All,
If interested, I use a manual cleaning procedure using the VinylStack label protector. I use Alconox Liquinox in 1 wt% solution to pre-clean using the Record Doctor nylon brush. Then rinse under flowing tap water assisted with the nylon brush, Then final clean with Tergitol 15-S-9 in a 0.05 to 0.1 wt% solution with the nylon brush. Then first rinse under flowing tap water assisted with the nylon brush, and then final rinse with DI water.
The Alconox Liquinox is a Industry Standard (for many years) broad based cleaner formulated with anionic and non-ionic surfactants. The Tergitol is only non-ionic, and the low concentration will achieve very low surface tension so it will penetrate the groove for the final clean and also remove any residue from the higher concentration Alconox Liquinox that may have not been removed.
A bit of trivia, anionic and non-ionic surfactants are soluble. Cationic and non-ionic surfactants are soluble (example Hepastat 256). But anionic and cationic surfactants are not soluble and will form a paste type precipitate/residue.
|
@sammmmmmmy,
Both Tergitol and Triton X-100 non-ionic detergent (which has been used for cleaning vinyl records for decades) material safety data sheets list Poly (ethylene oxide), as a small impurity as part of the surfactants at <3%. However, the CAS number listed is 25322-68-3 which actual traces to poly (ethylene glycol). Tergitol 15-S-7 is what the Library of Congress uses to clean delicate lacquer records. Ethylene oxide gas is considered incompatible with PVC, but that is not what we have here. The record cleaning reps are wrong.
|
sammmmmmy, If you are curious, Kodak Photoflow is a concentrated wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene
glycol (i.e. anti-freeze) that can act as an antibacterial and antifungal agent
and 5-10% non-ionic surfactant. The
non-ionic surfactant by the chemical abstract system (CAS) number is most
likely Triton X-100 or from the Triton X family. There is no surface tension data for this
product, however, the propylene glycol component makes for a very stable
shelf-life, and the chemical is very safe. Kodak recommends use at 1-part cleaner to 200 parts water, but this is for handwipe. |
SAFETY ALERT!!!
Hepatstat 256 in its concentrated form is dangerous, its deadly. Read the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and other Warning labels. This is an Industrial product, and unless you have experience with proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as face shields, gloves, proper ventilation, STAY Away from this product. This product in its concentrated form is hazardous through even skin absorption.
|
Tergitol 15-S-3 is not water soluble, it is intended for oils. Dow has a nice pdf handout with tables on all the Non-Ionic-Surfactants/Detergents, and you can read on the differences. For the Tergitol, use 0.5 to 1.0% solution concentration, which assuming my quick math is correct should be about 0.5 ounces per gallon. Note that that that the 'cloud point' is the temperature were the surfactant comes out of solution. |
All,
As a suggestion, substitute Tergitol 15-S-9 for the Triton X100. You can buy this at Talas, one pint is $21.75. The 15-S-9 is very similar to the 15-S-7 that the Smithsonian uses for shellac record cleaning, except it has a higher cloud point which would be better suited for the heated UT tank use. The Tergital is an Secondary Alcohol Ethoxylate NID and should be superior to Triton X100 which is a Octylphenol Ethoxylate NID. With the Tergitol 15-S-9 which has lower surface tension and better rinesability, you should not need the Isopopyl Alcohol (IPA). |
Anovak,
First, sorry my calc for ounces of 15-S-9 per gal is incorrect, its about 1 ounce per gal. I was in a hurry and rushing out and could not remember if a gal was 64 or 128 ounces, but it would about 30 ml for a gal that is 3.78 liters.
The IPA which is completely miscible with water, at the specified concentration would not make the 15-S-3 soluble. There is absolutely no technical reason to add both 15-S-9 and 15-S-3, they are intended for entirely different chemistries. The IPA may improve the "solvency" the ability to dissolve oils/greases, but this would be more inclined to heavy duty metal cleaning. There is a pretty powerful water soluble solvent known as 2-Butoxyethanol that is common in heavy duty cleaners. But its not really warranted here, and at high enough concentration can damage the vinyl (extracts the plastizer), easily recognized as a dulling of the vinyl finish.
I would try with only a 0.5 to 1.0% concentration, leaving out the IPA and the Hepastat. This would be the absolutely safest chemistry to you and the vinyl. If you have some really grungy records, do a pre-clean step to remove the visible contamination - put a label protector on, and pre-clean with a soft brush and the 1% 15-S-9 solution, rinse under flowing fresh water (i.e., kitchen sink), or use a vacuum record cleaning machine and then put in the UT for the final clean. The DOW literature shows that a 1% concentration of 15-S-9 will reduce the water surface tension from 72 down to about 30, so the solution will wet the record nicely, and may drain off fast enough to avoid need for a separate rinse. After the UT clean step, if you can, a quick spin of the record(s) in air should leave the record(s) near dry. And, with the record heated to about 100-125 deg F from the UT process, it will dry completely very quickly.
|
Anovak,
I did a little more research and there are a number of theads that talk to the 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 mixture, some referencing that this is what the Canadian Archivists use, and some saying that the mixture equals 15-S-7. Surfactants are classified by the HLB Scale: Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance. The 15-S-9 is rated 13.3 which classifies it as a detergent, and with its low surface tension, and not excessive foam height, and high cloud point should make it an excellent UT cleaning agent. 15-S-7 HLB is 12.1, and 15-S-3 is 8. When you blend 15-S-3 and 15-S-9, you get an emulsion with a HLB of 10.6, so this is not 15-S-7, so that rationale makes no sense. Otherwise, for the life of me, it makes no sense to clean a vinyl record with a blend of 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 that is an emulsion and can result in a cloudy solution, that decreases the effectiveness of the 15-S-9, and may inhibit rinsing. The only reason that you would add 15-S-3 to 15-S-9 would be as a defoaming agent. But UT cleaning should not cause a stable foam to develop, unlike if using a pumped parts washer. If you compare Triton X100 to 15-S-19, you will see similar HLB and surface tension 30 vs 33, but X100 can create a higher foam, and it is really intended for the metal cleaning industry where you are dealing with a lot of mineral based cutting oils and need the better oil emulsion properties, not some animal-fat based finger prints. |
Anovak,
I need to make a correction here. Essentially, Tergitol 15-S-9 is a more environmentally friendly (and by DOW data should be more effective) alternative to Triton X100 which because of having components that can mimic estrogen, are toxic to fish, and there is 'some' associated human risk. DOW for now is continuing manufacture of Triton X100, but do not be suprised if they discontinue manufacture in the future as global environmental regulations increase. Conservationist (those conserving painting) use surfactants when cleaning/conserving paintings, and are very sensitive to using products that do no harm, or as little as possible. Some are using a non-ionic surfactant that appears very similar to the performance of Triton X100 and Tergitol 15-S-9: SURFONIC® JL-80X.
|
Anovak,
One last item, the concentration to use for the Tergitol 15-S-9 is 0.1% to max of 0.5%. This product requires about 3 times less concentration than Triton X100. The technical detail is something called the Critical Miscelle Concentration (CMC), and this specifies the ppm concentration in solute (water) when the non-ionic surfactant-water solution reaches its lowest surface tension. Beyound this any additional surfactant will not drop the surface tension any lower. However, to achieve best detergency, you want more than the CMC, general guidance is 5 to 10 times more. For the Triton X100 the CMC is 189 ppm, the Tergitol CMC is only 53 ppm. Yeah, I know, way more than ever wanted to know, but there is method to this madness.
|
25ml should be more than enough. If you notice any rinse problems, reduce to 20ml or even 15ml. Using too much is worse than using not enough.
Hepastat 256 is a Bactericidal, used to disenfect surfaces. However, it has at 0.5 ounces per gallon, 886 ppm active quaternary ammonium compounds, and these salts are also used for antistatic in shampoos and fabric softeners. However, if you are going to add Hepastat why use distilled water, you are just adding salt to the distilled water; Hepastat its intended to be used in tap freshwater. Download the MSDS for Hepastat and look at the ingedients, its a spot cleaning agent complete with non-ionic surfactant and highly alkaline silicates.
If you want to keep a tank full of the DI water-Tergitol solution for weeks, keep covered, and once a week operate the tank (no records of course) at 165F for about 15-30 minutes, and any criters should be killed. PS, the recommendation discussed to store the Tergitol in a non-food refrigerator is based on preventing any accidental ingestion by a child, but at 33-41F, you may need to allow the Tergitol to warm up so can pour it out.
Otherwise, the wet cleaning process will remove any static charge from the record. Air dry or use an antistatic cloth to dry, such as Kinetronics Anti-Static Microfiber Cloth, 10x18-Inch Tiger Cloth (you can buy Amazon), and you should not cause a static charge to develop post cleaning.
|
Anovak,
The data on Tergitol shows that one of its benefits is improved dissolution rate, i.e. how quickly does it dissolve. Temperature and agitation improves the dissolution rate, but only up to point. When the water is close to the cloud point (about 60C for both), the dissolution rate decreases. Based on what I have read, it should dissolve much faster - first you will be using less Tergitol than Triton, and combined with the improved dissolution rate, it should mix easily. However, you may want to add in 2 steps if if does not mix easily with one step, but keep in mind at 25C, it may take about 1-2 minutes for it to dissolve with agitation (simple shaking).
FYI, I bought the Tergitol 15-S-9, and the Vinylstack label protector and should (weather permitting) have both tommorrow to do my own testing with simple manual cleaning. I got back into vinyl about 4 yrs ago, and have since accummulated about 300 albums, mostly new or like new. But I have a few new old stock that are very noisy, so I am going to try the Library of Congress method of scrub and rinse to see what I can get. My library does not yet warrant the cost of a UT process.
However, from the 1980's to early 2000, I was the U.S. Navy technical authority for precision cleaning of Oxygen and Compressed Gas/Life Support Sytems. Did a lot or work with the Navy labs and NASA when we were all working to replace the CFC solvents, and ultimately developed precision aqueous cleaning processes using UT that are now documented MIL-STD-1330 and 1622. So, I have some background; its been over 10 yrs since I was deep in it, but not much has changed, and as they say all that goes around, comes around. There is a good short article by Blackstone Ultrasonics you can find on the web, with a NASA address, that discusses the UT theory and items to consider. This was all done 20 yrs ago. UT frequency, duration, temperature, surface tension and items to be cleaned stacking are critical factors. Rapid rotation, i.e., more than 1 rpm, will not leave the surface exposed long enough to get the full benefits. Also, too much duration/power at low frequency can damage the surface. There is an old test where you place a piece of aluminum foil in the tank; if it perforates, you probably have too much power/duration for cleaning a vinyl record.
|
Anovak,
I received the Tergitol 15-S-9 and have worked out a good manual cleaning process. Manual clean with a brush, and then two rinses, first with tap water to remove cleaner, and then rinse with distilled water from a spray bottle, overall, uses very little cleaner and very little distilled water. The Tergitol has the consistency of a light weight oil, and at about 0.35% mixed very fast. When sprayed on the record, it wets the surface almost instantly, very little foam, and under flowing water rinses very quickly. But, for an ultrasonic tank where you may not be doing a follow-on water rinse, a 0.5% solution will be way to much. The product will achieve lowest surface tension with margin at 0.1%, so for your tank size, 5 ml may be all that is required, but as I said, 0.5% will be way too much, even for manual cleaning. The Tergitol is way more efficient than Triton X-100.
|
The chemist is correct for aqueous cleaners; years ago, CFC-113 was a near perfect solvent, but the Montreal Protocol put an end to that. But, let me counter that there is no one cleaning method for all types and levels of contamination. If you are trying to use UT for all types of contamination, then you will need a variety of chemistry. BUT, there are limits to the power that UT can apply before it damages the record surface. BUT, if you use multiple cleaning methods, then one chemistry may work. As I said earlier in this thread, if you buy a Goodwill record that is just gunky, pre-clean it first. Use the VinylStack record label protector, and use the Tergitol to brush/scrub the surface. In manual cleaning with water rinse, you can use a slight higher cleaner concentration. If you use a Record Doctor nylon record brush, the bristle diameter will cover the groove width, but not penetrate the groove which is protective, but it will drive the Tergitol deep into the groove, and the brushing action along with the Tergitol low surface tension will cause a lot of agitation. However, if the record has dried glue or similar dried and hardened contaminant, you are going to have to move to a much more aggressive (potentially damaging, and likely hazardous) chemistry, but why buy the record anyway unless very rare and you are will just try. Otherwise, trying to use a UT in one step for all types and levels of contamination is mis-application of the technology, it was never intended for that. If you want to better understand UT check out the blog https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2019/11/the-purpose-of-this-blog/. John Fuchs has been active in UT cleaning for decades. |
All, For those of you that are using UT and using large quantities of distilled water, something to consider is a demineralizer, and this is the best value I have found, https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/. It kind of expensive (but for this crowd, maybe not 😁), but if your tap water is of reasonable quality, it can produce about 2000 gallons of demineralizer water at a cost of $0.20/gallon, and it can be refilled ($200 for 2 refills), and the valve arrangement can make a very convient install. If you have a source of readily available cheap DI water, then you don't need to worry about bath life or filters/pumps etc to extend the bath life. And, you could easily add an effective rinse step as follow: Step 1. Clean records in UT tank with aqueous chemistry Step 2. Drain tank to household waste drain. Step 3. Refill UT tank with only DI water and using ultasonics, perform rinse/final clean to remove any cleaner residue and any remaining very fine particulate. Step 4. Remove records to dry. Step 5. If cleaning another batch of records, just add cleaner to the existing DI bath and begin at Step 1. Quick analysis with a 1.5 gal UT tank volume. There the demineralizer should provide enough for 1333 tanks, and assuming you are cleaning 3 records/batch, that is 4000 records. The initial cost is $0.30/tank for DI water, and for the Tergitol at 6 ml/tank, is $0.28/tank for at total of $0.58/tank or about $0.20/record. After the first 1333 records, the DI water cost drops to $0.07/tank, so the total per tank cost drops to $0.35/tank, and the per record cost drops to $0.12/record based on the assumptions of this analysis. Clean more than 3 or less than 3 records per batch, and the per record cost adjusts proportionally. |
