The bottle notes it is in a 5% concentration (assume 95% water) so take your guidance from that. I would work with a very small amount (1-2%) in any solution you mix up, but that is not based on much use as yet - I am still running through my bottles of Spinclean fluid, so not using a lot of this yet. A little more on ADBAC from another post of mine regarding the Acquarius product:
n-alkyl(40% C12, 50% C14, 10% C16)
Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chlorides 5%
Librarian...I remember when this happened to you. How are your eyes? Any lasting effects? I actually thought about you the other day when I opened a bottle of hair product for my wife and it got me right in the eye. It contained a lot of chemicals (including a quat!) and burned like hell. Up at my house above 8000ft, even opening a yogurt is hazardous as most everything is packaged near sea level. It all goes Poof. I wear contacts so it was really painful trying to get the contact out with such a sensitive red eye. Anyways, hope all is well and your experience serves as a continuous warning to us all.
That compound works well in record cleaning solutions. It has both antimicrobial and anti-static properties (in fact, it is VERY similar to distearyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, one of the first fabric softeners). The only issue is that you have to keep stocks at concentrations that don't solidify at cold temperatures (where it form wax-like flakes- Note that some of the long chain surfactants in Hepastat can do this as well). Since you are using a commercial preparation this shouldn't be an issue. Store it at room temp as nothing will grow in it. I also wouldn't worry about pH since it is only slightly basic and you are likely diluting it 1000-fold or more in your cleaning solution. Obviously, follow precautions listed on bottle .Interesting. For some reason I thought I had the same stuff but I just checked my bottle downstairs. It's a totally different brand and everything. So much for my memory-- the one I have is Halt50 Algaecide which is listed on the bottle as a 50% concentration of Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride. A quick search for the MSDS shows it has another 10 percent ethanol, with the balance water. So yeah. Totally different. At this point I think I'll just keep this for the spa and the hepastat for the vinyl (and my eye protection for both).
I’ll take the second position.
No. The principle is the same as previously discussed here: a mixture that includes a quat. The improvements are in ease of use, water solubility, purity, lack of residue, acid neutralization, and long term resistance to static build up. There are minor improvements in contaminant solubilization in lab tests, but in practice there would be little benefit to re-washing records already washed with the Hepastat mix. That mix already works very well and actually has better biocidal properties (useful if you store solutions long term or are starting with moldy records). I should add that we found benefit to reducing the concentrations of detergent and quat significantly in all applications, including Ultrasonic baths so I recommend you go light when making the Hepastat mixes.I had excellent results with the Hepastat/Triton mix in my USC, but am curious about this new formulation. Do you think records already cleaned with the previous solution benefit from a re-clean with the new one?
Me third!I’ll take the second position.
If someone is monetizing a recipe that is on here for free without saying anything, well that sucks. In fact, it's bad marketing because I believe that the vast majority of AKers would be most likely to buy a record cleaning solution from a recipe that we saw here and that has been discussed extensively as well as used and reviewed.
Someone not only sucks, but is missing out on a captive audience that wants/needs the product.
No. The principle is the same as previously discussed here: a mixture that includes a quat. The improvements are in ease of use, water solubility, purity, lack of residue, acid neutralization, and long term resistance to static build up. There are minor improvements in contaminant solubilization in lab tests, but in practice there would be little benefit to re-washing records already washed with the Hepastat mix. That mix already works very well and actually has better biocidal properties (useful if you store solutions long term or are starting with moldy records). I should add that we found benefit to reducing the concentrations of detergent and quat significantly in all applications, including Ultrasonic baths so I recommend you go light when making the Hepastat mixes.
For US baths, Ruston was recommending 0.13% Triton, 0.1% Hepastat. I recommend cutting that down to 0.04% Triton, 0.04% Hepastat. Double the concentrations (0.08% Triton, 0.08% Hepa) for most RCMs. Of course, a lot depends on how grungy the starting material is. The best results I've seen with very dirty (typical thrift store find) records with the US was when the records were first hand-washed (lightly scrubbed) with a mix near Ruston's concentrations, rinsed, then put through a US bath containing just 0.04% Hepastat (no Triton).
For US baths, Ruston was recommending 0.13% Triton, 0.1% Hepastat. I recommend cutting that down to 0.04% Triton, 0.04% Hepastat. Double the concentrations (0.08% Triton, 0.08% Hepa) for most RCMs. Of course, a lot depends on how grungy the starting material is. The best results I've seen with very dirty (typical thrift store find) records with the US was when the records were first hand-washed (lightly scrubbed) with a mix near Ruston's concentrations, rinsed, then put through a US bath containing just 0.04% Hepastat (no Triton).