Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records

@pacvr I finally got to pg 51 which starts the discussion between tergitol vs tritonx100, I should probably read first before asking questions LOL. Below is what I’m gathering from your article between the two:

1) the CMC of triton x100 is almost 4x greater than tergitol 15-s-9, which I believe means will require a larger concentration to be as effective. You could say the tergitol performs more “efficiently” than the triton?

2) the tergitol has a reported faster dissolution rate, however, in my setup, I vacuum the solution off with a RCM, followed by a water scrub rinse of distilled water followed by another RCM vacuum, which I think makes this point moot.

3)triton x100 has some level of water toxicity and is being phased out due to environmental concerns (damn it). Followed by some possible compatibility issues with PVC, though you state in your summary “DowTM TritonTM X-100 has been in use for cleaning vinyl record at room temperature with concentrations up to 1% for decades with no ‘reported’ damage. However, to be conservative, using the smallest chemical concentration is prudent. ”. I’d love if you can further expand on that if possible, and what concentration you feel would be most appropriate for my usage. (I’m currently using a solution around 0.3-0.4% triton with distilled water).

Thank you for your research, and I’ll bookmark your article for continued reading and referencing as needed.

 

@recstar24
Your item one is correct. Less tergitol 15-s-9 is required than Triton X100 which means less solution NVR which means easier to mix and less risk of residue on the record.

Your item two, the dissolution rate is how easy does the concentrate mix with water. The fact that you water rinse after application will mitigate leaving residue behind, but when you water rinse - do you use a brush? Using a clean brush (brush lightly) to assist the rinse on the 1st rotation and then just some rinse water without brush on the 2nd rotation will improve the rinse step. As you read the paper further, in Section XI, you have to consider, that unless the record is exceptionally dirty, the NVR of the cleaner is greater than the NVR you are trying to remove from the record. So, rinsing is crucial. Miss the rinse step, and you can leave the record dirtier than when you started. This whole NVR issue, is where solvents have always prevailed over aqueous cleaners - but solvents bring a host of safety issues that the flammability, toxicity and material compatibility from my perspective are not worth it. People can take any risk they want, people have been crippled and killed from solvent exposure or fires. In my career, I never approved a cleaning agent that was not protective of human health; and I had a medical review panel of the Navy's Chief Toxicologist, Senior Industrial Hygienist, and Senior Internal Medicine Physician to make sure I didn't - talk about a tough group .

Your item three - use of Triton X100 at 0.3 to 0.4% is the detergent equivalent of tergitol 15-s-9 at 0.1%. There is some evidence (though weakly associated) that the Triton type of ethoxylated alcohol may have greater risk of extracting plasticizer (as addressed in detail in Section X), but your application is very time limited and at room temperature. After you read Section X, you will know as much as I do.

 

Thank you! For my rinse step, I do indeed use a brush (specifically, a paint pad like the ones you get from Home Depot) to brush through distilled water over the record, followed by a final vacuum on the RCM. Overall, it’s great to read through your process and I’ll be making some slight tweaks to my own as well. Below is my basic workflow as it stands:

1) spray one side of record with triton water solution
2) work through with paint pad
3) vacuum
4) do the above with other side
5) spray one side of record with distilled water
6) work through with paint pad
7) vacuum and then repeat with other side

I’ll gladly take any recommendations you had for modifying my current process. I’m envisioning a step where I can run some running water somewhere in there.

just got to section x, did a quick read through but will go back as needed. It appears a 1% soapy solution may extract plasticizer, but at our concentrations with such limited surface exposure, it appears for our purposes the risk of “weight loss“ is minimal to non-existent.

 

@pacvr follow up questions if you don’t mind:

1) is there any significance to the fact that the micelle size of Triton x100 is half of that of tergitol s-15-9?

2) I just looked at the dollar sprayer bottles I’ve been using/reusing for a while now, and noticed they are “1” rated using PET. A brief google search shows PET is not meant to be reused, and could possibly suffer from leaching. Is there cause for concern on my end, that I’m inadvertently leaching plastic into my triton solution?

 

I agree that you shouldn't mess around with alternate formulations for the Audio Desk fluid. In fact, I suspect you'd void your warranty using anything other than the factory juice on the AD.
I had one -actually several of the AD machines-- and the only change I made, following some early adopters- was to reduce the amount of manufacturer supplied fluid. This wasn't a cost-saving measure on my part; in some cases, I think people experienced foaming issues--not so sure I ever had that problem-- but I was concerned about leaving a residue of the fluid on the record. I don't think I could hear a sonic signature from the AD fluid, particularly when reducing the amount- not sure what the U.S. distributor would say about efficacy using less fluid.
One thing I noticed when I switched a number of years ago to the KL was that records previously cleaned in the AD behaved a little differently-- you could see that the water was clinging to the surface in broader "sheets" than on records than had not been previously cleaned on the AD. That suggested to me that some amount of the AD surfactant remained on the record, sufficient to reduce surface tension and allow the water in the KL bath to penetrate better, rather than beading. (FWIW, I'm not suggesting that the KL is "better," just telling you of my experience).
I think part of the value of looking at the chemistry in the context of ultrasonic is for the relatively large market of DIY ultrasonic record cleaning systems-- those gained traction in part because of the success of the AD, and to avoid the relatively high price of entry, folks would buy a relatively cheap bath, a spinner and then try to figure out what sort of solution to use. There is also this branch of DIY that seeks to improve on the performance of the "made for LP ultrasonic cleaners"-- multiple frequency, degas, heat control, filtration of bath water to remove sediment or particulates left by the dirty records, etc.
For what it's worth, any used record got pre-cleaned deeply before going into the ultrasonic, so I wasn't expecting it to deal with the more challenged old records. That's still the case for me - i use both point nozzle vacuum and ultrasonic, and find the combination synergistic, but that's a subject for a different discussion.

 

I've only had this machine about 6 months. Definitely nothing close to foaming; looking into the machine as it's running it looks like plain water. So something(s) may have changed over the years.

 

@recstar24 , My only observation is you appear to clean both sides first, then rinse both sides. Any reason why you do not clean & rinse each side. With your current procedure, the first side that is cleaned, has a delay between when the cleaner is vacuumed off and when the rinse water is applied. One of the items in my procedure is not to allow the cleaner to ever dry on the record; once the process starts the record remains wet until the final application of distilled water.

 

@recstar24; for item 1), not to my knowledge. I included the micelle size as an indication for filtering. I had to dig deep into the web to get that data.

WRT to Item 2), the data is varied, Reusing Disposable PET Bottles , does not indicated that it is a big issue; especially for the Triton X100, not so sure the DIW - if you shake the DIW-PET spray bottle does the DIW foam, it is does, that is not good. You always need to be a bit cautious with dollar store items, a lot of off-brand items are from China, and the quality can be very hit & miss. Otherwise, the bottles I use, recommend and show in the paper are HDPE, and I sourced from Amazon (available versions change daily).

 

Thank you for your feedback! Would you recommend:

1) cleaning a side with triton solution spray and brush through, vacuuming, followed by distilled water spray and brush through and then a 2nd vacuuming

or

2) cleaning a side with triton solution spray and brush through, followed immediately by distilled water spray and brush through, then one vacuum for that side, then flip over.

As to your first part of your question, my logic in vacuuming the triton off immediately was to potentially avoid it from staying on the record for too long by vacuuming it off immediately, in which the distilled water and final vacuum is able to take care of any leftover residue.

 

thank you! I just checked, my DIW-PET spray bottle does not foam when shaken. Regardless, I’ll replace them with some HDPE bottles next time I stop by my local Home Depot.

 

@recstar24, first let me emphasize that as I say in Section XII, I do not own a RCM. That being said, I think Item 1) is the way to go get the best possible. It limits the interval between cleaner application and DIW while avoiding over-filling the record and spilling solution down on to the RCM which I think could be a problem with Item 2).

