Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paully, 5ml of Triton per gallon of water should be about right, regardless of how you get to it. Be careful you don't end up with too much Triton in your US bath or you'll have a ton of suds, which you don't want. I recommend starting with less rather than more for your first tests. You can then increase the amount of Triton if you're looking from more cleaning action up until you start getting foam in your tank.

I've been guided by the posts from Rushton and other experts as I learn how to use ultrasonic cleaning -- and would like to thank all of you for your past posts. I'm cleaning records using a Trusonik 10 liter unit. I'm using approximately 3 gallons of distilled water, and spacing the records 1.5 inches apart.


My question concerns the cleaning formula. I'm not mixing in advance, but adding the ingredients directly to the distilled water each time. I'm not rinsing the records afterwards due to lack of time. So, for better or worse, the cleaning formula needs to be aimed at one-step cleaning and drying. I’m also using a drier box that utilizes a 300 cfm fan and a 15 minute timer, built by the same person who sells the V-8 unit. My utility room, where the ultrasonic RCM resides, is dusty. Therefore I’m trying to largely complete the drying process using the box. A record that dries in a box in 15 minutes is far less likely to accumulate dust as compared with a record drying out in the open. I already discovered that records won't dry in 15 minutes, even with a 300 cfm fan, using 3 or 4 drops of Photoflo.

I first used 6 oz (177 ml) of isopropyl alcohol, with 1 teaspoon (5 ml) of Ilford Ifotol, as per the recommendation of Tima on the Vinyl Press site. That resulted in a few bubbles during the cleaning cycle. But it worked well and the amount of Ilford was enough for the records to dry in the drying box.

I next tried 6 oz of alcohol along with 0.5 oz (15 ml) of Triton-X in 3 gallons of distilled water, based on my understanding of what Rushton recommended in the above quote. I mixed the Triton-X and alcohol together first before adding to the water. I tried Triton-X since that type of surfactant is recommended by the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada. Triton-X appeared to work better for the drying of the records than did the Ilford Ilfotol.

I have attached three photos taken while cleaning with Triton-X, first showing the minimal amount of bubbles while cleaning is underway. Second, the greater amount of foam from 15 ml of Triton-X with 3 gallons of water, when running a pump and filter. But maybe that is understandable due to the agitation caused by the pump and water circulation (I believe at least one gallon per minute, which is not during cleaning and therefore might not a reason to be concerned?) However, the Ilfotol didn't result in similar levels of suds at any point. Finally, a photo of the remaining bubbles after I turned off the pump and waited about 15 minutes.

A few questions:

(1) Chemically, what is the difference between Ilfotol/Photoflo and Triton-X?

The National Library of Canada refers to Tergitol as a "detergent" and only uses that, without any alcohol. So they are using it for cleaning as a detergent, as well as any wetting properties, and recommend that the records be rinsed after using it. So is Tergitol and Triton-X more appropriate for a cleaning regime that must include rinsing afterwards? If so, then Triton-X would not be appropriate for a one-step process. In addition, a water rinse without the use of a wetting agent defeats the purpose, at least for me, as records take far longer to then dry. I need to use a wetting agent.

On the other hand, are Ilfotol/Photoflo primarily wetting agents to assist in the drying of film, photo paper, and in this case, vinyl? And less of a cleaner or detergent? So are those more appropriate to use in one step without rinsing afterwards, but also to assist in drying? Especially when combined with isopropyl alcohol with the alcohol serving as the cleaning agent?

(2) Are the small amount of bubbles/foam next to the records when using Triton-X a cause for concern while cleaning? Are the suds that develop while the pump is working a real problem?

It would be helpful to settle on one of the chemicals, and then by trial and error discover the minimum amount that is necessary to encourage the drying of records. My best guess is that for one-step cleaning and drying, without the use of a water rinse, the best combination might be a chemical that is primarily a wetting agent, like Ilfotol, combined with alcohol. Triton-X appears to also be a detergent, and thus less appropriate for a one-step clean and dry process??

