Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records

Wow, quite the dissertation. There is some very useful stuff here. Pages 34-36 are very important. I can not fault his technique either. I still have an old bottle of Tergitol hanging around here somewhere. Where he falls short is the section on maintaining the cleanliness of records. That to me is the most important subject. The trick to clean records is, don't let them get dirty in the first place. No static, no exposure (or as little as possible),
no dirt.

@mijostyn,

No arguments that maintaining cleanliness is critical, but I have found as I stated in the paper that even new records benefit from initial cleaning, the pressing plants are not clean.  Maintaining cleanliness is addressed in Section VI, what other items should have been addressed?  One of the problems is that some 'practices' are doing more harm than good.  I now no longer use any brushes, just a quick visual+UV, and if necessary a swipe with the microfiber anti-static cloth to dust away lint/particulate, and my records now play better - but that is my experience.

Neil

Neil,

This is an amazing piece of work. I've just read the 3rd Edition and it was so enlightening! I would like to plan a procedure to clean my vinyl collection, which has mostly been unplayed for 30 years since I adopted CDs. I think a certain amount of mould has developed; I've test played a few titles and, besides the surface noise, I found the stylus picks up a lot of debris, and soon it's not riding in the groove and the record sounds very distorted.

Anyhow, since I'm based in the UK, the info you have added on alternatives to your preferred cleaning products is very useful indeed. The Alconox products are difficult to obtain here but it looks like I could get BASF Dehypon LS54 easily and inexpensively. My question: Is there any reason Dehypon could not be used both for the pre-clean, and the final wash stages (at different dilutions)? I note in chapter XIV on UCM you allude to using Dehypon for pre-clean at 0.025 - 0.05%, but I don't recall seeing that option mentioned for your manual procedure.

Thanks for your help
Rob

@robjordan,

Rob,

Dehypon LS54 is a just a pure nonionic surfactant, and relatively mild.  For pre-clean you want a more aggressive cleaner.  See what is written Table II.  A top quality liquid, machine clothes detergent that is not colored (no dyes), unscented (no fragrance) and contains no anti-bacterial agents can be a very effective pre-cleaner, but you want to buy the best you can get since the cheaper versions have a lot of fillers and other junk.  Prepare as specified Chapter III - there is a specific section of III.AU/EU/UK Prepare the CLEANER Spray (or Wash) Bottles:

Good Luck,

Neil

Thanks, I read your suggestion of laundry detergent, but my difficulty is that it leaves a lot to interpretation, especially as someone who is not au fait with the ingredients. Ecover Zero appears to meet your description, and it does state a list of ingredients. I wonder if you could have a look and see if you think it would be suitable?

https://www.ecover.com/products/zero/zero-laundry-liquid/

Ingredients:

Aqua, Sodium lauryl sulfate, Laureth-7, Alcohol denat., Potassium oleate, Sodium citrate, Tetrasodium glutamate diacetate, Bio poly ethyleneglycol propyleneglycol oligo ester, Citric acid, Sodium hydroxide

@robjordan,

Rob, 

The Ecover Zero Non Bio is a good product.  I was able to locate this SDS Ecover-Laundry-Liquid-Zero-Non-Bio-Laundry-Liquid-COSSH-Sheet.pdf and it mostly supports what their site is listing for ingredients.  

Essentially as a cleaner it's a combination of non-ionic and anionic surfactants and the combination non-ionic and anionic surfactants are what it is doing the cleaning.  They are using environmentally safe and biodegradable surfactants.   Once diluted in use the ethanol (denatured alcohol likely with isopropanol) does not do much; its often added to help with solubilizing other ingredients in concentrates. There is a chelating agent that all basic detergents have to allow use with hard-water.  Otherwise, the citric acid and sodium hydroxide are used to adjust the pH, and the SDS shows pH = 8.6 which is near neutral and in-use will be very near neutral pH.

Based on the concentrations specified in the SDS, when using the product for manual cleaning dilute 10-mL/L.  

Note:  For those in the US, Ecover sells a ZERO Laundry Detergent but it is a very different product - Ecover Laundry_93oz_Zero_CA Disclosure_012220 (netdna-ssl.com) with upwards of 28 ingredients.  

Good Luck,

Neil

Neil

Thanks for looking at the Ecover Zero Non bio. It's very reassuring to have your thumbs up.

Now for the acid stage, I see that  - in the absence of Citranox - you suggest supermarket distilled vinegar diluted 50/50 or 75/25 with distilled water, with an additional few drops of wetting agent. Is the Dehypon ok to use as wetting agent in this mix?

As an alternative to vinegar, is worth considering a solution made up from pure citric acid crystals which are easily obtained here?

Thank you,

Rob

@robjordan 

Rob,

Yes, the Dehypon is ok to use as wetting agent in this mix.

As far as the crystalline citric acid, this is where I stop.  I am not getting into the formulating of products.  The DWV + some drops of a nonionic surfactant wetting agent is as far as I go.  5% DWV is not the same as 5% citric acid, the citric acid is a stronger acid so you use less.  Exactly how much less, can be calculated and then you into weight measurement which then further complicates the process - all more than I am willing to do.  You could pose the problem at some chemistry forums and see what they would recommend to equal the acidity of 5% DWV and then dilute as specified.

Neil

“Ethanol” is ethanol or ethyl alcohol, a 2-carbon alcohol, not”denatured alcohol likely with isopropanol “. Propanol and isopropanol are two different isomeric 3-carbon alcohols. Not that it matters much. I would not recommend denatured alcohol for cleaning LPs, however.

pH 8.6 I would say is at least mildly alkaline, probably OK. Most soaps are.

@robjordan I am based in the UK and have adopted the Manual Cleaning Method, using the solutions recommended.

To produce the correct mixture ratio's I purchased a weighing scale that is capable of showing a increment of 0.01g.

I also bought a Pump Up Pressurised Bottle, to pressure rinse the LP with a distilled water, I like to see this used as a rinse method, it certainly will wash of the  residuals, where as the mist bottle as a rinse, was a little too static when applied.   

There are other threads on here covering this same cleaning procedure during the time the PACVR Document was  Rev-02    

@lewm 

The company site lists denatured alcohol Denatured alcohol - Wikipedia while the SDS just lists ethanol.  Here is an example of denatured alcohol - Microsoft Word - 6210GHS (chemtel.net) and this a safe solvent, but this is also denatured alcohol \\TAHOE\APPS\MIRS\REPORTS\MSWRPTM.FRX (mscdirect.com) and this is not safe for the record.  But, the detergent is diluted 100:1 so even if 5%, in-use it would only be 0.05% - essentially inconsequential.

Industrial cleaning generally accepts pH 6-8 as 'neutral', and Ecover diluted 100:1 should be right in that zone, the ingredients do not include any pH stabilizing (buffering) products like phosphates and silicates.  However, the record is pretty immune to alkaline cleaners up to about pH 12.  The problem with the high alkaline cleaners is they can be a bear to rinse and residue will dry to 'rocks'.

@lewm, denatured ethanol has something like 5% methanol to make it POISONOUS so it can not be consumed, thus it is de-natured.  It is a great polar solvent and could be used for cleaning records in that it will not damage the record but it might damage the label. It is the primary solvent for Shellac and doing a French Polish requires expertise in the use of denatured alcohol. This results in a spectacular finish but given the man-hours involved is rarely done any more.

Ok. Use it.

@pindac That's a great suggestion about the pressurised bottle for the final DW rinse. I will get one.

great contribution @antinn and @whart aka Bill Hart.

FWIW, on used vinyl i very typically use an enzyme cleaner, i like the Walker ( RIP ) but there are others, then Turgitol in the Degritter for n cycles, then a Degritter cycle w just water ( order a 2nd tank ).

Carry on…

@robjordan I adopted some of the ideas on offer and added a few of my own methods.

I purchased a Multi Pack of Baby Scalp Cleaners in different colours, so that each cleaning stage has its own Coloured Brush and rinsing dish, this was an added measure to avoid cross contamination.

I Purchased a Collapsible Bamboo Bread Cutting Rack very cheaply for storing the LP's during the Pre Clean Period and for the air drying period.

I developed a method where I was organised and able to complete 10 LP's in approximately 1 Hour, or 6 Minutes a LP. I reserve this for dark wintery weather periods, it works wonders to overcome SAD, for a Vinyl Head, the bit of elbow grease required and good intention for valued items, are uplifting to the spirits 😎.

I also transfer the LP's to a Anti Static Sleeve when drying is complete, it seems to make more sense, than reinstating them in the Original Paper Sleeve.

I had intended on using a US Tank prior to adopting the manual cleaning methods but today, after being very very impressed with the end results from a manual cleaning am not sensing there is any need to consider this method, there is a new SQ on offer, that includes the sound of clean.  

The link has earlier forum discussion on this subject on Page 2, it might be useful to read.

