Cleaning Vinyl With Distilled Water

What's the difference between tergitol and triton?

 

I can no longer edit, so I'll rephrase:
First, I pour in the alcohol. Next, using a pipette, I drip in the 2.5 ml of Triton, swirl it around for a few moments until it is well mixed.

 

I'm getting good results with this method.

 

I would not ever, under any circumstances submerge a record label, period. The guy in the video says he doesn't collect valuable records. Its a good thing!

 

I have cleaned a few hundred records very slowly and methodically using a label protector.

At this point, I am over the record cleaning binge that I had forced myself to accept.

I found that I was hesitating to buy more used records because they were piling up and I am no longer to dedicate my like to cleaning records.

With this in mind, I went out buying average used records, nothing (that I am aware of anyway) is a collector's recording.

Just like or member illustrates in the video, the label's come out fine. I did the same and mine came out fine also. I do not wash my new records only used and this saves a great deal of time.

Our member does go a great length to point out that he is and audiophile and is interested in the best quality sound playback. He also states that he IS NOT a record collector.

If I have something that I view as more of a pristine record or collector's piece, then I use my label protector.

 

I cover my record labels when on the home-made cleaning system. I use a round metal outlet box cover that I've beat into a slightly convex shape so that pressure on the spindle keeps the outer edge seal from allowing water to penetrate. If the cover was flat, it would be nigh impossible to get the very outer edge of the cover seal to hold back water from the edge of the labels. The only "work" I had to do to the cover was to drill a center hole for the 1/4" spindle.
It's a great fit, as it is exactly the diameter of a record label.
If any water makes it way under this seal, I wipe it off with a small cloth right after removal. So far, no water damage or spots have appeared on any of my labels. I've done a few hundred.

 

I decided not to worry about covering the labels when I clean my records. Some of them get a bit damaged when they get wet, but most of them look like new. I've never had one fall apart or come off. I don't plan to sell these records to anybody who would care about pristine labels, so it doesn't really matter to me. Maybe when I'm gone my heirs will take them to a collector who will tell them how much more they would be worth if I hadn't gotten the labels wet, I don't know.

I understand if it matters to you, though. We're collectors and we want everything to be as perfect as possible. I just had to draw a line.

 

I drew the line too, with cleaning methods that don’t require getting the labels wet.

 

I have researched and tried many methods. My preferred method is distilled water in a spray bottle. I put a couple of spritzes until both sides of the LP are wet. Then let it dry against the wall under a newspaper. It takes a while, but you don't have to worry about scratching your LPs.

 

warm soapy dish wash detergent, and rinse.....
has always done a great job for me.

 

this...

 

I use purified water instead of distilled, which is even better too, suck on that yall ;^)

 

I dont get how people can do this, it clearly damages all labels Ive ever tried on.

 

Been told via a few "scientific" sites that "reverse osmosis" water is the purest form..have no idea what it is,but take note

 

I think thats the purified water I use. Your local pharmacist would tell you that its better since distilled doesnt completely remove all minerals and such.

 

I agree that it seems like it would, but if you look at the close up of the record labels that are shown in the video, the don't show any apparent damage. When I tried it myself, I did not see any apparent damage.

Apparently, when a label is not soaked in a solution for a long time, a little water, quickly wiped off does not have any lasting effect on most record labels.

If I thought (and I own records only to listen them, and I am not a collector), that they visibly messed up the record labels, I would not do it either.

On records that are more expensive, harder to come by or in more pristine condition, I do take the extra precaution of using a record label protector.

If I am buying a bunch of inexpensive records to listen to, I am going to save time by passing up the time consuming record protection step.

Everyone else can do it either way, or both ways, as they so choose.

 

I think the problem is that people cover the entire label and then let it all dry before looking. Then its all equally changed, not very much, but somewhat.

Try this if you like, a white label or something, just do 1 half and look if they are different.

 

There is a risk of slight water damage to some labels, but I've found this is quite minimal - even though I can tell immediately by looking if a label has been wetted at any time on most vintage (pre 1970 or so) non-shiny finish labels.

If old Mercury (maroon) or Decca (black or blue) labels are wetted, the ink is likely to dissolve and may run onto the record surface causing noise. Care when rinsing or drying is needed here.

I found it best to deliberately wet and quickly dry labels; any spots can be very visible.

I didn't find any difference using distilled versus RO water, but during my cleaning years I did find that using ONLY the purified water for everything in the process - cleaning tools/containers, cloths, brushes, sprays, making cleaning mixtures etc. made a noticeable difference in the final finish and noise level compared to being slapdash with tap water for the initial 'dirty disk' washing. Start clean, stay clean. Like cleaning glassware for chemistry, if you did that.

 

I don't recommend letting water just sit on top of a label. I blot off the excess water on both sides with an ordinary towel that has been washed a few times. It absorbs the excess moisture on the surface of the record and label and I have never had any issues with lint.

As has been commented in this thread, even using a record protector, a small amount of water sometimes leaks from around the seal on the record protector and you can see the areas on the edges that have gotten some water on them and are wet.

Water damage is readily apparent, be it fading texture changes or whatever. When it happens, it is in the form of surface damage, or discoloration of the label due to the detergent/surfacant. It does not appear like normal everyday water damage that happens to household items that happens to leave large obvious water marks due to the minerals in the water, which is paper chromatography occurring. This will not occur on record labels because we are using a pure distilled water.

The only issue that I have personally noticed is when water seeped under the seal of the record protector on a Sound of Music soundtrack.

I happen to have two of these records in my "collection". Here is a close-up taken by my smartphone of a washed record, with a record protector in place and no water leakage. Notice the edge of the record in the lower left quadrant where the label contacts the dead wax, it is in pristine condition.



Now notice the another record where the water has come under the record protector and damaged the label, you can see the "bumps" that are not permanent markings on the label.



Would this particular album be damaged it placed directly into the wash bath, rinsed and then a final dip in the rinse bath. I would say definitely so, without question.

But these are records that I would not wash without a record protector label in place in the first place.

I would like to buy older records that I am not familiar with to see what music is on them and hopefully the majority of them will be in good enough shape to keep and play. But, unless it seems like a pristine recording, which I can sample on a TT first, to get an idea of its recording quality and general condition and therefore decide to spend the extra time and use the record protector, I will place them in the pan "as is" and clean them.

I really have no intention on spending time out of my life, which I will never get back, cleaning records and spending any more time than I absolutely have to in order to have a quiet playable record.

I have no fascination with cleaning records! I am not a record collector as such and have no intention to becoming one.

 

There is not much difference, mainly a different chemical structure. They are both made by the Dow Chemical Company are are used for the same purposes.





High Performance Products


TRITON™, TERGITOL™, ECOSURF™, DOWFAX™, Surfactants

Here is some information from Brenntag a chemical supply company.

DOW’s TergitolTM and TritonTM surfactants are used to increase the wetting and cleaning properties of household cleaners. TergitolTM and TritonTM surtactants work to enhance institutional and industrial cleaning product formulations, and formulators of coatings, paints, inks for pigment wetting, film leveling, and stabilization of dye and pigment. Surfactants can give desired storage stability and mechanical properties to emulsion polymerization systems like vinyl, acrylic, styrene-butadiene, and other copolymer latex resin systems. They are commonly used in agricultural formulations, paper manufacturing, oilfield operations, and textile processing.

WHAT IS A TERGITOL SURFACTANT AND WHAT IS IT USED FOR?
TergitolTM surfactants, like TergitolTM-type NP-40 and other varieties, are nonionic and nonylphenol-ethoxylate based. They have a pH value of six (pH ~ 6.0) and are commercially available as detergent coupling agents. Tergitol is an emulsifier and stabilizer that appears as a highly water-soluble yellow liquid. Several varieties of DOW TergitolTM NP Nonionic Surfactants are available with slightly different properties and uses. They are useful for both isolation and subsequent purification of functional membrane proteins. TergitolTM NP-40 is frequently used to effectively break open membranes within a cell, including the nuclear membrane. Common applications include paper and textile processing, agrochemicals, cleaners, detergents, paints, coatings, metalworking fluids, and more.

WHAT IS A TRITON SURFACTANT AND WHAT IS IT USED FOR?
TritonTM X-100 is a nonionic surfactant with the formula C14H22O(C2H4O)n (n=9-10) containing a hydrophilic polyethylene oxide chain. It has, on average, 9.5 units ethylene oxide. In addition, it has an aromatic hydrophobic group or hydrocarbon lipophilic. Undiluted, it appears as a viscous, clear liquid. Its viscosity is approximately 270 cPs at 25°C in toluene, xylene, water, ethylene glycol, ethyl alcohol, ethyl ether, isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethylene, and ethylene dichloride. It is insoluble in mineral spirits, naphtha, and kerosene without a coupling agent.


Speak to a member of the Brenntag teamto learn how DOW’s TergitolTM and TritonTMsurfactants can improve your household cleaners.

PRODUCT LISTINGS
We sell various forms of tergitol and triton in varying grades. You can view our entire tergitol and triton product listing online.

View Tergitols

View Tritons


Uses of TritonTM X-100 and other members of the TritonTM family vary. It has industrial purposes for metal plating, reduces aqueous-solution surface tension during immunostaining, and helps soft composite materials with the dispersion of carbon, among many other applications. TritonTM surfactants are most common used as a laboratory detergent, where it functions to lyse cells for the extraction of protein or organelles.

TERGITOL VS. TRITON
TergitolTM and TritonTM surfactants, although broadly recognized as industry-standard surfactants, have very different properties. Formulators must strongly consider their intended application before deciding which TergitolTM or TritonTM surfactant to select for use.

