State water reports vice buying Brew Lab when it comes back in stock?

[QTikiBrew]

I do BIAB (no sparge), mostly 1.5-2 gallon batches, but before the new brewing assistant arrives in late November (and they won't be much use for a number of years), I'm planning on getting a couple of 4 gallon batches (I'm choosing to ferment in cornys) completed.
My state publishes a monthly water report, usually one month behind - here are the latest three months available:

Item Tested for	JANUARY 2020	FEBRUARY 2020	MARCH 2020
Calcium (ppm)	4.88	4.77	5.36
Magnesium (ppm)	.85	.93	.97
Alkalinity as CaCO3	36.5	39.8	40.7
Sulfate (ppm)	6.8	6.5	7
Chloride (ppm)	32.4	31.6	34.7
Sodium (ppm)	31.1	35.6	38.1
Water pH	9.7	9.7	9.7
Total Chlorine (ppm)	2.47	2.75	2.74
Free Chlorine	BLANK	BLANK	BLANK
Hardness	15.7	15.7	15.7

They test for a LOT more than those, but reading a couple of posts here suggests these were the big ones to look at. Yes, they chloraminate the water.

Based on what I have read here, 1/4 of a campden tablet should do me just fine for a 6-7 gallons of water.

Are there other minerals I should be concerned with?

I'm trying to cut costs for building up my brewing gear right now, and I'm not sure I can justify the $120-200 for the LaMotte kits.

I DO have a pH meter, and I'm ordering calibration solutions when I order all my other gear.
Does it look like I have enough info and consistency from these tests to not test on my own? (I'm not willing to buy an RO system)

 

[Big Monk]

I do BIAB (no sparge), mostly 1.5-2 gallon batches, but before the new brewing assistant arrives in late November (and they won't be much use for a number of years), I'm planning on getting a couple of 4 gallon batches (I'm choosing to ferment in cornys) completed.
My state publishes a monthly water report, usually one month behind - here are the latest three months available:

Item Tested for	JANUARY 2020	FEBRUARY 2020	MARCH 2020
Calcium (ppm)	4.88	4.77	5.36
Magnesium (ppm)	.85	.93	.97
Alkalinity as CaCO3	36.5	39.8	40.7
Sulfate (ppm)	6.8	6.5	7
Chloride (ppm)	32.4	31.6	34.7
Sodium (ppm)	31.1	35.6	38.1
Water pH	9.7	9.7	9.7
Total Chlorine (ppm)	2.47	2.75	2.74
Free Chlorine	BLANK	BLANK	BLANK
Hardness	15.7	15.7	15.7

They test for a LOT more than those, but reading a couple of posts here suggests these were the big ones to look at. Yes, they chloraminate the water.

Based on what I have read here, 1/4 of a campden tablet should do me just fine for a 6-7 gallons of water.

Are there other minerals I should be concerned with?

I'm trying to cut costs for building up my brewing gear right now, and I'm not sure I can justify the $120-200 for the LaMotte kits.

I DO have a pH meter, and I'm ordering calibration solutions when I order all my other gear.
Does it look like I have enough info and consistency from these tests to not test on my own? (I'm not willing to buy an RO system)

Is it a single source? Does the municipality blend multiple sources? It looks to be a good source and fairly consistent but if those are averages it's tough to pin down what you may get at a particular time.

 

[Vale71]

Those reports don't look right at all. A PH value of 9.7 is way too high and a hardness of 15.7 (what's the actual unit?) seems a bit high considering you have very little calcium and basically no magnesium.

 

[VikeMan]

Hardness as CaC03 = (2.5 x Ca) + (4.1 x Mg)
= (2.5 x 4.77) + (4.1 x .93) = 15.7

I suspect the February hardness number was inadvertently copied into the January and March columns.

Also, I think Boston water pH is typically north of 9.

 

[QTikiBrew]

Is it a single source? Does the municipality blend multiple sources? It looks to be a good source and fairly consistent but if those are averages it's tough to pin down what you may get at a particular time.

Multiple sources (Quabbin and Wachusetts reservoirs) single treatment plant, where the outflow is tested monthly.

