Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Virex II was recommended earlier (post #1348) and used successfully by AVfan (post# 1365). It is a great substitute and almost identical. It is mostly 10-20% Quat (N-alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride and Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), 1-5% Ethanol, and 1-5% non-ionic detergent (Lauryldimethylamine oxide). I'd use it alone at 1:1000 dilution or enhance with additional detergent if you wish. MSDS here: https://sds.diversey.com/private/document.aspx?prd=MS0801116~~PDF~~MTR~~ANEP~~EN~~~~&productName=Virex II 256&productName_option=d__^value&productID_option=d__~value~&language=d__-1 shows it also contains EDTA (like Hepastat).
 
Last edited:
Virex II was recommended earlier (post #1348) and used successfully by AVfan (post# 1365). It is a great substitute and almost identical. It is mostly 10-20% Quat (N-alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride and Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), 1-5% Ethanol, and 1-5% non-ionic detergent (Lauryldimethylamine oxide). I'd use it alone at 1:1000 dilution or enhance with additional detergent if you wish. MSDS here: https://sds.diversey.com/private/document.aspx?prd=MS0801116~~PDF~~MTR~~ANEP~~EN~~~~&productName=Virex II 256&productName_option=d__^value&productID_option=d__~value~&language=d__-1 shows it also contains EDTA (like Hepastat).

Another option for quats are pool algaecides. For sale at Canadian Tire is 4L of a 15% solution of n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides. Also available in 5% and 40% concentrations. There does not appear to be any other ingredients (well water, and maybe a light green/blue dye). I am using this as part of a wet cleaning solution with distilled water and isopropyl alcohol just before playing a record. The link for these products is:

https://www.canadiantire.ca/en/outdoor-living/pools-accessories/chemicals/algaecides.html
 
I've got a question that will expose my ignorance...

I just bought a jug of Brighton Hepastat 256. How the heck do I "open it" or whatever it takes to dispense? I unscrewed the cap and removed the foil/plastic film but when I tip it, nothing comes out. There are 2 tiny holes in the topmost plastic - when I stick a toothpick in either of the holes, a diaphragm just below the visible top flexes. Am I supposed to poke a hole in that diaphragm?
 
I've got a question that will expose my ignorance...

I just bought a jug of Brighton Hepastat 256. How the heck do I "open it" or whatever it takes to dispense? I unscrewed the cap and removed the foil/plastic film but when I tip it, nothing comes out. There are 2 tiny holes in the topmost plastic - when I stick a toothpick in either of the holes, a diaphragm just below the visible top flexes. Am I supposed to poke a hole in that diaphragm?
That bottle is meant to go into a special dispenser. For safety reasons, it's very difficult to dispense the product from the bottle. That said, it's not that difficult to remove the entire plug/dispensing/safety apparatus (and it is surprisingly large and complex once you get it out). First, make sure you are wearing gloves and eye protection. Then you can just use pliers to grab the rim of the plastic disc that covers the hole and then pull the whole thing loose. You will likely splash at least a little of the Hepastat as you do this, so make sure it's not sitting on top of prized family photos or anything like that. And, again, make sure to protect yourself from the undiluted Hepastat.
 
Ahh! Thanks for the info. I carefully used a paring knife to easily pry the disc out, along with the attached mechanism.
 
Some people swear by the 60 or 80 kHz machines but after doing the math on bubble size on the 40 kHz machine the bubbles are small enough to get into the smallest record grooves and 40 khz bubbles have more energy than the 60 or 80 kHz bubbles.
Could you elaborate on the bubble size of 40 khz vs 80 khz ultrasonic bath units? I use a cheap us cleaner from eBay, I think it's 35 kHz. 80 kHz units cost quite a bit more. It would be nice to have definitive answer whether the more expensive, higher frequency US moachines make a difference vs. the cheap 35-40 kHz Chinese units from eBay.
Thanks!
 
Someone will still try for a 16,000,000 kHz claiming all other frequencies won't work.

My 40 kHz works wonders. I did not opt for the higher frequencies either.
 
