I have lots of opinions - none of them are anything but that. As you brew with minerals, you need to experiment with how you want to approach this and tweak the process to your preference - including if relying on spreadsheets, programs and meters bring anything meaningful. I happen to believe that this attention to detail has improved my brewing practices.

I happen to like some sulfate in my hoppy beers and some chloride in my malty beers, but a mix of both is even better - but would never have discovered that without brewing and practice. I have also discovered that I like a little magnesium and sodium as well. All that said - there is no scientific basis here - just my pre-biased opinion of what worked and didn't work in a given recipe. Always take anyone's opinion with some skepticism and determine what you like best.

I suspect I brew a few lagers and British ales that AJ would really enjoy as they closely follow his recommendations, and a few American Pales that he would politely decline to finish. Someday I hope to find out! It will take me many years to become as experienced or educated.

 

[ajdelange]

Just to clear something up... bicarbonate is part of the ionic report, alkalinity is a measure made up of carbonate and bicarbonate ionic content.

Alkalinity is simply the proton deficit of the sample with respect to a reference pH (usually 5.3, 5.4 or 5.5). Thus it includes anything that absorbs protons above that pH which, in potable water, is mostly bicarbonate and carbonate ions but includes phoshphate, silicate, sulfate and hydroxyl ions and water molecules. These are usually small in concentration (except, of course, the water molecules but water is a weak base) and so the notion that bicarbonate and carbonate (which is itself usually small) are the components of alkalinity is approximately true.

A lab report will provide carbonate, bicarbonate and total alkalinity as CaCO3 (usually) or as mEq/L.

These are calculated from the measured alkalinity. The alkalinties of water (about 2.5 ppm as CaCO3), phosphate, silicate and sulfate should be subtracted from the measured alkalinity first. No spreadsheet that I am aware of does this (except my own). Then either the old traditional formulae or formulae based on the equilibrium chemistry of the carbonic acid system are applied and bicarbonate and carbonate produced. The errors induced by using the old traditional formulae are usually small.

When these are stacked in the spreadsheet and the math is attempting to compute the ionic content and then factor both the water's Alkalinity and Residual Alkalinity, the result can be a negative ion number when compared to a given target water profile.

In order to compute a pH estimate a spreadsheet must, whether its author is aware he is doing it or not) the proton deficits of all the mash components at and near the target mash pH. When acid with a proton surfeit is added to water with a smaller (magnitude) proton deficit the proton deficit becomes negative. If it is expressed in mEq/L there is no problem and everyone understands what is meant. If it is expressed as ppm as CaCO3 that can be converted to mEq/L and again everyone knows what is meant. When it is converted to bicarbonate (not alkalinity as bicarbonate) no one can figure out what that means. People want to know why RO water with some lime added is reported as having positive bicarbonate content and why RO water with some lactic acid added has negative bicarbonate content when in fact neither water contains any bicarbonate whatsoever.

I also found AJ's proton deficit spreadsheet useful and educational, but without the proper reporting from maltsters or the time to run test mashes on every malt I use, BWS's model is working for me.

Implicitly or explicitly all spreasheets and calculators are using proton deficit to calculate estimated mash pH. You do not need detailed malt data to use this method. If you don't choose any of the 7 or 8 malts at the top of the malt list in my spreadsheet (the ones that are fully characterized) you will be using malt data based on Kai Troester's relatively (to full characterization) primitive malt measurements. This is certainly an equally good, or better, way of estimating malt proton deficits/surfeits as estimates based on malt name or malt color.

I suspect I brew a few lagers and British ales that AJ would really enjoy as they closely follow his recommendations, and a few American Pales that he would politely decline to finish. Someday I hope to find out!

I accept!

 

[mabrungard]

If it is expressed in mEq/L there is no problem and everyone understands what is meant. If it is expressed as ppm as CaCO3 that can be converted to mEq/L and again everyone knows what is meant. When it is converted to bicarbonate (not alkalinity as bicarbonate) no one can figure out what that means. People want to know why RO water with some lime added is reported as having positive bicarbonate content and why RO water with some lactic acid added has negative bicarbonate content when in fact neither water contains any bicarbonate whatsoever.

Oh my! It looks like we have our poster child for the definition of Pedantic!

If any of those representations in the text above meant anything to the 99% of users, your discussion would have merit. But the fact of the matter is that I happen to employ a surrogate that DOES properly relate individual deficits and surfeits of protons that are likely to exist with the various water amendments. While I agree that my bicarbonate representation does not have a place in modern chemical terminology, that does not make it wrong. Converting that term to proper chemical terminology would not make the experience any better for the user, nor the answer any more accurate.

Don't sweat the little stuff.

 

[ajdelange]

Oh my! It looks like we have our poster child for the definition of Pedantic!

No pedantry here. Just the units you would find in any elementary chemistry text, article in a journal and Palmer's water book. Remember this is the Brew Science forum - a place for 'In depth discussions ...' but this is hardly deep. It's Chem 101 if that.

If any of those representations in the text above meant anything to the 99% of users, your discussion would have merit.

There is no question as to the merit in my remarks. Common sense does have a place here. If you want to do something that contravenes the practices of a couple of industries you are, of course, free to do so and this is how progress is made but you should expect criticism unless you have a pretty good reason for the new practice. You don't have one or at least not one that you have been able to express here.

But the fact of the matter is that I happen to employ a surrogate that DOES properly relate individual deficits and surfeits of protons that are likely to exist with the various water amendments.

Sure it does. So does 'as Vanadate' or 'as acetate' or 'coulombs'. Equally valid and equally foolish.

While I agree that my bicarbonate representation does not have a place in modern chemical terminology, that does not make it wrong. Converting that term to proper chemical terminology would not make the experience any better for the user, nor the answer any more accurate.

No but it would eliminate confusion. Your job should be to help the user understand what is going on. Not leave him wondering what in heavens negative bicarbonate means or why his spreadsheet tells him his water has bicarbonate in it when there isn't any. As I have said before even 'as bicarbonate' gives a clue at least and as 'calcium carbonate' is an industry standard and equally correct. Your stubborn refusal to use a unit which is clear blemishes an otherwise good effort and reflects negatively on your reputation. The observation that most users are too dumb to know any better isn't much of a defense.

Don't sweat the little stuff.

No. Just fix it! Would take 5 minutes if that.

 

[GotPushrods]

Quite a while back I used OpenOffice to edit the field to contain quotes.

"Bicarbonate".

Made me feel better. Maybe a middle ground?

 

[ajdelange]

I didn't think you could do that but if you can you can put in anything you like and it's whatever makes it clear to you. "Alkalinity as bicarbonate" is what it apparently is. You could change it to "alkalinity as vanadate - oz/gill" if you wanted to but would have to multiply by the appropriate scaling factor.