Those reports don't look right at all. A PH value of 9.7 is way too high and a hardness of 15.7 (what's the actual unit?) seems a bit high considering you have very little calcium and basically no magnesium.

As VikeMan stated - yes, 9.7 is correct.
"MWRA adjusts the alkalinity and pH of Wachusett water at CWTP to reduce its corrosivity, which minimizes the leaching of lead and copper from service lines and home plumbing systems into the water. MWRA’s target for distribution system pH is 9.3; the target for alkalinity is 40 mg/L. Per DEP requirements, samples from the CWTP finished water have a minimum compliance level of 9.1 for pH and 37 mg/L for alkalinity. Samples from 27 distribution system locations have a minimum compliance level of 9.0 for pH and 37 mg/L for alkalinity. "

Hardness, per the report, is in mg/l:
"MWRA water is considered soft. Water hardness is characterized by the amount of dissolved minerals in the water, in particular calcium and magnesium. MWRA water has a hardness of about 15-20 mg/l or about 1 grain/gallon (1 grain/gallon = 17.1 mg/L). For comparison, hard water would have greater than 75 mg/l hardness. "

Hardness as CaC03 = (2.5 x Ca) + (4.1 x Mg)
= (2.5 x 4.77) + (4.1 x .93) = 15.7

I suspect the February hardness number was inadvertently copied into the January and March columns.

Also, I think Boston water pH is typically north of 9.

Did the math with their numbers: January 15.69, February 15.72, March is the big killer in terms of error, per your formula 17.36.

I'll pull the 9 months to see the averages, and post them again, maybe not as a table (copy and past from excel to bb table doesn't work well).

 

[QTikiBrew]

	Apr-19​	May-19​	Jun-19​	Jul-19​	Aug-19​	Sep-19​	Oct-19​	Nov-19​	Dec-19​	Jan-20​	Feb-20​	Mar-20​
Calcium (mg/l)	5.630	5.930	5.650	5.520	4.920	4.690	4.670	5.000	4.820	4.880	4.770	5.360
Magnesium (mg/l)	1.120	1.060	1.050	1.040	0.953	0.927	0.914	0.912	0.888	0.851	0.926	0.966
Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/l)	42.100	41.800	40.300	40.900	40.600	41.800	41.800	39.900	40.900	36.500	39.800	40.700
Sulfate (mg/l)	6.700	6.300	10.800	6.400	5.400	5.400	5.400	5.800	6.700	6.800	6.500	7.000
Chloride (mg/l)	39.400	41.500	42.100	38.200	28.400	27.600	28.500	32.900	31.000	32.400	31.600	34.700
Sodium (mg/l)	39.000	39.500	40.700	38.400	33.500	35.100	33.700	36.100	33.500	31.100	35.600	38.100
Water pH	9.700	9.700	9.600	9.600	9.600	9.600	9.700	9.600	9.700	9.700	9.700	9.700
Chlorine, total (mg/l)	2.650	2.730	2.800	2.930	2.920	3.050	2.950	3.120	2.980	2.470	2.750	2.740
Chlorine, free (mg/l)	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank	blank
Hardness reported (mg/l)	18.700	18.700	18.700	18.100	18.100	18.100	15.400	15.400	15.400	15.700	15.700	15.700
Hardness calculated (mg/l)	18.67	19.17	18.43	18.06	16.21	15.53	15.42	16.24	15.69	15.69	15.72	17.36

So, if VikeMan's hardness calculation is the right formula (I'm an emergency management guy, not a chemistry or math guy), then MWRA is in many cases, wildly off on their number for hardness.

 

[VikeMan]

Looks to me like they are only measuring total hardness one per quarter, and using the same value for the other two months in the quarter. Or they simply failed to update those months when they posted.

 

[Big Monk]

If the major ions reported balance (obviously there is some anion content not accounted for here but all the heavy hitters are) then I would feel comfortable moving forward with it.

Given the municipality’s criteria, the pH, while high, seems to jive with what they are striving for. Given your geographic area it seems in line as well.

