• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Record cleaning based on science

Anyone have a current McCutcheon's? Mine is about 12 years old. IIRC, there are several other "drop-ins" for the Triton and Tergitol products mentioned. It has been a decade since I formulated detergents (concentrate mainly of polyacrylamides and quats now).
 
Regular water is fine at the enzyme step (many enzymes in fact require ions to do their jobs).
Click to expand...

Vince,
I just discovered this thread. As a pharmacist, I am familiar with the science and found it fascinating. And I love how audiophiles from all walks of life have contributed.

I wanted to point out that many municipalities across the US treat their tap water. At first, they used simple chlorine (which dissipates rapidly if left uncovered). It was my understanding that most if not all municipalities have switched to a Chloramine compound, which does not rapidly dissipate.

Doesn't this affect if not kill the enzyme's ability to break protein bonds? And what effect do chloramines have on the vinyl surface? Does any denaturing of the vinyl occur?
 
Sorry for the delayed responses, but I have been busy with holiday house guests and experiments with film mask cleaners.
quantum: I would suspect the mold avenger ingredients to be too harsh for record cleaning. Check the pH if you have some, I'd be curious. Molds make spores that are very resistant, so they are hard to get rid of without resorting to extreme conditions. The enzymes merely help detach microorganisms so detergent can wash them away (this is oversimplified, but you get the basic idea). It takes a lot of moisture to sustain a mold culture though, so not sure how big an issue they are compared to others.
Dcmfan: if you had enough accumulation to cause a skip and enzymes removed it, maybe it was a protein deposit. Either way, I'm glad it worked out for you. As I said earlier, not all records need the enzyme step, just the really dirty ones. I've seen Cheetos fingerprints be completely removed, which made me smile as that orange crap is like glue and not natural to be sure!
Mikewish: some of the masks I've been working with used acrylamide/polyvinylalcohol mixes, but I dropped them. I also tried a few quat additives for antimicrobials plus antistats so it would be interesting to pick your brain. I previously gave a few alternative detergents one could use.
Heyraz: yes, water is typically treated, and may inhibit some enzymes, but the additive concentrations are small (EPA limits chloramine to 4ppm) and we are using an excess of enzymes and not shooting for anything near maximal efficiency so the ammonium derivatives are ok. The way I look at it is that the same treated water doesn't effect the enzymes in your saliva from doing their job right? That's why laundry detergents and other commercial cleaners get by using similar enzyme mixes...they are pretty robust and work under a variety of conditions (in hot tap water with detergent and bleaching agents, for example). The chlorine or ammonium derivatives in typical tap water are too dilute and too brief in contact with the vinyl to be harmful. I do recommend the distilled or deionized final wash however as I wouldn't want to store records with these residues.
Silver: I don't know what that lube is, but I'd guess some long chain cationic surfactant. Water pressure alone removes a lot of debris (which is why it is my first step) so I'm not surprised their device works, but I'd like to try it on an organically contaminated record.
OnwardJames: your glue results are fascinating. My mask experiments have hit a bump as I cannot find a mix that dries faster than 6 hours without additives that might do harm. Still working on it, but right now it is not any more convenient to implement than wood glue, though I presume it is a lot safer.
 
Last edited:
Heyraz: yes, water is typically treated, and may inhibit some enzymes, but the additive concentrations are small (EPA limits chloramine to 4ppm) and we are using an excess of enzymes and not shooting for anything near maximal efficiency so the ammonium derivatives are ok. The way I look at it is that the same treated water doesn't effect the enzymes in your saliva from doing their job right? That's why laundry detergents and other commercial cleaners get by using similar enzyme mixes...they are pretty robust and work under a variety of conditions (in hot tap water with detergent and bleaching agents, for example). The chlorine or ammonium derivatives in typical tap water are too dilute and too brief in contact with the vinyl to be harmful. I do recommend the distilled or deionized final wash however as I wouldn't want to store records with these residues.
Click to expand...

Thanks. My initial concern was for the possibility of some enzyme inhibition or destruction by the chloramines (enzymes work better when combined with the minerals present in tap water but tap water has chloramines). Now I'm wondering if it would be better to activate the enzymes in a small amount of tap water/spring water/well water (not all of us have municipal water) followed by mixing the culture into distilled water. This is similar to "pitching yeast" when making beer and I would think should minimize the concentration of any dissolved metals in your formula from interacting with the vinyl surface (you ever see a sidewalk with rust stains because of well water?).

What I love about this thread is how many different "walks of life" have contributed their knowledge and experience. Personally, I was reminded of my quantitative chemistry classes. If there was one thing I took away from that class was how to clean glassware to avoid contamination.
 
I wonder if using enzyme tablets and or capsules is such a good idea? As CEO of a supplement manufacturer I am aware that fillers are used (yes, even in the powder inside of capsules) such as microcrystalline cellulose (and others). I would think that cellulose could cause some residue to be deposited in the grove - unless the enzyme you are using has a potent cellulase in it? There are liquid enzymes (we use them in one of our processes and buy them by the barrel) with no such pollutants. Does anyone know if there are liquid enzyme preparations (such as those discussed in this thread) available at retail that could be used in place of the tablets or capsules? My guess is that there are, but I haven't really looked into it.
 
soundmig said:
I wonder if using enzyme tablets and or capsules is such a good idea? As CEO of a supplement manufacturer I am aware that fillers are used (yes, even in the powder inside of capsules) such as microcrystalline cellulose (and others). I would think that cellulose could cause some residue to be deposited in the grove - unless the enzyme you are using has a potent cellulase in it? There are liquid enzymes (we use them in one of our processes and buy them by the barrel) with no such pollutants. Does anyone know if there are liquid enzyme preparations (such as those discussed in this thread) available at retail that could be used in place of the tablets or capsules? My guess is that there are, but I haven't really looked into it.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, cellulose fillers are a problem, but there is plenty of cellulase around to take care of it. The capsule itself is a bigger sticky, which is why I empty it. I wish there were a pure capsule without fillers. It is a compromise as I tried to find something anyone could buy and use successfully as few can grab purified enzymes off their lab shelf. The liquid enzyme mixes I have found lack activity. They are high in protease, but not much else. This makes some sense, as the other enzymes in the mix would eventually be degraded by the protease if it is broad spectrum or a protease mixture. Some concentrates can include inhibitors that get diluted out but still degrade over time. If you find something better, let us know!
 