Audiogon Discussion Forum

 

     

@antinn 

Neil, I'll add my thanks for this extraordinarily detailed effort.  Plus the fact that you and Bill are willing to offer it without charge. +++++

One suggestion if I might.  I only skimmed the document to see the content.  It would be helpful if each chapter had a link tab so it could be accessed directly.  That would would save considerable scrolling when referencing back and forth between various sections. 

@pryso,

There is a left hand drop-down Table of Contents and clicking (touching if you have a touch screen) on any Chapter will link you to the applicable Chapter.  Otherwise the document is extensively cross-linked so if you click on any  referenced Chapter, Figure, paragraph or Table it will take you to the referenced item.  

@antinn 

Neil, thanks for the prompt reply.  However I don't see a left hand drop-down for the Table of Contents.  I use Safari on my iMac.  Left or right clicking does not bring it up.  Anyone else have this problem?

Thanks

@pryso,

Open the document with Adobe PDF Reader.  You should have an option to open the document (right click OPEN with) with the web browser or open with Adobe PDF Reader.  There should be a free app Adobe PDF Reader for MACs. 

@antinn 

I was able to switch from Safari to Firefox and open your document.  There I was able to find Chapter and Appendix links.  Thanks

More drum beating on denatured alcohol. It is just ridiculous to use it or any product that contains it, for record cleaning when anyone can buy nearly pure propanol or isopropanol for this purpose. Not only does denatured alcohol contain up to 10% methanol, a poison, but it also may contain more than one other constituent that may damage LPs. I advise anyone who doubts me to read the wiki entry on denatured alcohol. If one insists on using it, wear gloves that are impervious to methanol. It can be absorbed through the skin.

@lewm 

You are preaching to the choir, this what my book PACVR 3rd Ed states:

VIII.8.1.a Denatured Alcohol. Denatured alcohol that is purchased on-line or at a hardware store is generally ethanol (drinking alcohol) that has been denatured (made undrinkable) by generally adding methanol. However, methanol can be very toxic (absorbed through the skin) at higher concentrations. It’s important to read the label and/or the SDS. There are many grades of “denatured alcohol” and the methanol content can range from relatively safe 0.5% in reagent-grade to hazardous >25% in industrial grades.

VIII.8.1.c Methanol: Wood alcohol is methanol. Methanol can be very toxic; both through inhalation and skin absorption. Ingestion can be lethal or can result in blindness. Methanol vapors have an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)allowable 8-hour exposure limit of 200 ppm. The reported odor threshold for methanol is between 100 and 1500 ppm.

Antinn, I was mainly countering Mijostyn’s inference that denatured alcohol is essentially harmless. According to wiki, in some cases DA MUST contain at least 10% methanol in order to be labeled as such. That’s bad for us humans, but other potential constituents of DA could also be bad for LPs, based on the wiki entry. Moreover, I would think that propanol, being more polar than ethanol and a little less volatile, would be at least a bit better for the job of solvent than even unadulterated ethanol.

@lewm 

Agreed, however, I an not sure wiki is correct - here is just one example of reagent 'denatured' alcohol contents (vwr.com) and methanol is just 5%.  However, this form of denatured alcohol \\TAHOE\APPS\MIRS\REPORTS\MSWRPTM.FRX (mscdirect.com) is just nasty.  But, if you or anyone else wish to dive deeper, there are legally two types of denatured alcohol - specially denatured alcoho (SDA) l and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) - TTBGov - Industrial Alcohol Denatured Alcohol and the variations in SDA alone should be enough eCFR :: Home to give one  pause let alone the CDA.  Take away - when it comes to denatured alcohol read the SDS.  Otherwise, as @lewm says and I agree  isopropyl alcohol (same a 2-propanol/ CAS # 67-63-0) is the solvent of choice if that is your preference - but know the risks (flammability and toxicity - do not ingest) and stay away from rubbing alcohol - that is another mine field - see the book Table VIII.  

I do not wish to delve deeper into denatured alcohol. I would steer clear of it for anything except mandatory use. And that does not include cleaning records. I think it is ill advised to go out and buy products of complex composition, when really what is needed to clean a record is only a fraction of what is in the solution, and one has to be concerned about what else is in the solution. In this case, we are talking about alcohol. First of all denatured alcohol is derived from ethanol, and I believe for reasons stated above that propanol is slightly superior for the job of cleaning a record. And on top of that you can acquire nearly 100% pure propanol  without going to the black market or a guy named Joe. But that’s just my opinion and I commend you for the tremendous effort you have made to codify the subject.

