A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer

[nyer]

One more quick question, if I'm making a 5 gallon batch but using 10 gallons of water total I am making the additions based on the 10 gallons of water total? It's not batch size but total water used right?

 

[ajdelange]

Yes, that's correct. As low alkalinity water is being used as the starting point there is no need to acidify the sparge water or treat it any differently than the mash water. Some brewers do that, add salts to the kettle etc. but none of those techniques fall under the KISS principle which underlies the Primer.

 

[nyer]

Yes, that's correct. As low alkalinity water is being used as the starting point there is no need to acidify the sparge water or treat it any differently than the mash water. Some brewers do that, add salts to the kettle etc. but none of those techniques fall under the KISS principle which underlies the Primer.

Thank you again. I have 3 days off this weekend and I'm planning to do at least one batch. If I get the time I'm doing 2.

 

[FredTheNuke]

This is flame bait. It doesn't work theoretically (i.e. a phosphate buffer at mash pH is a weak one because mash pH is distant from either of the closest 2 pK's of the phosphate system) and it doesn't work in lab tests. Plus in DI water it buffers to 5.8 or so. It relies on the phosphate from the malt to form a lower pH buffer but treble the suggested dose in real malt grists using water of modest (80) alkalinity it only gets you to 5.4 or so.



Do not trust him. Do your own experiment. If you are take pH measurements on 5.2 solutions and read 5.2 then your meter is broken or your buffers are off - way off.

THANK YOU!!! For proving my point exactly!!! You add a few teaspoons of 5.2 powder to your water and add some BARLEY (I mean who would have thought of adding malted barley to a homebrew recipe?) and you get a pH of 5.2! Without reading 31 pages of mumbo jumbo or spending hours worrying about your water. I tested it last night - I'd be happy to youtube it. I took my 8.8 tap water, added a small amount of 5.2 and it read 5.5. Then I added some barely and I bet you can't guess what it read????

I spent over a decade as a Nuclear Chemist doing pH analysis dozens of times a day so I am very very familiar with how it works, how the calibration buffers work and what a simple buffer such as 5.2 is actually doing. It works and you don't need a PhD to get it to work - just a measuring spoon and 2 minutes of time!

PS - I also don't rotate my truck's tires every 5000.000 miles like the salesman told me to but I still get 68,000 miles out of the 70,000 they advertised.... Saves me hundreds of hours of not waiting in his showroom!

This ain't rocket science - it is yummy tasty HOMEBREW!!!!

 

[ajdelange]

THANK YOU!!! For proving my point exactly!!!

Actually, I disproved it analytically and demonstrated the fallacy in the lab.

You add a few teaspoons of 5.2 powder to your water and add some BARLEY (I mean who would have thought of adding malted barley to a homebrew recipe?) and you get a pH of 5.2!

No, you don't. I just did another quickie experiment with it. My well water runs alkalinity about 80 and pH 6.48 about 20 min after drawing it. With double approximately the recommended dose of 5.2 the pH goes to 6.47. Adding 50 grams of ground Munich I (what I happened to have on hand in the lab) to 100 mL of this water (no 5.2) comes to a pH of 5.48. Adding 5.2 makes no change. Doubling the dose causes an increase to 5.50 and trebling the dose brings it to 5.52. Obviously it's trying to buffer to its design pH which is apparently around 6.1 because that's what it buffers 18 megohm DI water to.

This was an interesting result which reveals another flaw in the design of this product it relies on malt phosphate but apparently malt phosphate isn't always available and, of course, what is in a particular malt, would depend on the cultivar, the malting procedure, the season etc.

In an earlier experiment with Maris Otter the DI dough in pH was 5.7. The recommended dose was able to pull that down to 5.68 and treble the dose was able to pull it down to 5.66. In other words in this case it was able to access some malt phosphate but not enough to pull the pH down to anywhere near 5.2. But this is unsurprising. If you are really a chemist you should understand that a phosphate buffer is at its weakest at pH 4.7 which is half a unit away from 5.2. You should also recall that phosphate is not a good choice for a buffer outside the range 1.1 - 3.1 or 6.2 - 8.2.

Without reading 31 pages of mumbo jumbo or spending hours worrying about your water.

The whole concept behind this thread is KISS. Water treatment for brewing is summarized neatly in the first post. Hijacking the thread with nonsense about this product which should be taken off the market doesn't help. People might believe you.

I tested it last night - I'd be happy to youtube it.

That I would like to see.

I spent over a decade as a Nuclear Chemist doing pH analysis dozens of times a day so I am very very familiar with how it works, how the calibration buffers work and what a simple buffer such as 5.2 is actually doing.

Apparently you aren't or you would at least respond to the buffer strength argument.

It works and you don't need a PhD to get it to work - just a measuring spoon and 2 minutes of time!

You are the first person that I have seen claim that it works based on a pH meter reading. Plenty of other guys have tried it and any who have used a pH meter to check on what it is doing have come to the same conclusion I have. For a long time I thought 'there must be some conditions under which it works but no one seems to be able to find them. One guy even called the factory and asked what the story was. They told him it was never intended to buffer to 5.2 but only to keep mash pH from going too low. That isn't what it says on the label. Perhaps you have found the Rosetta Stone. That's why I'd be so interested to see your proposed You-tube demo.

PS - I also don't rotate my truck's tires every 5000.000 miles like the salesman told me to but I still get 68,000 miles out of the 70,000 they advertised.... Saves me hundreds of hours of not waiting in his showroom!

WTF? Over.

 

[RonRock]

There's one in every crowd.

Thanks for all of the helpful information you have provided in this thread and others I have followed AJ.

 

[HItransplant]

There's one in every crowd.

Thanks for all of the helpful information you have provided in this thread and others I have followed AJ.

+1
I start here before every brew.

 

[FredTheNuke]

Folks - I will post the Youtube video of this test later today (it is 5am for us EST peeps). My original test showed exactly what I posted. If the retest shows the same thats great! If not I will pour my 5.2 in the trash can and go KISS.... LOL

Brew On!!!!

 

[gt541]

Don't bother posting your video. If you can't explain/defend your position in words then you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. AJ has offered data and reasoning in his statements, all you provide is hyperbole and exclamation points in yours. Whenever I hear someone resort to "I have been doing X for Y years" as a line of reasoning in a discussion I immediately know they have no knowledge of what they are talking about. Knowledge is apparent in ones reasoning and explanations, not from a statement that "I have knowledge".

AJ you have given this guy enough of your time, no more is needed. Let him rant on.

 

[ajdelange]

Thanks for the kind words but let's not discourage this gentleman from doing his experiment. If he is indeed seeing what he says he sees there is a reason for it and I'd like to know what that is. It sounds as if he's blowing smoke but maybe that's just his writing style.

 

[FredTheNuke]

Thanks, AJ. One of the primary reasons I am into homebrewing is the fact that there are 1000 ways to do it and they all end up with a high quality product! The point of a forum is to intelligently debate what we have learned through experience. Yes - I am a northerner (aka damn yankee) so come off very opinionated and sometimes harsh in my posts. But I saw what I saw - I swear that to you and I would love it if AJ can show me what the heck this magic dust did or did not do. I spent years adding packets of pH 7.01 and 10.01 buffer to DI water and it always changed to that pH and stayed there for weeks.

I do apologize for my presentation. My helper (below) apologizes too! This was our first 15 gallons of all grain (yes I used the 5.2 magic dust - see second picture). It is a Pilsner with 25lbs of Pilsner Malt, 1lb of Carapills and 1lb of 20L. 9oz of Czech Saaz to boot! OG was 1.045 pre boil and 1.049 post. Target per BeerSmith was 1.042 pre and 1.045 post so I was a little high for my first All Grain!

 

[ajdelange]

pH 7 buffer is based on phosphate salts for which pK2 = 7.214 at 20 °C. 7.214 - 7 = 0.214 < 1 and so there is good buffering capacity. pH 10 buffer was traditionally made from carbonate salts for which pK2 = 10.38. 10.38 - 10.0 = 0.38 < 1 so again there is buffering capacity. Today buffers at high pH are often made from TRIS.

OTOH 7.21 - 5.2 = 2.01 > 1 and so there should be little buffering capacity at pH 5.2 from a phosphate buffer system. Remember in a calibration buffer one doesn't really have any stress except that of the DI water which is usually at a pH in the high 5's or low 6's but with no buffering capacity of its own to speak of. In the application of a product like 5.2 we have not only the buffering capacity of the water (it's alkalinity) to deal with but that of the malt.

It is, of course, possible to make a high strength buffer at pH 5.2 if you use the salts of the right acid. Citric acid has a second pK = 4.77. 5.20 - 4.77 = 0. 43 < 1 so citric could be a candidate but I expect the amount required would require so much buffer that the citric taste would be noticeable.

 

[RonRock]

You are a very patient man AJ. I'm sure I have tested those patience with some of my less than intelligent questions.