 

[QTikiBrew]

If the major ions reported balance (obviously there is some anion content not accounted for here but all the heavy hitters are) then I would feel comfortable moving forward with it.

Given the municipality’s criteria, the pH, while high, seems to jive with what they are striving for. Given your geographic area it seems in line as well.

Here's everything they list in the test reports - what do I really need to look for for brewing purposes? The ones I already listed were based on what the various calculators ask for, as well as I what I know about chloramination.

Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia-N
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bromate
Bromide
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chlorine, Free
Chlorine, Total
Chromium, Total
Coliform, Fecal, MF Method
Coliform, Total, Colilert Method
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate-N
Nitrite
Orthophosphate
pH
Potassium
Selenium
Silica (SiO2)
Silver
Sodium
Specific Conductance
Standard Plate Count, HPC
Sulfate (SO4)
Thallium
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus
UV-254
Zinc

Given all of this, and from what I have read, really what I need to worry about is checking my mash pH in the first 15 minutes or so (a few times), with a target of 5.2-5.6. If it's too high, either calcium chloride or phosphoric acid, yes? (Mind you, this is my first time paying ANY attention to water quality)

 

[Yooper]

The thing is, with adjusting mash pH once already into the mash, it's already too late. Use a pH prediction spreadsheet to guess it as best as you can (or do a test mash, which is 100% better), and then do the best you can. Target 5.3-5.5 and you'll be in the ballpark.

 

[Big Monk]

Don’t be afraid to ask questions about water, but also don’t be afraid to search the immense amount of information here as well.

When we discuss water, mash pH, and any of the constituent parts that go into it, we are really discussing the charge of all the components involved.

The first step, especially if using municipal source water or tap water is to understand whether the cations and anions that make up the source profile balance. So we are concerned mainly with:

Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Sulfate
Chloride
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Nitrate
Nitrite
Fluoride
Source Water pH

When using source water that has appreciable alkalinity, source water pH is important to know because it determines the charge contributed by the alkalinity.

I agree with Yooper. Adjusting mid-mash is ill-advised. Also, you should really be waiting 30+ minutes to allow for the mash components to become fully mixed and be in solution.

 

[Vale71]

Multiple sources (Quabbin and Wachusetts reservoirs) single treatment plant, where the outflow is tested monthly.



As VikeMan stated - yes, 9.7 is correct.
"MWRA adjusts the alkalinity and pH of Wachusett water at CWTP to reduce its corrosivity, which minimizes the leaching of lead and copper from service lines and home plumbing systems into the water. MWRA’s target for distribution system pH is 9.3; the target for alkalinity is 40 mg/L. Per DEP requirements, samples from the CWTP finished water have a minimum compliance level of 9.1 for pH and 37 mg/L for alkalinity. Samples from 27 distribution system locations have a minimum compliance level of 9.0 for pH and 37 mg/L for alkalinity. "

Hardness, per the report, is in mg/l:
"MWRA water is considered soft. Water hardness is characterized by the amount of dissolved minerals in the water, in particular calcium and magnesium. MWRA water has a hardness of about 15-20 mg/l or about 1 grain/gallon (1 grain/gallon = 17.1 mg/L). For comparison, hard water would have greater than 75 mg/l hardness. "


Did the math with their numbers: January 15.69, February 15.72, March is the big killer in terms of error, per your formula 17.36.

I'll pull the 9 months to see the averages, and post them again, maybe not as a table (copy and past from excel to bb table doesn't work well).

If the hardness is reported in ppm then yes, that is correct. I'm just used to other units.

Where I live water with a PH>8.5 is unfit for human consumption and no adjustment of PH takes place. Do buildings really still have lead pipes around your parts?? It looks like they adjust PH with sodium carbonate. That's unfortunate as this raises the alkalinity and will have to be compensated for either with acid or salt additions.

 

[day_trippr]

I don't know that there are still literally "lead pipes" anywhere in the Greater Boston area, but lead solder was used extensively until recent times, and Boston is, after all, one hella old American city. And as New England has been a recipient of all the air-borne pollution emitted to the west since the settlers burned forests to make farm lands, many aquifers have been acidic for so long any buffering capacity was long exhausted.

btw, I bet there are bottled waters that make an 8.5 ph seem like lemonade by comparison

Cheers!