@lewm 

Your opinion wrt IPA being a superior solvent to ethanol is spot on with the science.  In the book, I did a basic Hansen Solubility Parameter analysis, and of the alcohols, IPA has the lowest Hildebrand solubility parameter - the lower the value essentially the more powerful the solvent.  The Hildebrand solubility parameter considers three parameters - the energy from dispersion forces between molecules; the energy from dipolar intermolecular force between molecules; and the energy from hydrogen bonds between molecules; and is calculated as the square root of the sum of the squares.  The book Chapter X addresses the details.

Otherwise, I suspect like you, I am no fan of solvents.  When I was with the Navy and was developing cleaning procedures for life support I had a three member medical board that reviewed every cleaning agent - the Senior Navy Toxicologist, the Senior Navy  Industrial Hygienist and the Senior Diving/Submarine Medical Officer (this represented the most critical application).   We also off-gassed every cleaning agent at NASA White Sands Test Facility labs so got a view into what was actually in the cleaning agents.  Over the many years I got quite an education on the hazards of solvents and 'other' hidden hazards even in some commercial water based cleaning agents.

My experience is as a molecular biologist. We used ethanol and acetate to precipitate DNA and RNA. SDS plus or minus Triton X100/Tween20 to solubilize cell membranes and intracellular organelles. Also there are a slew of nonionic detergents with different characteristics suitable  for isolating various proteins with specialized physical chemical properties. That was usually a hit or miss proposition.

The science of surfactants is pretty amazing - there is very little they do not touch.  Although Triton X100 is now banded in AU/EU/UK because it's an aquatic toxin.  But Polysorbate 20 (same Tween20) is still available, so the book now lists Polysorbate20 as an alternative for those overseas.  The viscosity is about the same as Triton X100, it does not reduce the surface tension as much, but its good enough and its critical micelle concentration is less so less is used - easier to rinse. 

Very interesting. 

I use a Keith Monks RCM with the KM special fluid.

Wondering if it would also be good to apply the Walker enzyme treatment?

Seems like a lot of work but I think that BetterRecords uses the KM and then the Walker.

I’ve now compared the L’Art du Son - Record Cleaning Fluid to the KM discOvery fluid and find, by a small degree, the discOvery is the better sounding fluid. A bit blacker sounding. Plus the L’Art du Son has to be mixed and stored in the refrigerator. Cost wise the KM is probably a tad more expensive.

YMMV

@mglik 

Enzymes are biological catalysts that are generally some kind of protein. There is the “lock & key” analogy associated with enzymes and cleaning. The particular enzyme must be the right key to unlock (dissolving) the particular soil. There are four (4) basic enzymes used and how each works can be contaminant, time, concentration and surface dependent, and they have to be rinsed.

For further details read the book PACVR 3rd Ed Section VIII.9.  Otherwise, if you read Chapter XII you may see some cleaning agent options for vacuum RCM.

Thanks for sharing this information.  I personally have an ultrasonic cleaner (standard, inexpensive VEVOR model), and that works very well for 90% of my LP's.  There are a few (interestingly some sealed, mint LP's) that despite U/S cleaning, and manual scrubbing with a MoFi brush and cleaning solution, there are still crackles, but no pops.  For these I'm considering just sending them off the Perfect Vinyl Forever for an Archival 4.0 cleaning.  Has anyone had experience with this? 
Thanks. 

 

Just as a PS to this thread... I've now purchased a 1 litre bottle of BASF Dehypon LS54. I don't expect to ever consume this bottle in my lifetime, since it will produce 2,500 litres at the recommended dilution. Given it's quite expensive, if anyone in the UK would like to send me an empty bottle of 50 or 100ml, I am happy to return it to you filled for the cost of postage.

Cheers
Rob

Drbond, if a “sealed, mint” LP does not respond to the cleaning you’ve already done, I’d give up and either toss those LPs or tolerate them as is. I doubt any further cleaning will fix them. Good money after bad, and all that.

Sorry for being so pedantic, but first of all ALL enzymes are proteins, not just most of them or some of them. In general, enzymes act to catalyze chemical reactions that would happen anyway but happen much faster if mediated by an enzyme. (That's actually the definition of a catalyst; it moves the reaction forward.)  With that in mind, I wondered why enzymatic activity would be beneficial for cleaning an LP.  My guess is that enzymatic cleaners help to break down large possibly insoluble molecules, possibly precipitates that are by definition insoluble, into smaller more soluble molecules, which can then be either dissolved (in water, alcohol, and or with the help of nonionic detergent) and washed away.  What exactly are the substrates for enzymes that one can find in an LP groove, I do not know.

