A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

Thank you antinn, I will give it a go.....appreciate your follow up and look forward to comparing results. 

So I wanted to follow up on this discussion as I have received feedback on another forum that I trust will be helpful here as well.  The kind chemist of whom I have spoken previously responded that while a simple solution is indeed convenient, it may not provide the best results.  He states "There is no ONE solution for every record as they vary in types and levels of contamination."  I believe this makes a lot of sense but am still going to give the Tergitol a go as well.  I have many records cleaned now with my present formulation using Triton X-100, Hepastat and IPA in distilled water so it will be interesting to see how those fare compared to some that I will clean with just a Tergitol 15-S-9 in distilled water mixture.  Stay tuned!

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.

I made of couple of tweaks to the WEWU.  First - changed to a 5 volt power supply which slowed the rotation way down.  Would like to try a 3 volt but only had the 5 volt sitting around.  Second - put 3 rubber washers between each plate.  You can only clean 3 records at a time but it spaces the records much farther apart.

Micheal Fremer has a youtube with 10 record cleaning reps-wotsits on the panel.
It was mentioned that Tergitol is ethylene oxide - bad for PVC.
At any concentration.

@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.  

Either way,with ANY cleaner on the market, your actual vinyl-contact time is so miniscule compared to, say, a once-a-year record cleaning; as to make this discussion moot. 

Personally I use Kodak Photoflow and don't give a toss - althought most retentives rate it chemically worse than Tergitol/Triton.

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.

Been using Photoflow in my tank since I got it set up at Christmas.
No records were harmed in the making of this mix.......

I make a try with photoflo on my us machine but I found the treble hard . I have to clean it twice on my regular moth machine to get again natural treble so I have ordered iltofol and am going to try in the next days.

Thanks Antinn.
Very informative.

I found you have to be careful with the Photoflow. Too much in the mix and anything left in the grooves dries so that as the needle passes it shaves off what looks like soap!

Anyways, if you stick to two/three drops per liter, you are okay.

I have been using approx quarter cap into the whole tank capacity, 10 liters or so.
Not had any nasty residue to deal with.
Not sure as I have noticed it inducing hard treble....

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.