Smitten said:
I bought the same from Amazon because it was the least expensive form I could find.
Click to expand...

Yes, that grade will work fine. You can increase the detergent concentration if you find it helps, just make sure to rinse it away. While Triton is used in most commercial record cleaning mixes, you can substitute NP40, other Tergitols,and non-ionic detergents. A small amount of cationic detergent in the mix can help reduce static and have the added benefit of keeping microbes from growing in the wash solution so manufacturers sometimes include them. I don't typically include them as I make my solutions fresh each time and static hasn't been a problem. I do include cationics in my record cleaning mask peel however.
 
Last edited:
Vince1 said:
You are absolutely correct, cellulose fillers are a problem, but there is plenty of cellulase around to take care of it. The capsule itself is a bigger sticky, which is why I empty it. I wish there were a pure capsule without fillers. It is a compromise as I tried to find something anyone could buy and use successfully as few can grab purified enzymes off their lab shelf. The liquid enzyme mixes I have found lack activity. They are high in protease, but not much else. This makes some sense, as the other enzymes in the mix would eventually be degraded by the protease if it is broad spectrum or a protease mixture. Some concentrates can include inhibitors that get diluted out but still degrade over time. If you find something better, let us know!
Click to expand...

You won't find tablets or capsules without fillers. It is not possible to get homogeneous blends without them, nor can you get them through the machinery that fills the capsules without them. The other point worth looking into is that all enzymes have fairly narrow temperature and pH ranges within which they work. If it can be determined what the proper temperature and pH is for optimal activity for the enzymes in use, one could adjust the mixture for best possible effect. If they are physiologically active I guess it would make sense that normal body temperature would be a good temperature, but pH is more tricky and it changes as the enzymes do their work. If anyone has any such information (active pH range) on the enzyme they are using that would be useful to any of us wishing to try this very interesting cleaning technique.
 
You needn't worry about pH. There is no way to optimize for all the enzymes used (nor all the encountered substrates), and nobody is looking for optimal activity so it isn't important as the enzymes will work to some extent in most any unbuffered aqueous solution. For example, papain, the most commonly used protease in cleaning solutions, has a broad pH activity range. In fact, some substrates it works on best at acidic pH whereas others are more efficiently digested under basic conditions. Yes, there are optimal pHs for each enzyme-substrate reaction, but in this application, you must forget that and realize they will establish microenvironments in which they work efficiently on a given substrate. Many papers have been written on this subject, yet people remain focused on optimal activity measurements in some artificial, buffered experimental system.
 
Last edited:
OK … I'm not familiar with enzymes for record cleaning. I only know what is important in a very specify enzyme digestion process that we use in our manufacturing plant. That reaction requires automated control of addition of a buffer solution (KOH) to maintain pH in a very specific (and very tight) pH range. Otherwise we get goo instead of nice useable product :) Good to know that such is not the case for record cleaning as that would get really complicated!
 
soundmig said:
OK … I'm not familiar with enzymes for record cleaning. I only know what is important in a very specify enzyme digestion process that we use in our manufacturing plant. That reaction requires automated control of addition of a buffer solution (KOH) to maintain pH in a very specific (and very tight) pH range. Otherwise we get goo instead of nice useable product :) Good to know that such is not the case for record cleaning as that would get really complicated!
Click to expand...

In your case, you are interested in the product, which I assume is heme derived from proteolytic digestion of blood hemoglobin. Hence, pH is critical to get the correct digestion products and keep them soluble (I would imagine temperature plays an important role as well). In our case, we don't care about the digestion products, as long as they can be washed away with detergent. So non-specific proteases that cleave substrates at multiple sites are ideal, as are mixtures of such proteases. Quite different applications, but enzymes are our friends in both.
 
Just cleaned 30 or so records using this method. Best not to put enzyme mixture on more than 6 records at a time, to keep from drying. I learned this the hard way, I had 12 or so going then realized I'd better reapply to keep them wet, as I was doing the next step. A lot less stressful if you do a few at a time.

I found the results to be quite successful. I was cleaning records that had already been cleaned before, so I skipped the sink step.

This is what I did:

1. Apply enzyme mixture, wait 3-5 minutes.

2. I then applied DIY cleaning formula and vacuum cleaned with Record Doctor

3. Rinsed with distilled water in Spin Clean, turning 5 times each way. ( changed the water every 5 records, I feel this was sufficient instead of rinsing twice.

4. Finished off by vacuum cleaning again with Record Doctor

5. Final dry in dish rack
 
Gridslayer, that sounds like a lot of work. I just wash with a mixture of 99% alcohol and couple of drops of dish soap but what made a really difference was adding a cap full of jet dry after the rinse i let them drip dry a few minutes than wipe them down with ca microfibre cloth. I would like to use a RCM vacuum to see if it is really better. The above mentioned way gets rid of 95% to 100% of surface noise...my 2 cents.
One thing for sure I now pre-rinse with the most powerful stream of water and after the scrub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom