Water report shows huge swings in hardness

[BandonBrewingCo]

Hi,

My water report shows a relatively stable PH variation between 7.73 - 8.29 (currently lying at 8.02) but my hardness is showing huge swings between 6.03-18.4 in German Degrees of Hardness. My latest reading was at the low end of that at 6.41°dH.

Is this something I need to worry about? Should I take the middle range for Brun water? As a beginner I only want to add some lactic acid to get my PH down so not sure what to do.

Thanks in advance

My water report for reference (left: current readings, right: previous result range)

Edit: The brun inputs:

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

For those wondering:

17.848 x dH = ppm

and also:

mg/L = ppm

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

For those wondering:

17.848 x dH = ppm

and also:

mg/L = ppm

Yes sorry. I've updated the OP to include the translated brunwater results. I did Alkalinity mmol/l * 50 to get 112 ppm as CaCO3 so I hope that's correct.
Found some conversion tables here

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You will be acidifying to remove carbonate hardness (alkalinity as CaCO3), and not general hardness, so swings in general hardness may not be an issue of serious concern here.

It looks like your alkalinity ranges (spans) from 96 ppm to 142 ppm. Bicarb would then range (span) from 117 ppm to 173 ppm.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Also for those wondering, we would most commonly refer to 'general hardness' as 'total hardness' here in the States.

Also, total hardness is not TDS.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You should be able to rearrange the following formula to determine your waters Ca++ ppm:

Total Hardness = (2.5*Ca++) + (4.12 * Mg++)

Testing this I get:

(6.41 x 17.848) = (2.5*Ca++) + (4.12 x 12.4)

(114.406 - 51.088)/2.5 = Ca++

Ca++ = 25.3 ppm

This differs from the Ca++ figure of 45.8 ppm that you are using. Perhaps I'm not doing this correctly.

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

I

You should be able to rearrange the following formula to determine your waters Ca++ ppm:

Total Hardness = (2.5*Ca++) + (4.12 * Mg++)

Testing this I get:

(6.41 x 17.848) = (2.5*Ca++) + (4.12 x 12.4)

(114.406 - 51.088)/2.5 = Ca++

Ca++ = 25.3 ppm

This differs from the Ca++ figure of 45.8 ppm that you are using. Perhaps I'm not doing this correctly.

I got mine from the brunwater helper.

Also my bicarb level is roughly in the middle of the reported range so I guess panic over? Brunwater tells me to add 6ml lactic acid to get a pH of 5.4 so I'll see how that goes and report back

 

[ajdelange]

Clearly your supplier is blending multiple sources. The swing in total hardness is of some concern, of course, but what you should really be worried about is the swing in alkalinity which can range from 1.92 to 2.84 mEq/L. In the worst case you would need quite a bit more acid than in the best case. From the pH management point of view this is a case where the 0 Effective Alkalinity method clearly is of benefit.

But look at the range of sulfate. And the range of magnesium. This implies calcium content of between 1.1793 and 4.3810 mEq/L (23.6 to 95.6 mg/L). If these potential ranges aren't of concern then you can go ahead with this water but a spreadsheet isn't going to be of much use because you really have no idea what number to put into it. The 0 Effective Alkalinity method is ideal for this case. Note that you would still use a spreadsheet to calculate the necessary acid additions for the malt. If you want tighter control over sulfate etc. then you will have to get RO or DI water.

 

[ajdelange]

Also my bicarb level is roughly in the middle of the reported range so I guess panic over?

Bicarbonate level is pretty much immaterial except as a matter of curiosity. The second generation spreadsheets don't use it (but my new one does display it as people are so hung up on it). BTW had great time throwing it at this problem with its mixture of dH, mg/L, and liters.

Brunwater tells me to add 6ml lactic acid to get a pH of 5.4 so I'll see how that goes and report back

Assuming that you are mashing 6.5 kg of malt with 19L of water then you'd need about 5.8 mL lactic acid for the best case and about 6.3 for the worst. 6 is about in the middle.

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

Phew, thanks everyone for all the help! My water is indeed blended and/or switched throughout the year.

I guess the 0 alkalinity method is the way forward for me!

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

Bicarbonate level is pretty much immaterial except as a matter of curiosity. The second generation spreadsheets don't use it (but my new one does display it as people are so hung up on it). BTW had great time throwing it at this problem with its mixture of dH, mg/L, and liters.

Have you a link for your calculator? (Or are you referring to Mash Made Easy?)

 

[mabrungard]

Phew, thanks everyone for all the help! My water is indeed blended and/or switched throughout the year.

I guess the 0 alkalinity method is the way forward for me!