But I would greatly appreciate input from the experts in this forum!

Many thanks in advance for any responses; for your assistance; and for the excellent information provided in this thread

Bubbles on records.jpg Suds after pump off.jpg Suds while pump operates.jpg
 
.... leaching from vinyl records from my experiment and experience is totally a non issue unless you are using some crazy mad solvent...
Chris
Interesting test, but this conclusion goes against scientific evidence. As any compatibility chart will show (e.g.https://www.calpaclab.com/pvc-polyvinyl-chloride-chemical-compatibility-chart/), many of those solvents (e.g. acetone) have severe effects on PVC-based polymers. Furthermore, extraction of chemicals within PVC-based products have been measured (using MS-HPLC, for example) with even mild solvents like alcohol at concentrations over 60%. So while the record may appear and play OK, it certainly is different than the original composition. Could be fine for common or short-term records, but the idea behind this thread was for long-term preservation of collectables. Records are chemically tough, but like all plastics, they do have a useful life span. This life may be over 100 years, and I wouldn't want to shorten it doing things that might not be fatal, but are scientifically known to be harmful. Same reason I don't smoke, though I don't judge those that do.


doing my first batch with hepastat today, mixed 7.5ml hepastat, 30ml iso and 30drops tergikleen for a 2gallon US run.
i THINK the math works out on that, ive seen different mixtures most are for a bigger concentration.

You are good with the Hepastat (your doing a 1:1000 dilution resulting in a little over 0.02% quat, which is within the suggested range). I can't say on the iso as you don't say what stock % you are starting with. Likewise,I don't know what conc. Tergitol is in that product. Let us know how it works out!

A few questions:

(1) Chemically, what is the difference between Ilfotol/Photoflo and Triton-X?


(2) Are the small amount of bubbles/foam next to the records when using Triton-X a cause for concern while cleaning? Are the suds that develop while the pump is working a real problem?

It would be helpful to settle on one of the chemicals, and then by trial and error discover the minimum amount that is necessary to encourage the drying of records. My best guess is that for one-step cleaning and drying, without the use of a water rinse, the best combination might be a chemical that is primarily a wetting agent, like Ilfotol, combined with alcohol. Triton-X appears to also be a detergent, and thus less appropriate for a one-step clean and dry process??
This has been addressed many times in this thread, but in summary:
1.Photoflo contains a non-ionic detergent (5-10%), but is mostly propylene glycol (25-30%). The glycol is a problem. Ilfotol is better, as it only contains the non-ionic detergent (they don't specify, but it is an alcohol ethoxylate, exactly like Triton). Problem is it is only 1-5% detergent so you are paying dearly compared to pure Triton.
2. Small amount of foam is a good thing. You can reduce the concentration of the detergent if it becomes bothersome. That said, there is no excuse for not rinsing a record after deep cleaning with any detergent. It is an important step as folks here have attested. Also why aren't you using a quat in the mix? I know Rushton uses them as I gave him the recipe. Finally, if drying is an issue, you might want to invest in a vacuum RCM. This will allow a quick rinse step after the US and greatly facilitate drying...win-win!
 
Last edited:
This has been addressed many times in this thread, but in summary:
1.Photoflo contains a non-ionic detergent (5-10%), but is mostly propylene glycol (25-30%). The glycol is a problem. Ilfotol is better, as it only contains the non-ionic detergent (they don't specify, but it is an alcohol ethoxylate, exactly like Triton). Problem is it is only 1-5% detergent so you are paying dearly compared to pure Triton.
2. Small amount of foam is a good thing. You can reduce the concentration of the detergent if it becomes bothersome. That said, there is no excuse for not rinsing a record after deep cleaning with any detergent. It is an important step as folks here have attested. Also why aren't you using a quat in the mix? I know Rushton uses them as I gave him the recipe. Finally, if drying is an issue, you might want to invest in a vacuum RCM. This will allow a quick rinse step after the US and greatly facilitate drying...win-win!

