pH-5.2 is a buffer not a water treatment salt

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

ShootsNRoots

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
244
Reaction score
34
Self admitted non-expert on water.

A friend who swears by pH-5.2 says that it helps acidify or alkanize his mash and sparge water.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that it acts as a buffer for mash water. In other words you add the pH-5.2 to the mash water. You then add your grain and pH-5.2 buffers the acidity of the added grain at a pH of 5.2 such that it doesn't drop below 5.2 unless you exceed the buffering capability of pH-5.2.

Put another way one could construct a buffer for a pH of say 5.4 or 5.8, etc...

I also don't think you would use pH-5.2 in sparge water because what exactly would you be buffering? You're not adding grains to the sparge water. IMO, you'd be better off using acid in the sparge water.

Anyway it's not a water treatment that "snaps" your pH to 5.2, it's simply a buffer at a pH of 5.2 because that's how it was engineered.

Am I correct in saying that it doesn't acidify or alkanize your mash? You would need actual water treatment salts for that (Lactic/Citric Acid, CaSO4, CaCl, ...)
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
2,724
Location
McLean/Ogden
A friend who swears by pH-5.2 says that it helps acidify or alkanize his mash and sparge water.
We have observed that 5.2 works very well for people who do not own pH meters but doesn't work at all for those who do.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that it acts as a buffer for mash water. In other words you add the pH-5.2 to the mash water. You then add your grain and pH-5.2 buffers the acidity of the added grain at a pH of 5.2 such that it doesn't drop below 5.2 unless you exceed the buffering capability of pH-5.2.
Let me start by pointing out that this has been discussed at length on this forum and a search of the archives should turn up a lot of posts.

This product is a combination of mono and dibasic sodium phosphate. It is mostly the former. The mix forms a buffer at pH 5.9 (that's not a typo). Remember that malt contains a lot of inorganic phosphate. I am guessing that the idea is to have the sum of the malt monobasic phosphate and the product's monobasic phosphate be such that its ratio to the dibasic (from the product) is such as to have it buffer at 5.2. That may or may not be how they designed it but, as I have stated here and elsewhere dozens of times, you do not design a phosphate buffer for pH 5.2 because that value is too far from either of the spanning pK's of phosphoric acid and, as a consequence, there will be little buffering capacity at pH 5.2. That is why this product comes no where near 'locking on' your pH at 5.2 at normal or even several time the normal dose. The theory says this; experiments in the lab confirm it.

As to the acid base nature of it: at pH 5.2 phosphoric acid is a fairly 'strong' acid. At pH 5.2 dibasic phosphate is a fairly 'strong' base of about equal strength. Thus they tend to neutralize one another with the result being the salt monobasic phosphate. At pH 5.2 there is relatively little phosphoric and relatively little dibasic phophate. The ratio of monobasic ion to phosphoric is pretty high as is the ratio of monobasic to dibasic. There isn't much buffering. At pH 2.1, OTOH, there are equal amounts of phosphoric acid and monobasic ion and at pH 7.2 there are equal amounts of monobasic and dibasic ions. These are the values at which the system will have maximum buffering capacity. The point being that a buffer consists of a mixture of an acid and a base. Keep in mind that the monobasic ion is an acid becase it can give up protons thus lowering pH.

Put another way one could construct a buffer for a pH of say 5.4 or 5.8, etc...
Yes, and they would be better buffers than one designed for 5.2 because 5.4 and 5.6 are closter to 7.2.

I also don't think you would use pH-5.2 in sparge water because what exactly would you be buffering?
A buffer doesn't attack something and in doing so 'buffer' it. Quite the opposite its job is to resist stresses that would result in a pH shift away from its design pH. It absorbs acid/base shocks. Check the Wikipedia article on railroad buffers. Given that your sparge water has no phosphate in it 5.2 will tend to buffer it to around pH 5.9.

IMO, you'd be better off using acid in the sparge water.
If you need to deal with alkalinity and don't object to adding phosphate you will be better off with phosphoric acid than this product because you won't be adding any sodium.

Anyway it's not a water treatment that "snaps" your pH to 5.2, it's simply a buffer at a pH of 5.2 because that's how it was engineered.
It is, in water, designed to buffer to around pH 6. This was confirmed by calculating the ratios of mono and di basic salts, calculating the amount of sodium necessary to balance that and then checking the sodium content of a solution of it.

Am I correct in saying that it doesn't acidify or alkanize your mash? You would need actual water treatment salts for that (Lactic/Citric Acid, CaSO4, CaCl, ...)
If you add monbasic sodium phosphate to any solution or mash which has a pH higher than 4.65 (half way between the first two pK's of phosphoric acid) it will act as an acid. It will give up protons and in the process convert to the dibasic ion. In this sense 5.2, which is mostly the monobasic salt, is an acid and does acidify your mash. If you add a 'real' acid you get the same effect (but the numbers are different). If that acid is phosphoric acid you wind up with the same result: lower pH and a mix of phosphoric acid, monobasic ion and dibasic ion. If adding acid and adding the monobasic salt bring you to the same pH the ratios of the concentrations of the species will be the same.
 
OP
S

ShootsNRoots

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
244
Reaction score
34
Thanks AJ, perhaps you could elaborate on the "ideal" buffer solution for brewing, if one even exists or could be constructed to account for all situations.
 

neosapien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
708
Reaction score
143
Location
Dallas
holy crap that's one of the most awesomely nerdtastic posts i've read on here.
 
OP
S

ShootsNRoots

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
244
Reaction score
34
It would be an acid with a pK around 5.3 and a non toxic, flavorless anion.
Just admit it, you brew with this flavorless pK-5.3 buffer all the time. At least tell us when the commerical release is since you'll be a multi-millionaire in no time flat and won't be answering anymore of those stupid water questions on homebrew forums. ;)
 

Yooper

Ale's What Cures You!
Staff member
Admin
Mod
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
74,632
Reaction score
12,241
Location
UP/Snowbird in Florida
Not too 'nerdtastic'? It's up to Yooper. If she wants to sticky it that's fine with me and will save us some typing in the future.
Sounds good! If you want to just copy/paste a new post (instead of replying to the previous thread), and start a new thread with that great info, I will definitely sticky it.

You can choose the title, of course, as so many people ask about 5.2 buffer that it would be a great sticky!
 

Hermit

fuddle
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
80
Location
Alternate Universe
Please keep the same lead line: "We have observed that 5.2 works very well for people who do not own pH meters but doesn't work at all for those who do." Classic!
 

Wynne-R

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
980
Reaction score
129
Location
Texas
How about calling it ‘pH 5.2 Stabilizer - Experimental Results’. That ought to keep us out of trouble, and it might encourage people to post actual experimental results.

Thanks to AJ for figuring it out and thanks to Queen Yooper and her super-powers.
 

Hermit

fuddle
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
80
Location
Alternate Universe
How about calling it ‘pH 5.2 Stabilizer - Experimental Results’. That ought to keep us out of trouble, and it might encourage people to post actual experimental results.

Thanks to AJ for figuring it out and thanks to Queen Yooper and her super-powers.
Why mince words? The results are the results. Science is funny that way.
 

RCCOLA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
122
Location
Northwest Arkansas
Kai sent a 300ppm sample to Ward Labs to get the makeup on 5.2. Here's his sheet and the thread where he posted it. http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=1125.0

Quote Kai Troester:
"As expected it is a sodium phosphate salt. The phosphate is not showing up since I did went with the standard W-6 test and did not add phosphate. But that part of the buffer was known anyway.

I’m not sure if the 130 ppm total dissolved solids are correct. I added 300 ppm of the buffer but since sodium phosphates are hygroscopic I assume that there is some water bound the “dry” powder.

The suggested use rate is 2 oz (56 g) in 31 gal (117 l). This is ~477 ppm in the final beer and since ~21% of that 477 ppm is sodium your sodium level increases by 100 ppm. If this is a concern or not depends on the sodium level of the water and beer style, I guess. I expected worse.

There is also some bicarbonate in the sample but this is only b/c there was atmospheric CO2 dissolved in the water. Some of that will have to convert to bicarbonate of the pH is higher than 4."

Kai



 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
2,724
Location
McLean/Ogden
There wouldn't actually be any bicarbonate. Notice that the listed bicarbonate is 61*alklinity/50 which is the approximate bicarbonate content when all the alkalinity is attributable to bicarbonate/carbonate. In this case the alkalinity is attributable to phosphate. It is is a buffer, after all, and it takes acid to get it to pH 4.4, the value to which Ward Labs titrates when then measure alkalinity.

I'll see about coming up with a sticky tomorrow.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
2,724
Location
McLean/Ogden
I’m not sure if the 130 ppm total dissolved solids are correct. I added 300 ppm of the buffer but since sodium phosphates are hygroscopic I assume that there is some water bound the “dry” powder.
No, it wouldn't be as this 'TDS' number is based solely on the conductivity and the translation to TDS depends on the molar masses of the ions and thier assumed mobilities. It is usual to employ a calibration curve which assumes that the solute is sodium chloride. The sodium part is fine here but mono and dibasic phosphate ions have both higher molecular weight and lower mobility that chloride ions. Both would contribute to a lower conductivity (and thus a lower reported TDS number).
 
Top