@lewm,

This is what I specifically stated in the book, and I stand corrected on 'generally some kind"

VIII.9 ENZYMES. Enzymes are biological catalysts that are generally some kind of protein. There is the “lock & key” analogy associated with enzymes and cleaning. The particular enzyme must be the right key to unlock (dissolving) the particular soil. There are four (4) basic enzymes used and how each works can be contaminant, time, concentration and surface dependent, and they have to be rinsed.

CAUTION

The enzymes can be irritating to some individuals. Per Guidance for the Risk 
Assessment of Enzyme-Containing Consumer Products (1), “Almost all enzymes 
used in consumer products are proteins which are foreign to the human immune 
system and can act as allergens through a Type 1 hypersensitivity mechanism 
following exposure, typically by inhalation.”. If while handling or using an enzyme 
any breathing irritation or difficulty is experienced stop use immediately and seek 
medical attention if symptoms persist.

VIII.9.1 Proteases break down protein-based soils including blood, urine, food, feces, wine and other beverages. This is the most commonly used type enzyme in cleaners.

VIII.9.2 Amylases break down starch molecules like eggs, sugars, sauces, ice cream, gravy. This is a commonly used enzyme in cleaners.

VIII.9.3 Lipases break down fat molecules like oils and grease. This may work for fingerprints, but mineral-based such as refined/synthetic oils/greases - not so well.

VIII.9.4 Cellulases are used to soften fabric and restore color to fibers made up of cellulose material. They also remove particulate soil and reduce fabric graying and pilling. How well they actually remove particulate is unknown - literature is pretty thin, and likely surface dependent - may work on clothes, but not hard surfaces or very small particles.

If you review the ingredient list of a quality laundry detergent such as Tide - CPID (whatsinproducts.com) you will see various enzymes - good for blood, urine and grass stains.  What does this all have to do with cleaning a record - well unless someone bled on it, used it as bathroom, had sex on it or used it as a frizz-bee, not much that I can see.

@antinn Hi Neil 

I am making an inquiry and I sense there is the best answer on offer from yourself, I hope you can assist with a guideline.

I have a Brush for cleaning LP's (Yukimu ADB-1) that has been quite a expensive purchase. What is really attractive about the Brush is the softness of the fibres and their never having become tangled at such a length.

These Bristles are so soft, I have been trusting with them to run the Stylus through them, which works for my purposes.

The Brush is now well used on cleaned LP's and has never been cleaned, I had once intended to Jet Blast it with distilled water from the Rinse Bottle used for Final Rinse when manual cleaning LP's. 

My inquiry is, should a cleaning solution be used that is the same as used for the LP's, as much of what the Brush ends up being in contact with, is no different to what is to be removed from a LP as part of cleaning.

My main aim is to have a Purified Fibre on the Brush, bit also maintain the very attractive softness of the fibre. Losing the softness would not be a deal breaker for LP cleaning, but it would end its usage for the Stylus.

Note: I have a selection of cleaning methods for the Stylus, the Brush is usually used when a surface noise is detected through picking up a local fluff fibre.  

@pindac, 

Here are the details of your brush - YUKIMU SUPER AUDIO ACCESSORY| Yukimu.  The 'secret' to the brush is the Mitsubishi COREBRID™ B   bristle which is a hollow acrylic bristle filled with carbon making it anti-static.  Other companies such as 2:Anti-Static | Analog Relax and Furutech 圖片 Audio grade IEC connector use the same bristle in their brushes; and they are all expensive.   The Furutech literature specifies the following:  It is possible to wash the brush, however, take care not to entangle the fibers and do not use detergents or bleaches. RINSE WITH FRESH WATER ONLY. After washing, dry in a shaded, well-ventilated area. 

However, unless you have reason to suspect the brush is dirty with oil or grease, no reason to resort to wet cleaning.  Brushing across a rod of Teflon should be fine to remove particles.  Particle articles will want to adhere to the Teflon (lowest on the Triboelectric scale) and the Teflon will do no harm to the bristle, and about a 3/8-inch to 0.5-inch diameter rod of Teflon is generally quite cheap.  Then rinse the Teflon rod with water to remove the particles it picked up and dry.  

Take care

Neil

@antinn Hi Neil Thank You for a very prompt response.

The Teflon is ordered in a 10mm Diameter.

A intense clean of the Brush does appeal, bit the use of Teflon will be put to the Test.

