Well, not that here. I poured out the foaming stuff and refilled it with the Degritter solution and the foam disappeared. Didn't wash the tank out. Weird.
Just for your info, the EU has a data base for just about all common chemical categorized by the CAS # and general chemical category. Tergitol is CAS #68131-40-8, categorized as Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated - Registration Dossier - ECHA (europa.eu). There are many different products other than Tergitol that come under this general category. The USA maintains a similar database. The MSDS talks to the concentrated product, not the diluted product. Hopefully when you advised your local agency you also advised of the concentration you were using and how often you plan of disposing. Whatever guidance your local agency comes back with is applicable only to the UK and maybe EU.
Understood. They have answered already but just to say Covid, decreased working force, may take a week to ten days ... etc. Will report what they say if and when they get back to me.
When you added the 10-mL diluted 15-S-9 to the tank, what was your sequence of steps noting that the 15-S-9 will foam even at 75 ppm if significantly agitated. Couple of items - did you degas - which strips our the dissolved gases? When was the last time the pump filter was cleaned - if its partially clogged the pump is going to cavitate at least during pump-down of the holding tank to the UT tank, and the solution will foam. Is the pump filter fully inserted - it if not fully inserted and the seal good, the pump can draw/suck air. Others here have stated that foam was initially produced but then settled down.
Where in the cycle is this foam? That looks like mine at the very beginning. I also was getting foam like that in the beginning when using 1.5 ml of the Degritter solution.
I have to agree. Others here have made more scientific arguments in favor of the 15-S-9, or experienced residue with the Degritter solution—but as a casual user who is running rinse cycles anyway, the Degritter solution has offered a much easier experience than 15-S-9. I achieved sheeting (now that I’ve seen it, I understand!) and got zero foam, all with much less effort or precision of measurement/dilution than with the Tergitol. There is still a slight odor if I stick my nose in the tank, but nothing at all wafting through the room like with the 15-S-9 solution. I’m sold.
The foaming problem has something to do with the initial bath chemistry. Think of soaps as generic surfactants. Most soaps are designed to work with normal (hard) tap water, which contains dissolved solids of calcium and magnesium. If you have water that is "too hard" (too high a concentration of these minerals) more of the soap is consumed dealing with hardness and the soap won't lather as much or at all. If you suddenly try to use those soaps in treated soft water (the "hard" minerals are replaced by "soft" minerals sodium or potassium) or in purified water (most or all of the hard and soft minerals are removed), you will find that there is so much foam that it becomes difficult to remove residuals. This is where bath chemistries are in a new bath. Water is very pure, so just a little bit of a "soap" or surfactant can cause a lot of foaming. Once you start cleaning dirty records the bath water accumulates some dissolved solids and organics. The organics are stabilized in the bath solution by the surfactants, effectively reducing the concentration available for other purposes (like foaming). The dissolved solids "harden" the bath water, reducing the intensity of foaming in general. There aren't a lot of easy solutions. Since we start with highly purified water, one solution would be to reduce the quality. But this means higher residual solids in any water that remains on the record. Another possibility is to start with less surfactant initially, and add more as the bath water gets dirtier. But this option complicates the bath chemistry with another step. And we risk lowering the wetting ability of the surfactant (or of not lowering the surface tension sufficiently) if the initial concentration is too low. This can adversely impact the US cleaning cycle.
Almost all water soluble non-ionic and anionic surfactants produce foam when agitated - read the following - Dow Surfactants Reference Chart, there is a column for Foam Height (at 0.1%), the first number is after being agitated and the second is how much foam height is after 5 min of resting. Those that do not produce any foam are either not water soluble i.e., Tergitol 15-S-3, or a type of Ethylene Oxide/Propylene Oxide (EO/PO) Copolymers that foam less which is similar to the Dehypon L54 that those in the UK can buy. Note that those identified as APE based are very old designs and are environmental hazards banned in the EU/UK and are are being phased elsewhere. I can place 1-drop of 15-S-9 in 200 mL tap-water, shake and get a good foam height (~1-cm) , but after about 5 min it dissipates. The Degritter pump system because of how its designed is VERY susceptible to producing foam. The pump is likely a centrifugal pump and whenever they pump-down the tank to the reservoir and then then pump-down the reservoir to the tank the pump is going to cavitate at the end because the suction is pressure is going below what is called the net positive suction head, and to exasperate the issue the filter appears to be located at the pump suction which is not the best design; simple low pressure drop strainers are on the suction, fine filters that are higher pressure drop are normally located at the discharge. The fact that the Degritter formula wets the record, but does not foam implies they are 'may' be using some kind of a defoaming agent and these are not soluble - they exist as an emulsion but they are very susceptible to coating the record with residue - so if you use at too a high a concentration thy affects of the residue 'may' be audible - but that is a personal item; some may hear it, others may not. Or they are using an EO/PO type non-ionic surfactant, or who knows what. There is only so many ways to get wetting without foam other than resort to a solvent such as IPA which would be obvious.
Results vary. I get foam with DG solution. I don't think foam is by definition bad. I think it's the amount and persistence. I'll take a little more foam if it means less residue. I too am convinced that foam production in the Degritter is related to the pump. When I had a loose filter cap I got much more foam too. I know, I'm repeating myself.
Cap is tight and filter is clean. I have to admit to not running the machine with S-9 much after seeing the foam appear so dramatically. Maybe I'll try again and see if it disappears later in the cycle. Since I rinse all records at the end, if there is a defoaming agent in the Degritter solution it doesn't seem to be a problem for my setup. Interesting stuff.
Make no mistake, rinsing is a preferred step; it pretty much eliminates risk of cleaner residue as your own experience bears out. But for those that do not rinse, that has been the focus the 2.5%-IPA + 0.0075% 15-S-9 solution testing. A simple rinse washes away most of the sins of the previous wash step provided the wash step was not using an excessive amount of cleaner. I have assisted industry in setups were the pre-cleaner concentration was so high that a follow-on heated ultrasonic rinse (before final clean) did not remove all residue. Its amazing just how tenacious these surfactants can be on (for want of a better word) to stick to the surface. My analogy is that when the concentration gets too high, the surfactant packing factor on the record surface is so high that water cannot easily penetrate to release. Just some thoughts for this AM
Note, Uku Puttsepp at www.degritter.com advised me that Luminox (Luminox Low Foaming Neutral Cleaner | Alconox Inc. ) is a non-foaming neutral surfactant, compatible with Degritter and vinyl records, but does (like Tergitol) require rinsing. He also said that organics in the Degritter can cause smell and foaming and suggested mix of distilled white vinegar and water (I do not recall the amounts) be run a few times through long cleaning process to end such. It worked for me. Would you advise a bit of isopropyl in the rinse water then? Would a separate tank for the Degritter with water, or water with isopropyl (to get into grooves to remove residual RCF), run just after cleaning and drying achieve the sought for outcome?
Be careful with Alconox Luminox, its a solution of what is mostly water soluble glycol ether solvents. You are now getting into some concerns with toxicity since there are allowable exposure limits and they are much lower than IPA, with levels as low as 50 ppm. As far as compatibility with records, you are now talking solvents and this adds a whole new dimension. I would not use the Alconox Luminox in the Degritter at the recommended 1-2%. The Luminox can be as much as 90% active; so at 1-2%, your talking a solution of 9,000 to 18,000 ppm. Most of it will evaporate but there is a flashpoint that is relatively high (for solvents) at about 200F. As far as record compatibility - more study required. If you are going to rinse - I would recommend just using water.
I do not use a Degritter. My US is diy using a Chinese tank and a vinyl Spinner. I use "Rushton's" formula which is combination of Tergitol, Triton 100, 91%+ isopropyl and distilled water. I use a Spin Cleaner as a precleaning step (with SC fluid). I generally clean about 20-25 LPs in a cleaning session. At the end there is considerable dirt in the bottom of the SC tank, and a surprising amount of effluent in the bottom of the US tank. When draining and most of the water is removed, the effluent looks a lot like fine mud or river silt. It is dark, and it will stain anything it comes into contact with. I know that many use filters and filtering systems in their US tanks, but given what is left in my tank, I can not imagine that a filter would remove all of the effluent. Or if a filter can remove the sludge, the filter itself will have to be replaced. It is easier and gives greater peace of mind to discard the tank contents then start with a new tank full of solution for each cleaning session. I bring all of this up because of the discussion about residue and filtering. Given what can come off old dirty LPs, I wonder if filtering is just making people feel better instead of removing all effluent from the water tank ? That said, my results are worth the effort- amazing to hear 50-60yr old LPs that have been through who knows what, and exhibit silent backgrounds with a noise floor lower than that of my system.
Just out of curiosity Rushtons formula uses Ultrasonic Cleaning (positive-feedback.com) 0.10% Hepastat 256 (a 1:1000 dilution) - do you add it? and what Tergitol are you adding? and are you also adding Triton X100?. As I have addressed in this thread there is actually some big differences between Tergitol and Triton. Also, the debris you see will likely be partly the cleaning agent, that's how they work at the concentrations you are using, but how much may depend on exactly what formula you are using. No doubt the optimum process is for every record to be cleaned with fresh or clean fluid. Replacing the tank for every record batch is only practical if you have your own demineralized water supply (many car aficionados have there own demineralizer water system to ensure spot free rinse). But, very fine filtration at the 0.5 micron and less absolute rating will take out that fine silt that you see; and at 0.2 micron, bacteria is filtered - and these 10" cartridges have a pretty large holding capacity. But there is a BIG difference between a nominally rated filter and an absolute rated filter. Here are two examples to illustrate the difference: Hydronix SBC - is nominally rated. A 1-mciron filter is only 80% efficient and does not each absolute till almost 50-microns. https://hydronixwater.com/dl/data_sheets/SBC_DS.pdf Hydronix AR - is absolute rated. A 1-micron filter is 99.9% efficient. https://hydronixwater.com/dl/data_sheet ... o%20humans. Note: the nominal filter will cost ~$10 while the absolute will cost ~$50.
I'm blown away by this filter picture. I've never seen anything like this with my filter in dozens of cleanings/changings. Mine get a little brown/yellow but never black. Are you using the Degritter cleaning agent or something else?
Just to be clear: Do you feel fully confident that if we do a wash cycle using the Degritter surfactant, that a subsequent clean water wash cycle (no surfactant) will remove any trace of the surfactant?
I started out with your Tergitol 15–S-9/IPA recipe but, after personally finding it difficult to dial in, switched to the Degritter solution. I can’t remember how many LPs I’d cleaned/rinsed before I made the switch, but it was probably pretty evenly split of the ~25 I got through before the machine prompted me to clean the filter.
My filter looks like that before cleaning as well, especially the first time when the machine actually warned me it was time to clean the filter.
This makes me wonder how “dirty” the machine might be out of the box. It’s possible the filter shows extra grime at the first change due to the components getting a good scrub after manufacturing.
No, it was after quite a few cleanings, and has been about that dirty since. It may have to do with the IPA and Tergitol-based cleaning solutions I have been experimenting with.
