Water test feedback please!

[mabrungard]

As long as that tap water doesn't have any metallic taste from manganese, I'd be very happy to have that as my tap water. It would serve brewing most styles very well. The primary concern would be to neutralize alkalinity as needed for the brew at hand. At that modest alkalinity level, there would be no problem in using lactic acid as the primary acid for alkalinity neutralization.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

As long as that tap water doesn't have any metallic taste from manganese, I'd be very happy to have that as my tap water.

Martin, do you know the typical ppm detectability level for manganese?

 

[ajdelange]

there's this table, but i would need to know the MG of free chlorine to know the pot. met. to add.

See No. 18

 

[kingschiff]

According to the report it ranges from 0.7 to 1.5 mg/L depending on the plant. Half a Campden tablet should be more than sufficient to treat 20 gal of water at that level. .

I'm typically treating 4-5 mash gal, and 3-4 sparge gallons sep.

would it be like 1/4 campden for each? how much pot. met. so i wouldn't have to crush a campden?

 

[ajdelange]

Martin, do you know the typical ppm detectability level for manganese?

Hach's photometric method has a sensitivity (level required to produce a change in A of 0.010) of 6 ug/L. By reducing (e.g. evaporating) away half or 3/4 of the water you can get to half or a quarter of that. But why are you worried about manganese? With iron below Ward's detectability why would you worry about manganese? Did I miss something?

 

[ajdelange]

I'm typically treating 4-5 mash gal, and 3-4 sparge gallons sep.

would it be like 1/4 campden for each? how much pot. met. so i wouldn't have to crush a campden?

Best case in 5 gal you'd have 0.7*5.*3.785 = 13.24 mg chlorine requiring 1.564*13.24 = 20.7 mg Kmetabite assuming it's really chlorine. Worst case (1.5 mg/L chlorine) you would need twice that. Were the source of the chlorine NH2Cl then you would need twice again those amounts or about 80 mg (all chloramine, 1.5 mg/L chlorine equivalent). A Campden tablet is about 700 mg so 1/4 of one would be plenty for 5 gal. See the Sticky for discussion of the effects of excess metabite (none harmful, some beneficial).

 

[kingschiff]

Best case in 5 gal you'd have 0.7*5.*3.785 = 13.24 mg chlorine requiring 1.564*13.24 = 20.7 mg Kmetabite assuming it's really chlorine. Worst case (1.5 mg/L chlorine) you would need twice that. Were the source of the chlorine NH2Cl then you would need twice again those amounts or about 80 mg (all chloramine, 1.5 mg/L chlorine equivalent). A Campden tablet is about 700 mg so 1/4 of one would be plenty for 5 gal. See the Sticky for discussion of the effects of excess metabite (none harmful, some beneficial).

so 1/8 of the campden would possibly do the trick?

 

[ajdelange]

Yes but it never hurts to be conservative as any metabite that is in excess will benefit your beer in other ways.

 

[mabrungard]

Hach's photometric method has a sensitivity (level required to produce a change in A of 0.010) of 6 ug/L. By reducing (e.g. evaporating) away half or 3/4 of the water you can get to half or a quarter of that. But why are you worried about manganese. With iron below Ward's detectability why would you worry about manganese? Did I miss something?

That iron result is not a factor when dealing with manganese. With an aesthetic limit of about 50 ppb for manganese, it has a very metallic taste above that concentration. If your plumbing fixtures have blackish discoloration and your water has a metallic taste, that is an indication that the manganese level may be higher than desirable in your tap water.

AJ, I've been brewing with low dissolved oxygen methods for over a year now and using low level meta concentration in the mashing and sparging water to help assure oxygen scavenging. One finding that I've deduced is that I don't like the beer flavor in beers with roast grain in the grist when meta is at anything but the lowest level. I don't know if its the resulting slight increase in sulfate or its just the effect that LODO has on roast flavor, but I don't like it. I caution anyone from employing meta in their brewing at a level greater than what is absolutely necessary for oxygen scavenging. So don't assume that brewing with a little extra meta is without consequence...at least that's my experience.

 

[kingschiff]

That's why I'm trying to get a set amount of powder I can add. crushing a tablet, and trying to make sure it's a certain amount isn't the most accurate way.

 

[ajdelange]

That iron result is not a factor when dealing with manganese.

AFAIK iron and manganese are (except where the geology is igneous) highly and significantly correlated. So given the low iron content of this gentleman's water I am still confused as to why we are worried about manganese. I am assuming that he must have stated somewhere that he has evidence that it is potentially a problem for him but I can't find it. If he has reported Fe/Mn type staining it couldn't be from iron because he hasn't any so it would then have to be from Mn. I just can't find where he said that.

With an aesthetic limit of about 50 ppb for manganese, it has a very metallic taste above that concentration. If your plumbing fixtures have blackish discoloration and your water has a metallic taste, that is an indication that the manganese level may be higher than desirable in your tap water.

I'm looking for where he said that.

AJ, I've been brewing with low dissolved oxygen methods for over a year now and using low level meta concentration in the mashing and sparging water to help assure oxygen scavenging. One finding that I've deduced is that I don't like the beer flavor in beers with roast grain in the grist when meta is at anything but the lowest level. I don't know if its the resulting slight increase in sulfate or its just the effect that LODO has on roast flavor, but I don't like it. I caution anyone from employing meta in their brewing at a level greater than what is absolutely necessary for oxygen scavenging. So don't assume that brewing with a little extra meta is without consequence...at least that's my experience.

Obviously you should report this but you shouldn't assume that your experiences are those of others. Sulfur dioxide (in the form of metanbite) is added to lots and lots of foods to prevent browning and yes, some people are alergic to it to the point that concentrations are regulated and wines have the sulfite caveat on the label. As you are well aware many in the LODO community use metabite in their brewing without detriment, in their opinions, to the beer. I don't know how much they use but believe it to be well above the very small amounts necessary to remove chloramine including a healthy margin to be sure all the chloramine has gone. Your's is the first report I have seen to the effect that metabite has any negative effect on beer.

Now it did occur to me way back when that as metabite is a reducing agent it ought to be able to reduce diacetyl and acetaldehyde to, respectively, acetoin and ethanol so I did some experiments with beer which I dosed with those two substances (separate experiments) to the point where they were most unpleasant and then added metabite. Apparently before much reducing gets done adducts are formed and they didn't taste any better, IMO, than diacetyl or acetaldehyde. So perhaps you experienced adduct formation. Certainly the amount of extra sulfate would be, relative to the levels I think you like, immaterial.

I any case, going on the experiences of the thousands of brewers who add a goodly fraction of a Campden tablet to 5 gallons of brewing water with only the positive effect of choramine reduction, I believe OP can proceed to do the same without fear that he will ruin his beer.

I also believe that he can proceed without fear of manganese. But if that bee is in his bonnet he can easily test for it's presence by adding a little hydrogen peroxide to his water and then filtering it through a piece of paper towel. A brown or black stain will indicate Mn. If he doens't have staining or metallic taste I wouldn't even bother to do the test.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

AJ, I've been brewing with low dissolved oxygen methods for over a year now and using low level meta concentration in the mashing and sparging water to help assure oxygen scavenging. One finding that I've deduced is that I don't like the beer flavor in beers with roast grain in the grist when meta is at anything but the lowest level. I don't know if its the resulting slight increase in sulfate or its just the effect that LODO has on roast flavor, but I don't like it. I caution anyone from employing meta in their brewing at a level greater than what is absolutely necessary for oxygen scavenging. So don't assume that brewing with a little extra meta is without consequence...at least that's my experience.

Martin, when considering the above, do you forego adding gypsum to your LoDO brewing water(s) specifically for the case of recipes with deep roasted grains? Or at least reduce the addition...

 

[kingschiff]

AFAIK iron and manganese are (except where the geology is igneous) highly and significantly correlated. So given the low iron content of this gentleman's water I am still confused as to why we are worried about manganese. I am assuming that he must have stated somewhere that he has evidence that it is potentially a problem for him but I can't find it. If he has reported Fe/Mn type staining it couldn't be from iron because he hasn't any so it would then have to be from Mn. I just can't find where he said that.

I'm looking for where he said that.

Obviously you should report this but you shouldn't assume that your experiences are those of others. Sulfur dioxide (in the form of metanbite) is added to lots and lots of foods to prevent browning and yes, some people are alergic to it to the point that concentrations are regulated and wines have the sulfite caveat on the label. As you are well aware many in the LODO community use metabite in their brewing without detriment, in their opinions, to the beer. I don't know how much they use but believe it to be well above the very small amounts necessary to remove chloramine including a healthy margin to be sure all the chloramine has gone. Your's is the first report I have seen to the effect that metabite has any negative effect on beer.

Now it did occur to me way back when that as metabite is a reducing agent it ought to be able to reduce diacetyl and acetaldehyde to, respectively, acetoin and ethanol so I did some experiments with beer which I dosed with those two substances (separate experiments) to the point where they were most unpleasant and then added metabite. Apparently before much reducing gets done adducts are formed and they didn't taste any better, IMO, than diacetyl or acetaldehyde. So perhaps you experienced adduct formation. Certainly the amount of extra sulfate would be, relative to the levels I think you like, immaterial.

I any case, going on the experiences of the thousands of brewers who add a goodly fraction of a Campden tablet to 5 gallons of brewing water with only the positive effect of choramine reduction, I believe OP can proceed to do the same without fear that he will ruin his beer.

I also believe that he can proceed without fear of manganese. But if that bee is in his bonnet he can easily test for it's presence by adding a little hydrogen peroxide to his water and then filtering it through a piece of paper towel. A brown or black stain will indicate Mn. If he doens't have staining or metallic taste I wouldn't even bother to do the test.

I never said anything about a metallic taste, I said it doesn't taste good compared to when it's filtered. It leaves white stains behind.

 

[mabrungard]

AFAIK iron and manganese are (except where the geology is igneous) highly and significantly correlated. So given the low iron content of this gentleman's water I am still confused as to why we are worried about manganese. I am assuming that he must have stated somewhere that he has evidence that it is potentially a problem for him but I can't find it. If he has reported Fe/Mn type staining it couldn't be from iron because he hasn't any so it would then have to be from Mn. I just can't find where he said that.

It appears that you performed a quick internet search for your information. Unfortunately, iron and manganese are not always correlated and I wasn't going to assume so. Its odd that you would. I guess I'll defer to your internet search in lieu of relying on my 35 years of professional experience dealing with groundwater and its quality. I appreciate your guidance that manganese is highly correlated to iron content and I'll only test for iron now. You're the best!

Lawrence, I have moderated other sulfate additions when using meta. But it just didn't correct the perceptions that I was perceiving in those beers with roast. I've had no problems in using meta for LODO purposes in pale beer styles.

 

[ajdelange]

It appears that you performed a quick internet search for your information.

I said that as far as I knew manganese and iron are correlated. But I didn't remember where I got that info from and so did a quick internet search which confirmed my recall. I didn't know that the correlation was weaker with igneous rock though so I learned something![/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, iron and manganese are not always correlated and I wasn't going to assume so. Its odd that you would.

Well that's perhaps because I have been exposed more to correlation analysis than you have. I know what it means and I also know what it doesn't mean.
What it means is that there is an apparent relationship between random variables and suggests that it may be a cause and effect relationship. What it does not mean is that you can say, for example, that as malt color and DI pH are demonstrably correlated DI pH is a*SRM where a is a constant determined by fitting a line to a scatter plot of SRM vs DI pH. Nor, in this context, does it say that [Mn] = b*[Fe] even though they are correlated. What is does imply, however, is that the probability distributions of, respectively, DI pH or [Mn] are going to be dense near a*SRM or b*[Fe] with the dispersions dependent on the correlation coefficient. Whether the distibutions are narrow enough that a*SRM or b*[Fe] are good enough predictions of DI pH or b*[Fe] depend on the application.

Statements like "iron and manganese are not always correlated" implies that you aren't quite up to speed on this concept. Correlation refers not to a single water sample but to a large (the larger the better) ensemble of water samples perhaps stratified in various ways. E.G. as I learned yesterday into samples from places where the underlying geology is sedimentary (high correlation) as opposed to igneous (lower correlation - but, note, still correlated). You can't say "Mn and Fe are not (or are) correlated in this sample". But you can say "Mn and Fe are more strongly correlated in some populations than others". You can also say "Low iron doesn't always mean low manganese in every sample". Again I emphasize that we are talking ensembles - not single samples.We are dealing with statistics here! You can say that if the sample is drawn from an area where the underlying geology is sedimentary that low iron quite probably means low manganese. You can also say that if the sample is drawn from an area where the underlying geology is igneous that low iron may mean low manganese but one cannot be as confident in this case.

I guess I'll defer to your internet search in lieu of relying on my 35 years of professional experience dealing with groundwater and its quality. I appreciate your guidance that manganese is highly correlated to iron content and I'll only test for iron now. You're the best!

No problem but if your company has a statistician you might want to consult with him to help you understand concepts like correlation and how to use them in your work to best effect. Your general drift here would seem to say "Manganese and iron are uncorrelated. Iron concentration tells you nothing about manganese concentration so even if Fe is undetected you had better test for Mn!". That is, AFAIK, untrue but I don't have a lot of iron and manganese data to look at. Apparently you do. Why not make a scatter plot and have a look see for yourself? The statistician (or any one who knows a little about statistics) could help you with this. And, of course, we hope you would share that plot with us after it is made. Based on what you find you might be able to drop manganese testing on samples from some regions but retain it for others. Of course having the test data is always better than not having it if for nothing else than to bolster the size of the sample upon from which you calculate correlation.

If OP has read any of this and gotten this far: With the low iron you probably have low Mn but I can't say you definitely don't. Were I you I wouldn't worry about it. If you had any of the symptoms of Fe or Mn it would have to have been from Mn as you have no Fe but that doesn't matter as the treatment is the same.

 

[ajdelange]

I never said anything about a metallic taste, I said it doesn't taste good compared to when it's filtered. It leaves white stains behind.

Didn't think you did. Martin must just be on a Manganese kick these days.

You did mention the white deposits earlier and ask if any of the treatments recommended would end them. RO filtration removes most everything from the water and will reduce the amount of residue on boiling or evaporation greatly. The other treatments will not. The deposits you are seeing are made up of calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodium carbonate and calcium carbonate. If you neutralize the alkalinity, as suggested, with, say, phosphoric acid you will still have residue but instead of calcium and sodium carbonate you will have calcium and sodium phosphate.

Boiling the water and then cooling it may cause precipitation of calcium carbonate thus removing a portion of the alkaliity. This is just dropping some of the residue early but the decanted (softened and decarbonated) water will leave less residue.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Lawrence, I have moderated other sulfate additions when using meta. But it just didn't correct the perceptions that I was perceiving in those beers with roast. I've had no problems in using meta for LODO purposes in pale beer styles.

Good to know. My currently on deck (to be brewed a bit more than one week from today) batch is a Milk Stout, and I had planned to make it my first foray into LoDO. Based upon your experience I'm now thinking of giving my first attempt at LoDO a pass for this Stout.

 

[kingschiff]

Didn't think you did. Martin must just be on a Manganese kick these days.

You did mention the white deposits earlier and ask if any of the treatments recommended would end them. RO filtration removes most everything from the water and will reduce the amount of residue on boiling or evaporation greatly. The other treatments will not. The deposits you are seeing are made up of calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodium carbonate and calcium carbonate. If you neutralize the alkalinity, as suggested, with, say, phosphoric acid you will still have residue but instead of calcium and sodium carbonate you will have calcium and sodium phosphate.

Boiling the water and then cooling it may cause precipitation of calcium carbonate thus removing a portion of the alkaliity. This is just dropping some of the residue early but the decanted (softened and decarbonated) water will leave less residue.

Based on what I know, I think I'll continue using distilled water and building from there. I just don't see a good enough profile, or a big enough cost savings to switch to tap. Especially I've really been nailing some of the beers I'm doing, so I don't want to add another variable.

I appreciate all your help, and everyone's help who offered comments!!

 

[ajdelange]

Your water isn't bad by any means but starting from RO is always going to be better because you have total control. Don't worry about profiles too much. Having water that is broadly similar to the profile that is associated with a style is plenty good enough to the point where just adding half a gram or so of CaCl2 to RO water is almost guaranteed to give you a decent beer. This is not to say that you can't improve upon that by tweaking the CaCl2, adding some CaSO4 and NaCl etc. Profiles are of interest to people who are interested in solutions to the implied optimization problem or are selling software.