Cleaning new vinyl?

My old MFSL inner sleeves I found also caused some hairline scratches as they cling to the record when inserting and removing.

Are you asking if the Okki Nokki scratches records? It does not have brushes like the Spin Clean if thats what youre asking, it does have felt pads which rub the record much like your RDV, with them soaked in water which acts as a buffer I dont find my RCM to leave any scratches no, but its a good habit to remove large debris off the record before using the RCM so it doesnt rub it around the record.

Yes, which is why I dont clean all new records, only the dirt or really noisy ones I think I can improve. Until I have a very easy to use Ultrasonic, I probably wont change that.

 

You're jumping from one test to the next, giving the impression that the fluids used in the immersion test were sampled for plasticisers, but I don't think that is the case. This is the passage from the text with my emphasis in bold:

The assessment of plasticizer leaching from the bulk polymer could not be done directly using the chosen infrared spectroscopy method. The penetration of the cleaning agents into the bulk could
not be measured by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, since this is a surface analysis technique. Therefore the tendency to absorb cleaning agents into this particular plastic material was assessed by weight gains (indicating absorption) or losses (indicating leaching) after immersion, using a procedure proposed by Sale (1988) and described in detail in the Appendix. The results of this testing are shown in Table 3. The samples weight after water immersion remained steady at 2 minutes of immersion, but started to increase measurably after 2 hours. In contrast, the weight of the samples immersed in at 2
minutes of immersion, and this weight loss continued until the end of the experiment. Therefore, under the experimental conditions described in this research (cleaning treatments performed with
damp cotton swabs in 5 sec sequences up to a maximum of 100 sec), the absorption of deionized water, ethanol, and propanol was judged to be negligible during the cleaning processes. However,
weight decrease after ethanol and propanol immersions was interpreted as a leaching of plasticizer from the samples, and that process was investigated further in more detail.​

Unless the various fluid samples used in the immersion test were tested for plasticizers, there is no way of knowing whether it was plasticizer moving around, or water, or both.

Put simply, if the vinyl can gain weight by being placed in water, it can certainly shed water weight by being placed in alcohol.

There was actually a test performed and results posted right at this forum, via this thread:
Test to Determine Isopropyl Alcohol Attack on LP Vinyl

The following is a test to determine the effect of isopropyl alcohol on old LP vinyl.
Sample: Early 1970s? Cream - Wheels Of Fire
Sample size: 7 sq in. with duplicate. Total is 14 sq in.
Sample Prep: Wash with dishwashing detergent, rinse, dry with compressed air.
Procedure: Weigh sample. Place in solution for 6 days at room temp. Dry with compressed air and re-weigh.

Duplicate Results Given Below
100% DI water 0.128% and 0.146% weight GAIN
5% isopropanol 0.143% and 0.136% weight GAIN
10% isopropanol 0.129% and 0.123% weight GAIN
50% isopropanol 0.0962% and 0.108% weight GAIN
100% isopropanol 0.0917% and 0.136% weight LOSS

Observations: No visual difference between samples (vinyl and solutions). No apparent breakdown of the PVC. When quickly drawn across white paper, no black marks were seen. No difference seen when the PVC was scratched and scraped with a knife. No difference in sample flexibility.

I’ve read about concerns of plasticizer leech-out on LPs with alcohol. Clearly the weight loss at 100% isopropanol is a concern but occasional cleaning with a 5-10% isopropanol solution is probably very safe for LP vinyl.​

As you can see, using samples of an actual record, the weight loss from 100% alcohol immersion was on the same order as the weight gain from water immersion. So when one takes into account alcohol's LOVE of water, it begins to look like a wash (no pun intended).

The problem with the rest of that study you cite, is that it involved photo-aging of the samples that were then exposed to the cleaning agents. The intense UV rays caused the plasticizers to migrate, so the damage (to the vinyl) was already done. Yes, the alcohol was superior at mopping-up the plasticizers that had been released by the UV light, I'm not so sure that isn't actually a plus.

But we don't typically treat our vinyl like that, our vinyl mostly lives in darkness.

In summary, I don't think a study of a vinyl formulation more similar to shower curtains, a study which perhaps misinterprets the immersion test results, one that bombards the test samples with intense UV rays, is applicable to vinyl record cleaning.

 

I wouldn't play an album w/o at least a brushing.

Anecdotally, I think playing records repeatedly without at least brushing them will lead to them getting noisy pretty quickly.

Mind you, I listen to classical and jazz at higher SPL, so I may be less tolerant of even slightly noisy vinyl than most.

 

Agreed. I would certainly always give records a good brushing with the carbon fibre brush; however, my main question is considering any permanent damage that only doing this would create on either the record or stylus. I know a lot of people suggest that wet cleaning and vacuuming is essential, but I've yet to see any real, factual data/photos to support this.

