Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Before this thread gets yanked, I'm going to jump in on Paul's defense concerning the questions posed by 4Yanx on knowing vinyl compositions and measuring affects on plasticizers;

It is impossible to know all the plasticisers present in records as well as the base polymer blends. We are talking about formulating cleaners that will be used on vinyl records made over the last 50 - 60 years. There have been numerous reformulations and this doesn't take into account the affect of recycling of rejects. Manufacturers do not reveal what they use in their "vinyl" compositions except when they choose to patent the formulation. Even when they patent the formulation, the patent makes wide ranging claims on what polymers and plasticizers could be present. It is also impossible for Paul or anybody to track down a sufficient number of current and former vinyl record manufacturing employees to do interviews to find out what was in a sufficient range of vinyl compositions. Even if Paul could get ahold of these people, very few would remember the formulas exactly unless they wrote down/stole manufacturing documents. Furthermore, it is financially impossible for Paul to go to the effort of having all the variations of vinyl records submitted to a testing lab to break down the formulas. Trying to deformulate polymer blends is brutal. Let's assume that Paul could get samples of all relevant vinyl compositions and submit them to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Such testing would easily blow past $10,000 and very likely would exceed $100,000 due to the number of samples. The cost could even be considerably higher since I haven't consulted any laboratories on what it would cost to answer such a question on a per vinyl formulation basis. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Mass Spectroscopy (MS) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) testing is not cheap; often ~ $300/hour or more.

I guarantee you that none of the current cleaning formulations and record treatment products currently sold on the market were tested on every permutation of vinyl composition made over the last 50 - 60 years. I've read the U.S. Patents on Discwasher, GruvGlide, and Last Record Preservative and they definitely didn't test everything in sight. They tested a few select records until they were convinced that they could proceed to beta testing, reformulate if necessary after beta testing, then commercialized. If they had to do exhaustive testing to prove their cleaner was safe on everything, the product would never make it to market because they would be bankrupt and it would take decades unless they had a large laboratory support staff. The record playing industry is too small to make enough money to fund the kind of research to answer these questions and still be profitable at selling record cleaning formulas.

I could go on-and-on about all the permutations someone would have to go through to answer the questions about product safety.

The bottom line is that LP record cleaning formulas are formulated in similar fashion to glass cleaners. The total non-volatile solids level has to be low to minimize residue that will show up sonically on records (analogous to minimizing streaking on glass). The sonic signature part is also dealt with by finding the surfactants that have the least inherent noise. I have often wondered that when current record cleaning formula vendors talk about their formulas having low inherent sonic signature, are they confusing this with the surfactants ability to quench static charge and its efficacy on removing soil. After finding the correct surfactants and keeping them at a low concentration, all you are left with is using sufficiently high purity water and possibly blending with ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. The alcohol content shouldn't be run too high because of flammability issues. Alcohols probably can leach some plasticizer as well as the surfactants but it will likely be very minimal because the cleaner ingredients cannot penetrate into the polymer network.

Let's get real for a minute here. If we are so worried about the potential to leach a trace amount of plasticizer from a record's surface, why are we even playing the records to begin with. The wear and tear of playing the record is far worse than what will happen with Paul's cleaning formulas (well, I can't vouch for Shellac or nitrocellulose-based records).

Mr. Kidknow
Note: I am a chemist who formulates water and solvent-based cleaners for aerospace and occasionally janitorial/sanitation applications.

I know Paul and have discussed record cleaning formulation ideas in the past. I don't know if his test formulas incorporate some of my ideas/suggestions but it is OK with me if he has done so in his latest cleaner formulas.

Paul,

At least you didn't implement my idea of using nanoprobe robots equipped with phasers to do the cleaning. LOL

Mr Kidknow

A suggestion on soak time for the Step 1 Enzyme formula.

Several people have been asking "How long should I let the enzyme solution soak the record before removing and proceeding to the next step?" I feel that you should let the enzyme solution soak for at least 5 minutes if possible. There is nothing wrong with occasional brushing during this 5 minute interval.

Enzymes require time to do their work. They are catalytic cleaning agents, i.e., they participate in the chemical reaction of chopping-up proteinaceous soils but they do not get consumed in the process. Without the enzymes, it is nearly impossible to chop-up protein soils without introducing chemical agents that are corrosive to people and probably damaging to the record itself. Enzymes take time to get the job done because of the temperature limitations (it takes energy to drive the reaction) and the dilute nature of the cleaner and low quantities of soil present (it takes time for the enzymes to find the dirt in order to do the work).

It is possible to enhance enzyme activity by warming the enzyme solution. A general rule of thumb for chemical reactions is "For every 18°F temperature increase, the rate of a chemical reaction doubles". First, you would need to be careful on heating so that the solution doesn't get too hot. Excessively hot solution has the potential of warping a record. On the other hand, placing a few milliters of warm enzyme solution on the cooler LP may cool down the enzyme solution fairly quickly (evaporation also cools the solution) such that the heating effort may be a waste of time. If you choose to try heating your enzyme solution, you will need a thermometer and I suggest that you do not exceed 100°F; I personally will never heat my cleaning solutions unless they are really cold (below 70°F). Finally, if your enzyme cleaner consumption rate is very slow, repeated heating may shorten shelf life enough to cause a degradation in performance. Degradation in enzyme performance may take several months to show-up after several heating cycles. Enzymes do not have indefinite shelf-lives so try to make sure you use-up your enzyme solutions within 1-year to be safe.

So, the general recommendation is "Soak at least 5-minutes if you can" in my book. Paul has already proven to himself and me that daily soaking for 30-minutes over a 6-week period showed no detrimental effects on vinyl. Clearly, using 30-minute soak times is excessive because we would be spending more time doing the cleaning process than listening to the records.

Mr. Kidknow