Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods

[guest110]

hydrophobic chained detergent is that were the Triton x-200 comes in?

Not sure about the 200, but I'm just trying to illustrate why people use mixtures of molecular weight detergents. They all have unique properties and are effective against different compounds. This is why some recommend a mix of Tergitols, for example. The difference among them is the length, and hence hydrophobicity, of their "tail" regions. My opinion is that this is overkill. simply stick with one if you find it works. I recommend Triton X-100. The Ilfotol will equally be just fine if you find it works. It consists of a neutral detergent, much like Triton, just a different "tail". I haven't used this specific one, but if it works for you, then stay with it.
In case anyone is interested, the molecular weight (size of "tails") of these detergents varies and is usually represented as a range, with actual size given as an average. Hence, detergents like Triton x-100 are typically mixes of different lengths right out of the box.

 

[kceateva]

Thank you for the input. So say I have a record with some finger marks on it. Is that when the alcohol comes into play in the mixture to help remove it? Sorry if my question is dumb just trying to learn and understand.

 

[guest110]

Thank you for the input. So say I have a record with some finger marks on it. Is that when the alcohol comes into play in the mixture to help remove it? Sorry if my question is dumb just trying to learn and understand.

Fingerprints are typically a mix of mostly oils, with some proteins and sugars (depending on where they've been!). They should come off with the detergent and a light scrubbing. The alcohol helps, but it is the detergent that solubilizes the oils. In some cases, you may need an enzymatic pre-treatment to help remove old, crusty fingerprints.

Is the Ilfotol not working on them? You should try Triton if so.

 

[misterjones]

I read many, but not all, of the posts here (there's quite a bit to digest). I've seen references to soft toothbrushes and paint pads as "scrubbers" (for lack of a better word). I currently use a microfiber cloth. I'm not sure how well I'm getting into the nooks and crannies (or if I even need to to a greater extent). Is there a consensus about what is best for a mildly soiled record? If the answer is a paint pad, what type/brand is appropriate? I assumed those would be a bit abrasive, but I guess not.

 

[kceateva]

So is the alcohol really used in this mix as a way for drying? But if your using a rcm then it wouldn't really be necessary to use?

edit reread, and it does help in a record cleaning mix, but the triton or ilfotol is mostly doing the work?

 

[guest110]

If the answer is a paint pad, what type/brand is appropriate? I assumed those would be a bit abrasive, but I guess not.

I use the Shur-line stuff you find at Lowes or Walmart. They have a microfiber surface with sponge behind it. It isn't abrasive at all. Use separate pads for different solutions and dispose of when wear first shows. They can be cleaned with water then alcohol to help dry.

So is the alcohol really used in this mix as a way for drying? But if your using a rcm then it wouldn't really be necessary to use? edit reread, and it does help in a record cleaning mix, but the triton or ilfotol is mostly doing the work?

The alcohol helps in a few ways. It helps kill microorganisms, it helps the fluid distribute across the record, it helps solubilize certain contaminants more rapidly, and it helps in drying. You don't need it, but it is useful. I've cleaned many records without it.

 

[njmpmcc]

Now we are at the opposite end of the pH scale: this product is quite basic with a pH of 11. This can be corrosive so I would not recommend it. The antimicrobial properties come from benzylalkonium chlorides. These are inherently anti-stats so it at least has this going for it! With simple pure ingredients available, I still don't get why people want to experiment with household cleaners that were designed for completely different applications, or at least certainly not for surfaces used for sound reproduction. I have other opinions on Scrubbing Bubbles and other products I may add, I just addressed the most common first.

