No. As @pacvr suggested, run the unit for a cycle or two before adding any records. I have this happen now and then if I add cleaner to the tank while a record is in there while trying to bring the level of the tank up to the dead wax area of a longer LP. It will cease after a cycle or two.
I filled the tank with 2.625 gallons of distilled water. I added 1 ml of Tergitol. I then ran a 10 minute degass cycle which also heated the solution to 30 degrees C. At this point there was still a lot of foam on the surface of the solution. I then put the records and spindle in and started the cleaning. As the records spun I didn't see much, if any, foam on the records. However, when I removed the spindle at the end I did see some of the surface foam stick to record surface.
The amount of Tergitol you added was correct; no math errors there. Is this a brand new tank? Does your UT tank system use a pump/filter? If this is not a brand new tank - what was the previous chemistry - what did you previously use for cleaning? How fast are the records spinning? However, I just did a very quick experiment - added 1 drop of Tergitol to 500mL water, in a large jug, and then shook vigorously, and some foam developed on the surface (its a powerful surface wetting agent). The foam sticking to the surface of the record is mostly air. 1mL = 1g; so a solution of 1mL/10L = 0.1mg/mL. If you do not rinse, you may leave at most 0.1 to 0.2 mg of Tergitol on the record surface. However, a quick spray with DIW or a squirt with a rinse bottle (500mL Nalgene Wide Mouth Unitary Wash Bottle: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific) will rinse most if not all away.
It is an Elma P120H, the same tank Tim is using. It is not new but I emptied the old solution (distilled water, IPA and Ilford) and cleaned it and the filter housing before I added the new solution. I also put in a new filter. I have a filtering setup equivalent to what Tim was using with a .35 micron filter. I played one of the records that I cleaned at it was quiet so I can’t say there is much, or any, residue on the record surface and I am sure any rinse cycle would eliminate it. I was just surprised how foamy it was.
The foam may subside with follow-on cycles. The ILFOTOL actually should foam more than the Tergitol; and alcohol provides no defoamer action. Tim's solution of ILFOTOL is 16 mL/12.750 L = 1.25 mL/L. But the ILFORD ILFOTO is only 5% active non-ionic surfactant ingredient, so the active ingredient concentration is (1.25 mL/L)/20 = 0.0625 mL/L = 62.5 ppm. However, if you installed a new filter - and did not run the pump for a few minutes before adding the Tergitol or before degas, that could have contributed to the foam. A new filter has a lot of trapped air, so the best process is to install the new filter, add DIW to tank, run the pump for few minutes to fill/flush the filter, then degas - and then add the cleaner.
I find Tergitol 15-S-9 easier to work with if I first prepare an intermediate 10% solution (90 ml 100% Tergitol, 810 ml distilled water). I keep it in a handy quart bottle. I then add this solution to the US bath as required (4 ml of 10% Tergitol into my 4l US tank yields 0.01% final concentration). I actually use a higher working concentration (0.05%) as I perform two submersive distilled water rinses afterwards. But, in my opinion, even the 0.01% solution needs to be rinsed off. For calculating the various concentrations, I find this on-line calculator helpful: Dilution Calculator - for percent solutions
FWIW - To mix cleaners, I am now just using disposable LDPE pipettes; a bag of 50 3mL or 5mL costs $5.00, and 100 for $10 or less - example moveland 5ML Transfer Graduated Pipettes Plastic Essential Oils Dropper - 50 PCS: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific.
Has anyone noticed a blueish, almost neon tint on the surface after cleaning some records? Does anyone have any idea why this is happening? My fluid is 15l distilled water, 10ml ilfotol and 10ml kodak photo flo (its a large tank!)
I can't answer your question about the color but I am curious why you are using 2 different wetting agents?