 

IMHO, of course, there is no risk of permanent damage if you don't wet clean new records before play.

 

The detail they performed with FTIR is noted by this paragraph in the paper "Previous researchers have already quantified by relative methods the increase of carbonyl groups on PVC-composed materials during artificial aging (Mantuana and Kamdem 2002). Based on these studies, the decrease rather than the increase of the plasticizer carbonyl band in the PVC sample in this study was quantified during the cleaning processes. For this purpose, a “Plasticizer Index” (PI) was calculated (Stark and Matuana 2004) as the ratio of the peak intensities of the plasticizer carbonyl band and the PVC C-H band before and after the cleaning treatments (Eq. 1). Thus, the PI indicates the percent of plasticizer lost from the sample surface due to extraction during the cleaning treatment. Since the PI represents plasticizer loss, PI values are expressed as negative numbers:"

Otherwise the study I was referencing was only in response to your prior post. I clearly put a disclaimer on it by the HOWEVER - it may have nothing to do with a PVC/PVA copolymer record.

HOWEVER, the one test accomplished on a 1970's vinyl record you reference above was accomplished in 2008; so the record had been aged for over 30-yrs; albeit hopefully not exposed to any intense UV light. And, the record that was tested was pre-cleaned with an unknown dish detergent at an unknown concentration and while being stated to be rinsed, more then likely detergent residue was left behind. And, to dry with compressed is not exactly the best process - how dry and filtered was the air, was it oil-free? When you do coupon testing and generally follow one of the ASTM chemical compatibility tests, the coupons are pre/post dried in a desiccator.

When I was with the US Navy and we did a rigorous 24-hr aqueous cleaning agent material compatibility testing in the mid-1990's with unaged ASTM non-rigid PVC (10% plasticizer/copolymer) and many other materials; we found that as have many a small amount of water was absorbed, but one water based cleaning agent that contained a non-ionic surfactant similar to Triton X100 (not the same as Tergitol) after exposure at 150F showed weight loss. Unfortunately , for that particular sample we did not do tensile testing. We did not test alcohol (we did not consider alcohol an acceptable solvent for the study), we did test CFC-113 solvent and it showed significant weight loss. But, weight loss shows only one factor, a loss of tensile strength could be an indicator that the delicate groove side wall ridges may be at risk.

Otherwise, its pretty safe to say that their is no comprehensive material compatibility test data for the poor ubiquitous vinyl record. And, the debate as to what works and what does not and what may be harmful will continue.

 

None of that really addresses my concerns with their study. Namely, I think they misinterpreted the results of the immersion test, and then they subsequently (during their cleaning test) hit the vinyl with UV. The skeptic in me suspects they were initially unable to show much loss of plasticizer in their cleaning test using any of the solutions, so resorted to baking it under UV.

But I try to keep the skeptic restrained.

 

This paper shows weight loss for plasticized PVC - even for water (minor) but a lot for soap solution (whatever that was) - A Comparison of Plasticizers for Use in Flexible Vinyl Medical Products . But the tested material was quite thin; and of course there are many types of plasticizer and there is variation in the effects. BUT, these results as well as the testing I did years ago, supports that plasticized non-rigid/flexible PVC can have the plasticizer extracted by solvents and cleaning agents. BUT a vinyl record has very little plasticizer and it should not be near the record surface. BUT, when we are talking about the record high frequency side wall ridges that are but a few microns - minimizing exposure is prudent. Some of those heated ultrasonic cleaning processes that approach 30 minutes and beyond are putting it nicely, a bit skeptical.

 

The CD4 format is as good a place to look for HF damage via various cleaning methods, as the carrier is up around 18k to 45k or something like that. There isn't a lot of data, but what is out there seems to indicate that the vinyl (admittedly a different formulation again) is pretty indestructible.

 

I have gotten a few new records that you could literally see the release agent on the surface with the naked eye. I hit everything with Groove Washer. For my money, unless you have a massive number of records to do, this manual cleaning method is pretty fantastic. I have even rescued some nasty grimy used records with this stuff by simply repeating the process a couple times to get it good and clean.

 

The RCA patent I previously referenced was for the CD4 formula - further details are addressed in these RCA Engineer magazines - see the articles by Khanna https://worldradiohistory.com/ARCHIVE-RCA/RCA-Engineer/1976-02-03.pdf and https://worldradiohistory.com/ARCHIVE-RCA/RCA-Engineer/1976-10-11.pdf . Is the CD4 record formula indestructible - there is no evidence of that. However RCA did put a pretty high bar for allowable record wear; any effects from cleaning agents notwithstanding.

 

Maybe I misunderstood, you seemed to be questioning the safety of HF data with respect to ultrasonic, but there are plenty of folks cleaning those CD4 albums (HF content way beyond the audible range) with all manner of ultrasonic machines.

 

I am questioning the use of some DIY ultrasonic systems that overheat the record to point that it warps using all manner of concoctions with a little bit of alcohol and some cationic surfactant for static and EDTA, and sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide and who knows what else. Someone asked me to decipher the ingredients of one well known record cleaner that turned out to be nothing more than some 1-propanol (a isomer of IPA), some EDTA (so it can be used with tap water) and some quaternary ammonium compounds (i.e, cationic surfactants) - good as a disinfectant, but not much of a cleaner, and these are being used at 40kHz which is more aggressive than higher frequency 80, 120, & 132 kHz US units.

And they often do no post-rinse; so there is residue left behind. Add to this that most of the filter systems are best mediocre (how many people know the difference between nominal and absolute filter rating; and how people know how to read a pump curve) so they are cleaning many records with what amounts to dirty fluid - and yeah there is a real risk for damage. But as I said on another post - the damage will be insidious - the real damage occurs over time because maybe the side wall ridges were either hardened and wear prematurely or they soften and are bent over prematurely, or the cleaning process left so much junk in groove that they end up doing more harm than good. The literature done by RCA PhD engineers shows that during playback, under the high pressure of the stylus, the record material has elasticity and the ridges bend, but unless damaged (i.e. softened) will not take permanent-set. Now, if the stylus is worn and the sharp edge develops, the side wall ridges do not stand a chance.

When using US, best to use as little chemistry as possible - use enough to achieve a low surface tension (good wetting) and minimize the exposure and temperature.

 

What release agent? You mean mold release?

We have had many threads over the years discussing this and examples of what people think is the agent. It always just turns out to be part of the cleaning solution.

 

Many people here have said that they will often hear a release agent when playing an uncleaned record; however, I never have (not to say that they are wrong, but it’s never been heard by me on any record). What I have heard, though, is cleaning fluid residue (even after a rinse) and static/contaminants left behind during the cleaning process.

 

I dont even know what thats supposed to sound like. In any case, I dont believe things before they are proven.

 

Yep, that sound is unmistakable, and not always easy to address.

 

Some of the new records I receive are in abysmal state, makes me wonder about the quality control. For the most time I clean new records, sometimes I am lazy though.
Also, I am using a BR-12 Oyaide mat on my TT and uncleaned records have so much static electricity it is scary sometimes. A single wash on my Okki Nokki + MSFL inner sleeves = no static electricity at all.

 

Do you find that there is a difference between playing a record right away after you have cleaned it versus placing it in a mofi inner sleeve after cleaning and waiting a while to play?

 

There is a substance they use to get the vinyl to release from pressed mold. It's usually not visible and to my knowledge is fine enough that it doesn't really impact sonics, but I have had a few records where you can see it up on the surface, or at least what I assume to be that because the particles are ultra fine but all over.

To me for the low cost of using something like Groove Washer it's totally worth the little effort to give it a simple clean, so my thought is, why not? Give it a few sprays, wipe it off with the microfiber pad and play, it certainly can't hurt.

 

I dont think what youre seeing is mold release. Im not even sure if there is such a thing, its certainly not sprayed on before pressing anyway.
A picture could help.

I would argue it could hurt depending on whats in those bottles, we will never know because they dont tell but simply wiping off a cleaning agent is not proper in my mind. It could just simply be pushing around the solution and dirt along and deeper in the grooves than actually removing it. Same reason I dont like record brushes.

 

It looks like a faint residue out of the package, kind of like a faded yellow and it collects in several spots. I don't always see it, but I have seen it on a few new records, most recently my copy of the new Ray LaMontagne record had it on the surface out of the package.

My experience with Groove Washer has been really great with some nasty grimy records that I didn't think I could recover. A friend gave me some of her fathers old records and some of these were well used and never cleaned. I had a copy of the Cars debut that I did not think I could rescue. It took three cleanings but I did take that record from downright unlistenable to what I'd call very good if not mint, I mean that thing was filthy. Now that's not to saw a good cavitation cleaning machine would not have worked even better, I'm sure it would, but that can be prohibitive for many of us.

 

I mean I have gotten a lot of records over the years that are dirtied in many many different ways. Sometimes its hard to say exactly what the contaminate is.
So what makes you assume that its mold release?

 

While I can't know for certain, the few I've seen that I assumed might be present pretty evenly across the surface of the record. It's not like dirt that collects in one spot, I just assume it's a contaminate that was on the stamper somehow seeing how it's all over.

 

It sounds like youre describing non fill.
Like this:



And again, theres nothing sprayed or put on stampers, this is a myth.