Phantomrebel, many thanks for your response. I have attempted to read through the thread, but 90 pages is a lot of ground to cover. I will use Triton-X as per your recommendation. You explain that a "small amount of foam is a good thing," so I assume you believe that the small amount that appeared when I was actually cleaning records is OK. As compared with the considerable foam when the pump and filter were operating.

But I will reduce to 10 ML of Triton-X for 3 gallons of distilled water and see how that works. Should I also continue to use 6 oz of alcohol? Based upon reading this thread, I assume the answer is that I should.

Which specific quat should I use, and how much per gallon of distilled water?

I don't clean enough records, and often enough, to make up batches of cleaning fluids in advance. The most practical approach, for my purpose, is to arrive at a formula where I can just add a specific amount of chemicals to the water in the tank each time. (I'll mix all three chemicals together first, as I understand that is the recommended approach with Triton-X.)
 

I've been guided by the posts from Rushton and other experts as I learn how to use ultrasonic cleaning -- and would like to thank all of you for your past posts. I'm cleaning records using a Trusonik 10 liter unit. I'm using approximately 3 gallons of distilled water, and spacing the records 1.5 inches apart.


My question concerns the cleaning formula. I'm not mixing in advance, but adding the ingredients directly to the distilled water each time. I'm not rinsing the records afterwards due to lack of time. So, for better or worse, the cleaning formula needs to be aimed at one-step cleaning and drying. I’m also using a drier box that utilizes a 300 cfm fan and a 15 minute timer, built by the same person who sells the V-8 unit. My utility room, where the ultrasonic RCM resides, is dusty. Therefore I’m trying to largely complete the drying process using the box. A record that dries in a box in 15 minutes is far less likely to accumulate dust as compared with a record drying out in the open. I already discovered that records won't dry in 15 minutes, even with a 300 cfm fan, using 3 or 4 drops of Photoflo.

I first used 6 oz (177 ml) of isopropyl alcohol, with 1 teaspoon (5 ml) of Ilford Ifotol, as per the recommendation of Tima on the Vinyl Press site. That resulted in a few bubbles during the cleaning cycle. But it worked well and the amount of Ilford was enough for the records to dry in the drying box.

I next tried 6 oz of alcohol along with 0.5 oz (15 ml) of Triton-X in 3 gallons of distilled water, based on my understanding of what Rushton recommended in the above quote. I mixed the Triton-X and alcohol together first before adding to the water. I tried Triton-X since that type of surfactant is recommended by the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada. Triton-X appeared to work better for the drying of the records than did the Ilford Ilfotol.

I have attached three photos taken while cleaning with Triton-X, first showing the minimal amount of bubbles while cleaning is underway. Second, the greater amount of foam from 15 ml of Triton-X with 3 gallons of water, when running a pump and filter. But maybe that is understandable due to the agitation caused by the pump and water circulation (I believe at least one gallon per minute, which is not during cleaning and therefore might not a reason to be concerned?) However, the Ilfotol didn't result in similar levels of suds at any point. Finally, a photo of the remaining bubbles after I turned off the pump and waited about 15 minutes.

A few questions:

(1) Chemically, what is the difference between Ilfotol/Photoflo and Triton-X?

The National Library of Canada refers to Tergitol as a "detergent" and only uses that, without any alcohol. So they are using it for cleaning as a detergent, as well as any wetting properties, and recommend that the records be rinsed after using it. So is Tergitol and Triton-X more appropriate for a cleaning regime that must include rinsing afterwards? If so, then Triton-X would not be appropriate for a one-step process. In addition, a water rinse without the use of a wetting agent defeats the purpose, at least for me, as records take far longer to then dry. I need to use a wetting agent.