ILFORD-ILFOTOL is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 1-5% nonionic surfactant and <1% of an antibacterial inhibitor. The cloud point is high >45C/113F. The Kodak Photo Flo is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene glycol (i.e. anti-freeze) that can act as an antibacterial agent and 5-10% nonionic surfactant. The likely non-ionic surfactant is Triton X114 which has a cloud point of only 25C/77F. At the cloud-point, this surfactant will come partly out of solution and appear cloudy. The Kodak Photo Flo is not really intended for a heated tank apllication. In the mean time the propylene glycol may act a bit as a defoaming agent so you may end up with a sheen on the surface. The overall concentration you are using between the 2 wetting agents is as follows: ILFOTOL is 5% concentrated so (10mL/15000mL)(0.05) = 0.00333% = 33 ppm; this is barely enough (need about 50 ppm) to for the ILFOTOL to cause the water to reach the lowest surface tension the surfactant can produce. Kodak we will assume 10% concentrated so (10mL/15000mL)(0.1) = 0.00667% = 67 ppm; this is not enough (need at least 120 ppm) for the Triton X114 in the Kodak to cause the water to reach the lowest surface tension. But, the propylene glycol concentration is high - (10mL/15000mL)(0.30) = 0.020% = 200 ppm. Questions - are you using a pump/filter on your tank and do you see any foam in your tank? Here is a thought for you to try: The ILFOTOL by itself can cause foam to develop. The non-ionic surfactant in Kodak will foam. If you see no foam, then the propylene glycol in the Kodak is acting as a defoaming agent. You 'may' be able to achieve a better overall cleaning solution by increasing the ILFOTOL by 50% to 15mL to get the lowest solution surface tension for improved cleaning, and decreasing the Kodak by 50% to 5mL to still get the defoamimg action of the propylene glycol; and reduce the Kodak surfactant concentration low enough to avoid issues with its low cloud point.
I wish Pacvr was around for every time some knucklehead recommends a damaging cleaning method. There's just so many garbage remedies out there. It really shouldn't be all that complicated, you just need the right person, like Pac, to guide you.
Phil, Thank-you! To be honest given some of our back and forth bantering and debating, I did not see this one coming . But, again thank-you. Take care Neil
Thank-you for the compliment. I try to be as unbiased as possible - and if the data is there - adjust or change any misconceptions I may have. But, over at the VPI forum I told some folks who felt the need for DIY cleaner - you appear to be back yard chemists determined to concoct some kind of solution. And, then there is someone over at Audiogon telling people to use CRC Brake Cleaner-Chlorinated version . He has confused the term chlorinated for CFC (chlorofluorocarbons which manufactured was banned by the Montreal Protocol in 1996). The CRC Brake Cleaner-Chlorinated contains Perchloroethylene which while non-flammable and mostly compatible with the record has the 'small' problem of being a known human carcinogen and is only supposed to be used with an engineered ventilation system.
Wow - thank you so much. This is incredibly helpful. Yes, I have a filter in the tank, and there's no foam as of now.
Are these filters for machines specifically designed for filter use or are there DIY instructions for adding a filter to the process?
