A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer

[hbhudy]

AJ the Calcium Chloride was purchased from a large internet store.. After looking it is as you stated..

 

[Teesquar]

Trying to do a little forensics on a higher-then-expected mash pH. BruinW was dialed in at 5.35 and the mash sample came in at 5.6. I guess not that far off and not a big deal (other then to my anal, perfectionist side), but in the past, I've been within a few hundreths so I'm curious.

Milwaukee MW102 calibrated in packet solution right before cooled mash sample reading.
Brewed in a Grainfather
Wieß beer recipe
5# White wheat
4# Pilsen
0.5# rice hulls
4 gallon 100% RO mash water
2.0 ml 88% lactic in mash water
2 grams anhyd cal chlor in the mash water
152 F single step mash 1 hour
168 F mash out 10 min

Came in a few points low so added 0.5# light DME to bring it up

It's happily churning away with WB-06, nutrient and ox so I guess RDWHAHB, but wanted to try and track it down so it doesn't turn into a possible bigger mistake down the road.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Teesquar, it looks like for a grist with as high a DI mash pH as yours likely had you would have needed closer to about 4.4 mL of 88% lactic acid to hit a target pH of 5.35 (vs. the 2.0 mL of lactic acid that you added).

Wheat malt and Pilsner malt both have very high DI mash pH's. I'm initially guessing at about 5.9 pH for the wheat and about 5.83 pH for the Pilsner. My initial guess is therefore that your recipe should dough into DI water at somewhere around 5.87 pH, and given that the wheat may actually have a DI mash pH of 6, this is likely being conservative.

When you enter your recipe into your spreadsheet with no minerals or acids added and with all strike water mineralization and alkalinity values set to zero (simulating doughing it into pure DI water) what mash pH does the software indicate at that juncture. If it is noticeably lower than 5.87 (which again is likely conservative), therein may lie a substantial percentage of your mash pH discrepancy.

The rest may well be due to your mineralization (2g of anhydrous CaCl2) not achieving 100% of the theoretical Kolbach ideal with regard to its contribution to downward pH shift.

And lastly, are you fully confident that your CaCl2 is anhydrous?

 

[ajdelange]

This is hardly appropriate discussion for a 'Primer" but.... An observation of 5.6 is a little suspicious. I have DI mash pH data on three Pilsner malts and they are all above 5.6. A correspondent sent me some data on Wyermanns wheat and its pHDI is 6.07 (and its first buffering coefficient 45 mEq/kg•pH). It is, thus, unlikely that mash pH could be as low as 5.6, even with 2 mL lactic, unsless the calcium/phytin reaction were a lot more potent than it is. Putting the most 'acidic' of the Pilsner malts (pHDI 5.62, a = 40 mEq/kg•pH) together with the wheat data (and the calcium's likely performance in the mash of -0.03 pH) gives an estimated DI mash pH of 5.85 (note that the Pils is acidic in this case). The proton deficit with respect to pH 5.35 is 85 mEq. Two mL of lactic acid will only eliminate about 23 of those (lowering the estimated mash pH to 5.71). To reach pH 3.5 you would, thus, need about 3.6 times as much or about 7.3 mL.

Now the malts you are using are not the malts on which I have measurement data so it is possible yours have lower pHDI's and lower buffering capacities such that you do indeed have a valid measurment of pH at 5.6. Thus you should rely on test mash measurements for acid addition determination - not spreadsheets or calculators. There is clearly a problem either with Brun water or your use of it (probably in the way the wheat malt is modeled) but a properly used, robust program can be used to give you a starting point for the acid to be used in your test mashes. We know you will need (scaled to the full mash) something like 7 mL so you might do test mashes at (scaled to the full mash) 3.5, 5 and 7 mL. Or, to save time and materials, a single test mash at 5 mL with subsequent ones as necessary depending on the result.

 

[Teesquar]

Teesquar, it looks like for a grist with as high a DI mash pH as yours likely had you would have needed closer to about 4.4 mL of 88% lactic acid to hit a target pH of 5.35 (vs. the 2.0 mL of lactic acid that you added).

Wheat malt and Pilsner malt both have very high DI mash pH's. I'm initially guessing at about 5.9 pH for the wheat and about 5.83 pH for the Pilsner. My initial guess is therefore that your recipe should dough into DI water at somewhere around 5.87 pH, and given that the wheat may actually have a DI mash pH of 6, this is likely being conservative.

When you dough your recipe into your spreadsheet with no minerals or acids added and with all strike water mineralization and alkalinity values set to zero (simulating doughing it into pure DI water) what mash pH does the software indicate at that juncture. If it is noticeably lower than 5.87 (which again is likely conservative), therein may lie a substantial percentage of your mash pH discrepancy.

The rest may well be due to your mineralization (2g of anhydrous CaCl2) not achieving 100% of the theoretical Kolbach ideal with regard to its contribution to downward pH shift.

And lastly, are you fully confident that your CaCl2 is anhydrous?

I did a comparison using EZ Water and it came in almost exactly to what I got as my reading. As you figured, the higher ph values of the wheat and pilsen appear to be a contributing factor. Bru'nWater only has a grain type of "base malt" without the ability to pick wheat, pilsner, etc. I believe that may have been the difference.

As I said, no big deal mashing in at the 5.6ish ph, but I wanted to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks again for the input!

And as far as the anhyd ... I baked my cal chlor for over an hour to drive off the moisture, then put it back in the bottle, with a tight lid, and vac seal it with a dissicant pack after each use. I did weigh pre and post bake and there was a definate difference in weight.

 

[Teesquar]

This is hardly appropriate discussion for a 'Primer" but.... An observation of 5.6 is a little suspicious. I have DI mash pH data on three Pilsner malts and they are all above 5.6. A correspondent sent me some data on Wyermanns wheat and its pHDI is 6.07 (and its first buffering coefficient 45 mEq/kg•pH). It is, thus, unlikely that mash pH could be as low as 5.6, even with 2 mL lactic, unsless the calcium/phytin reaction were a lot more potent than it is. Putting the most 'acidic' of the Pilsner malts (pHDI 5.62, a = 40 mEq/kg•pH) together with the wheat data (and the calcium's likely performance in the mash of -0.03 pH) gives an estimated DI mash pH of 5.85 (note that the Pils is acidic in this case). The proton deficit with respect to pH 5.35 is 85 mEq. Two mL of lactic acid will only eliminate about 23 of those (lowering the estimated mash pH to 5.71). To reach pH 3.5 you would, thus, need about 3.6 times as much or about 7.3 mL.

Now the malts you are using are not the malts on which I have measurement data so it is possible yours have lower pHDI's and lower buffering capacities such that you do indeed have a valid measurment of pH at 5.6. Thus you should rely on test mash measurements for acid addition determination - no spreadsheets or calculators. There is clearly a problem either with Brun water or your use of it (probably in the way the wheat malt is modeled) but a properly used, robust program can be used to give you a starting point for the acid to be used in your test mashes. We know you will need (scaled to the full mash) something like 7 mL so you might do test mashes at (scaled to the full mash) 3.5, 5 and 7 mL. Or, to save time and materials, a single test mash at 5 mL with subsequent ones as necessary depending on the result.

Thanks AJ. I'm sure there was a definate operator error in there, somewhere , on my part.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, Bru'nWater does not have a wheat or pilsner choice, that I'm aware of so everything appears to be using a base malt average figure ... maybe?

Bottom line is I'm producing a home brew as a hobby and the science side satisfies my curiosity. Tip of the hat to all of you contributors with the actual "smarts" of the chemistry.

 

[Big Monk]

Thanks AJ. I'm sure there was a definate operator error in there, somewhere , on my part.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, Bru'nWater does not have a wheat or pilsner choice, that I'm aware of so everything appears to be using a base malt average figure ... maybe?

Bottom line is I'm producing a home brew as a hobby and the science side satisfies my curiosity. Tip of the hat to all of you contributors with the actual "smarts" of the chemistry.

Weyermann's various Pilsner malts, along with most of thier Vienna and Munich malts are almost always 5.85 and above, with the Pilsner being almost always 5.9 or above. Brun Water's DI pH assumption for the pH estimate is 5.75, so it makes sense that it would estimate low.

 

[ajdelange]

I've measured their regular Pils at 5.62 and their floor malted pils at 5.85. Are your observations based on measurements you have made or on what their data sheets report?

 

[Big Monk]

I've measured their regular Pils at 5.62 and their floor malted pils at 5.85. Are your observations based on measurements you have made or on what their data sheets report?

Both. For Regular Pils, Vienna, and Munich, as well as Barke Pils, Barke Vienna and Barke Munich.

 

[ajdelange]

I guess that just shows the variability with batch. But it's possible that what Weyermann is reporting is the pH of a Congress mash rather that what I would consider a mash pH measurment which does not involve the steps, the filtration etc.

 

[Big Monk]

I guess that just shows the variability with batch. But it's possible that what Weyermann is reporting is the pH of a Congress mash rather that what I would consider a mash pH measurment which does not involve the steps, the filtration etc.

Understood. In the end it's better than nothing and helps the model we use to be more accurate and consistent.

 

[urg8rb8]

The original baseline says: Add 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate (what your LHBS sells) to each 5 gallons of water treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.

Then deviate from the baseline as follows:

For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride


Does this mean the totals for British beers is 2 tbs of calcium chloride and 1 tbs of gypsum? Or, 1 tbs of calcium chloride and 1 tbs of gypsum?

 

[user 70770]

I have a question. Where do brown ales fall according to the primer? They contain some roast malt but no where near the amount for porters and stouts. Should I follow the primer for porters and stouts or use the baseline?

 

[badlee]

@beerhappy, not that I know anything, but would guess to meet in the middle. I have done it that way and it works for me.

 

[user 70770]

@beerhappy, not that I know anything, but would guess to meet in the middle. I have done it that way and it works for me.

Ok I think I'm gonna go 1 tsp of calcium chloride per 5 gallons, but only half the acid malt. That is 1% of the grain bill instead of 2%.

 

[Hedo-Rick]

Does a mash thickness of 1.5:1 vs 1.75:1 or even 2:1 affect the mash pH?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Does a mash thickness of 1.5:1 vs 1.75:1 or even 2:1 affect the mash pH?

A 10-fold dilution (increase in "highly pure" water content) can shift pH by a maximum of only 1 full point. The small dilution ratio changes typically witnessed via the mash thickness alteration choices we make are thereby generally not going to have much at all in the way of a "significant" pH shift impact that will be of concern to the brewer, as fully doubling the strike water content can have a maximum potential impact of only 0.1 upon pH shift.

That said, mash thickness can alter pH significantly enough to be of great concern for the case of strike water with alkalinity, as for this case a thinner mash has more weight of alkalinity that must be properly addressed, and visa-versa. And ditto for the case of water with minerals (Ca and Mg) naturally present, as for this case more strike water means more weight of minerals present to interact with the fixed weight of grist, and visa-versa. Of course the degree of alkalinity and/or minerals present within the strike water determine the degree of the significance.

But for the case of both alkaline and mineral free strike water (as for DI, distilled, or good quality RO) a small range of mash thickness alteration should not significantly alter mash pH for the specific case whereby the weights of the strike water minerals added remain unchanged, allowing for fluctuation in strike water mineral ppm's.

However, if the overall weight of strike water mineralization is increased or decreased in conjunction with the alteration of mash thickness, as for example the case whereby one tries to make a conscious effort to keep the strike water minerals ppm levels constant while changing the thickness of the mash, then pH will fluctuate, as more mineral weight will provide for more downward pH shift potential and visa-versa.

For the case of alkaline free water it is most significantly the weight of the minerals present within the strike water that has the primary relevance when reacting with grist of a fixed weight, and not the minerals ppm values per se. A specific weight of grist requires a specific weight of present mineralization within the strike water to achieve a specific reaction impact, and not a specific ppm of mineral concentration level with respect to the water quantity. This becomes intuitive if you treat grist and minerals interactions just as for any chemical reaction between two or more chemicals within a solvent base carrier of pure water. The chemicals react weight for weight, regardless of the waters concentration level, even though the chemicals concentrations with respect to the water (think ppm here) are altered as water is added or subtracted. The concentration of the reactants (grist and minerals) with respect to water is a non issue, since the alkaline free water is merely a reactant carrier media, and not itself a reactant.

Note: Minerals in all cases above meaning primarily CaCl2, CaSO4, and MgSO4. Ca(OH)2 is another story, as is baking soda, as these alter alkalinity.

 

[ajdelange]

Does a mash thickness of 1.5:1 vs 1.75:1 or even 2:1 affect the mash pH?

When we estimate mash pH we total up the proton deficits of all the mash components and find the pH which causes the total to be 0. The deficits of the malts depend greatly on pH but the deficit due to water does not, in general, being equal to approximately 90% of the alkalinity per liter of water used. Thus the deficit from water will be proportional to the amount of water used unless the alkalinity is 0 in which case it does not depend on the volume of water used. Thus for an RO water mash water to grist ratio will not have an effect.

A secondary effect is that of calcium and magnesium releasing protons. Clearly that also depends on the amount of calcium and or magnesium in the water. Their effect on mash pH is small unless the water is very hard.

 

[user 246304]

I have a similar problem with such statements. 300 ppm isn't, IMO, 'somewhat' alkaline. It is very alkaline. The water reports I have for Munich suggest that the water is perhaps half that alkaline. If the water were decarbonated before brewing it would take a reasonable amount of sauermalz (about 3% of the grist) or the equivalent in sauergut to move the grist to mash pH but if lactic acid were also relied upon to dispatch the alkalinity (i.e. bring the water to mash pH) that would require more than doubling the lactic which would bring its level to the point where the beer would taste sour with a lactic tang.

AJ, I know this is an old post but I am truly being game and reading through this (is slogging it out. P. 25 and counting). It's also inspired me to to re-read John and Colin's book and this time, do what I can to understand and retain the minutiae.

I have to admit something, and that is that I'm still a romantic on the notion of "native" water. It's tough for me to accept starting with very high (say, 90-95-100%) RO and build from there, but I'm working on it, mostly by soaking up your thoughts here. Thank you.

I am trying 3:1, which leaves me with an Alkalinity still up there at 91. To deal with it, over 20 gallons, I'm adding in 12 g gypsum, 2 grams (presumed dihydrate, but I know that's iffy) CaCl, but in addition, 35 ml 10% HCL - trying to learn a bit more about the British approach, and what and why obtains. I've always used phosphoric and lactic, and yes, very intrigued by your sauermaltz, "even" for the British ales I mostly make (the romantic, again. I know, it needs to be jettisoned).

Final numbers are pretty reasonable, actually, I believe. But I've never worked with HCL and I'm wondering - is this a crazy amount of 10%, for the 20 gallons? Would I be over the sour threshold, or some other effect I've no knowledge of?

Therefore, unless the guys that wrote the style description know something I don't know, it seems pretty clear that the water was decarbonated before the beer was brewed.

I'm sorry, I'm sure this has been covered. Our water is nominally alkalinity 364, though that's an avg across 3 city wells (another argument for RO, I know, with inconstant supply). Mg is at 41, so I am thinking of a split lime treatment.

My question is, if you first boil then follow a split lime regimen, what would you be left with in terms of Alkalinity? Would this be an alternative, if inefficient alternative, to RO? Is this in effect just getting rid of so much in the native water, one might as well go with some high dilution or total replacement with RO?

Thanks very much.

 

[ajdelange]

The rule of thumb is that if calcium hardness (ppm as CaCO3 or, if you are among the cognoscenti, mEq/L) is equal to or greater than alkalinity (units consistent with hardness units) alkalinity will drop to about 1 mEq/L (50 ppm) and calcium hardness will be reduced by about the same amount as the alkalinity.

If you are going to do the split treatment there is no point in boiling first as the rule of thumb applies as well to it as it does to boiling. In fact boiling first will remove the bicarbonate that you need to neutralize the lime that you added to raise the pH high enough to drop the magnesium. Be aware that the split treatment will only get about half the magnesium as you typically add more source water to neutralize the lime you added to raise the pH high enough to drop the magnesium (bicarbonate ion is the acid). You can, of course, use another acid to neutralize the lime if you really want to get the magnesium out but keep track of the calcium if you take this approach and note that the anion of the acid you use will remain in the water.

In doing any of these treatments that rely on precipitation be sure to do post treatment alkalinity and hardness checks.

 

[cire]

Assuming your acid is 10% w/v, 1ml contains 100mg of HCl.
100mg of HCL will neutralise 137.26mg CaCO3.

So adding 35 ml of your 10% w/v HCl into 20 gallons (75.7 litres) of liquor could reduce alkalinity measured as CaCO3 by 63.46 mg/l.

Does your water have that much alkalinity? I would only use hydrochloric acid to reduce alkalinity and not to acidify a mash. The traditional British way would be to retain some alkalinity with sufficient calcium and magnesium present to achieve a suitable mash pH. Remaining alkalinity would mostly be removed in the boil leading to a suitable finished beer pH without any acidification.

This way the reduction in alkalinity with HCl increases chloride content to improve fullness and mouthfeel of the beer, most likely increasing sweetness that to add sourness.

 

[ajdelange]

HCl formula weight: 36.46; Density of a 10% w/w solution: 1.047; Grams of HCL in 1L of 10% w/w solution: 104.7; Moles of HCL in 1L solution: 104.7/36.46 = 2.872 = Normality of 10% solution; mEq acid in 35 mL = 35*2.872 = 100.52; mEq/L for 35 mL in 75.7 L = 35/75.7 =.462; alkalinity reduction from 35 mL in 20 gal = 50*0.462 = 82.4 ppm as CaCO3.

 

[user 246304]

The rule of thumb is that if calcium hardness (ppm as CaCO3 or, if you are among the cognoscenti, mEq/L) is equal to or greater than alkalinity (units consistent with hardness units) alkalinity will drop to about 1 mEq/L (50 ppm) and calcium hardness will be reduced by about the same amount as the alkalinity.

If you are going to do the split treatment there is no point in boiling first as the rule of thumb applies as well to it as it does to boiling. In fact boiling first will remove the bicarbonate that you need to neutralize the lime that you added to raise the pH high enough to drop the magnesium. Be aware that the split treatment will only get about half the magnesium as you typically add more source water to neutralize the lime you added to raise the pH high enough to drop the magnesium (bicarbonate ion is the acid). You can, of course, use another acid to neutralize the lime if you really want to get the magnesium out but keep track of the calcium if you take this approach and note that the anion of the acid you use will remain in the water.

In doing any of these treatments that rely on precipitation be sure to do post treatment alkalinity and hardness checks.

Thank you AJ. It is admittedly difficult to get a bead as I'm taking from the well that is most likely to service us, and it services only 60-80%. However, among all the wells I know would service us, the figures are very close so this is representative. Hardness of 291, Alkalinity of 273. CA of 61, Mg of 34, Cl of 5.5, SO4 of 20. The Mg level is why I thought to do a split treatment, but perhaps that's not too bad. I actually forget.

RO is very reasonable here, $2.2 per 5 gallons (first time isn't - $22, due to having to buy the bottles. My stupidity in ridding the home of the bottles and recycling them when I closed down my cheesemaking and aging cave accordingly). So given our lousy water, I don't know if I could hope to achieve anything decent with either boiling or lime treatment, but again, emulating traditional practice, I'd like to try.

 

[user 246304]

Assuming your acid is 10% w/v, 1ml contains 100mg of HCl.
100mg of HCL will neutralise 137.26mg CaCO3.

So adding 35 ml of your 10% w/v HCl into 20 gallons (75.7 litres) of liquor could reduce alkalinity measured as CaCO3 by 63.46 mg/l.

Does your water have that much alkalinity? I would only use hydrochloric acid to reduce alkalinity and not to acidify a mash. The traditional British way would be to retain some alkalinity with sufficient calcium and magnesium present to achieve a suitable mash pH. Remaining alkalinity would mostly be removed in the boil leading to a suitable finished beer pH without any acidification.

This way the reduction in alkalinity with HCl increases chloride content to improve fullness and mouthfeel of the beer, most likely increasing sweetness that to add sourness.

OK, thank you for the insight behind the acid use, cire. Firstly I should say, I'd hoped to kind of make up my own CRS based on desired sulfate and Cl, but finding food grade sulfuric hasn't been easy. I'm aware of their danger, too - but figure if it's something you guys do, handled correctly, it's something I could try.

So, you can see my alkalinity above. My best hope was fourfold, I think: to bring the alkalinity down, dial in my desired sulfates and chloride by a known mix of these acids, make sure the acids added weren't so much as to give an undesired flavor, and keep salt addition to a minimum as a result. I honestly don't know why on this last one and reading it, it makes no sense. But wanted to try using acids to do the lion's share of my work.

Given what you indicate you guys use these acids for, to reduce alkalinity enough to achieve a suitable mash pH while leaving enough to retain good Ca and Mg levels, it seems my water is pretty much hopeless, without salt additions, yes? It seems I'm starting low enough on Ca to begin with, that by the time I'm done getting that alkalinity down my Ca will be way below a desired ppm.