On the other hand, are Ilfotol/Photoflo primarily wetting agents to assist in the drying of film, photo paper, and in this case, vinyl? And less of a cleaner or detergent? So are those more appropriate to use in one step without rinsing afterwards, but also to assist in drying? Especially when combined with isopropyl alcohol with the alcohol serving as the cleaning agent?

(2) Are the small amount of bubbles/foam next to the records when using Triton-X a cause for concern while cleaning? Are the suds that develop while the pump is working a real problem?

It would be helpful to settle on one of the chemicals, and then by trial and error discover the minimum amount that is necessary to encourage the drying of records. My best guess is that for one-step cleaning and drying, without the use of a water rinse, the best combination might be a chemical that is primarily a wetting agent, like Ilfotol, combined with alcohol. Triton-X appears to also be a detergent, and thus less appropriate for a one-step clean and dry process??

But I would greatly appreciate input from the experts in this forum!

Many thanks in advance for any responses; for your assistance; and for the excellent information provided in this thread

View attachment 1309700 View attachment 1309701 View attachment 1309702
No matter what fluid you use it is easy to test it to see if it leaves behind any solids. Just get a record you hate and put a few drops of the cleaning fluid you are using on the record. Spread it out a bit and let it dry. Once dry a quick look at the spot and you will see that no matter what you use it should be vacuum dried. I have tried this with many fluids and nothing will dry without leaving some kind of stain which is solids, surprisingly this includes distilled water rinse.. These solids cause noise. Hope this helps.
 
No matter what fluid you use it is easy to test it to see if it leaves behind any solids. Just get a record you hate and put a few drops of the cleaning fluid you are using on the record. Spread it out a bit and let it dry. Once dry a quick look at the spot and you will see that no matter what you use it should be vacuum dried. I have tried this with many fluids and nothing will dry without leaving some kind of stain which is solids, surprisingly this includes distilled water rinse.. These solids cause noise. Hope this helps.

I will try that. A great suggestion. Your conclusion that even distilled water causes noise if left to naturally dry means that there are large numbers of participants on this forum, as well as others, who are creating noise on their records by allowing them to air dry after a clean water rinse.

What about the forced air drying on an RCM like the Audio Desk or the KL Audio units, that dry a record in four minutes with a huge channel of forced air? That is forced drying through evaporation rather than vacuuming off the records. Same result?

What do you use for vacuuming? I have an old Nitty Gritty Pro which still works fine and can perform that function.

Many thanks again. BTW, I greatly enjoyed the small line you include under your posts to define an audiophile!
 
I use a vacuum wand that hooks up to a small shop vacuum. Works like a charm.

I have several small shop vacuums including a Fein that would be perfect. But I'm trying to visualize the vacuum wand you're using and how you hook it up. Where did you get the wand? Can you post a pic?
 
I have several small shop vacuums including a Fein that would be perfect. But I'm trying to visualize the vacuum wand you're using and how you hook it up. Where did you get the wand? Can you post a pic?
Be careful here. The PM system is better than the open forums for this.

Rich P
 
I will try that. A great suggestion. Your conclusion that even distilled water causes noise if left to naturally dry means that there are large numbers of participants on this forum, as well as others, who are creating noise on their records by allowing them to air dry after a clean water rinse.

What about the forced air drying on an RCM like the Audio Desk or the KL Audio units, that dry a record in four minutes with a huge channel of forced air? That is forced drying through evaporation rather than vacuuming off the records. Same result?

What do you use for vacuuming? I have an old Nitty Gritty Pro which still works fine and can perform that function.

Many thanks again. BTW, I greatly enjoyed the small line you include under your posts to define an audiophile!
I use a shop vac and a device called Squeaky Clean. The less water that stays on the record the less noise you will hear..
 