These are DIY pump/filter systems mounted external to the tank - they are pretty basic - pump draws suction from the tank drain; discharges to a commercial standard 10" filter housing that accepts commercial standard 10" double open ended (DOE) filter cartridges and directs the filtered water back to the tank (all flexible hoses) via the top to of the tank. Tim (TIMA) has a DIY Ultrasonic thread over at tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) and has some pictures. If you read the conversation I had with Tim over at Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records - The Vinyl Press I noted some limitations with the filter system he was using; specifically the filter was only nominally rated so it was not filtering as good as he thought and the Little Giant pump he was using was not intended for that purpose because it had a very low head (discharge pressure capability). If you through my conversation with him, you will see where we worked out a new high performance filter system (and I did a quick pressure drop analysis) that he purchased, installed and is now using, and in one of the later comments he provided the following detailed parts/cost list. "7. Yes – I built the new filter and it appears to working quite well per our discussion.. Filter Canister: Pentek 150574 ~$33 Wrench for Canister: Pentek SW-2 ~$6 Differential Pressure Gauge: Pentek 143549 ~$53 — Green (clean) 0-6 psid; Yellow (change) 6-9 psid; Red (dirty) 9-12 psid Tubing: 3/8″ ID Heavy Duty Reinforced Vinyl Tubing, BPA Free and Non Toxic — 25 ft ~ $28 Pump: Shurflo 8020-513-236 (Over 40,000 Products Everything! ) ~$143 Filter: FlowMax HP (Watts) FPP-0.2-975-DOE 0.2 micron absolute — Fresh Water Systems | Whole House Systems | Water Treatment ~ $50 Hose Barb for filter canister: x2 brass Hose Barb ¾” NPT x 3/8” Barb Hose Barb for Pump: x2 Hose Barb 3/8” NPT x 3/8” Barb — nylon or plastic not metal per Shurflo On/Off Switch for Pump: BindMaster 3-Prong Grounded On/Off Switch ~$9. As you suspected the Shurflo pump is noisier than the Little Giant. I mounted it on a board and raised it up with some cork & rubber feet. It is not enclosed. At first, the gauge was a bit ‘stiff’ reading in the red for the initial 10 minutes of use, then settled into the leftmost green. I ran the pump+filter for 45minutes continuous to stress test it – no problems. After cleaning about 40 records for 20 minutes each, the tank solution reads 002ppm. At this point I consider the new pump+filter a success. For those reading this deep into the thread, there are the parts. Total cost ~$325.". There is a lot of small details in designing a filter system, need to be able to read and understand the cut sheets, understand the pump curves and types of pumps, how filters are rated and how to calculate system pressure drop to make sure the pump is going to work well. But, the system I worked out with Tim is going to last a very long time, uses standard commercial parts; and the pump is supplied with a 3-prong 120VAC cord/plug and the pump is pretty bulletproof. While the 0.2 absolute filter is not cheap, it would not surprise me if it lasts upwards of a year. The filter we selected has good dirt holding capacity, can handle high pressure drop and the pump has enough discharge head to take full advantage of the filter. How does this filter system compare to say the one in the Degriter - there is no comparison. The Degritter is a simple small foam plug rated at best about 80 pores/inch (ppi) - that is equal to about 250 microns. The 0.2 micron will keep the tank clean for weeks on end including filtering out any bacteria that may form. The cleaning solution will be exhausted before that 0.2 filter overloads which is why the filter cartridge should last many tank refreshes. And, by keeping the cleaning solution essentially free of particulate - the last record cleaned will be just as clean as the 1st. I know, a lot to digest. Hope this helps.
Neil, Question for you. I have replaced my old pump/filter system with the one you recommended. I see that the amount and pressure of the liquid being pushed into the tank is much greater due to the bigger capacity pump. Do you think that the increased agitation will have any negative effect on the ultrasonic tanks' ability to do its job? That is, does the water flow from the filter/hose affect the ultrasonics at all?