How's the book coming along?

 

[ajdelange]

You are a very patient man AJ.

Let me give you my wife's e-mail address....

 

[afr0byte]

I'd still like to see this youtube video showing proof that 5.2 works

 

[Grinder12000]

So here is a question - I'm a Scottish60 and using 100% RO water I'm adding1 tsp gypsum and 1 tsp calcium chloride. Is it odd that those will be the ONLY minerals in the water?

Also - is there any problems with over mineralizing on basically a small beer?

 

[ajdelange]

As RO systems do not remove 100% of any ion there will always be traces of everything that was in the feed water in the RO. The malt itself will provide a fair amount of mineral content as well. Some brewers like to give the yeast a little zinc in the form of one of the commercially prepared yeast nutrients.

You can over-mineralize on any beer. If the beer tastes more of minerals than you hoped it would you have over mineralized. Pull back next time.

 

[Grinder12000]

Yea I was wondering if I should cut back a little with a beer that will only have about 3,8ABV. Maybe I will just to ease my fears

 

[FredTheNuke]

Folks - so I tried the 5.2 expirement last night. I set my 1080p camcorder on a tripod and aimed at the counter for a nice clean picture. I then put the pH meter (Hanna Checker - new only used once) into buffer 7.01 (read 6.96 at 23C - so slightly off but not much). Then into buffer 4.01 (read 4.24 - off - although the test before it read 4.05 - not as much off). I then pulled some fresh tapwater with a very short purge of the water lines. It read 7.55. I put 1 tsp of 5.2 in it and it came down to 5.7 (last test it came down further to 5.5). I went ahead and put a cup of freshly milled Pilsner Malt in and at room temp it did nothing to the pH as it needs to be at conversion temps. So I read the water again and my pH meter started fluctuating from 4 up to 11 and all over the place. I tapped it gently on the bottom of the beaker and cycled the power. It came up reading "1." then a few seconds later read something in the 5's then the display went blank. I changed the batteries and made sure the probe was attached correctly and not clogged with a piece of barley or such. Obviously this meter will be going BACK to amazon. So I took a look at my video to see if I had enough to post it. Verbally I do BUT when I was showing the pH meter to the camera I was holding it up too high - so all you see is a beaker... <damn it>. Anyway when I get the new meter I will re-record the test.

Some questions - is it worth getting another $31.00 Hanna Checker meter or should I buy a bit more expensive (and hopefully reliable) meter much like the pro ones I've used in the past? Anyone else have experience with the Hanna model for light duty use? Maybe move to a Hanna HI 9813-6N?

The debate on 5.2 in general - in my opinion if it takes tap water in the 7 to 8 range and drops it to the 5 range that is a success. I realize it does NOT get it down to an actual 5.2 but relies on the grain to finish the job. Are others even able to get it to do this initial drop in pH? It appears to be a fairly quick and easy method to drop standard carbon filtered tap water (note - my tap water is very soft - 30 ppm range soft).

Thanks All!

 

[afr0byte]

The debate on 5.2 in general - in my opinion if it takes tap water in the 7 to 8 range and drops it to the 5 range that is a success. I realize it does NOT get it down to an actual 5.2 but relies on the grain to finish the job. Are others even able to get it to do this initial drop in pH? It appears to be a fairly quick and easy method to drop standard carbon filtered tap water (note - my tap water is very soft - 30 ppm range soft).

Thanks All!

I've not actually tried it, since I don't want all of that sodium. However, you're generalizing too much, in my opinion. You say "standard carbon filtered water." However, your comments probably don't apply to my 214 ppm alkalinity well water. Besides, with your water it'd be just about as easy to use the water primer, perhaps along with one of the spreadsheets.

Edit: Also, that meter has a range of +/- .2 pH, so your pH could have actually been .2 higher.

 

[ajdelange]

Perhaps another way to gain some perspective on this is to consider a water alkaline enough that a base malt mash comes in at pH 5.8. Since it is claimed that 5.2 will bring the pH of this mash to 5.2 we note that a drop of 0.6 pH is required of the product. As most mashes have a pound of grain per quart or so we will assume .5 kg/L (just to make the math easier). And we will also assume the malt has a buffering capacity of 25 mEq/Kg-ph which is not an unreasonable assumption. Thus 5.2 has to provide 0.6*0.5*25 = 7.5 mEq of H+ per liter. We know that 5.2 is essentially monobasic sodium phosphate. If we assumed that all the sodium phosphate released its proton it would then require 7.5 mEq/L sodium phosphate to move this mash to 5.2. That is 7.5*136 = 1020 grams of the salt of which 7.5*23 = 172.5 mg is sodium. There is no way I would consider adding over a gram of this product to each liter of my water especially knowing that it would result in 175 mg/L sodium. And especially when there are simpler, more effective, more predictable means at hand i.e. dilution with RO and addition of sauermalz.