I don't believe that that method would provide you with satisfactory results. You still need to be able to assess and accommodate your water's variation. If you plan on using your water supply, I recommend that you contact the water supplier and ask for the water parameters from the two water sources (hopefully its only two) and then you can enter them into a calculator such as Bru'n Water to better estimate what your current water quality is. Unfortunately, you'll need the supporter's version to do this blending exercise easily.

You should be able to employ two relatively simple and inexpensive testing kits for calcium hardness and alkalinity and use those results to vary the percentages of the two (I'm hoping) water sources within the water calculator until the blended water better matches your current water measurements. That way, you have a better estimate of your starting water conditions and will be able to get closer to your water and mashing targets.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Have you a link for your calculator? (Or are you referring to Mash Made Easy?)

A.J. deLange is not affiliated with 'Mash Made Easy' though he is credited for some of the workings and inspiration for it.

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

My town gives 3 different water reports from 3 different zones. Should I take the average value from each of the 3? I only made a screenshot of the zone I live in but can post up the other 2 if there's any interest

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

My initial guess is that you may only be receiving water from one of the three sources at any given time. I would call the water company and ask them if they can be more specific with regard to their current water analyticals.

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

My initial guess is that you may only be receiving water from one of the three sources at any given time. I would call the water company and ask them if they can be more specific with regard to their current water analyticals.

Oh yes they say that themselves in the water report. Essentially it translates to "we'll change the source only as required, ie, for out of the ordinary circumstances". I got a new ph meter today and calibrated it and measured by tap water and it was ~8.0 which is much closer to my zone than the other two which are around 7.5.

I've brewed plenty of beers that turned out fine with my water so I'll just see how it goes at the weekend with the 6ml lactic acid. We're also due another water report soon (they have to publish 2 per year) so I'll hopefully have a better idea of my mineral content then.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You should be able to employ two relatively simple and inexpensive testing kits for calcium hardness and alkalinity and use those results to vary the percentages of the two (I'm hoping) water sources within the water calculator until the blended water better matches your current water measurements. That way, you have a better estimate of your starting water conditions and will be able to get closer to your water and mashing targets.

Inexpensive fresh water fish tank water testing kits generally include "GH and KH" tests, and these both should be available separately as well. Get the type with liquid drops and a test tube, as opposed to the test kits with strips of paper. I believe these may be what Martin is referring to.

GH is general hardness (or total hardness). KH is Carbonate Hardness (or alkalinity).

After you know your GH, multiply it by 17.848. Then take this answer and multiply it by 0.70, and lastly divide this result by 2.5. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Ca++ (calcium) ppm.

Then take the same GH and again multiply it by 17.848. Take this answer and multiply it by 0.30, and lastly divide this result by 4.12. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Mg++ (magnesium) ppm.

And lastly, KH x 17.848 = alkalinity in ppm. And if for some reason you need bicarbonate ppm, divide alkalinity ppm by 0.82.

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

Inexpensive fresh water fish tank water testing kits generally include "GH and KH" tests, and these both should be available separately as well. Get the type with liquid drops and a test tube, as opposed to the test kits with strips of paper. I believe these may be what Martin is referring to.

GH is general hardness (or total hardness). KH is Carbonate Hardness (or alkalinity).

After you know your GH, multiply it by 17.848. Then take this answer and multiply it by 0.70, and lastly divide this result by 2.5. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Ca++ (calcium) ppm.

Then take the same GH and again multiply it by 17.848. Take this answer and multiply it by 0.30, and lastly divide this result by 4.12. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Mg++ (magnesium) ppm.

And lastly, KH x 17.848 = alkalinity in ppm. And if for some reason you need bicarbonate ppm, divide alkalinity ppm by 0.82.

Great info there, thanks a mill! Found a €20 one like you described here

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Yes, that should work fine.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Perhaps I should take this GH and KH advice and separate it into its own post, and then request a sticky for it. I'm pretty sure that the original inspiration for it came from Kai Troester, so perhaps there is already a sticky for it somewhere. Moderators, what say ye?

 

[ajdelange]

I don't believe that that method would provide you with satisfactory results. You still need to be able to assess and accommodate your water's variation.

You aren't grasping the essence of the 0 Alkainity method. I obviates the need to compensate for water's variation with respect to alkalinity. You do not need to assess the water's alkalinity. That is done implicitly within the method as is the "calculation" of the acid amount needed to neutralize to mash pH. The acid needed for the water and the acid needed for the malt are entirely separable. The 0 Alkalinity method takes care of the water part with one exception that I will get to in a minute. I strongly suspect that one of the problems with first generation spreadsheets is that they try to couple malt and water alkalinity perhaps through residual alkalinity but I really have no idea how they work. I also suspect that this is responsible for some of the spectacularly wild answers they give.