 

In my 40 years as a scientist, I have found that an ounce of experiment is worth a bushel of theory. This fascinating thread has prompted me to do an experiment I should have done years ago – a long-term challenge test to confirm whether or not Mr Muscle oven cleaner damages vinyl. I took a record in excellent condition and gave it a quick clean. I then applied MrM to half of one side. I covered the record to prevent the MrM from drying out and left it for 2 hours. I then rinsed and dried it and asked my 23 year old daughter to listen to it. If there had been any damage, she would have noticed a change in audio quality every revolution as the stylus went from the control half (no Mr M) to the test half of the side. I chose my daughter because, being young, she has superb hearing and was also unbiased (she did not know which half was test or control). This is a very challenging test because the ear is very sensitive to sudden changes in sound.

No difference whatsoever at 2 hours. I then re-applied the MrM on the same half of the side and left it for a further 4 hours before repeating the test. Then again at 12 hours and finally 24 hours of exposure to MrM. My daughter could not identify any difference between test and control at any stage. This confirms that MrM is absolutely safe.

I have looked into ultrasonic cleaners (USC). The various reviews all say that USC is a significant improvement over a standard RCM and that records previously cleaned on RCM sound better after USC. This confirms that a RCM using a mild surfactant such as Tergitol does not remove all the deposits from the grooves. But what about damage to the vinyl? Cavitation blasts away the dirt in a USC. But cavitation causes severe damage and pitting on propellers, pump impellers, etc. There are reports of USCs causing loss of high frequencies with records and this photo of the bottom of a USC tank shows what looks very much like black vinyl particles [How to clean vinyl LP's (records) in an Ultrasonic Cleaner - Best-Ultrasonic-Cleaner.blog ]. Until someone does a long-term (24hour) challenge test of a USC, as I did with MrM, I would not trust my vinyl collection to one.

As things stand and in the absence of further information, I conclude that the most effective cleaning method that is proven to cause no damage to records is Mr Muscle oven cleaner.

 

On thing that prevents me from trying the sink method is the risk to the albums with all that handling. They can get scraped against the faucet (tap for people outside the USA), they can be dropped, etc.

I know someone that is good at it, but he freely admits he has damaged some vinyl while cleaning, due to all the handling.

I really do prefer cleaning on the spinning platter. The Audio Technica 6012 or Discwasher approach. My vinyl is insanely clean and quiet and risk seems minimal provided I can safely get an album from the jacket to the platter.

Sometimes I'll run the carbon fiber brush for ten or so revolutions before using a pad, if I feel there is any dirt that needs a little push to "let go," but that is about as aggressive as I get.

 

in Neil’s article, in the section regarding material compatibility, he suggests the following:

“ As a final note, material compatibility testing of vinyl records could be as simple as taking a record and cutting it to obtain strips about 1” x 2” or 0.75” x 3” to obtain a 2-in2 sample that should weigh about 3 grams. This weight and size is within the capacity of low-cost digital stylus gauges that can measure 0.01 grams, but should be reasonably accurate at the nominal 3 grams. This would allow ‘detecting’ weight change as low as +/- 0.33%. Tare-weight the sample, and then place the sample in a glass (non-reactive) container filled with the cleaner of interest and store for a period of at least 1-hour (to be conservative) at room temperature. Remove, rinse with purified water, allow to air dry on a clean dry surface and then weigh. Without a calibrated scale and a dessicator, the overall accuracy is unlikely to be better than +/- 25%, but it may provide a reasonable qualitative indication.”

Wouldn’t @pacvr approach be more definitive than a listening test? Obviously the subjective and qualitative data is important, but Neil’s approach would offer something potentially more objective and substantive.

 

@ChrisWoo, the test you did has value, and shows no 'acute' immediate damage, but how the damage is done can be more chronic - insidious. If there is loss of material - extraction, or excessive weight gain, then the material properties of the fine side-wall grooves can be altered. If material is removed, the fine side wall ridges can be hardened and accelerated wear can occur. If there is excessive weight gain - material swell, then the fine side wall ridges can be softened and deformed. Will these effects be noticed on single playback is debatable; there are many variables. What was the record - was it a wide frequency dynamic record well mastered, and what was the record material (which is variable), and what was the system being used for playback. Because of the many variables, the test may be inclusive. A test record with a 20-Hz to 20 kHz frequency sweep 'may' be applicable, but that depends on whether the system can play it back effectively. The material compatibility gold standard is weight loss and change in properties, and the tests that I reference in Section X are all based on that data. But, you are comfortable with using MrM, and its your decision and choice; and you now have some subjective data. I would not use it. Too many variables for my liking, household product companies reformulate at will; one the ingredients d-limonene at 100% is considered incompatible with PVC, and the data in Section X all show the household soap solution extract material. Be that as it may, we agree to disagree.

As far as RCM, as I address in Section XII, one of the inherent problems with RCM is the vacuum dry that draws in ambient air that is highly contaminated with invisible particles. Additionally, users expertise/experience is much more a variable than with UCM which is mostly an automated process. So, whether UCM is better than RCM is debatable.

As far as UCM, if you study the subject, the lower frequencies <40 kHz, and especially <25 kHz are well known to cause damage similar to pump cavitation; and soft materials such as copper and bronze are very susceptible. But the difference is that the lower the kHz, the larger the bubble size that is formed and the more energy associated with the bubble implosion, but do not be swayed by some reports of 10,000 psi pressure results; this is only theoretical based theoretical tension data for the fluid. Megasonics >500 kHz with pure and ultra-pure water are now used to clean semi-conductor chips.

 

@Phil Thien, As Section V shows, the handling is pretty minimal, and advises use of dish mat to prevent damage in the event of dropping the record. Yes if you are not a bit careful, you can scratch the album against the faucet/tap. Is your friend using the VinylStack record label protector (with handle)? I have cleaned many records and no damage - far more risk when dropping the needle for play and lifting after play. As I address in Section VI, the use of carbon brushes for cleaning is debatable as supported by the NASA study. My experience with carbon brushes is as I say, good for static removal in the right conditions, but similar to NASA only moves the dust around and as I wrote the carbon bristles are very fragile and subject to breakage, ultimately causing more harm than good. But, being honest, my records are clean enough so they are free of any visible particulate, and only a few particles are visible with UV light, and I just use the cloth I discuss to swipe the surface to remove. Otherwise, you are comfortable with your process, and that's all that matters.

 

I don't think he uses any sort of label protector, but I think his challenge has been the faucet more than dropping albums.

On the subject of the carbon fiber brushes, I rarely use one by itself, but rather as a first step before using the pad + alcohol, and typically only on new-to-me acquisitions. The idea is to loosen anything that is lodged in the groove, giving the pad + alcohol a better chance to get it.

I do appreciate all the work to document all this stuff, it is immensely interesting.

 

@Phil Thien, thank-you for the compliment.

Stay Well,
Neil

 

Thank you for your reply - much appreciated. The compatibility test you suggest is one of the tests specialist laboratories use to draw-up the corrosion/compatibility tables I consulted before using MrM. It is simple in theory but difficult in practice because you are calculating weight loss/gain by subtracting 2 relatively heavy weights to give a very small difference and this is inherently inaccurate unless there is a gross change, which is not the case here, or you have an extremely accurate (and costly) balance. The digital stylus balance I have would not give any useful information.

You suggest the listening result is qualitative and subjective. It isn’t. When I observe a traffic light and it changes from green to red, this is not subjective even though it uses my eyes and not a light meter or other measuring device. With the sound test we are not making a qualitative judgment about the music – my daughter was listening specifically for audible changes (hisses, crackles, distortion, loss of high frequencies, etc) caused by degradation of the vinyl. These changes would be on/off every revolution in the same way as a light changes from red to green. The human optical system (eyes + brain) is extremely sensitive to movement. Similarly, the human audio system (ears + brain) is extremely sensitive to changes in sound. It is this binary measure (red/green, change/no-change) that makes the experiment so sensitive and powerful.

In any case, as we are interested in sound quality, why reach for weigh scales. If I am in a HiFi shop choosing a new amplifier, I listen to them, not weigh them.

 

Thank you for your reply - this is a useful debate of an important subject. The test you propose as the gold standard, as described in your report, only exposes the material for 1 hour cf. my 24 hours. Accordingly, I am not sure why you describe my test as only measuring immediate and not chronic damage. My test exposes the record to the cleaner for 200 times the 5-10 minutes exposure of my cleaning method – a huge safety margin.

You suggest that my test has too many variables to be of value. I have designed and performed many experiments in my career. This test is close to the ideal. There is a defined objective (to determine whether the cleaning method causes audible damage to the record), a defined input variable (length of exposure to the cleaner), a defined and binary output measure (audible change/no change), multiple data points (2, 6, 12, 24 hours), an extremely sensitive measuring device (as described in my previous post) and every measurement is calibrated against a no-change control.

As we are measuring change/no-change, the choice of music and its dynamic range is irrelevant (I used a mint or near mint recording of female vocals that had a very low noise floor). Yes, the formulation of the vinyl and the cleaner may vary slightly but the huge safety margin renders this of little practical consequence.

As to the playback system, mine is excellent. In particular, I use a London (Decca) Jubilee cartridge which is so sensitive that it demands very clean records, as attested by the many reviews. This is why I use MrM. As the result of my experiment is so conclusive, we can infer that the MrM caused no changes to the vinyl capable of being detected by weight loss/gain measurements.

I admit to having little knowledge of ultrasonics. I do note, however, that Kirmuss Audio, which makes these cleaners, states, “In 3 years of extensive testing, we found 35 kHz is the sweet spot”. [Ultrasonics ]. 35kHz is in your danger range of <40kHz.

 

The compatibility test I quoted is not mine to suggest, it is clearly referenced and quoted from someone much more credible than I lol.

Though I do not discount your daughter's excellent hearing, the listening test you outlined above also brings in a wide variety of factors that would influence her assessment - even though the human ear is very sensitive and capable of very minute detections, the psychoacoustics of hearing and the brain play a number of "tricks" that makes these kind of listening tests difficult for the random reader on the internet to truly say they would have no issues using the product you are recommending. You're a scientist, clearly, and I'm sure you're aware that typically blind listening tests that follow some kind of A-B-X model of random sampling is one of the stronger standards for establishing validity.

As I'm sure @pacvr would say, it's your ears and your vinyl and you are free to use whatever you want for your own enjoyment, and you don't have to want or need to measure anything. My only concern is that it involves a chemical which may or may not have some compatibility issues with vinyl, and the last thing we want is for someone to use this thing which long term would bring some adverse effects on their vinyl. I'm glad you've found something that you find useful and safe for your purposes, and your listening test and opinion is valuable for anyone out there looking for potential vinyl cleaner, I just think we have to hold these things to maybe a little more scrutiny as I'm sure none of us wants to be held liable for someone's vinyl being damaged.

I feel more confident following @pacvr 's guidelines and recommended chemicals/solutions as it is very clear reading through his research that they are not harmful and fully compatible within the listed guidelines.

 

When record cleaning becomes religion.

 

@ChrisWoo,

Regarding the audio frequency dependence, the female voice range is about 250-4000 Hz. Just how much of this is being produced by the main groove and how much is produced by the side wall ridges I do not know. But, if you viewed via the hyperlink (Section I of the document) the 1000X SEM view of the groove and the side wall ridges , the details of the side wall ridges especially at the higher frequencies in my opinion are the sensitive areas - an analogy could be the stereocilia (fine hair cells of the inner ear). The very fine ridges, placed within 10 microns of each other at 20 kHz should be the areas most sensitive to damage since the thickness at the peaks/tips is very thin. When I addressed acute vs chronic, the discussion was not the chemical exposure time, but the number of record plays. In the one report that I referenced in Section XI, plasticizer was extracted after just 50-seconds of exposure at room temperature. However, you are free to draw any conclusions you wish from your experiment, its your records. My position has not changed, even if MrM proved by quantitative analysis (weight change with accuracy to 0.001 mg plus tensile testing) to be compatible within the very conservative definitions that I defined when I did compatibility testing of oxygen cleaning agents (report ref 1994), I still would not use it.

The product's environmental and personal hazard profile are severe enough that I could never recommend it; it goes completely counter to what I stated in the Forward, - Do No Harm to Yourself and Do Know Harm to the Environment. Depending on what MSDS you find for the product, and there appear to be three different formulations - there is a 2014 version that is NaOH and a high concentration of glycol ether, there is a 2015 version without the glycol ether but with NaOH and other ingredients I previously addressed; and then there is this 'official?' version : SC Johnson , that is totally different, and has substituted Sodium Metasilicate for the NaOH (and other silicates), but has Butoxydiglycol which is a glycol ether chemically known as 2-Butoxyethanol, with a The ACGIH TLV for worker exposure of only 20 ppm; and with the MrM being used as an aerosol, probability of exposure is high. In some countries (not England?), because of the 2-Butoxyethanol concentration, the product cannot be sold, or if sold is classified as Hazardous. With the variations of ingredients, who knows what version you have/tested. Environmentally, one MSDS state: "Prevent product from entering drains. Do not flush into surface water or sanitary sewer system". The recommended PPE is at the very least is to wear eye protection (this cleaner can damage eyes, far more than an irritant), and gloves, and quoting one of the MSDS's "In the case of dust or aerosol formation use respirator with an approved filter.". One MSDS states "Available data indicates that this product is corrosive to the respiratory tract". The product is highly flammable with a flashpoint <20C because of the propellant.

Regarding the UCM, the difference between 35 kHz and 40 kHz, is not significant, and PVC is actually not as soft from that type of exposure as compared to soft copper. While Kirmuss Audio who has manufactured UCMs for 3-years, you should note that in Section XIII of my paper I make reference to Blackstone Ultrasonics that have been in the business for >25 years, and I provide a link to John Fuchs who is an expert in this area with a Blog of extensive knowledge and is recognized by his peers as an "expert". Is 35 kHz the optimum, I venture to say no. From my recent readings, and if you view the stack of records as no different from a stack of semi-conductor chips (that are actually large sheets then cut-up), the future 'may' be ~40 kHz for the side ultrasonic generators that fire on the outside of the record(s), and a mega-sonic generator for one end to fire through the record stack to obtain acoustic streaming and high velocity flow (~2.2-3 fps) with lots of agitation which is how they clean semi-conductor sheets. But, in my opinion, we are no where near what is optimum for a record cleaning UCM, but that is only my informed opinion.

Stay Well,
Neil

 

So, it's the 1970s and yours truly is buying lots of records. Am told, and repeat to others, that you should never use wet cleaners on a record because the manufacturers put special lubricants on to make them less noisy and wet cleaning removes this.
Do not doubt that this is wrong, however..
Can this be partly correct in that the lubricants used for mold release leech to the surface of the record and provide a noise retarding function? This raises the more general question of whether it is ultimately best to remove all non-PVC matter from the record or to leave (or add) any fine lubricants that would promote friction-free movement.
Have mentioned the "Very Long" post by Justin Time and he states the following:

"Should You Use A Lubricant Or Preservative For Vinyl?
I am intrigued by the benefits of such treatment but also concerned about its deleterious effects. First, with the proper RCF and cleaning procedure, plasticizer leaching is not a problem and requires no remedy. Second, it is very difficult to choose a lubricant or preservative without a sonic signature. Third, a film of lubricant or preservative in the grooves may be bad for the record in the long run. The electrostatic attraction or hydrogen bond holding this film to Vinyl is probably not strong enough to survive the tremendous stress of the needle against the grooves: the adsorbed film (a few molecules thick) could be quickly shredded into contaminants clogging the grooves. The study of thin lubrication film is a difficult and highly specialized area of Science (tribology) that I am not terribly familiar with so I leave it up to you to make your own decision. For me, without more information, the safest treatment for Vinyl is simply to clean it and leave nothing behind.
If studies of the long-term effect of lubricant or preservative exist, RCF manufacturers should make them available to customers to ease their concern. After all, we each own hundreds if not thousands of LPs, many of which are valuable or irreplaceable and some of us are understandably reluctant to use mystery chemicals whose short- and long-term effects on Vinyl must be taken on faith."

SO(2), is my memory from the 1970s just another one of those incorrect tales I was loaded up on as a youth? Time tells all, eventually...

 

not religion, but when you have a scientist posting an article that appears to have faced the scrutiny of peer review, followed by another scientist responding with their own tests and chemical, it’s OK for me and others to engage in such conversations scientifically, no?