Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks so much for your cogent explanation. For some reason, the snippet I read referred to Ethyl alcohol as being preferred over IPA; but based on your illumination and the fact that things are working well as they are, it's probably safer for me to just drink the stuff. Once again, I am in your debt.
Sorry, I missed that you originally stated ethyl alcohol, not isopropyl. By and large they are interchangeable, but the ethanol would be preferred since it is less hydrophobic (smaller side chain) and therefore less likely to compete with quat binding.
 
I think he is saying that a 40 kHz machine's cavitation bubble is small enough to fit in a record groove.
 
Sorry, I missed that you originally stated ethyl alcohol, not isopropyl. By and large they are interchangeable, but the ethanol would be preferred since it is less hydrophobic (smaller side chain) and therefore less likely to compete with quat binding.
Would that go for the original wash formula as well, or is the objective different?
 
Would that go for the original wash formula as well, or is the objective different?
My opinion has always been that ethanol is better than isopropanol in the cleaning solution. The issue is that few people have access to 99%+ so they use vodka or something that has contaminants so 99% isopropanol is a better substitute. I suspect commercial solutions typically contain isopropanol in place of ethanol so that they do not require special labelling (or maybe even taxation)?
 
Denatured is just OK. The lab grade contains methanol and/or IPA (and sometimes other nasties like acetone or MEK) to make it undrinkable, un-purifiable via distillation, and hence un-taxed. It would be better to find a regent or HPLC grade where at least the extra 5% is just water. It's not that the added denaturants are necessarily harmful to records at the concentrations employed, it just that the producer doesn't always disclose what exactly they are. If they are just methanol or isopropanol, then it isn't anything to worry about. If it is some denatonium salt, then I'm not so sure I want to experiment with it. That said, I'm not necessarily the right person to comment as I'm tainted by my frustration of an archaic and stupid system of taxation that results in people getting poisoned.
 
Flinn Scientific
Denatured is just OK. The lab grade contains methanol and/or IPA (and sometimes other nasties like acetone or MEK) to make it undrinkable, un-purifiable via distillation, and hence un-taxed. It would be better to find a regent or HPLC grade where at least the extra 5% is just water. It's not that the added denaturants are necessarily harmful to records at the concentrations employed, it just that the producer doesn't always disclose what exactly they are. If they are just methanol or isopropanol, then it isn't anything to worry about. If it is some denatonium salt, then I'm not so sure I want to experiment with it. That said, I'm not necessarily the right person to comment as I'm tainted by my frustration of an archaic and stupid system of taxation that ends up poisoning people.

Flinn Scientific denatures the ethanol with isopropyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, and methyl isobutyl ketone. Any thougths on the last one?
 
Like MEK, it is rated as incompatible or having a "severe effect" on PVC polymers (e.g. https://www.calpaclab.com/pvc-polyvinyl-chloride-chemical-compatibility-chart/) so it isn't something we want to expose our records to. That said, it is present at less than 5% in the alcohol and then diluted 5 to 10-fold in the wash solution so maybe not a big deal, but my opinion is...why chance it?

Thanks for the perspective. It's at 1% in the ethanol, which I'm diluting to 5%, but I guess I'll switch to IPA. And here I thought I was being all fancy by using the Flinn stuff!
 
You could always drive down to Baja, pick up a gallon of 95% ethanol free of denaturants for $12, fill a canteen, and drive it back across the border!
 
I am saying that the graph suggests that an entire 40 kHz bubble can fit into the width of a record groove. The graph indicates a *radius* of 8 microns, but I thought it would be more useful to think of the diameter across the entire bubble, which would be 2*radius = 16 microns.
Somehow I missed that thanks. Yes with a groove width of .001 inches minimum a 16 micron bubble will get into a groove easily as they are .00063". Even at the bottom of the groove which is .00025" when the bubbles burst they will clean there as well. But no stylus gets close to the bottom of the groove. There is also more energy in a 40 Khz bubble so I would think the 40 Khz machines are probably the most economical and best for record cleaning.
 