The TergitolTM and TritonTM line of nonionic detergents are considered lighter in comparison with other chemicals used for detergent lysis. Depending on the application you have in mind for your surfactant, it’s possible to interchange NP-40 and TritonTM X-100 to achieve similar results. Both DOW TergitolTM chemicals and DOW TritonTM chemicals will work for detergency, wetting, cleaning, and emulsification, among other uses. Both are also used when there is a high need for increased surface activity and can be important ingredients in primary emulsifier mixtures.

Here is an article from FoodOnline about a version of both products.

News | May 7, 2003

Dow Introduces TRITON™ EF and TERGITOL™ L Low Foam Surfactants
New Product Lines Combine Environmental Viability with High Performance

MIDLAND, Mich. - The Functional Solutions & Surfactants business of The Dow Chemical Company is introducing two new product lines, TRITON™ EF and TERGITOL™ L low foam surfactants, expanding its offering to the cleaning market segment.

The TRITON EF product line offers low foam performance at low temperatures and good detergency and wetting. These nonionic surfactants are used in a wide variety of applications including metal cleaners and other hard surface cleaners, spray cleaners, rinse aids, auto-dish detergents, and textile processing auxiliaries.

The TERGITOL L Series surfactants are high performance products that feature excellent solvency, low foam characteristics, and chemical stability. These surfactants are particularly effective where defoaming agents are required, such as auto-dish detergents, industrial and institutional cleaning, and clean-in-place applications like food, dairy, and brewery cleaning.

Both lines provide key performance benefits and a favorable environmental profile, making them well-suited for development of global formulations.

"These new low foam surfactants are the result of Dow's focus on technological innovation and product development," said Julie Fasone Holder, business director for Functional Solutions & Surfactants. "We had two objectives in the development of TRITON EF and TERGITOL L surfactants: to achieve key performance requirements for the cleaning market segment while meeting global environmental standards."

All TRITON EF and TERGITOL L surfactants are compatible with anionic, cationic, and other nonionic surfactants.

Dow is a leading science and technology company that provides innovative chemical, plastic and agricultural products and services to many essential consumer markets. With annual sales of $28 billion, Dow serves customers in more than 170 countries and a wide range of markets that are vital to human progress, including food, transportation, health and medicine, personal and home care, and building and construction, among others. Committed to the principles of Sustainable Development, Dow and its approximately 50,000 employees seek to balance economic, environmental and social responsibilities.

For further information about Dow surfactants, visit Dow's website at www.dowsurfactants.com

And another article about reducing surface residue (when cleaning)

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE...

• Minimizing Surface Residues With Aqueous Cleaning
  The benefits of employing aqueous cleaning in pharmaceutical manufacturing are numerous. Virtually any pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment from tablet press to a stainless steel mixing tank can achieve their defined critically clean criteria using aqueous cleaning. Typically aqueous cleaners are formulated to ensure maximal cleaning performance by using key ingredients such as surface active agents (surfactants) that are excellent wetting agents that allow the cleaning solution to penetrate into crevices while getting under soils to allow for removal. Often very dilute solutions of aqueous cleaner effectively removes even worst case substances off a variety of hard surfaces including stainless steel, glass, plastic, or porcelain. By Malcolm McLaughlin
  

Here is a reference chart of surfactants from the Dow Chemical Company.

So, maybe some this will prove to be meaningful to you?

As I am not a chemist, it means nothing to me.

When people do a Google search "Amazon Tergitol" this is the first returned search result.

 

Kodak PhotoFlo, distilled water, and alcohol are the prime ingredients in many commercial "high end" record cleaning solutions.

 

They don't use or should I say, they should not use PhotoFlo, which as lubricant's to keep negatives from becoming brittle and drying out. These have no place in the grooves of records.

From Audio Karma. Our chemist friend comments, in response to the following question; "As a chemist, what is your opinion of Kodak Photo-flo? (That is what I use as my surfactant)"?

"Photoflo is a mixture of mainly Propylene glycol and a smaller amount of octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol. Guess what the latter essentially is? Triton! The former is not really necessary (it's what keeps things moist, making films look and rinse spot free). A real rip off in terms of price per ounce compared to DIY detergent IMHO".

 

What do you think about Tetenal Mirasol 2000?
Tetenal Mirasol 2000 antistatic wetting agent 250ml

 

F.Y.I.

I bought 500ml of Triton X-100, this product on February 10, 2016 for $19.99. It is now $29.99 (But... with FREE shipping).

RPI Triton X-100, Scintillation Grade Liquid Surfactant, 500 milliliter Bottle



I bought this a few days ago on September 26th, 2018, for $34.42, but with $6.21 Shipping. I am scheduled to receive it between October 2nd - 4th. This is about EIGHT times as much for about $5 more, plus shipping. Again, I make household cleaner using basically the same record cleaning formula.

Triton X-100 (1, 1 Gallon)



For most people, 500ml will last for a few thousand records.

 

I still have some kodak photoflo and Ilford wetting agent from my darkroom and would not use it on Vinyl
It,s to keep the streaks off the negatives when they are drying