I don't think this opinion is correct at all. Many of us enjoy completely clean, noise-free records. The problem of cracks and pops becomes a physical one, where there is damage to the record itself (typically small scratches, but sometimes wear or manufacturing defects) that no amount of cleaning will ever fix. That fact has been posted hundreds of times here. I encourage new members to read through the entire thread and examine these posts, along with those showing micrographs of perfectly clean records. It IS entirely possible to thoroughly clean a record. I will agree, there are definitely limitations to the media, but comparisons to digital files is not why we are here. That said, if one is digitizing their records, it is certainly advantageous to clean them first as well as possible (while maintaining endogenous lubrication), whether using a filter or not.
 
You are good with the Hepastat (your doing a 1:1000 dilution resulting in a little over 0.02% quat, which is within the suggested range). I can't say on the iso as you don't say what stock % you are starting with. Likewise,I don't know what conc. Tergitol is in that product. Let us know how it works out!

thanks for checking, i'm using 91% iso. it's cheaper than ordering the good stuff i figured close enough.
the tergikleen i got a couple years ago and ive just been trying to use it up, they call for 10-20 drops per gallon, as far as i can tell its a blend of s9 and s7. I might just reserve that for manual cleaning on the vacuum machine and buy some triton x for the ultrasonic bath.

strange thing is people talk about suds with their bath and mine has none at all.
 
I can shake the heck out of my partially filled bottled of cleaning solution which contains Triton, distilled water, and alcohol and it doesn't suds up. Anyone getting a lot of suds must be using a much stronger concentration of Triton. If so, you are using too much. It takes me 2 vacuuming processes and two rinses, to get distilled water to bead up properly, following an application of my cleaning solution. Imagine if I'd use even more triton. there would be a residue, for sure, as the 1st rinse (despite vacuuming off the cleaning solution) doesn't bead up.

EDIT: actually, a 1/2 empty bottle, when shaken, does cause foaming. mea culpa.
 
Last edited:
I get some sudsing if I shakes my Triton premix. It also suds on the record when I scrub it. After I vacuum it then rinse with distilled water the DW beads up before it's vacuumed off.

BTW my premix is only DW and Triton.

I would say that I actually have Triton 114. Could anyone comment on whether 114 is good or bad or otherwise?
 
Speaking of the premix... I have a little precipitate now that it's been a while. Should I pitch it or just filter it out? Shaking it doesn't break it up.
 
Punchback: Triton X-114 is structurally very similar to Triton X-100. For our uses they are functionally interchangeable.
Surfactants within the Triton X series only differ in the length of the ethylene oxide unit side chains, (in X-100 it is 9-10 units long; in X-114 it is 7-8). see this reference: https://dowac.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1652/related/1
Similarly, surfactants within the Tergitol 15-S series differ by the length of their side chains (e.g. 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 have ~3 and ~9 ethylene oxide side chain units, respectively).

The chain lengths are averages within a mixture, since they are expensive to separate after synthesis (So a S-3 and S-9 mix isn't that much different than S-7). The difference isn't that critical to basic cleaning: they were separated for specific applications, like solubilization of a specific membrane protein in biochemistry or isolation of particular components in an industrial application. However, chain length gives the detergents different physical properties that do concern us (it makes a difference how soluble they are in water, for example).
The shorter the side chain length, the lower the tendency to foam (lower foam height) so X-114 will foam less than X-100. see https://dowac.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1660/related/1/
The shorter length also lowers cloud point, so X-114 is less likely to separate or form a precipitate when stored at at lower temperatures.
If your mix doesn't clear up upon warming, I'd toss it. You do not want any precipitate on your records.

EDIT: Sorry to some for going off on a technical explanation. The important thing is that non-ionic detergents (whether Triton or Tergitol, whether X-100, 114, 15-S-7, S-9 or whatever) have the ability to disrupt the surface tension of water and solubilize contaminants without introducing any charge into the system. That's why they are recommended for record cleaning and most any of them that are water soluble will do the job. Most often, the choice comes down to what is available in your area.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom