City water report?

[Psylocide]

Quick question, probably been asked a million times, but is a city water report going to be a good start for looking at my water overall, or do I need to get a detailed report based on what actually comes out of my tap?

This is what I found online, recently updated:

Source 100% well water
pH (SU) 8.51
Turbidity (ntu) 0.06
Chloramines (mg/L) 2.49
Total Chlorine (mg/L) 2.7
Total Hardness (mg/L) 224
Calcium Hardness (mg/L) 112
Manganese (mg/L) 0
Iron (mg/L) 0
Total Alkalinity (mg/L) 42
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 2.86
Chloride (mg/L) 27.63
Sulfate (mg/L) 184.48
Nitrate (mg/L) 0.31
Fluoride (mg/L) 1.01
Aluminum (mg/L) 0
Big Sioux River Flow Rate (CFS) 707
Plant Effluent Flow Rate (mgd) 10
Grains of Hardness 13


I mainly brew APAs/IPAs, so would like to get the most out of my water if possible, but don't really feel like spending the money for the testing. The beer I make tastes great to me, but keep wondering if it would improve with some additions.

I currently only use campden to treat for chlorine/chloramines.

TIA for any help with this.

 

[mabrungard]

That is a strange water report since the calcium and magnesium hardness values are equal. I also note that the sulfate level is fairly high. Given that water report, I'd say that you are correct to be concentrating on APA and IPA. The water has somewhat high Mg and SO4 levels and could be well suited for those styles. Based on the ion balance, it appears that there might be a little over 20 ppm sodium in that water.

To answer your question, it could be worthwhile to have your own testing done on your water. If all the city's water comes from one groundwater source, it should mean that the quality is more consistent. That may put more weight on the city's testing results above.

It does appear that this water may not be ideal for many styles beyond hoppy and bittered beers. Dilution with RO or distilled water would be needed.

 

[TheCADJockey]

I find this thread offensive and feel it should be moved to the debate forum.

However if this is not a reasonable request, I will just read on and see if there is anything to learn.

 

[ajdelange]

The equality of the two hardnesses is eye catching certainly though if the Calcium and Magnesium were reported as, respectively, 44.8 and 27.2 mg/L (the equivalents to your numbers which are in ppm as CaCO3) no one would take notice. For that reason alone I would definitely want to get a Ward Labs report as a 'snapshot' as to what's actually coming out of your tap. You might want to do another 6 mos from now to see if there is seasonal variability which you might or might not catch or you can call the water company and ask if there is such seasonal variation.

To get the report to balance one has to impute about 24 mg/L sodium but they don't mention sodium (or if they did OP doesn't list it). This casts some suspicion on the report as an ion with a concentration that high (1 mEq/L) usually gets reported. No proof of this, of course, but a Ward Labs test would resolve that.

 

[zwiller]

I defer to the above comments that the report is suspect but, for a rock and roll approach :rockin: I will stick to the basics as I just skimmed the other thread. Firstly, you need campden treatment to combat the chloramine and chlorine. Secondly, you are missing some other data/Mg but I can surmise it is high via total hardness vs Ca hardness. Perhaps my colleagues can estimate it by calculation to see if it exceeds brewing recommendations... 3rdly SO4 is high but that's OK for hoppy ales, in fact I would consider raising it for IPA. Lastly, I HATE lactic acid and advocate phosphoric acid. I think it will do a great job knocking down HCO3/alkalinity and allowing you dial in pH without much flavor contribution. I like a pH 5.4 for mash and sparge of my IPA with english yeasts (SO4/WLP007). You might shoot for 5.2 if you are using Chico as it is a low acid producer from posted data. I would use distilled water for delicate stuff like lagers. If some of these recommendations make a positive impact, I would consider forking out for the Ward report so you can have some better accuracy.

 

[ajdelange]

Calcium hardness was reported as 112 ppm as CaCO3 (44.8 mg/L) and total hardness as 224. Thus magnesium hardness is also 112 ppm (27.2) mg/L. No estimation necessary. We do have to estimate the sodium, though, in order to electrically balance the report.

 

[Psylocide]

Thanks for weighing in... really a noob to this whole area of brewing so wanted to know if anyone could pick out anything glaring that needs to be addressed. Of course, I'm already treating with campden tablets.

Sodium was not included, that's the full report.

Thanks for the input... I may have to get the Ward labs test down the road if I decide to branch out some.

 

[Psylocide]

Calcium hardness was reported as 112 ppm as CaCO3 (44.8 mg/L) and total hardness as 224. Thus magnesium hardness is also 112 ppm (27.2) mg/L. No estimation necessary. We do have to estimate the sodium, though, in order to electrically balance the report.

Man... back to this now, I've been trying to understand this a little better and just don't know if I'm getting it or not.

Based on what's been said here, do these figures look correct (based on the info I have now)?

Ca:112
Mg: 112
Na: ~20 (approx. per Martin's post)
Cl: 27.63
SO4: 184
Alkalinity: 42

Am I even in the ballpark here? Thanks in advance.

 

[ajdelange]

Calcium hardness of 112 implies calcium ion concentration of about 44.8 mg/L and magnesium hardness of 112 implies magnesium ion concentration of about 27.2 mg/L. Also the sodium would have to be more like 24 mg/L (see #4) for balance.

 

[Psylocide]

Calcium hardness of 112 implies calcium ion concentration of about 56 mg/L and magnesium hardness of 112 implies magnesium ion concentration of about 27 mg/L. Also the sodium would have to be more like 24 mg/L (see #4) for balance.

Ca:56
Mg: 27
Na: ~24
Cl: 27.63
SO4: 184
Alkalinity: 42

Something like this then? Is the Total alkalinity correct?

 

[ajdelange]

No, afraid not but it's my fault. The correct calcium number if 44.8 mg/L (goofed in #9, it's right in #4 and 9 now that I've corrected it). No reason not to believe their alkalinity number.

 

[Psylocide]

Errr... yeah, either I'm just dumb enough not to understand what's going on or still missing something important here.

 

[ajdelange]

Change the sodium number to 21.8 and it should balance.

 

[Psylocide]

I did that, yet it's still 0.80 off. Appreciate all the help... not sure where to go from here. Am I missing something in the inputs?

EDIT: Oh, crap... did I need to put the "estimated Bi-carbonate and carbonate" levels in from the yellow boxes?

It balanced when I did that.

 

[Psylocide]

 

[ajdelange]

The original post specified pH of 8.51. The bicarbonate and carbonate numbers for that pH with an alkalinity of 42 are, respectively, 47.31 and 0.86 which differ quite a bit from what you show in #15. That may explain the discrepancy. In any case given that you have no control over the sodium (other than to increase it) it doesn't really matter that you get a value for it which balances your sheet.

 

[Psylocide]

The original post specified pH of 8.51. The bicarbonate and carbonate numbers for that pH with an alkalinity of 42 are, respectively, 47.31 and 0.86 which differ quite a bit from what you show in #15. That may explain the discrepancy. In any case given that you have no control over the sodium (other than to increase it) it doesn't really matter that you get a value for it which balances your sheet.

Ugh... you're right on the 8.51 vs. 8.2, don't know how I did that.