 

[FredTheNuke]

I'm game for trying the Sauermalz (actually I just ordered 4oz of 88% Lactic Acid from midwest). I will try a batch with it right next to a batch with 5.2 just out of curiousity. Being I mostly brew German Pilsner really the only component of my water I'm attempting to shift is the pH. So I will do one more 15 gallon batch with 5.2 (my last one spent the first 23 minutes after dough in below the target temp of 154 (was at around 146) because the HERMS got stopped up from the super sugary wort. Recovered it and added 10 minutes to the time at 154 to make up for some of this without overdoing it. Then I will do a batch with lactic acid - same ingredients, temperatures, times, etc. My Beersmith efficiency was 73% on this last batch (with the screwed up temperatures). I'm assuming a good overall "test" will be batch efficiency as that is the primary purpose for getting the pH down during the enzymatic conversion.

 

[mabrungard]

Perhaps another way to gain some perspective on this is to consider a water alkaline enough that a base malt mash comes in at pH 5.8. Since it is claimed that 5.2 will bring the pH of this mash to 5.2 we note that a drop of 0.6 pH is required of the product.

AJ, I'm mostly on board with that analysis excepting that I think you're mixing pH measurement standards. Shouldn't the 5.2 be converted from what I expect is a mash temperature measurement to a room temperature measurement? 5.2 @ mash temp --> ~5.5 @ room temp? Thus the total drop required of that buffer is more like 0.3 std units?

It still means that a bunch of sodium is added to the wort and the product is questionable.

 

[ajdelange]

That's certainly not the only thing shaky in my quickie calculation. But if I design a phosphate buffer for 5.2 at 50 °C (mash in temp for a protein rest) that buffer would buffer at 5.225 at 20 °C (theoretically).

In my musings on this stuff I at one time thought that maybe that was the idea behind it i.e. it only buffers to 5.7 but that's 5.4 at mash temp. I don't think that's it though.

 

[bob1852]

You are the first person that I have seen claim that it works based on a pH meter reading. Plenty of other guys have tried it and any who have used a pH meter to check on what it is doing have come to the same conclusion I have.

Howdy AJ,

I'm still working on some data, but I still find that 5.2 works for me with my water and my grist. Since you're way more knowledgeable than I will ever be, can you look at this water report and let me know if possibly there's something here that would somehow make my admittedly not-so-scientific results much different than your very scientific results?

Calcium 57 MG/L
Magnesium 16 MG/L
Sodium 14 MG/L
Chloride 3 MG/L
Sulfate 5.0 MG/L
Alkalinity 10MG/L
PH is 7.21

(these are cut and pasted from an e-mail from my water provider)

And, this is the pH meter I'm using; do you see any flaw with it? I know temperature plays a role, and this purports to be ATC; though I honestly have my doubts about anything that claims ATC.

http://www.ecrater.com/p/6725250/hanna-ph-ec-tds-conductivity

I'm going to continue to collect more data and will hopefully be able to add more information later.

Thanks.

 

[RDWHAHB]

FredTheNuke-
Be sure to include a control in your video when you get the meter problem sorted out (e.g. same grist, no 5.2).
Regards, Jeff

 

[ajdelange]

I'm still working on some data, but I still find that 5.2 works for me with my water and my grist.

Can you tell us more about what you mean when you say it works. Clearly this would imply that you get mash pH of 5.2 but at what temperature? At what phase in the mash? With what sort of grist? Etc.

Calcium 57 MG/L
Magnesium 16 MG/L
Sodium 14 MG/L
Chloride 3 MG/L
Sulfate 5.0 MG/L
Alkalinity 10MG/L
PH is 7.21

This is pretty easy water. I don't see any problems with it.

And, this is the pH meter I'm using; do you see any flaw with it? I know temperature plays a role, and this purports to be ATC; though I honestly have my doubts about anything that claims ATC.

I have begun to suspect that the biggest problem with the inexpensive meters may be that they drift and/or have a stability criterion that is too relaxed such that they grab calibration measurements before they should (i.e. before allowing the potential to really come to equilibrium). ATC should always be regarded with suspicion. If the electrode's isoelectric pH is off ATC can induce quite a bit of error. For this reason buffers and samples should all be at the same, or nearly the same, temperature.