Reading my own writing, I'm thinking as usual I'm playing the romantic on the notion of "tradition" and "terroir." This is lousy water, and maybe what I've learned from AJ on RO really applies here.

 

[cire]

Lousy water is what you have in the minds of some brewers. In UK it would considered totally suitable with simple treatment.

Hardness of 291, Alkalinity of 273. CA of 61, Mg of 34, Cl of 5.5, SO4 of 20.

So what is your trouble? Alkalinity without doubt, after that----nothing.
What have you got against magnesium? Barley won't grow where there is insufficient magnesium. After malting, barley will supply more magnesium than calcium. Its influence cannnot be as significant as is generally believed.

Hydrochloric acid will, if used in the correct quantity, reduce alkalinity and increase chloride. Many British beers are made with more chloride than sulfate, as are many Czech and German beers. The belief that sulfate means all things to all men is not wise.

I'm not sure if your alkalinity is measured as calcium carbonate or bicarbonate, so won't go any further at this stage, but if you can use your water with hydrochloric acid to reduce alkalinity to about 25ppm as CaCO3 and add another 100ppm calcium using a mix of gypsum and calcium chloride chosen to your taste, then top fermented with your Black Sheep yeast, you might get a pleasant surprise of the taste of a British style pale beer .

 

[user 246304]

Lousy water is what you have in the minds of some brewers. In UK it would considered totally suitable with simple treatment.

Hardness of 291, Alkalinity of 273. CA of 61, Mg of 34, Cl of 5.5, SO4 of 20.

So what is your trouble? Alkalinity without doubt, after that----nothing.
What have you got against magnesium? Barley won't grow where there is insufficient magnesium. After malting, barley will supply more magnesium than calcium. Its influence cannnot be as significant as is generally believed.

Hydrochloric acid will, if used in the correct quantity, reduce alkalinity and increase chloride. Many British beers are made with more chloride than sulfate, as are many Czech and German beers. The belief that sulfate means all things to all men is not wise.

I'm not sure if your alkalinity is measured as calcium carbonate or bicarbonate, so won't go any further at this stage, but if you can use your water with hydrochloric acid to reduce alkalinity to about 25ppm as CaCO3 and add another 100ppm calcium using a mix of gypsum and calcium chloride chosen to your taste, then top fermented with your Black Sheep yeast, you might get a pleasant surprise of the taste of a British style pale beer .

Well that's heartening to hear a British brewer say these things, Cire. Sorry, I should have said, hardness and Alk. both as CaCO3. I have never used HCL to bring down alkalinity before (actually, never used it before), so have no idea of its flavor effect, or what its threshold is, actually. So I was worried what even 35-50 ml 10% would be like, so if I have it right, have I coopted your math correctly (don't know if it's linear, actually, the correction - that's how much I need to learn), 273-25 = 248 ppm to reduce; and thanks for walking me through to the end, AJ, so if I go with your 82.4, that's 248/82.4*35 = 105.3 ml of 10% w/v HCL (right, guys)? Going conservatively on this, too, if I have, will allow me to measure as I approach.

Am I right in presuming this should all be flavor neutral, because all I'm doing is cancelling out HCO3? I don't know how much Ca, Mg will be left after this but if I hear you right, Cire, it really doesn't matter - practice would be to add in a total of 100 ppm Ca by some mix of the two salts. My bent is somewhat more to chloride, even though these are bitters, because if I also have it right and my memory serves, my enjoyment in the Northern pales is a wonderful balance of chloride fullness, with hop presence but not overwhelmingly so.

Oh, and need to say, on Mg, nothing (save some rather unpleasant GI effects past a certain amount, lol). I just again don't know what kind of threshold we're talking about before it renders an unpleasant effect. Knowing it would be there in sufficient quantities, too, I think I thought to strip it down almost completely (I think I have it very close to zero, in terms of added contribution, on a 90% RO liquor spreadsheet).

To be honest, I don't have my pH meter any longer, but will be getting one (Hach). I have always been very tight on its use, having used one constantly in both brewing and cheesemaking, but as I've done neither for a long time, I sold my (Extech pH 110, which did fine, if not great) meter quite awhile ago. Truthfully I'm very eager to do up 1 gallon, let's say, drop some HCL in (though I want to work the numbers out myself, just takes a few passes though I know it's been provided above), and measure before and after. Will also look forward to doing hardness and alk. tests after as well.