Vince - Thanks you for a very interesting and enlightening thread. I have not cleaned many LP's as I have most of mine from years ago, but I have done some using the Scrubbing Bubbles (mixture of various (tetra-alkyl Quaternium chloride salts ~0.25% only stated as active ingredients) method in part as it is available in the household inventory and is simple to use with a label protector and lends itself to simple tap rinse with large volumes of H2O, followed by a quick surface dry with cotton towels, especially for only few LPs. I have noticed that it cleans dirty records well taking dirt off with some pop reduction but does not really eliminate most pops. I would be interested in your analytical results with reference to to its appropriateness for this application as stated above.

Also, have you looked at various mixtures of alkylphenol (Triton, NP, etc), secondary alkyl (tergitol S)and primary alkyl ethoxylates (ecosure,etc.) instead of just one type. I notice from Dow's web site that they can supply a vast arsenal of non ionic surfactants, with quite a potential for varying the HLB (hydrophilic lipophilic balance) of mixtures with different oil solubility capabilities.

 

[guest110]

Now we are at the opposite end of the pH scale: this product is quite basic with a pH of 11. This can be corrosive so I would not recommend it. The antimicrobial properties come from benzylalkonium chlorides. These are inherently anti-stats so it at least has this going for it! With simple pure ingredients available, I still don't get why people want to experiment with household cleaners that were designed for completely different applications, or at least certainly not for surfaces used for sound reproduction. I have other opinions on Scrubbing Bubbles and other products I may add, I just addressed the most common first.

Vince - Thanks you for a very interesting and enlightening thread. I have not cleaned many LP's as I have most of mine from years ago, but I have done some using the Scrubbing Bubbles (mixture of various (tetra-alkyl Quaternium chloride salts ~0.25% only stated as active ingredients) method in part as it is available in the household inventory and is simple to use with a label protector and lends itself to simple tap rinse with large volumes of H2O, followed by a quick surface dry with cotton towels, especially for only few LPs. I have noticed that it cleans dirty records well taking dirt off with some pop reduction but does not really eliminate most pops. I would be interested in your analytical results with reference to to its appropriateness for this application as stated above.

Also, have you looked at various mixtures of alkylphenol (Triton, NP, etc), secondary alkyl (tergitol S)and primary alkyl ethoxylates (ecosure,etc.) instead of just one type. I notice from Dow's web site that they can supply a vast arsenal of non ionic surfactants, with quite a potential for varying the HLB (hydrophilic lipophilic balance) of mixtures with different oil solubility capabilities.

I've used scrubbing bubbles and it does work. However, it's use is not without risk. Firstly, the glycol ether solvent it contains is likely not good for records as it probably leaches plasticizers. I have no direct evidence for this, but many of the known record PVC plasticizers are listed as soluble in these compounds. Secondly, the detergents are quats as you mentioned, but the solution is kept (via NaOH addition) at a very high pH (pH of the green "antibacterial" can =11, some of the other types are even higher). This is considered highly basic, and could be corrosive (caustic) to many materials. I have not seen any experiments investigating the effects of bases on vinyl records so it is hard to be sure if this is bad for them, but knowing what it does to the skin, I would avoid it on my records.
I have not looked at mixtures of detergents, other than a few quats mixed in with Tergitol or Triton. Each has it's advantages solubilizing specific oils so a mix should be beneficial and is a great idea. However, I keep being told to keep things simple with as few components as possible so I stick with one. If this were an industrial application, one would choose the perfect detergent for a specific job, which is why so many are offered. I recommend ones that anyone can buy and have been used successful in commercial record cleaning preparations for many years.

 

[jbailey930]

Ok, how frequent do you clean with this solution and process? I've cleaned over 400 LPs using the magic wand vac attachment and this solution. What do you recommend for doing prior to dropping a needle on one of my cleaned records say in 30 days or so? I know I need to get new sleeves next. Maybe Santa will bring some.

Thanks all

 

[hi*ball]

Ok, how frequent do you clean with this solution and process? I've cleaned over 400 LPs using the magic wand vac attachment and this solution. What do you recommend for doing prior to dropping a needle on one of my cleaned records say in 30 days or so? I know I need to get new sleeves next. Maybe Santa will bring some.

Thanks all

Once your records have been wet cleaned and vacuumed, all you should ever need to do is swipe a good carbon fiber brush over them before each play - just to get any loose surface dust.

And most definitely get yourself some new sleeves!

 

[AvFan]

I agree with hi*ball. And using a new sleeve after cleaning lets me easily confirm the record has been cleaned and when (if I write the date on the MOFI sleeves I use). I keep any unique sleeves (lyrics, art, etc.) otherwise I toss the old ones.

 

[guest110]

Yeah, definitely use new sleeves. I use what AvFan does, the MoFi ones. The old sleeves should be considered contaminated. If you have surface dust on cleaned records with new sleeves, maybe there is a static problem or a dusty environment? A brush like Hiball recommends works great. Some use 5% Isopropanol in distilled water for touch up cleaning. I use distilled water if I notice dust after brushing. If a record gets a good cleaning and is stored and handled properly, I find it rarely needs another deep cleaning unless it is played often.

 

[ETI_5000]

And using a new sleeve after cleaning lets me easily confirm the record has been cleaned and when (if I write the date on the MOFI sleeves I use).

A good tip!

 

[Steven Chase]

No. The isopropanol will not go bad, just keep the lid tightly closed so it doesn't absorb water from the air or evaporate. You can keep it for years. The detergents can oxidize with time, but nothing to worry about for our uses. You can keep them for years as well, tightly closed and out of sunlight. You got some high grade stuff there! The "titration" label is just a grade, certified for use in titration experiments (its used to titrate fats). You'll also find IPA grade (for immunoprecipitation experiments), Molecular grade (for things like DNA precipitation) and others. These high grades are important in scientific experiments but not at all necessary for record cleaning. Just get the highest percent alcohol you can find at the best price.


Avfan: Great tip on using a toothpick. I've actually fixed a skip in a record before with a pin, but it wasn't pretty.

bhebble: I don't know what the original Dishwasher formula was, but remember they had a few D solutions. One was just water, and one was water with isopropanol. Another, D3 I think, had a surfactant, ethylene glycol, and sodium azide (preservative). We could dig around and probably find out, but I bet
Steve Chase knows and can chime in since his venture is to improve on their technologies. I know the new copies by RCA and the like simply provide distilled water. Remember that the original device was really only useful to spruce up clean records. It was never useful to clean the oldy moldy. Biggest problem is that there is no where for the grime to go except onto the brush, which is subsequently used to grind it into the next record. Yeah, you could remove large particles by reversing the pad bristle direction, but what about the oils, etc.? Solubilized contaminants need to be rinsed away. There's no getting around this. The Dishwasher is akin to using the same rag to wash tables in a restaurant. Eventually, your rag is dirtier than the table.
There is a role for DRY brushes (like the carbon fiber ones), as they can remove large dust and particles from previously cleaned records prior to playing. Once you go liquid, you need to remove what has been solubilized.

Dr Vince: We've been busy with our Kickstarter campaign for the GrooveWasher project. Amy just alerted me to this thread, which I'm glad you started. And I really appreciated your record cleaning article. Your knowledge of hard surface cleaning, particularly the "dirty record problem" is impressive, rational and heartfelt.

There isn't much mystery with the ingredients (or families of ingredients) of the original D series fluids (DII and D3), except for the percentages of additives to deionized water. The number of variations possible with just 5 or 6 (or 11?) ingredients is mind numbing. Believe me, we tried and tested many different choices from the families of surfactants, wetting agents and emulsifiers, and percentages of them to total volume that are effective in cleaning vinyl records with minimal residue, before we settled on the final recipe for our G2 Fluid. Dr Maier's multiple formulations for his original fluids are described in his patent. No one but he knows for certain what followed after 1976 with D4 and D4+. But I have my educated guesses. (My family lived and breathed Discwasher from 1972 to 1982.) Bottom line, all of them were effective in cleaning vinyl records balanced with his concern to leave minimal residue--and avoid rinsing with distilled water.

bhebble mentioned some of the ingredients listed in Dr Maier's patent. Sodium azide was chosen as an anti fungal agent on the record's surface. Dr Maier was a professor of microbiology. He related his research on the ability of some species of fungus to etch hard surfaces like glass and PVC vinyl. Due to today's EPA regulations we avoided any claims of our G2 product in this regard. bhebble's thoughts regarding the cleaning pad was a considerations in designing a handle that allows for replacing cleaning pads when they are dirty beyond redemption.

I applaud all who try to create their own vinyl cleaning solutions. Dr Vince's knowledge and advice is outstanding. Common sense is also a good guide.

You don't clean your kitchen counters or dishes with 100% alcohol, or 100% distilled water, or beer, or glue or toothpaste. Vinyl records are a special case of hard surface cleaning. Using cleaners designed for toilets, window glass, dishes or your hair don't make sense for vinyl records. We think we made a good start with our G2 product. Time and our users will tell.

The discussion continues...

Steve

 

[guest110]

Dr Vince: We've been busy with our Kickstarter campaign for the GrooveWasher project. Amy just alerted me to this thread, which I'm glad you started. And I really appreciated your record cleaning article. Your knowledge of hard surface cleaning, particularly the "dirty record problem" is impressive, rational and heartfelt.

There isn't much mystery with the ingredients (or families of ingredients) of the original D series fluids (DII and D3), except for the percentages of additives to deionized water. The number of variations possible with just 5 or 6 (or 11?) ingredients is mind numbing. Believe me, we tried and tested many different choices from the families of surfactants, wetting agents and emulsifiers, and percentages of them to total volume that are effective in cleaning vinyl records with minimal residue, before we settled on the final recipe for our G2 Fluid. Dr Maier's multiple formulations for his original fluids are described in his patent. No one but he knows for certain what followed after 1976 with D4 and D4+. But I have my educated guesses. (My family lived and breathed Discwasher from 1972 to 1982.) Bottom line, all of them were effective in cleaning vinyl records balanced with his concern to leave minimal residue--and avoid rinsing with distilled water.

bhebble mentioned some of the ingredients listed in Dr Maier's patent. Sodium azide was chosen as an anti fungal agent on the record's surface. Dr Maier was a professor of microbiology. He related his research on the ability of some species of fungus to etch hard surfaces like glass and PVC vinyl. Due to today's EPA regulations we avoided any claims of our G2 product in this regard. bhebble's thoughts regarding the cleaning pad was a considerations in designing a handle that allows for replacing cleaning pads when they are dirty beyond redemption.

I applaud all who try to create their own vinyl cleaning solutions. Dr Vince's knowledge and advice is outstanding. Common sense is also a good guide.

You don't clean your kitchen counters or dishes with 100% alcohol, or 100% distilled water, or beer, or glue or toothpaste. Vinyl records are a special case of hard surface cleaning. Using cleaners designed for toilets, window glass, dishes or your hair don't make sense for vinyl records. We think we made a good start with our G2 product. Time and our users will tell.

The discussion continues...

Steve

Thanks for the kind words Steve, and we applaud your efforts (and all should consider supporting). There is a reason we all grew up with the Dishwasher system: it was a great invention. Your improvements make it even better. The fluid is critical and it sounds like Groovewasher's G2 has the right stuff. Just one comment: instead of sodium azide, I add a quat to some of my solutions since they have antimicrobial properties and also reduce static. The main problem with these more complex DIY solutions is that the ingredients are not always easy to come by for the average person. That's why your mix will be very successful. There is a lot to be said for convenience, especially when it is effective. Best wishes!

 

[Steven Chase]

Thanks for the kind words Steve, and we applaud your efforts (and all should consider supporting). There is a reason we all grew up with the Dishwasher system: it was a great invention. Your improvements make it even better. The fluid is critical and it sounds like Groovewasher's G2 has the right stuff. Just one comment: instead of sodium azide, I add a quat to some of my solutions since they have antimicrobial properties and also reduce static. The main problem with these more complex DIY solutions is that the ingredients are not always easy to come by for the average person. That's why your mix will be very successful. There is a lot to be said for convenience, especially when it is effective. Best wishes!

Our chemist, Ben, loves multi-taskers. He suggested quats for the same benefits you describe. G2 has an ingredient that is effective against some microbes at the level we are using, based on 1950s research. Not yet verified by our own lab testing (which we will do soon). We will experiment with quats, for anti microbial and anti static benefits, and talk to our chem supplier about the options (whether quats are compatible with their compounds, etc). Claiming anti microbial action is a huge step for any cleaning product. EPA and state registration, testing, label approval, etc is very costly. We aren't P&G. Yet.

Thanks for your encouragement. Looking forward to your feedback once you try our product!

 

[garybx]

As soon as my Triton X-100 arrives, I will be mixing up my first batch of cleaner to be used with my VPI HW-16.5. I'm wondering if this solution would be appropriate for use in my 80kHz ultrasonic cleaner. Is it likely to foam up or be ill-advised for some other reason?

In fact, does anyone have ideas about the best workflow (steps and solutions) for using my 2 types of cleaning machines in tandem? I currently use a simple water/alcohol mixture in the ultrasonic tank. And I usually use AIVS #15 and/or #6 with my VPI.

 

[guest110]

As soon as my Triton X-100 arrives, I will be mixing up my first batch of cleaner to be used with my VPI HW-16.5. I'm wondering if this solution would be appropriate for use in my 80kHz ultrasonic cleaner. Is it likely to foam up or be ill-advised for some other reason?

In fact, does anyone have ideas about the best workflow (steps and solutions) for using my 2 types of cleaning machines in tandem? I currently use a simple water/alcohol mixture in the ultrasonic tank. And I usually use AIVS #15 and/or #6 with my VPI.

The Triton will foam, just not sure how much (depends on your final concentration). I think using cleaner in both machines is overkill. I would clean in the Ultrasonic tank, then use the VPI for dH20 rinse and drying. You'd have to experiment to see what works best.

 

[ripblade]

If Triton is anything like Tergitol, it won't foam enough to cause any problems in the tank.

I consider the U/S to be like a superfine bristle brush...great for fine detail but not powerful enough to take down the big stuff. When I was using one in conjunction with an hydraulic pressure washer, I preferred to scrub the big stuff off the record first, then spin the whole soapy mess in the tank to take down the fine stuff, finishing with a rinse with the sprayer and vacuum.

This setup worked quite well but I've since acquired a DIY Lori and use it instead as it wins out on sheer convenience.

 

[GPJeff]

I feel the need to recap on this 15th page of the thread - and also because I decided to give the Triton X-100 a try.
For a 50 ml batch:
(1 teaspoon = 4.929 ml> say 5 ml for those using droppers)
5 ml (1 teaspoon) of Triton X-100
45 ml (9 teaspoons) of Distilled Water
Mix solution and let sit approx 10 hrs (overnight) or add 99% IPA to speed dilution

From Vince "You want a final concentration of detergent around 0.1 to 0.2%"
50 ml = 1.69 oz
1 gal = 128 oz
1.69 oz solution / 128 (oz/gal) water = 0.013 =1.3%
therefore
1 oz of solution to 1 gal water = 1.3%;
1 oz of solution to 10 gal water = 0.13%;
Use 5 ml solution per gallon of water

So for my 10 L Ultrasonic Cleaner that uses 2 gals of Distilled Water, I would need 10 ml of solution.
For the Spin Clean tank that uses 24 ozs (.1875 gals) of Distilled Water, I would need 2 ml of solution.