HepaStat 256 seems to be discontinued, I've looked through the thread and cannot see any definite alternatives - especially that are available in the UK. Just got a US cleaner so trying to decide on the solution to use (ideally one that is residue free that does not demand a rinse stage).

Can anyone recommend a UK available alternative for HepaStat please (and welcome any other solution suggestions - be them recipes or pre-made / over-the-counter record cleaning concentrates)?? Many thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Looking for a wash solution to be used with hand brush and a Knosti spin clean type device, followed by a vac system. I started reading and searching this thread trying to find the OP`s recommended formula of products and quantities only to read he has left the forum. By any chance anyone have the post number or actual formula he may have left here?
 
Looking for a wash solution to be used with hand brush and a Knosti spin clean type device, followed by a vac system. I started reading and searching this thread trying to find the OP`s recommended formula of products and quantities only to read he has left the forum. By any chance anyone have the post number or actual formula he may have left here?


Just from memory the thread came up with .5% tergitol, < 10% isopropyl (90-99% pure) and a quat, which I personally haven’t used and don’t know what that is, or the % called for - all mixed in distilled or better water, and then rinsed with distilled or better water. Also if you check the most recent 5 or so pages there is another summary of the work that was kindly continued by another chemist. Also tergitol doesn’t have to be tergitol - there’s also triton-x and at least 1 other substitute, I believe.
 
The quats are actually provided by the Hepistat in the original recipe. From my understanding from reading various sources this provides anti-static properties, along with a sanitiser / biocide elelent (my USC has been adapted to incorporate a pumped filtration system so the sanitising properties are quite useful for keeping the system clean).

With no answers to my post I have researched further and I believe I have found a good option. Selgiene is manufactured by Selden, costs (at this time) approx £10 for 5l and is a food grade concentrated sanitiser (I am assuming this makes it likely to be safe for use on vinyl). The description includes "Selgiene is a blend of advanced quaternary ammonium biocides and amphoteric surfactant", so looks to tick the boxes in that regard. It also looks to have no dies or added fragrances (a regular objection to Hepistat based on what I have read).

I am no chemist, but it looks to be weaker than Hepistat, with the composition detailed as 1%-5% on the COSHH datasheets (where as Hepistat runs to 8.7%) so I suspect a little more would be needed (I'll approximate the ratios if I have to, but if there are any chemists reading this it would be really useful to have an informed comparison of the two products in terms of ingredients, and a suggested ratio for Selgiene if it is a good substitute.

My other concern given that my USC is heated is the use of ethanol / alchohol due to the flash point. Does anyone have experiences of solutions without them? I have read that they add little to the cleaning process, and are more a drying agent? If so would Ilford Ilfotol and Triton-X100 alone produce the results needed?
 
Some people add some Tonar solution (essentially what you would use neat in a Knosti / SpinClean). There are also some solutions sold by the makers of the higher budget US machines such as Audio Desk, and I also came across Winyl Pro-Clean-6 which notes use in US tanks as well as conventional cleaners in the description. The problem I faced was that they are either expensive, fail to list ingredients (for understandable commercial reasons), or both - so I have yet to find anything that presents a compelling enough case to try. As I have only just got my USC I lack the benchmark / experience to compare as well.

That is in essence what has driven me to researching 'DIY' formulations as the chemistry is openly discussed and it's possible (if you are prepared to invest the time) to research the ingredients to see if the science holds up. I too would love to have found a sensibly priced, easily available solution that was created for the purpose, but as yet I have drawn a blank. Adding cleaning solutions designed for other types of machines in a trial / error manner just seems less convincing than chemistry based 'DIY' formulas to me, and not really any less 'DIY'. If anyone has tried the Audio Desk solution, or the Winyl Pro-Clean in their tank it would be interesting to hear what the results were like and if you felt it was worth the premium over home mixed solutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom