Confused about my water report

[Argie86]

Hi guys I just receive from my bottled water supplier (which is sold as Low Mineralization) this water report:

PH: 7.33
Total Dissolved Solids: 385.4 mg/l
Sodium (NA+): 70.5 mg/l
Ammonia (NH⁴+): 0 mg/l
Chlorides (Cl-): 15 mg/l
Total Hardness (CO³ Ca): 136 mg/l
Fluorides (F): 0.60 mg/l
Nitrates (NO³-): 6.56 mg/l
Nitrites (NO²-): <0.01 mg/l
Sulfates (SO&#8308;=): 88.2 mg/l
Active Residual Chlorine: 0 mg/l
Total Alkalinity (CO³Ca): 252 mg/l
Bicarbonate alkalinity: 252 mg/l

Im entering this values to Bru'nWater and using the calculator included to find out calcium, magnesium, carbonate and bicarbonate, and I get this:

I'm entering the correct values? The alkalinity is exactly the same as my water report but it say that the water is unbalanced.
In ion concentration calculator should I use Total Hardness or Total Alkalinity number in order to get the correct results?

Sorry I know i'm pretty lost about this subject

 

[cire]

Sorry I know i'm pretty lost about this subject

Well, that report is confusing and provides insufficient information to find all you wish. I'll assume that "bicarbonate alkalinity" is measured as caclium carbonate, and bicarbonate will therefore be 307mg/l.

Do you know your water contains lots of magnesium? I only ask because you entered a high amount and it's otherwise not possible to calculate and accurate figure from that information.

I'm not familiar with Bru'nwater, but assuming your water has a modest quantity of magnesium, then 80mg/l for calcium with 3mg/l magnesium would give a balanced profile.

Hope this helps.

 

[Argie86]

Well, that report is confusing and provides insufficient information to find all you wish. I'll assume that "bicarbonate alkalinity" is measured as caclium carbonate, and bicarbonate will therefore be 307mg/l.

Do you know your water contains lots of magnesium? I only ask because you entered a high amount and it's otherwise not possible to calculate and accurate figure from that information.

I'm not familiar with Bru'nwater, but assuming your water has a modest quantity of magnesium, then 80mg/l for calcium with 3mg/l magnesium would give a balanced profile.

Hope this helps.

Hi Cire, thank for you answer, I get the magnesium & calcium amount from Bru'nWater calculator since my water report say nothing about it.
But, reading "How to read a water report" from Braukaiser web I see this graphic:

If I use that tablet and my total hardness (136ml/g) my calcium is: 38, and my magnesium is 10. (those are estimated values)

That is where im confused which is right? BrunWater o Braukaiser? or probably im just entering the wrong data.

On the other hand I guess no matter what type of beer Im trying to brew I should reduce my Bicarbonate.

I need to add to, that when you drink that bottled water it has zero flavor, It should have flavor with that high bicarbonate right?

 

[cire]

Hi Cire, thank for you answer, I get the magnesium & calcium amount from Bru'nWater calculator since my water report say nothing about it.
But, reading "How to read a water report" from Braukaiser web I see this graphic:

If I use that tablet and my total hardness (136ml/g) my calcium is: 38, and my magnesium is 10. (those are estimated values)

That is where im confused which is right? BrunWater o Braukaiser? or probably im just entering the wrong data.

On the other hand I guess no matter what type of beer Im trying to brew I should reduce my Bicarbonate.

I need to add to, that when you drink that bottled water it has zero flavor, It should have flavor with that high bicarbonate right?

Ah, my error, I didn't read that total hardness, using the alkalinity figure to acheive a balance. Balancing the ions that way produced a total hardness of 212 measured as calcium carbonate. There must be some error in those figures. Let me see if there is something obvious. Might it be duplication of 252mg/l?

 

[Argie86]

Ah, my error, I didn't read that total hardness, using the alkalinity figure to acheive a balance. Balancing the ions that way produced a total hardness of 212 measured as calcium carbonate. There must be some error in those figures. Let me see if there is something obvious. Might it be duplication of 252mg/l?

Let me show you a picture of the actual water report:

 

[mabrungard]

Your water report gives the nitrate result in terms of 'nitrate' (NO3). It is not reported as 'nitrate as nitrogen' (NO3-N). Don't use the converted value.

Use the Hardness value (136 ppm) for estimating Ca and Mg. I'm not sure if that result is only calcium hardness, but use that value in the converter to change it from 'Ca as CaCO3' to just 'Ca'. With the lack of Mg data, I would leave that blank for now.

 

[cire]

Thanks, exactly as you wrote.
The amount of bicarbonate and total alkalinity as calcium carbonate are given as the same, 252mg/l which cannot be. If we use that amount for bicarbonate content then total alkalinity as calcium carbonate would be 206mg/l and the balance is improved. That requires a total hardness of about 170mg/l to balance, from possibly 65mg/l calcium and 2mg/l magnesium.

I'm sorry, but can only confirm that water doesn't balance.

 

[Argie86]

Your water report gives the nitrate result in terms of 'nitrate' (NO3). It is not reported as 'nitrate as nitrogen' (NO3-N). Don't use the converted value.

Use the Hardness value (136 ppm) for estimating Ca and Mg. I'm not sure if that result is only calcium hardness, but use that value in the converter to change it from 'Ca as CaCO3' to just 'Ca'. With the lack of Mg data, I would leave that blank for now.

Thanks for answering and the info mabrungard.

What about Bicarbonate? Should I use 136ppm or the 252 from alkalinity in the Brunwater ion concentration conversion?

I guess I need to send my water to a lab and ask specifically for calcium and magnesium

 

[Argie86]

Thanks, exactly as you wrote.
The amount of bicarbonate and total alkalinity as calcium carbonate are given as the same, 252mg/l which cannot be. If we use that amount for bicarbonate content then total alkalinity as calcium carbonate would be 206mg/l and the balance is improved. That requires a total hardness of about 170mg/l to balance, from possibly 65mg/l calcium and 2mg/l magnesium.

I'm sorry, but can only confirm that water doesn't balance.

So my water report is wrong? That would be a shocker, or maybe not, since this water analysis report comes from official government labs.

 

[cire]

So my water report is wrong? That would be a shocker, or maybe not, since this water analysis report comes from official government labs.

Something is wrong unless there is some cation in that water that isn't reported.

Even if we assume a figure for bicarbonate is misplaced to be used in error for total alkalinity as calcium carbonate, the anions total 6.49 meq/l. 70mg/l sodium is 3.04 meq/l meaning another 3.41 meq/l of cations are required for a balance and unless there is some other major cation present means there will be 3.45 meq/l of hardness which is in excess of 170mg/l as calcium carbonate.

 

[mabrungard]

Thanks, exactly as you wrote.
The amount of bicarbonate and total alkalinity as calcium carbonate are given as the same, 252mg/l which cannot be.

Both are quoted 'as CaCO3'. Both can be the same since the pH is in the range that indicates that the bicarbonate species would be the bulk of the alkalinity.

PS: Braukaiser made an assumption that calcium and magnesium exist at a fixed ratio in water. Nothing could be further from the truth. The calcium and magnesium content in water has to do with the minerals the water has come into contact with and the solubility limits for those ions. (This means the chart is wrong)

 

[cire]

Both are quoted 'as CaCO3'. Both can be the same since the pH is in the range that indicates that the bicarbonate species would be the bulk of the alkalinity.

PS: Braukaiser made an assumption that calcium and magnesium exist at a fixed ratio in water. Nothing could be further from the truth. The calcium and magnesium content in water has to do with the minerals the water has come into contact with and the solubility limits for those ions. (This means the chart is wrong)

That might be but it doesn't quantify the bicarbonate measurement while it does both total hardness and total alkalinity. Using that measurement as CaCO3 only increases the imbalance to 1.64 meq/l which is equivalent to 30ppm calcium, quite significant.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm not of the understanding that Kai assumed, but rather that he looked at a bunch of different water reports and came up with an average with respect to the ratio of their Ca to Mg. The assumption is actually left up to the user of Kai's averages with specific regard as to whether or not their water is "average". That can't ever be assumed, so in the end it's therefore pretty much a moot point. As they would say in the orient: Same same, but different.

 

[cire]

I'm not of the understanding that Kai assumed, but rather that he looked at a bunch of different water reports and came up with an average with respect to the ratio of their Ca to Mg. The assumption is actually left up to the user of Kai's averages with specific regard as to whether or not their water is "average". That can't ever be assumed, so in the end it's therefore pretty much a moot point. As they would say in the orient: Same same, but different.

I'm sure that is correct. However the ratio of calcium to magnesium isn't necessary to check ion balance when total hardness is given. Only if there is balance can it be a valid report to then move on to estimate the proportion of calcium and magnesium.

 

[Argie86]

.

.

Hello everyone, yesterday I emailed the Dr. in charge of the water report about bicarbonate, magnesium and calcium and this is his response:

"In relation to Carbonates water has no carbonates in solution as such,
ie, in its most oxidized degree, it has Bicarbonates which are soluble and its amount is precisely 252 mg/l. All waters of deep origin generally show a certain amount of bicarbonates as a natural component."

"In relation to the amount of Calcium and Magnesium although they are not exactly determined, the Water Hardness gives us a very approximate idea to the amount of these dissolved metals. In this case the water contains about 55 mg/l of them, being between 80 and 85% of that value attributable to the calcium concentration."


So my water has between 44 to 47 calcium and 11 to 8 magnesium. Right?
But the BruNwater still tell me that my water report is unbalanced. That means what Cire says about my water doesn't balance? There is any solution?

 

[stpug]

Perhaps a portion of the error is coming from the sodium value, as I do not see that sodium was reported on the photograph you posted. Where did you come up with the sodium value of 70.5ppm?

 

[Argie86]

Perhaps a portion of the error is coming from the sodium value, as I do not see that sodium was reported on the photograph you posted. Where did you come up with the sodium value of 70.5ppm?

Yes, sorry the sodium value is in the second page of the report:

 

[stpug]

These values give reasonable balance and utilize the values provided by your water company (given some assumptions):
1) Bicarbonate value not as CaCO3 ("Bicarbonates which are soluble and its amount is precisely 252 mg/l")
2) Zero carbonates
3) Ignore total alkalinity value provided in water report
4) Use statement from email for Ca/Mg values that best help the overall balance ("[...] amount of Calcium and Magnesium... 55 mg/l... 80-85% [as] calcium, [rest as Mg]")

Calcium (Ca) 44.0
Magnesium (Mg) 11.0
Sodium (Na) 70.5
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 252.0
Carbonate (CO3) 0.0
Sulfate (SO4) 88.2
Chloride (Cl) 15.0
Nitrate (NO3) 6.6
Nitrite (NO2) 0.0
Fluoride (F) 0.6

From there, you'd be at a point that you could formulate a recipe with acid additions. Over a few brews, you would want to determine if the acid additions suggested by Brun'N Water are successfully landing your mash at the predicted pH. If you are "within reason" then moving forward with these values seems reasonable to me.

 

[Argie86]

These values give reasonable balance and utilize the values provided by your water company (given some assumptions):
1) Bicarbonate value not as CaCO3 ("Bicarbonates which are soluble and its amount is precisely 252 mg/l")
2) Zero carbonates
3) Ignore total alkalinity value provided in water report
4) Use statement from email for Ca/Mg values that best help the overall balance ("[...] amount of Calcium and Magnesium... 55 mg/l... 80-85% [as] calcium, [rest as Mg]")

Calcium (Ca) 44.0
Magnesium (Mg) 11.0
Sodium (Na) 70.5
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 252.0
Carbonate (CO3) 0.0
Sulfate (SO4) 88.2
Chloride (Cl) 15.0
Nitrate (NO3) 6.6
Nitrite (NO2) 0.0
Fluoride (F) 0.6

From there, you'd be at a point that you could formulate a recipe with acid additions. Over a few brews, you would want to determine if the acid additions suggested by Brun'N Water are successfully landing your mash at the predicted pH. If you are "within reason" then moving forward with these values seems reasonable to me.

Thanks for you answer StPug, with those numbers brunwater stop telling my that may water is unbalanced. If im correct my water is hard so Im better brewing dark beers than light/lagers or hoppy ones right?

 

[stpug]

Thanks for you answer StPug, with those numbers brunwater stop telling my that may water is unbalanced. If im correct my water is hard so Im better brewing dark beers than light/lagers or hoppy ones right?

That's the basic school of thought (with the exception of "hoppy" - they do well with mineralization), but it really depends on who you talk to . I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

I subscribe to the: knock down your alkalinity to the level appropriate for your beer, and include the mineralization to the level that works for the beer. This may mean that there are times when you want less mineralization than your base water has, but not every time for every light beer. For instance, a dortmunder export could certainly use more mineralization that your base water has (and it's a light colored lager), whereas a czech style pilsner could use less mineralization (but a german style pils would be fine with your base water levels).

My novice interpretation of your water report as it relates to beer is:

• Biggest issue is alkalinity. Acid of some format will be needed for nearly every beer, with the exception of large dark malt beers.
• The sodium level is slightly elevated, but not terribly so. You'll never need to add brewing salts containing sodium, unless you're brewing a Gose.
• The sulfate is decently high for soft water style beers, but there are only a small handful of styles where you would want to bring that level down. There are many more styles where you might actually want to increase that level.
• Chloride is fairly low. Many times you may find yourself increasing this level, which will help increase your calcium level as well (a fine thing, generally speaking).
• Magnesium is reasonable for nearly every style. There may be that rare occasion when you would want a higher level; and it certainly won't hurt if you need to dilute and lose some for those soft water styles.
• Nitrate is higher than I typically see, but I'm not exactly sure how this affects beer. Maybe not at all, and is simply more telling of where the water comes from.

From my standpoint, I would arm myself with 85% Phosphoric Acid or 88% Lactic Acid, and have calcium chloride on hand at all times. Gypsum may be used to increase sulfates on many beer styles. Epsom may be used to increase both sulfate and magnesium on a rare occasion. Dilution with RO or distilled by 50-75% may be desirable for those soft water styles, depending on mineral level you're willing to live with.

...at least that's how I see it

 

[mabrungard]

Thanks for you answer StPug, with those numbers brunwater stop telling my that may water is unbalanced. If im correct my water is hard so Im better brewing dark beers than light/lagers or hoppy ones right?

Bru'n Water is telling you that the values you originally entered, had some sort of problem. At this point, you've used a guess to correct that imbalance. Hopefully that guess is correct. Obtaining a proper testing result with output that is useful, should be high on your wish list.

Hardness is not a problem for brewing. Its the alkalinity that presents more of a problem. While dark beer styles are more suited to your unadjusted water, acid use can make that water suited for a wider range of styles.

 

[Argie86]

Bru'n Water is telling you that the values you originally entered, had some sort of problem. At this point, you've used a guess to correct that imbalance. Hopefully that guess is correct. Obtaining a proper testing result with output that is useful, should be high on your wish list.

Hardness is not a problem for brewing. Its the alkalinity that presents more of a problem. While dark beer styles are more suited to your unadjusted water, acid use can make that water suited for a wider range of styles.

The only thing I change, that stop BruNWater msg about water report unbalance, is the Bicarbonate from 307 to 252 mg/l. I was using 307 because I enter my total hardness in the Alkalinity Conversion Calculator. But from the email they send me, they told me that my bicarbonates are 252 mg/l.

Yes, I'm guessing about calcium and magnesium, but does it change a lot from 44 to 47 calcium? or 11 to 8 magnesium? I'm genuinely asking, since I'm a total ignorant in this subject.

 

[Argie86]

That's the basic school of thought (with the exception of "hoppy" - they do well with mineralization), but it really depends on who you talk to . I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

I subscribe to the: knock down your alkalinity to the level appropriate for your beer, and include the mineralization to the level that works for the beer. This may mean that there are times when you want less mineralization than your base water has, but not every time for every light beer. For instance, a dortmunder export could certainly use more mineralization that your base water has (and it's a light colored lager), whereas a czech style pilsner could use less mineralization (but a german style pils would be fine with your base water levels).

My novice interpretation of your water report as it relates to beer is:

• Biggest issue is alkalinity. Acid of some format will be needed for nearly every beer, with the exception of large dark malt beers.
• The sodium level is slightly elevated, but not terribly so. You'll never need to add brewing salts containing sodium, unless you're brewing a Gose.
• The sulfate is decently high for soft water style beers, but there are only a small handful of styles where you would want to bring that level down. There are many more styles where you might actually want to increase that level.
• Chloride is fairly low. Many times you may find yourself increasing this level, which will help increase your calcium level as well (a fine thing, generally speaking).
• Magnesium is reasonable for nearly every style. There may be that rare occasion when you would want a higher level; and it certainly won't hurt if you need to dilute and lose some for those soft water styles.
• Nitrate is higher than I typically see, but I'm not exactly sure how this affects beer. Maybe not at all, and is simply more telling of where the water comes from.

From my standpoint, I would arm myself with 85% Phosphoric Acid or 88% Lactic Acid, and have calcium chloride on hand at all times. Gypsum may be used to increase sulfates on many beer styles. Epsom may be used to increase both sulfate and magnesium on a rare occasion. Dilution with RO or distilled by 50-75% may be desirable for those soft water styles, depending on mineral level you're willing to live with.

...at least that's how I see it

Thank you!, I really appreciate the info you gave me and the time you take to write all that
I will start using those tips in my future brews.
Thank again!