Your Elma P120H has a tank capacity of 12.75 L (3.3 gallons). The new pump and I am assuming is the Shurflo 8020-513-236 has a flow rate at low head of about 1.4 gpm, and as the filter loads, the flow rate will eventually drop to about 1.0 gpm. The flow rate in comparison to the tank volume is not very high and is <50% and the best data available indicates that this is just fine. In fact the book Particle Adhesion and Removal Edited by K.L. Mittal and Ravi Jaiswal, 2015 states in a section on using ultrasonic cleaning tanks the following: "In fact, however, optimum performance is seldom achieved in static fields, since continuous purification of the cleaning chemical either by overflow or by recycle filtration process that necessitates cleaning chemical change of up to 50% of the total bath volume per minute is often a prerequisite to effective cleaning. And, contrary to what one might anticipate under such conditions, little or no cavitation activity is lost to this liquid flow when it is properly introduced into the bath. In fact, improvement in overall surface impingement and homogeneity of cleaning can be realized with this method.". However, using a much larger pump where the tank turnover is every minute or more, and with a low powered ultrasonic unit, then there is risk of loss of cavitation activity. FWIW - In filter system design that recirculates tank fluid there is a relationship called filter 1/2-life which is the time it takes to filter 50% of the liquid, and it takes 5-half-lives to filter >95% of the liquid in the tank. The calculation for t½ = 0.693 (UCM tank capacity) / (pump flow rate) which for your tank = (0.693)(3.3/1.4) = 1.63 minutes (~100 seconds) to filter 50% of the tank, and about 8 minutes to filter>95% of the tank. I address this because when you are done cleaning - its a good idea for the pump/filter to continue to run for about 5-8 minutes so that the fluid is mostly filtered before securing. PS/You can use a large pump with a small UT tank; the general guidance is secure the pump when cleaning - and then use in-between cleaning cycles and afterwards to clean-up the tank. Take care, Neil
Does anyone use an alternative to alcohol in their solution? One that preferably doesn't require a further rinse? The smell of the alcohol (about 200ml per litre of distilled) is a little sickly. Wish I had a bigger place so this wasn't an issue, but guess it's the price i pay for living in London!
First - your IPA solution 200 ml/L = about 20%. A couple safety items to consider. At >2%, IPA is flammable with a flashpoint - heat the fluid to the flashpoint and all you need is a spark and it can ignite. IPA at 10% has a flashpoint of 41C and at 20% is even less. However, alcohol and water-alcohol has explosive limits. Explosive limits are different from flashpoint. Explosive limits are associated with vapor at the right concentration at 25C all that is required is a spark. Its one thing to use water-alcohol solutions for manual cleaning and maybe vacuum-RCM where the applied quantity is just a few ml. But in an ultrasonic tank you have 100's if not 1000's mL of fluid. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are now in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record turning is drawing fluid out that is evaporating and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND explosive vapors, and the UT tanks being used are not explosion-proof. At 100% IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 13.2%. But, even diluted with water, at 20% water-IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 6.3%; and at 10% water-IPA its still 2.3 to 4%. I would recommend you consider the following safer alternatives. The cleaning solution used by Tima tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) is 2.4% IPA (24 ml/l) and 0.125% (1.25 ml/l) Ilfotol (which is actually equal to 0.00625% = 62.5 ppm because the Ilfotol is only 5% non-ionic surfactant). This is a good wetting solution - its not enough Ilfotol to be a detergent - but for UT tank cleaning you should only need good wetting - the ultrasonic's/cavitation are doing the cleaning; and the Ilfotol has a biocide. Tima does not rinse, and given the actual low concentration of Ilfotol (62.5 ppm) there is little risk of residue; and any residue that may be left behind will be <0.5 mg/record side. Tima does not report any issues with foaming. The IPA, at 2.4% its not doing much; it decreases the boiling point by only 10C (18F) and the decrease in surface tension is small in comparison to what the Ilfotol does; but this is not a bad UT tank cleaning solution and its safe, and you could use this formula without the IPA. Some in the UK (Vinyl Care Archives - The Audiophile Man) are now using Tergikleen - Amazon.com: Clean Vintage Vinyl Records Like A Professional Archivist With TergiKleen™ Tergitol-based Fluid Concentrate: Electronics. However, some only apply to the record directly - such as Paul Rigby, while some add it to the Degritter UT tank. In a UT Tank it will not foam because it is a blend of Tergitol 15-S-9 (high performance water soluble non-ionic surfactant) and Tergitol 15-S-3 that is an oil-based water insoluble non-ionic surfactant - the 15-S-3 acts as a defoaming agent. For the UT Tank users, no one is speaking of residue, but without a rinse, not sure how you are not going leave some 15-S-3 residue. In the USA we can buy pure Tergitol 15-S-9 from Talas (Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com)).
OK - that's the new Gold-Standard - that is precision cleaning with filtration to 0.2 micron absolute - WOW!
