|
| ▲ | justin66 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I gather even artesian wells can contain these chemicals, which get pretty much everywhere. On the other hand, based on the article you linked to, if something like a Berkey filter is sufficient (I have doubts about their testing, but whatever) the cost is probably not prohibitive. Assuming there's something as effective as a Berkey which can handle a more practical flow of water, but at the same cost per volume of water handled. |
|
| ▲ | ch4s3 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some places with weird water profiles will set up RO systems and add minerals to build a water profile on top of that, but it's far from the norm. People decide based on how their municipal water supply works with the kind of beers they want to make. I've seen a few brewhouses in the process of being built and talked to some commercial brewers about water, and depending on the location some places just use municipal water. New York water has a great profile for beer. |
| |
| ▲ | timr 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don't need reverse osmosis to filter out PFAS -- activated carbon will do it. | | |
| ▲ | d4v3 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Activated carbon will remove the larger chain PFAs, but is not as effective as removing the smaller ones. From the paper: > Conventional water treatment employed at municipal
drinking water treatment plants have been shown to be nearly
ineffective at removing PFAS. This can leave the burden
and cost of implementing more sophisticated water treatments
to brewers unless public water suppliers implement tertiary
treatment to remove PFAS from finished water prior to
distribution. Anion exchange and activated carbon treatments
have been shown to more effectively remove longer-chain
PFAS and PFSAs but were less effective in removing PFCAS
and the alternative shorter-chain PFAS and PFECAs.
Reverse osmosis treatment showed significant removal of
PFAS of different chain lengths in drinking water, but can be
prohibitive due to high operational costs and energy usage.
In areas with known contamination, beers from macro-
breweries were less likely to have detectable PFAS than craft
beers brewed at a smaller scale, potentially due to more
effective and expensive filtration of tap water at larger
breweries. | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This isn't correct in the general case. In the specific case of brewing, if you're filtering at all it makes sense to use an RO system so that you can then do mineral adjustments from the RO base water.I'm not aware of any brewers outside of homebrewing using charcoal filtration. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lubujackson 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There is a reason literally no beer maker does this. Hard to promote beer on health factors when it is already a literal poison... |