A second generation spreadsheet understands that there is a proton deficit associated with the water, a proton deficit assignable to the alkalinity in it, a proton deficit for each malt, computes them separately, sums them up and either adjusts an acid addition or malt amount to set this sum to 0 when pH control is the goal or varies pH to get 0 deficit when pH is being estimated. The 0 alkalinity method works by setting the deficit of the water and the bicarboate/carbonate in it to 0 by the simple expedient of setting the water's pH to the target mash pH.

What I said I'd come back to: the OP's water varies somewhat widely in alkalinity. The 0 Alkalinity method takes care of that. It does not take care of the huge variation in sulfate. Sulfate is difficult for a home brewer to test for except grossly (precision of 50 mg/L) so either one must accept that he will not know where his sulfate falls or swamp it with huge additions which will not be suitable for many styles. It will also not compensate for the small variations in mash pH attributable to calcium variation. Still more on that later.

If you plan on using your water supply, I recommend that you contact the water supplier and ask for the water parameters from the two water sources (hopefully its only two) and then you can enter them into a calculator such as Bru'n Water to better estimate what your current water quality is.

Unless you know which source is being drawn from or in what proportion the two (or more) sources are being blended, a spreasheet, even a second generation one, will do you no good.

Unfortunately, you'll need the supporter's version to do this blending exercise easily.

Fortunately there are free calculators coming on line that will do a better job of calculating the properties of blended waters. Most of the first generation ones don't even ask about the waters' pH values or process reported alkalinity correctly. This is mooted if the 0 alkalinity method is used.

You should be able to employ two relatively simple and inexpensive testing kits for calcium hardness and alkalinity and use those results to vary the percentages of the two (I'm hoping) water sources within the water calculator until the blended water better matches your current water measurements.

But how does he know how much of what the utility is blending and how does he get the separate source samples to test? More practical for him to test the water that comes out of the tap on brew day (perhaps that's what you meant to say). Or use the 0 alkalinity method which doesn't care.

Now I firmly endorse the idea of obtaining the tests and checking the water each time one brews. The more you know about your water the better. Even if using the 0 Alkalinity method you will want to know the calcium and magnesium hardnesses in order that you can estimate the protons those ions produce in the mash. Those protons get deducted from the total mash proton deficit - 0 alkalinity method or otherwise.

That way, you have a better estimate of your starting water conditions and will be able to get closer to your water and mashing targets.[/QUOTE]

 

[ajdelange]

Have you a link for your calculator? (Or are you referring to Mash Made Easy?)

No, not Mash Made easy. What I am talking about is a new second generation spreadsheet that I cooked up when I, after years of procrastination, learned how to write VBA code for Excel. You don't learn much VBA in a couple of weeks so this is very beta and I've only given it to a couple of code mavens who have expressed an interest in another thread. It is very powerful and, I think, easy to use but then I put it together so it does just what I think it should do. It is based on the concept of zeroing mash proton deficit that I got into a bit above. Now Martin doesn't understand this and I have yet to find anyone else who does either and while it is in fact a very simple concept I evidently don't explain it very well and fear that a spreadsheet based on it may be totally bewildering. But I would be delighted if you would like to try it and let me know how you find it. There are, of course, some bugs in it that I know about and others that I don't but if you PM me an e-mail address a copy will soon be on the way.

 

[ajdelange]

Inexpensive fresh water fish tank water testing kits generally include "GH and KH" tests, and these both should be available separately as well. Get the type with liquid drops and a test tube, as opposed to the test kits with strips of paper. I believe these may be what Martin is referring to.

GH is general hardness (or total hardness). KH is Carbonate Hardness (or alkalinity).

After you know your GH, multiply it by 17.848. Then take this answer and multiply it by 0.70, and lastly divide this result by 2.5. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Ca++ (calcium) ppm.

There is sufficient information here to determine the calcium exactly (or as exactly as the report data allow). His total hardness is 6.41 °dH corresponding to 2.286 mEq/L and his magnesium concentration is 12.4 mg/L corresponding to magnesium hardness of 1.0206 mEq/L. The difference is the calcium hardness of 1.2654 mEq/L for a calcium ion concentration of 20 times this or 25.3 mg/L.

Then take the same GH and again multiply it by 17.848. Take this answer and multiply it by 0.30, and lastly divide this result by 4.12. This will be a good first guess as to your waters Mg++ (magnesium) ppm.

The magnesium content is given directly. It is 12.4 mg/L

And lastly, KH x 17.848 = alkalinity in ppm.

There are two alkalinity numbers here. The Carbonathärte (KH) which, at 6.14 °dH, corresponds to 2.19 mEq/L. This is the part of the hardness which is paired with bicarbonate/carbonate, i.e. the temporary hardness which, in cases where there is some permanent hardness as well (there is here) is equal approximately, to the alkalinity. Clearly this is what is measured by the drop count kits we are talking about here but I don't really know what the end point pH is for those. The report also lists the Säurekapacität which is the actual alkaliity and they even specify the end point of the titration as being 4.3. I must comment that this is the first time in my life that I have ever seen the end point give. This alkalinity is listed as 2.24 mmol/L corresponding to 2.24 mEq/L. Multiplying by 50 gives ppm numbers of 109.5 and 112.1 ppm as CaCO3 with the former referenced to an unknown end point and the latter to 4.3. As I have have never seen a first generation spreadsheet ask for end point titration data I don't immagine it makes much difference that the alkalinity number on this report is referred to pHe = 4.3. Most laboratories use the ISO standard pHe = 4.5 so assuming that most calculators would use that value (if they even consider this factor) this alkalinity should be adjusted to 110.7 ppm.

And if for some reason you need bicarbonate ppm, divide alkalinity ppm by 0.82.

A bicarbonate number is not really needed but people are used to seeing it and indeed several of the first generation spreadsheets use it as a proxy for alkalinity. Dividing the alkalinity in ppm by 0.82 ≈ 50/61 (bicarbonate is estimated by multiplying alkalinity in mEq/L by the molecular weight of the bicarbonate ion which is 61) would give 112.112/.82 = 136.72 mg/L. The actual bicarbonate for this case would be 133.48mg/L because the 50/61 approximation starts to fail when pH approaches 8 as it does here.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I agree with the above A.J., but BandonBrewingCo can not necessarily rely upon past printed analytical data for what is potentially an ever changing set of water values, and this is why the request was made to run the simple GH/KH tests before each brewing session. If however the water company is actually capable of giving accurate and right up to the date of brewing analytical information, then the suggested GH/KH testing would not be necessary.

And does it really make that much of a noticeable difference on brew day if the alkalinity is computed to be 109.5, or 112.1, or 110.7 ppm?

 

[BandonBrewingCo]

But I would be delighted if you would like to try it and let me know how you find it. There are, of course, some bugs in it that I know about and others that I don't but if you PM me an e-mail address a copy will soon be on the way.

Sweet, PM sent. I'm brewing this weekend so feedback should be swift.

 

[ajdelange]

I agree with the above A.J., but BandonBrewingCo can not necessarily rely upon past printed analytical data for what is potentially an ever changing set of water values, and this is why the request was made to run the simple GH/KH tests before each brewing session.

I didn't mean to suggest that he should.

If however the water company is actually capable of giving accurate and right up to the date of brewing analytical information, then the suggested GH/KH testing would not be necessary.

It isn't and therefore testing is always better but most home brewers don't have the gear for anything beyond crude drop count tests (which are, in general, good enough).

And does it really make that much of a noticeable difference on brew day if the alkalinity is computed to be 109.5, or 112.1, or 110.7 ppm?

The post was in response to your proposal that the content of No. 17 be made into a sticky. A Sticky here represents a sort of standard. It needs to be held to higher standards than the normal post. The reader must be confident that its information is correct down to the fine details. No. 17 says, for example "GH is general hardness (or total hardness). KH is Carbonate Hardness (or alkalinity)." That's fine for a general post but GH is an abbreviation for Gesamtehärte from sammeln which means to gather or collect thus GH is the Total Hardness. KH isn't the alkalinity. It is the carbonate hardness (temporary hardness in English) which is close to the alkalinity in the common case where total hardness exceeds alkalinity but consider a solution of 3 mmol of sodium bicarbonate and a mmol of CaCl2 in a liter of water. The total hardness would be 2 mEq/L and the temporary hardness (KH) would also be 2 mEq/L (independent of any titration end point) but the alkalinity would be around 3 mEq/L with the actual value dependent on end point. The alkalinity is the Säurekapacität bis pHe which translates as "Acid (absorbing) capacity" to pHe. As noted in my previous post, the example report here was bis 4.3. This is different from what is used in North America and, while it does not make a big difference, someone confronting a German water report should be aware of this. A sticky which is going to explain how to read a German water report should, if it does not mention all this stuff at least not conflict with it.

Now this gets me thinking about the aquarium test kits that measure "KH". In fact, from what I know, they actually measure Säurekapacität by dropping strong acid into a sample until an indicator turns color. To compute KH the analyst would then have to measure the GH and use the following logic:

If GH > Säurekapacität Then
KH = Säurekapacität
Else
KH = GH
End If

Do the instructions with the kits mention any of this? Since everything I have seen simply instructs people to convert KH from °dH to ppm as CaCO3 and treat it as alkalinity does it matter?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I didn't mean to suggest that he should.

It isn't and therefore testing is always better but most home brewers don't have the gear for anything beyond crude drop count tests (which are, in general, good enough).

The post was in response to your proposal that the content of No. 17 be made into a sticky. A Sticky here represents a sort of standard. It needs to be held to higher standards than the normal post. The reader must be confident that its information is correct down to the fine details. No. 17 says, for example "GH is general hardness (or total hardness). KH is Carbonate Hardness (or alkalinity)." That's fine for a general post but GH is an abbreviation for Gesamtehärte from sammeln which means to gather or collect thus GH is the Total Hardness. KH isn't the alkalinity. It is the carbonate hardness (temporary hardness in English) which is close to the alkalinity in the common case where total hardness exceeds alkalinity but consider a solution of 3 mmol of sodium bicarbonate and a mmol of CaCl2 in a liter of water. The total hardness would be 2 mEq/L and the temporary hardness (KH) would also be 2 mEq/L (independent of any titration end point) but the alkalinity would be around 3 mEq/L with the actual value dependent on end point. The alkalinity is the Säurekapacität bis pHe which translates as "Acid (absorbing) capacity" to pHe. As noted in my previous post, the example report here was bis 4.3. This is different from what is used in North America and, while it does not make a big difference, someone confronting a German water report should be aware of this. A sticky which is going to explain how to read a German water report should, if it does not mention all this stuff at least not conflict with it.

Now this gets me thinking about the aquarium test kits that measure "KH". In fact, from what I know, they actually measure Säurekapacität by dropping strong acid into a sample until an indicator turns color. To compute KH the analyst would then have to measure the GH and use the following logic:

If GH > Säurekapacität Then
KH = Säurekapacität
Else
KH = GH
End If

Do the instructions with the kits mention any of this? Since everything I have seen simply instructs people to convert KH from °dH to ppm as CaCO3 and treat it as alkalinity does it matter?

The proposed sticky is not attempting to teach anyone how to translate a Germanic water report, but rather how to (within strictly the confines of brewing, and not in the likes of concocting sodium bicarbonate and CaCl2 solutions) nominally equate GH and KH to workable "ballpark" calcium concentration, magnesium concentration, and alkalinity, with sufficient reliability by which to make reasonable batch adjustment choices with the goal of hitting a target mash pH. This is nothing less than what your friend Kai Troester (Braukaiser) did when creating his Kaiser Water Calculator, which directly accepts GH and KH, as does to my knowledge the Brewer's Friend program which he is presumed to have collaborated on, wherein I must presume that both treat GH and KH much the same as I have (since they yield the same answers as do my simple formulas).

BTW, fish tank water test kits purchased within the USA are all (to my knowledge) scaled in units of GH and KH. And for many people worldwide who would benefit from the knowledge of how to utilize these inexpensive fish tank test kit tools on brewing water collection day, leading to actual brew day, I thought they may be of some assistance. But you are right, the rather rounding and assumptive (ballpark) methods of utilizing GH and KH kits which I have presented are far to crude for science at the level which you have personally established for this, your forum, so I hereby formally withdraw my request for a sticky. I would not want confuse anyone via any of such down to earth methods in an attempt to help them.

But might I ask (in light of being presented with such high level scientific scrutiny as the established bar to be met for all "Brewing Science" stickies) how such a highly subjective sticky as the "A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer" ever become a sticky promoted within this forum?

 

[ajdelange]

Well this is the Brew Science forum. The sticky you propose might be very well suited to the All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing forum and/or the Recipes/Ingredients forum.

It's not up to me to determine what get's stickied or not - that's up to the moderators. Just trying to help you to get a more meaningful sticky. If you want to propose your post as a sticky click the report button to get a moderator's attention and put in the message that you are proposing the post for stickiehood.

As to the sodium bicarbonate/calcium chloride solution comment [Edit: This was in response to a comment which has apparently been removed since I posted this]: There are waters out there with no permanent hardness (alkalinity exceeds hardness) - it's just not that common. Such waters are solutions of sodium (and/or potassium) bicarbonate and calcium/magnesium chloride/sulfate.