 

[Gruel]

Filter the water (activated carbon) to get the chlorine out. After filtering, I would check the hardness and alkalinity again. Aquarium test strips seem cheaper than special analysis kits for brewers.

 

[VikeMan]

Filter the water (activated carbon) to get the chlorine out. After filtering, I would check the hardness and alkalinity again.

Carbon filtering doesn't remove hardness or alkalinty.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Carbon filtering doesn't remove hardness or alkalinty.

True, but it doesn't appear that he has much hardness or alkalinity.

 

[VikeMan]

True, but it doesn't appear that he has much hardness or alkalinity.

Oh, I agree. I was just responding to the post that suggested hardness and alkalinity should be re-checked after carbon filtration, i.e. attempting to make it safe for future googlers.

 

[QTikiBrew]

Filter the water (activated carbon) to get the chlorine out. After filtering, I would check the hardness and alkalinity again. Aquarium test strips seem cheaper than special analysis kits for brewers.

I'm going to use campden tablets for the chlorine - which is actually chloramine (I know the MWRA has used chloamination for years) and charcoal won't get rid of that, not at a useful rate.

 

[IslandLizard]

Filter the water (activated carbon) to get the chlorine out. After filtering, I would check the hardness and alkalinity again. Aquarium test strips seem cheaper than special analysis kits for brewers.

Carbon filters don't remove Chloramines effectively, and Chlorine barely.
Better, cheaper, and much quicker to add 1/4 Campden tablet, or an equivalent pinch of K-Meta, per 5 gallons of brewing water.

 

[QTikiBrew]

Ok, maybe someone will still be watching this other than me.

I've pulled the data from my state testing facility all the way back to January 2018.
I'm attaching that spreadsheet, but I'm also going to throw an excerpt of it in here.
Mean, median, mode, average deviation and standard deviation are all based on the 45 months of data, but I'm just showing the last three months in the excerpt.

TEST	MEAN	MEDIAN	MODE	AVE-DEV	SD	Jul-21	Aug-21	Sep-21
Alkalinity (mg/l)	40.411	40.600	40.700	0.858271605	1.1440006	41.8	40.7	41.3
Calcium (mg/l)	5.165	5.220	4.920	0.354103704	0.41266111	5.22	4.94	4.81
Chloride (mg/l)	34.547	34.500	34.500	3.580740741	4.411173829	34.5	32.7	30.9
Chlorine, total (mg/l)	2.781	2.790	2.600	0.221530864	0.274848902	2.6	2.7	3
Fluoride (mg/l)	0.689	0.690	0.720	0.034032593	0.045242925	0.72	0.684	0.71
Hardness (rpt'd) (mg/l) (quarterly)	16.893	17.200	18.200	1.168	1.29902061	17	17	17
Hardness calculated (mg/l)	16.934	17.191	#N/A	1.162883951	1.338714362	17.027	16.179	15.637
Hardness calculated (gr/gal)	0.990	1.005	#N/A	0.068004909	0.07828739	0.996	0.946	0.914
Iron (mg/l)	0.031	0.031	0.030	0.008450864	0.010970088	0.0434	0.0602	0.0533
Magnesium (mg/l)	0.981	0.980	1.010	0.070038519	0.083667741	0.97	0.934	0.881
Nitrate-N (mg/l) (quarterly)	0.073	0.062	0.055	0.024039111	0.029091488	0.0579	0.0463	0.0463
pH	9.646	9.620	9.600	0.051308642	0.05610416	9.7	9.6	9.7
Potassium (mg/l)	1.043	1.030	1.030	0.074017778	0.089562929	1.02	1.02	1.08
Sodium (mg/l)	36.867	36.400	38.100	2.177777778	2.605675623	39.3	36.8	35.7
Sulfate (SO4) (mg/l)	6.829	6.600	7.000	0.841392593	1.390695706	6.6	6.07	5.54

Given these last three months of data - two questions:

1. Am I better off using JUST distilled water, a mixture of distilled and tap, or just tap?

2. When looking at a water calculation spreadsheet (I use Bru'n Water) should I use the most recent report (they are always a month behind), an average of the last three months, or what?

 

[cire]

To be totally frank, that water is an almost perfect match to RO water with a pinch of salt and a touch of extra alkalinity. You would be mad not to use it after learning about alkalinity in brewing liquor and how to treat it.

 

[QTikiBrew]

One of the things I was considering was that, on average, I'm a little high on a number of thing AJ Delange discusses in one of his posts:

"The following recommendations apply to “soft” water. Here we will define soft as meaning RO or distilled water or any water whose lab report indicates alkalinity less than 35 (ppm as CaCO3 – all other numbers to follow mg/L), sulfate less than 20 (as sulfate – Ward Labs reports as sulfur so multiply the SO4-S number by 3 to get as sulfate), chloride less than 20, sodium less than 20, calcium less than 20 and magnesium less than 20. If your water has numbers higher than these, dilute it with RO or DI water. A 1:1 dilution reduces each ion concentration to 1/2, a 2:1 dilution to 1/3 and so on. If your water contains chloramines add 1 campden tablet per 20 gallons (before any dilution) "

My alkalinity is higher than that number, as are my chloride and sodium.

 

[marc1]

One of the things I was considering was that, on average, I'm a little high on a number of thing AJ Delange discusses in one of his posts:

"The following recommendations apply to “soft” water. Here we will define soft as meaning RO or distilled water or any water whose lab report indicates alkalinity less than 35 (ppm as CaCO3 – all other numbers to follow mg/L), sulfate less than 20 (as sulfate – Ward Labs reports as sulfur so multiply the SO4-S number by 3 to get as sulfate), chloride less than 20, sodium less than 20, calcium less than 20 and magnesium less than 20. If your water has numbers higher than these, dilute it with RO or DI water. A 1:1 dilution reduces each ion concentration to 1/2, a 2:1 dilution to 1/3 and so on. If your water contains chloramines add 1 campden tablet per 20 gallons (before any dilution) "

My alkalinity is higher than that number, as are my chloride and sodium.

Are you using a spreadsheet to calculate additions, or using the guidelines from the simple primer?

That water is remarkably consistent. It should be good for brewing once the chloramine is taken care of. Small changes aren't going to be noticeable. Given that the primer gives measurements in teaspoons, I don't foresee being a little off on the base water to be a problem. There's going to be trial and error for personal preference anyway.

I'd say start with the primer recommendations and go from there. If you want to get into it more, use software to work it out more precisely.

 

[QTikiBrew]

Are you using a spreadsheet to calculate additions, or using the guidelines from the simple primer?

That water is remarkably consistent. It should be good for brewing once the chloramine is taken care of. Small changes aren't going to be noticeable. Given that the primer gives measurements in teaspoons, I don't foresee being a little off on the base water to be a problem. There's going to be trial and error for personal preference anyway.

I'd say start with the primer recommendations and go from there. If you want to get into it more, use software to work it out more precisely.

I use Bru'n Water for my calculations, and I brew no sparge BIAB.

 

[marc1]

I use Bru'n Water for my calculations, and I brew no sparge BIAB.

I think you're good to go. Use whatever average you want for the water input - that consistency means it shouldn't make a noticeable difference in the end product. Maybe keep an eye on the reports though, in case they ever do change something so you won't be caught off guard.

 

[IslandLizard]

I agree, this is good brewing water, after adding the Campden or a pinch of K-Meta or Na-Meta to remove the chlorine/chloramines.

 

[cire]

One of the things I was considering was that, on average, I'm a little high on a number of thing AJ Delange discusses in one of his posts: ..........................................

Again being totally frank, and I write this with all and total respect to AJ Delange, his research into brewing liquor and efforts to spread that knowledge, but it is my opinion he was highly motivated by Kolbach's work explaining problems encountered brewing with soft water in deference to other research.