Any errors in understanding, would appreciate your corrections. Otherwise, many thanks, both of you.

 

[user 246304]

AJ, this is how my memory works. Something vaguely reminiscent turns out to be something I only very recently scanned (because I forget almost immediately). Your Appendix B of the Water book. And I was just about to ask if one can extrapolate these curves when I read, yes, one can. So thanks again.

 

[cire]

Gadjobrinus, yesterday evening I drank 3 hand pulled British pale ales, each from separate breweries and all were well made and satisfying to my taste. I am confident all three could be made using my water supply treated as suggested. Your water is not vastly different to mine, actually slightly more versatile, so I believe your water could, with simple treatment, make beers to an equivalent standard.

If we look at your water analysis not in fear, but to examine its potential origin. It's almost certainly from a well or spring in a deposit of dolomite, CaMg(CO3)2. Such deposits usually contain significant quantities of gypsum. If the difference between total hardness and alkalinity is assumed to be of calcium, its quantity in proportion to the measured sulphate matches closely that of gypsum while the remaining calcium is then in ratio with magnesium for dolomite. No figure is given for sodium, but by assuming the chloride content was provided by common salt, we get a figure that balances rather well with the given major ion quantities. I know this may not be conventional, but possibly AJ might do the maths in a flash to tell us what deviation there might be from an accepted in-depth analytical analysis.

My procedure accepts supply water in its entirety with alkalinity reduced to a chosen level using sulfuric, hydrochloric, or both acids and confirming the result by measurement. You have hydrochloric to hand at present and it seems common practise in North America to adjust alkalinity by mixing your supply with RO. If you treated 90% of your water with hydrochloric to pH 4.4 to eliminate all alkalinity, then add the other 10% untreated would give the following.....
calcium 61, magnesium 34, sulfate 20, chloride 174, alkalinity as CaCO3 27.3, all mg/l.

That chloride is high, even excessive to many, but won't necessarily produce a bad beer and adding gypsum would make it more balanced for many. 275mg of gypsum per litre would raise the sulfate to the same level as chloride and increase calcium to 125mg/l, which would be considered low in the majority of British breweries. Doubling the gypsum addition would produce a profile not uncommon to the UK.

 

[user 246304]

Cire, thanks for a fascinating post. You've got me keyed, quite honestly, to learn more about our hydrology and geology here in our region. We are actually known as "The Driftless Region," meaning we were left relatively untouched by the glacial drift found elsewhere across our continent. I don't know what that means in terms of the structural makeup of our water supply, but you've really intrigued me by what you write. Na, by the way, is very low, at 3.6 ppm. I'd love to know how this fits into the natural puzzle.

I would very much like to try a British approach in its entirety, so if that means using 100% of some mix of sulfuric and HCl, I'm good with that. So far, I've been unable to find sulfuric else I'd be trying that; I actually contacted Murphy & Sons a couple times but I didn't hear back. Not surprised - would imagine shipping strong acids across the ocean wouldn't be the first order of business.

Going with 90:10 of the acidified:tap approach, seeing Cl at 174 blows my mind, since I've spent most of my playing on spreadsheets balancing to keep it under 100. Which only makes me want to give this a try all the more. Test brews perhaps with each of several different waters, including RO and a very modest baseline, per the Primer; the water above; and one where, if I've heard you right, I've got some serious minerality, something like 250 Ca, 350 SO4, 174 Cl. Though it sounds like this isn't necessarily considered "serious minerality" in Britain?

I find this really interesting stuff, though I'm aware it's completely elementary to you and to AJ, these considerations. I appreciate you sharing, cire.

 

[cire]

Glajobrinus, I suggest you go with what you have.

It is disappointing Murphy's didn't reply, but as you advise, shipping strong acids is problematic. Murphy's currently send sulfuric acid within UK by a specialist carrier at greater cost than the acid and separate to their other products. However they have something to offer and you might care to read the following datasheet, https://www.murphyandson.co.uk/Datasheets/HYDROCHLORIC ACID.pdf

Note the typical ion levels given in Table 1 for bitter, strong bitter, porter, mild, wheat beer and stout. All of these can be achieved using your water with hydrochloric acid to reduce alkalinity plus gypsum and calcium chloride additions.

A solution of common salt that provides 3.6mg/l sodium would have a chloride content of 5.55mg/l.