Do Campden tablets adjust a waters mineral profile?

[HantsGaz]

Hi all,

The day before a brew day I normally fill my liquor tank up with tap water, leave over night and then adjust the mineral profile in the morning. Having not used a Campden tablet before I was thinking of trying one out for my next brew – and the above question occurred to me. So, will the addition of this alter the mineral profile of my tap water or can I ignore this?

Thanks, Gaz.

[6470zzy]

Campden tablets are used to rid your brewing water of chloramine and stop wild yeast., they aren't for adjusting mineral levels. Try some Burton salts for that .

Cheers

[HantsGaz]

Hi Chris,

So I can assume that the mineral profile won't change after adding the Campden tablet? E.g. my water starts off as:

Alkalinity as CaCO3: 232 mg/l
Carbonate as CO3: 139.2 mg/l

Calcium: 54.4 mg/l
Magnesium: 2.8 mg/l
Sodium: 8.2 mg/l
Sulphate: 10.4 mg/l
Chloride: 21.6 mg/l

PH: 8.23

Or do I need to factor in anything as you say that the sulphate and chloride is reduced - but again you say insignifcant levels - so I'm thinking just treat the water as normal?

Thanks, Gaz.

[6470zzy]

Campden tablets take the chloramine out of the water and boiling or charcoal filtering will remove chlorine. Mineral content is another issue.

Cheers

[Jim]

Hi Chris,

So I can assume that the mineral profile won't change after adding the Campden tablet? E.g. my water starts off as:

Alkalinity as CaCO3: 232 mg/l
Carbonate as CO3: 139.2 mg/l

Calcium: 54.4 mg/l
Magnesium: 2.8 mg/l
Sodium: 8.2 mg/l
Sulphate: 10.4 mg/l
Chloride: 21.6 mg/l

PH: 8.23

Or do I need to factor in anything as you say that the sulphate and chloride is reduced - but again you say insignifcant levels - so I'm thinking just treat the water as normal?

Thanks, Gaz.

Chris is saying that insignificant extra amounts of sulphate and chloride are produced. Treat your water as if they weren't there.

[HantsGaz]

Perfect - thanks guys.

[WallyBrew]

HG you've still got that dodgy calcium figure there.

You know it should be 100 to 110 from your own water authority, or approximately twice what was reported.

Did you ever get a response from Murphys?

[HantsGaz]

Hi WB - yes I did get a reply from Murphy's, I quoted your calculations and this is the response:

Thanks for your explanation as to why you think that the reuslts to your water analysis do not balance.

In our laboratory our procedures and methodology are desgiend to obtain results of the ions present in water specifically for brewing purposes. Therefore only the relevant ions are quantified. The ions that we find relevant are as follows: Calcium, Magnesium, Bicarbonate, Sulphate, Nitratre and Chloride. Our aim is to get those figures and suggest possible treatments so that the correct level of the ions are converted into acceptable brewing liquor. Therefore we do not test the other ions which may be the possible Cations that are causing the imbalance that you are referring to. Such cations are not tested. Some anions are not tested also.

Evidence has shown that we achieve great results using this service as our customer tend to find that once treated their liquors express a consistent and ideal pH throughout the whole brewing process and also the ion levels in their finshed product (beer) are of the correct levels.

Our techniques in our laboratory are tested and callabrated under the BAPS scheme (The Brewing Analystes Porfieciency shceme) which is an international scheme jointly adminsitered by Campden BRI and LGC limited and is designed to promote quality in the measurement of a range of chemical, microbial and sensory analytes to help monitor and improve quality of our measurements. This test is performed monthly and we never fail

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

So I'm still left without a conclusive answer. Interestingly enough though, I had PM from someone that has water from the same supply point and has used a Salifert kit and his reading was around 100 higher too.....

Rgds, Gaz.

[Graham]

Hi WB - yes I did get a reply from Murphy's...

....So I'm still left without a conclusive answer. Interestingly enough though, I had PM from someone that has water from the same supply point and has used a Salifert kit and his reading was around 100 higher too.....

Rgds, Gaz.

I will point out that pdtnc had his water tested by Murphy's, and, after I did some balance calculations, the calcium reported by Murphy's was exactly half of the true figure. - so this is the second time that I have seen a Murphy's analysis and both times it has been wrong (and by the same factor). Methinks they have got a dilution factor screwed somewhere. Makes you wonder

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27926&p=303595#p303595

[HantsGaz]

Double post!

[HantsGaz]

Hi Graham,

Yes, it certainly does! All the other non-Murphy's-evidence points to my Ca figure being approx double what Murphy's have provided. Which is a shame if it is a calculation error as Murphy's provided this for free and were extremely helpful along the way. I think I'm going to up my Ca figure to 98 (from 54) as using your calculator this now gives my water a 5.48:5.46 Cations to Anions ratio.

Rgds, Gaz.

**EDIT: Thanks to WB to forcing this issue too!

[HantsGaz]

I've just found something else that may support Murphy's Ca figure being too low. On the Brupaks website it states that a good approximation of Ca is 0.4 * the original alkalinity (CaC03). So if I use my reading of 232, then I get 232 * 0.4 = 92.8.

http://www.brupaks.com/water%20treatment.htm about half way down the page.

[Aleman]

Back to the original question,

In one of the later editions of brewers contact someone actually posted the additions that adding 1 campden tablet to 17UK Gallons of liquor with a total chlorine content of 3ppm (Worst Case as Chloramine) . . .

would add 1.9mg/l of sodium; 3mg/l of chloride, 8mg/l of sulphate, 1.5mg/l ammonium ions and the alkalinity would be reduced by 4.2mg/l as calcium carbonate

[HantsGaz]

Cheers Aleman.