If your interests are solely directed towards beers brewed with low mineral waters, then you should consider adding a reverse osmosis system or to use distilled or deionized water. However, if you wish to explore further into the world of beers and the myriad of styles and appropriate liquors, then the minerals present in your supply, can with minimal treatment, have little, if any, discernable impact. For ultra low mineral worts, buy in suitable water.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I concur with @cire's assessment above. I could of course be totally wrong in my opinion, but my opinion is that AJ deLange primarily brewed (brews) and was (is) interested in light lagers and Pilsners. Much of his analytical focus and discussion revolves around a rather narrow range of Weyermann base malt(s). This indeed would seem to be similar overall to Kolbach. And AJ did emphasize and praise very low brewing liquor mineralization.

 

[QTikiBrew]

Thanks for the responses - the world of paying attention to my water reports is fairly new to me, but there were a number of things I new were slightly problematic given Boston area water - namely our high pH.

Still looking for a little ballpark guidance on using the water reports - go with the most recent (knowing it's at least one month behind), or an average of the last three?

Also, I've seen two different calculations for hardness:
(Ca*2.5*)+(Mg*4.1)
or
((Ca/20)+(Mg/12.15))*50

Which is correct?

 

[marc1]

Thanks for the responses - the world of paying attention to my water reports is fairly new to me, but there were a number of things I new were slightly problematic given Boston area water - namely our high pH.

I don't think your water will be problematic.

Still looking for a little ballpark guidance on using the water reports - go with the most recent (knowing it's at least one month behind), or an average of the last three?

It doesn't matter, they are all almost the same.

Also, I've seen two different calculations for hardness:
(Ca*2.5*)+(Mg*4.1)
or
((Ca/20)+(Mg/12.15))*50

Which is correct?

If I'm looking at that properly, they both are the same. 50/20 = 2.5; 50/12.15 = 4.1

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Thanks for the responses - the world of paying attention to my water reports is fairly new to me, but there were a number of things I new were slightly problematic given Boston area water - namely our high pH.

Still looking for a little ballpark guidance on using the water reports - go with the most recent (knowing it's at least one month behind), or an average of the last three?

Also, I've seen two different calculations for hardness:
(Ca*2.5*)+(Mg*4.1)
or
((Ca/20)+(Mg/12.15))*50

Which is correct?

They should both give the same answer.

For a bit more precision:

TH = 2.49730(Ca++) + 4.11796(Mg++)

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

MW CaCO3 = 100.0869
EQW CaCO3 = 50.04345

MW Ca++ = 40.078
EQW Ca++ = 20.039

MW Mg++ = 24.305
EQW Mg++ = 12.1525

50.04345/20.039 = 2.49730

50.04345/12.1525 = 4.11796

 

[cire]

pH of water is of no relevance to the brewer for brewing beer. It is of merit for other purposes which might or might not hold your interest.

My water is supplied under pressure from an underground source and upon arrival is typically at pH 6.1. CO2 from air dissolved in the water forms carbonic acid, but once more at atmospheric pressure the air is slowly released. This causes pH to rise as CO2 escapes and by the following day it has a high pH, although not as high as is reported for yours.

 

[QTikiBrew]

I will say, emailing the state water department, just to verify that they are reporting hardness as CaCO3, was useful, as it turns out their COO is a homebrewer, and asked me if I'm using Bru'n Water, and to ask him for any further clarifications on the report - reminding me that they chloraminate the water, and to fix that with campden tablets.

Never hurts to ask for info!

 

[Sotko]

As a relatively new Boston based brewer, I’m really thankful for this thread! I’ve got no knowledge to contribute on the brewing water side (again, thanks QTikiBrew et al), but I can clarify the lead pipe pice from earlier.

Boston, and eastern MA generally have a lot of hold housing stock. My home, whole neighborhood really, is all 100 year old buildings - horse hair plaster, lines for gas lights, etc. Neither the homes nor the city’s water lines are lead, but the service lines connecting homes to the city’s lines often were. There is an abatement program (you can see in our basement where a previous owner had the line replaced) but with some of those lines still in place I appreciate MWRA’s caution… and that their COO is a homebrewer less important than preventing another Flint water crisis but still cool.