Based on the graph in that article, it looks like a 40 kHz machine will produce bubbles with a diameter of about 16 microns. The RIAA standard for the minimum width of a stereo groove is 25.4 microns. At least as far as the size of the bubbles goes, it seems like 40 kHz should work just fine.
Actually the size of the bubbles will be around 8 microns with a 40 kHz machine. The 40 kHz is only one fifth the distance from the 50 kHz line.
 
Actually the size of the bubbles will be around 8 microns with a 40 kHz machine. The 40 kHz is only one fifth the distance from the 50 kHz line.
The graph is of radius, but I converted it to a diameter, since I thought that would be a better comparison to the overall width of the groove.
 
I'm using the following formula for cleaning by gentle scrubbing followed by a hand vac:

HepaStat 256 1.00 ml
Triton X-100 1.40 ml
IPA 91% 25.00 ml
DH20 472.60 ml
TOTAL 500.00 ml

I follow with two DH2O rinse/scrub/vac cycles. I read in this forum that some are adding 3% ethyl alcohol to the second rinse. My question is 'wouldn't that wash away some of the desirable molecular residue?
I asked this about a year ago; but don't believe I ever got an answer.
 
I'm using the following formula for cleaning by gentle scrubbing followed by a hand vac:

HepaStat 256 1.00 ml
Triton X-100 1.40 ml
IPA 91% 25.00 ml
DH20 472.60 ml
TOTAL 500.00 ml

I follow with two DH2O rinse/scrub/vac cycles. I read in this forum that some are adding 3% ethyl alcohol to the second rinse. My question is 'wouldn't that wash away some of the desirable molecular residue?
I asked this about a year ago; but don't believe I ever got an answer.
I don't think the answer is clear since it hasn't been studied to my knowledge. At this low concentration, perhaps the interaction of the alcohol with water is stronger than that with the quat and the interaction of the quat with the record is not disrupted. This assumes no other ions (like salts) in the mixture, which would change everything since water would rather hold hands with the salt ion then the alcohol (this is how one can separate phases). It's a good question. I believe folks add the alcohol to better disperse the rinse solution (lower surface tension) and perhaps aid in drying. I don't know how this effects the bound quat under dilute conditions, but I use just dH2O since I, like you, rinse using a vacuum (VPI RCM in my case) which leaves the surface fairly dry.
EDIT: That said, you can strip the surfactant off a record surface with 95% IPA. You can test this as the surfactant surface will normally hold water and the stripped surface will not. This is why some of us also worry about endogenous lubricants. One study on cleaning artifacts (previously referenced in this thread) shows the threshold is above 50% alcohol before extraction takes place. The ability to hold molecular water is what gives quats their antistatic property so stripping them defeats the purpose of their inclusion in wash solutions. I suppose it would be pretty easy to test what effect 3% IPA has on this. Consider though, that the quat bound to the record in a solution that contained 5-15% IPA (in many recipes) to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the answer is clear since it hasn't been studied to my knowledge. At this low concentration, perhaps the interaction of the alcohol with water is stronger than that with the quat and the interaction of the quat with the record is not disrupted. This assumes no other ions (like salts) in the mixture, which would change everything since water would rather hold hands with the salt ion then the alcohol (this is how one can separate phases). It's a good question. I believe folks add the alcohol to better disperse the rinse solution (lower surface tension) and perhaps aid in drying. I don't know how this effects the bound quat under dilute conditions, but I use just dH2O since I, like you, rinse using a vacuum (VPI RCM in my case) which leaves the surface fairly dry.
EDIT: That said, you can strip the surfactant off a record surface with 95% IPA. You can test this as the surfactant surface will normally hold water and the stripped surface will not. This is why some of us also worry about endogenous lubricants. One study on cleaning artifacts (previously referenced in this thread) shows the threshold is above 50% alcohol before extraction takes place. The ability to hold molecular water is what gives quats their antistatic property so stripping them defeats the purpose of their inclusion in wash solutions. I suppose it would be pretty easy to test what effect 3% IPA has on this. Consider though, that the quat bound to the record in a solution that contained 5-15% IPA (in many recipes) to begin with.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom