Have you ever

[Jag75]

I'm very confused. Where is the sodium coming from if you are using RO water and only adding CaCl2 and CaSO4 to it? Also, if your sparge water is RO there is no need for 1.3 mL of Lactic Acid in the sparge water. Are you sure that you have given us all of the details for your water?

Yes this is what it said when I use 100% RO water . Sometimes I cut my water with RO but sometimes I go 100% RO. Are you saying RO water has 0 sodium?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Quoting Bamforth:

Another important note is that most enzymes display considerable activity either side of their pH optimum. Provided they survive long enough in the mash, they may be able to complete their job even when not operating at pH optimum. ...... It is likely that heat tolerance of the various enzymes is of far more significance.

In addition, I now believe that enzyme optimum pH ranges are quoted for pH's taken at mash temperatures, and this places them well higher than expected for the presumption that they are quoted for 20 degree C. measurements of pH. And places them more within the ballpark of most untreated mashes pH.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Are you saying RO water has 0 sodium?

Yes! Or right near zero. Something is seriously amiss here.

 

[Jag75]

 

[Jag75]

Yes! Something is amiss here.

Lol , I didn't know that .

 

[Jag75]

Lol , I didn't know that .

Let me just say I really appreciate you guys that know all this chemistry stuff . Without you all I'd be more lost then I am

 

[day_trippr]

A decent RO system will remove at least 95% of pretty much everything in the source water - sodium included.
Ie: 20ppm sodium would show up as 1ppm or lower in the finished RO product...

Cheers!

 

[Jag75]

Then why would this program be showing 8? Dont know if you can see the picture well enough to see .

 

[day_trippr]

lol! Ok, I've never used the "canned" RO water setting in Bru'n Water thus never noticed Martin set the sodium content that high. I use my own RO water content based on my pre-treatment numbers reduced linearly based on TDS reduction (pre: 300 post: 10).

It may not be a dead-nuts accurate method but short of sending my RO product water to Ward Labs it's rational enough for me. So with 30ppm sodium coming out of my well I use 1ppm in Bru'n Water for "RO Water" sodium content...

Cheers!

 

[Robert65]

Then why would this program be showing 8? Dont know if you can see the picture well enough to see .

That's Bru'n Water's default profile for RO. It's meant to be representative of typical RO. I questioned it once on another forum and Martin responded that it was taken from a real sample which had over 800 ppm TDS before RO treatment. It shows IIRC about 16 ppm bicarbonate and that Na as really about all that's left. Pretty insignificant.


@day_tripper: as I recall Martin also said that RO doesn't actually remove everything linearly like that, and apparently bicarbonate and sodium are in his analysis less effectively removed than other ions like calcium, magnesium, sulfate etc. Maybe he'll jump in on this.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

It's possibly based on softened hard water put through RO. I've heard (and this may be completely incorrect) that softening water before putting it through RO extends the membrane lifespan.

 

[Robert65]

It's possibly based on softened hard water put through RO. I've heard (and this may be completely incorrect) that softening water before putting it through RO extends the membrane lifespan.

Ah, that would explain it!

 

[Jag75]

Ok so can I assume that this water profile is fine and I dont need lactic acid ?

 

[Robert65]

Ok so can I assume that this water profile is fine and I dont need lactic acid ?

No acid in the sparge. You have virtually no alkalinity to neutralize.

 

[Jag75]

What about mash water ? With these calculations the only lactic acid that was called for was in the sparge .

 

[Robert65]

What about mash water ? With these calculations the only lactic acid that was called for was in the sparge .

Well that still all depends on your desired mash pH, which is where this all started I guess. I was just addressing the sparge, which if RO never needs acid. If your calculations say no acid in the mash, then there you go.

 

[day_trippr]

Ok, that's interesting he'd use some heavily loaded raw water as a baseline. Make one wonder where the heck he was when he ran into that mineral soup

Anyway I can accept that there's some non-linearity from one element to another going through the membrane. But at the end of the day my source water is loaded with mostly bicarbonates and calcium to hit that 300 tds, and the RO product is only 10 tds, so I'm pretty sure 8 of that isn't sodium

Cheers!

 

[Jag75]

Well that still all depends on your desired mash pH, which is where this all started I guess. I was just addressing the sparge, which if RO never needs acid. If your calculations say no acid in the mash, then there you go.

This is what is odd to me. I've always had to use lactic acid in my mash. I guess I'll just go with it and see how it turns out .

Thank you all for your thoughts on this matter . I appreciate you.

 

[Jag75]

Ok, that's interesting he'd use some heavily loaded raw water as a baseline. Make one wonder where the heck he was when he ran into that mineral soup

Anyway I can accept that there's some non-linearity from one element to another going through the membrane. But at the end of the day my source water is loaded with mostly bicarbonates and calcium to hit that 300 tds, and the RO product is only 10 tds, so I'm pretty sure 8 of that isn't sodium

Cheers!

Yeah same here . The Ro water is usually no more the 10ppm from my TDS meter.

 

[Robert65]

Yeah same here . The Ro water is usually no more the 10ppm from my TDS meter.

I start near 300 ppm TDS and my unit puts it out at 5 ppm. So I just assume I can ignore it and treat it like distilled in my calculations. I don't see a point in having a RO "profile." If your RO has enough mineralization left to profile it, stop buying your water from that place, or change your cartridges, or whatever.

 

[day_trippr]

Right, that would simply mean not using Bru'n Water's RO default content...

Cheers!

 

[Jag75]

So if I'm reading 10ppm or less treat as distilled ?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Yep

 

[NTexBrewer]

From Weyermann, clearly showing that mash pH and Wort pH are different, even for the untreated mash/wort:

View attachment 641733

Within the range of the nominal pH's of most concern to home brewers, the measured difference between a "mash pH" and a "wort pH" seems to be about 0.21 to 0.23 pH points. Is this due to mash pH being read at mash temperature, or (as I suspect) due to something else. I emailed Weyermann for clarification of this a few months ago, but they did not respond to me.

There have been measurements taken by forum members who have seen mashes adjusted to ballpark 5.4 as measured at room temperature at 15-20 minutes into the mash resulting in measured pH's of about 5.61 to 5.63 post the mash (also as measured at room temperature).

There is also an industry level peer reviewed paper I recently read wherein a series of 5 or 6 base malt samples were all adjusted via either biological or mineral acid during the mash to read 5.4 pH as measured specifically at mash temperature (as the article makes quite explicit, and with each being at 50 degrees C. at this juncture of a step-mash), and for which the post lautering "Wort pH" as measured at 20 degrees C. ranged from 5.8 to 5.9 (or 5.85 pH on average) for all samples. This is an average rise of an astounding 0.45 pH points across the transition from early mash to further downstream wort. Roughly half of which I credit to the measurement temp. difference (50 C. vs. 20 C. measurement), and half being due to the typical difference Weyermann sees between "mash pH" and "Wort pH". This 0.45 pH rise being why I suspect that the difference in "mash" and "wort" pH valuations can not be due solely to measurement temperature differential alone.

First let me say I don’t fully understand all of this. But looking at the chart my first thought was mash pH is lower than wort pH because wort pH includes sparge water which I’m guessing would raise the pH. Maybe the labels should be Mash pH and Pre-Boil pH.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

First let me say I don’t fully understand all of this. But looking at the chart my first thought was mash pH is lower than wort pH because wort pH includes sparge water which I’m guessing would raise the pH. Maybe the labels should be Mash pH and Pre-Boil pH.

In an acidic solution with no buffering, doubling the volume raises the pH by about 0.31 points, so this is an excellent guess upon that basis. But beer is a relatively highly buffered solution, and in such a system the pH drift induced by DI water dilution is nill, provided the initial mash was unmineralized, or in other words, carried out in DI water..

Martin Brungard recently did up to 3-fold dilutions and measured the resulting pH drift for pils malt with 40 ppm calcium and found the following:

1.33 qts/lb: 5.57
2 qts/lb: 5.60
4 qts/lb: 5.66

And AJ deLange contends that the pH drift from dilution should be far less than Martin's data indicates, such as to be essentially undetectable by a pH meter proclaiming 0.01 pH precision for the case of a mere volume doubling. But AJ's computation is intended for mashing and dilution in DI water, and Martin's addition of calcium may muddy the water slightly (so to speak) and taint the value of his experiment thereby. ???

 

[Robert65]

Martin's addition of calcium may muddy the water slightly (so to speak) and taint the value of his experiment thereby. ???

Or render it more relevant if we are trying to predict real world behavior.

 

[Jag75]

So I went back on the program and switched dilution to distilled . It came out with almost same amounts of gypsum and CaCI . The ph was projected 5.26. The projected ph when using the RO water was 5.24. Just brewed this morning and 20 min into mash I hit 5.24 ph .

 

[Gnomebrewer]

How does this square with the purpose of pre-mash water adjustment being to get the mash pH in a range favorable for the enzymes?

Brew on

According to this
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/How_pH_affects_brewing
it appears that a pH in the 5.6 to 5.7 region is more suited to amylase enzymes than 5.4, with Beta amylase performing best from about 5.2 to 5.8, and Alpha amylase from about 5.6 to 5.8 (interpreted from the graph). That sits roughly with where the pH of pale malt in low alkalinity water would end up. I've seen the question asked before on HBT about what the purpose of mash pH is (as opposed to adjusting boil pH), with the general answer being along the lines of it keeping the pH of processes beyond the mash in check - i.e. not giving any other useful reason for worrying about mash pH.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In an acidic solution with no buffering, doubling the volume raises the pH by about 0.31 points, so this is an excellent guess upon that basis. But beer is a relatively highly buffered solution, and in such a system the pH drift induced by DI water dilution is nill, provided the initial mash was unmineralized, or in other words, carried out in DI water..

Martin Brungard recently did up to 3-fold dilutions and measured the resulting pH drift for pils malt with 40 ppm calcium and found the following:

1.33 qts/lb: 5.57
2 qts/lb: 5.60
4 qts/lb: 5.66

And AJ deLange contends that the pH drift from dilution should be far less than Martin's data indicates, such as to be essentially undetectable by a pH meter proclaiming 0.01 pH precision for the case of a mere volume doubling. But AJ's computation is intended for mashing and dilution in DI water, and Martin's addition of calcium may muddy the water slightly (so to speak) and taint the value of his experiment thereby. ???

I've been thinking about the disparity between Martin's measured pH results and AJ's pH theory with respect to dilution impact upon pH drift, as whenever there is a discrepancy, there must be a reason for the discrepancy.

For 1.33 qts of DI water and 1 Lb. of malt, the overall water and malt system has a weight of 1.715 Kg.

For 4.00 qts. of DI water and 1 lb of malt, the overall water and malt system has a weight of 4.237 Kg.

4.237/1.715 = 2.47

40 mg/L Ca ions * 2.47 = 98.8 mg/L Ca ions

Just thinking while I'm typing, and certainly that in itself is rather dangerous and often off base, and therefore the reason for the differences in mash pH that Martin measured clearly may lie elsewhere. But also wondering what the mash pH would be for 98.8 mg/L Calcium ion water used for the case of the 4 quart water and 1 Lb. malt sample alongside of 40 mg/L calcium ion water being used for the case of the 1.33 Qts. of water and 1 Lb. of malt sample. If the 4 Qt mash thereby winds up measuring 5.57 pH, just as for the 1.33 Qt. sample, that might indeed be interesting. And it would likely call for a different model of mash pH prediction software development also.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

If of course the measured mash pH result for the case of 4 Qts. water and 1 Lb. malt with calcium boosted upward by a factor of 2.47X is a pH of 5.57, then this will certainly toss a monkey wrench into about 200 years worth of mineralization theory which is all based upon mg/L and ppm being identical, and wherein the difference may lie in ppm being more aligned to weight to weight measure vs mg/L clearly being a weight to volume measure.