Step 11b in the pH Calibration Sticky is designed to detect problems with stability and isoelectric pH. Be sure you do that check.

 

[bob1852]

Can you tell us more about what you mean when you say it works. Clearly this would imply that you get mash pH of 5.2 but at what temperature? At what phase in the mash? With what sort of grist? Etc.

#1
10lb 2-row
1lb Munich
0.75lb 60L
0.5lb flaked barley

with 1 TBSP "5.2" in the mash

post mash pH (reading taken in the wort collecting vessel) = 5.18 @ 152*F
single sparge pH mid-draining (reading taken in the wort collecting vessel) = 5.29 @ 168*F

#2
19lb 2-row
2lb Munich
1.5lb 60L
0.5lb flaked barley

(in essence, a double batch of the previous)

without "5.2"

post mash pH (reading taken in the wort collecting vessel) = 5.45 @ 152*F
1st sparge pH mid-draining (reading taken in the wort collecting vessel) = 5.65 @ 164*F
2nd sparge pH mid draining (reading taken in the wort collecting vessel) = 5.84 @ 169*F

I'm hesistant to draw conclusions from these numbers as I haven't sat down and compared variables (mash ratio mainly, since the 2nd grist bill was essentially double the 1st grist bill; the fact that I single sparged the first one and double sparged the second), and I'm not sure I completely trust my pH meter.

Basically, I'm wanting to try and isolate why it appears to work for me; short of a complete side-by-side experiment, which admittedly, I'm too lazy to do at this poing (not even in the name of science )

Also, I know it shouldn't matter, but could results very In vitro v. In sutu?

I have begun to suspect that the biggest problem with the inexpensive meters may be that they drift and/or have a stability criterion that is too relaxed such that they grab calibration measurements before they should (i.e. before allowing the potential to really come to equilibrium). ATC should always be regarded with suspicion. If the electrode's isoelectric pH is off ATC can induce quite a bit of error. For this reason buffers and samples should all be at the same, or nearly the same, temperature.

Yeah, I need to look into this more, especially since the probe's temp reading maxes out a 60*C.

Step 11b in the pH Calibration Sticky is designed to detect problems with stability and isoelectric pH. Be sure you do that check.

I do need to re-read that.

Thanks again.

 

[bob1852]

I tested the probe tonight and it read true with calibration at 4 and 7. I heated the solution to 164*F and it read 6.92 in the 7.0 calibration soultion which is probably spot on as the calibration solution says it should read 6.97 at 50*C (~122*F).

I'm thinking more and more that my probe works, and I will now for sure do side-by-side trials with and without 5.2 with my water.

I'll probably start another thread with those results. Thanks again AJ, for helping us understand water chemistry.

 

[ajdelange]

I have wondered for a long time if there were any circumstances under which 5.2 would work as advertized and while I still haven't found any where it will 'lock in' mash pH at 5.2 I have figured out how to get to pH 5.2 using it. It is a mixture of two phoshphate salts. Malt is also contains quite a bit of a mixture of phosphate salts. We often add calcium to brewing liquor as it reacts with phosphate to precipitate apatite and release acid
6H2PO4- + 10Ca++ + 2H2O ---> Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 + 14H+
(just the monobasic form of phosphate shown)

5.2 is mostly the monobasic sodium salt so if you add calcium ion to it hydrogen ions will be released and the pH will drop. If I add enough calcium chloride and 5.2 to RO water I can get the pH down to 5.2 but I have to add a lot of each but nonetheless you can get to 5.2 with this product. Thus the thesis is that if your water has high permanent hardness (i.e. lots of calcium and magnesium but little bicarbonate) and the mash pH is close to 5.2 without it (i.e. if you have a lot of dark malts as part if the grain bill) then the calcium reaction with the extra phosphate may be enough to drop the pH to 5.2.

AZ_IPA's water and grist ostensibly look good from this perspective at first. With a no - 5.2 pH of 5.45 he's pretty close (because of the 60L dark crystal) and he shows lots of hardness and very low alkalinity but the sulfate and chloride are also too low IOW the report is way out of balance and not to be trusted. So perhaps his case fits this hypothesis, perhaps not.

But lets suppose it does work in this way under the hypothesized conditions. Why would we use it?. If I wanted mash pH 5.2 and didn't mind more phosphate why not just add enough phosphoric acid to get 5.2? You'd spare yourself the sodium.