I am also feeling a temptation, do a little Macro Photography on the Rod as a Before and After use capture just to get my eye in again using Macro as well as see what the Particle attraction and collection looks like. 

The last time I did Macro Shoot, was a careful set up on a Cart' Body, where the penetration for the Cantilever to enter the inner of the Cart' was the focal point. The Cantilever was heavily laden with granular type particles and the collection of a variety of particulate at the Armature when viewing images was like a landscape from another world was being observed. 

There was no doubt in my mind the type of contamination seen would cause the Cart' problems, it was easily identified the Cart' was no longer in optimised condition.

It is hard to believe the LP only is responsible, there must be a large proportion of airborne particle being attracted to this point that is where the electrical generation begins.

@pindac,

A very easy method to observe particles on Teflon is with a UV light.  This is the UV light I use (which is addressed in the book):  ALONEFIRE SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable USB Rechargeable Woods Lamp Black Light for Pet Urine Detection, Resin Curing, Scorpion, Fishing, Minerals, Cure Glue, Bed Bugs with Battery, Charger - Amazon.com.  

Teflon under UV does not fluoresce and takes on a gray dull appearance while particles and lint fluoresce in intensely whitish-blue making the particles and lint very easy to see.   Also, if you rub the Teflon rod with a piece of white packing sheet-foam, it will charge the Teflon with static that is very negative better attracting particles and lint that generally have a positive charge.  Also, the intent is both to slowly brush the Teflon rod as well as quickly brushing the Teflon rod to knock off particles from the brush all while not risking any damage to the brush.  

@antinn Thank You for the follow up guidance, I am starting to feel very confident the correct approach to look after the equipment that looks after the LP is to be embarked upon  

@antinn Hi Neil, The Brush is now inspected as advised and what was discovered was way beyond what was suspected to be the findings.

Note: The Brush is only removed from the sheath Bristle Protector for a few seconds at a time to clean LP's having been cleaned using the PAVCR manual cleaning method for a LP, a LP can be cleaned mid play, depending on what the Stylus is doing with contamination affecting the sound. The Brush has had about 300 uses since the PAVCR has been adopted. It is not possible to recollect how many uses were carried out between when the Brush was purchased in early 2021 and my first use of the manual cleaning method, which I believe commenced in spring 2022. 

I have today witnessed substantial fluoresce particle count per Inch Square of approx' 50 - 100. I feel quite confident the Brush was quite contaminated prior to the new vinyl care adopted in 2022.

More importantly, I am feeling I have got back on track for my preparations for the Stylus to become a betterment. It looks likely I am soon to have a thoroughly cleaned ancillary to be the tool used whilst carrying out an important to myself discipline, that is not overlooked as an exercise, for being a part of using an Analogue Source in a audio system.

In my little world, the idea of not attempting to keep the Stylus in use, where at the interface for the Stylus being in contact with an environment that is not prepared to be most beneficial to it, is wasteful.        

@pindac, 

What you are seeing is one of the fundamental challengers with brushes - how do you know they are clean and how do you keep them clean?   The same problem exists with fabric mats such as suede leather; except there is really no easy method to clean suede leather mats; I used to use one - no more.  I use a mat that has a smooth surface that is easily cleaned with a 4-inch silicone tacky roller that is easy to clean and reuse.  Otherwise, I have not used a dry-brush on my records in about 2-yrs.  I use the Teflon rod and UV light as I address in the book Chapter VI (latest direction in 3rd Ed Change 1).   But the Teflon rod is not intuitive and controversial, so I do not promote it. 

Take care,

Neil

 

@antinn Yes Neil I agree, how does one ensure the Stylus is able to function in an environment that allows for it to have the most optimised conditions to perform its role.

Using info supplied in the context that you are doing and keeping the focus of attention on Vinyl Only. Confidence is speedily generated as a result of using the guidance and the follow up of experiencing the outcome of practices undertaken when evaluating the cleaned replayed LP.

Today the PTFE Rod arrived as well, and within 15 minutes of the Rod being removed from the packaging, the Brush was noticeably cleaner under the UV Light.

A second session left very sparse amounts of fluoresce, I was left wondering if any other method could improve on this method.

A thought about a PTFE Comb has lead me to discover Combs with Teflon used for Grooming Animals, whether this type of tool used on the Brush will improve things further is an unknown? 

I just want to thank both of you for this very enlightening discussion.  Both the recommended light and TFE rod are on order.

^ ditto. I am using the Teflon rod today (trying out). No light yet.