The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@drkingfish 

WARNING:  22% Ethanol is flammable with a flashpoint of about 75F.  Using this concentration in an Ultrasonic Tank with 100’s or 1000’s of mL that is not explosion proof rated is dangerous. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record rotating is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND potentially explosive vapors.  Additionally, in a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is much higher.  There are explosion-proof rated industrial US tanks, but these are very expensive and generally not sold to consumers.  

Otherwise, 'flammable' alcohol concentrations use with vacuum-RCM the risk is much less, mitigated by use at room temperature and by the very small quantity used – maybe 5- mL per side. 

@wizzzard, 

To the contrary - I know exactly what I am saying.  I am the author of this book - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press with over 20-yrs experience in developing precision cleaning processes for ships and submarines.

Otherwise, the source of the data for Ethanol is specified in the book in Chapter VIII with appropriate references with links to the data.  Additionally, maybe you missed the fact the person was going to use your formula in a ultrasonic tank generally heated to 95F with often upwards of 200-400watts electrical power.  And, if you look at the phase diagram for ethanol & water at any significant concentration it does not form an azeotrope so the vapor concentration will be > the liquid concentration.  In the US, NFPA-70 and National Electrical Code (NEC) has strict requirements for electrical equipment use with anything flammable that is classified as >100F.  

That all being said, I do not know about you, but I do not drink my wine in a 1L glass at 95F and I do not have any significant ignition sources at mouth noting that a lit cigarette is not a credible ignition source - the book addresses.   And cooking with wine is at relatively low volumes and often with good ventilation.  

In the meantime, if you are who you claim to be - prove it.  Full name with something that verifies you are who you say you are.  If you read my bio that is as much as I will specify and most of what I have written is not in the public domain.

Neil Antin

@wizzzard,

If you carefully read @drkingfish he mentioned ’us’ that is a common abbreviation for ultrasonic (tank).

Otherwise, here a phase diagram for ethanol-water - Ethanol-Phase-Diagram.jpg (800×695) (moonshinedistiller.com) and distillation discussion - Test01 (queensu.ca), it forms an azeotrope at about 95.6%, noting that I did not say that it did not form an azeotrope only implying that at any significant concentration in the context of your formula.

Otherwise, instead of keeping this professional, your immature attempts at insults I perceive only as an insult to your advertised intelligence; that’s a shame. But you are a world away, someone behind a forum handle and have no meaning or significance to me, and I will not waste any more of my time with you so and I suggest you do not waste yours.

@mijostyn,

If you ever took the time to read the book you would find a multitude of methods, beyond the in-expensive manual process; not everyone has your wealth. Also, its rather inexpensive to filter US tanks to 0.2-micron absolute keeping the bath clean (and the book has a table that lists all the parts required)  generally for 3-4 weeks until TDS/resistivity (that is easily measured accurately -Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 Waterproof Professional Series Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific) increases above levels where there is a risk of scale (using ASTM & MIL-STDs for guidance).   

Regarding your question of the possible benefit of Tergitol 15-S-7 (or 15-S-9) over your current Triton X-100 if you took the time to review the book Table X Nonionic Surfactant Performance Properties, as an educated individual you should see why the Tergitols are vastly superior.to Triton X-100 for the application you are using.

In the meantime, I recently did a quick deep dive into anti-statics such as BAK-50 and in the process, I came across this NASA Report you may find of interest 19890016725.pdf (nasa.gov); cationic surfactants can be corrosive to some materials.  The rest of the information and details I determined given your distain of me, I see no reason to share with you.  But overall, if you optimize your process, with the right surfactant at the right concentration and BAK-50 at the right concentration there is no reason you should be seeing any residue build-up on your stylus.

@pindac, @whart, and any others reading,

Thank-you for the kind words. 

Keep in-mind that what I present is a process - not a single chemistry.  My aqueous process is centered around pre-clean, rinse, final-clean, rinse and is the industry standard for precision cleaning with aqueous cleaner and as the book states Chapter II: 

The manual precision aqueous vinyl record cleaning procedure detailed by this document began with the cleaning process used by the United States Library of Congress to clean delicate lacquer records. That procedure was then modified following the fundamentals developed for MIL-STD-1330D Precision Cleaning and Testing of Shipboard Oxygen, Helium, Helium-Oxygen, Nitrogen, And Hydrogen Systems and MIL-STD-1622B Standard Practice for Cleaning of Shipboard Compressed Air Systems.   

To refresh:  I developed MIL-STD-1330D and MIL-STD-1622B as well as the jointly patented cleaning agent - Navy Oxygen Cleaner (NOC), and if you were to read NASA procedures for aqueous cleaning of high-pressure oxygen, you would see similar pre-clean, rinse, final clean, rinse processes.  

So, I present a 'process', not a single chemical.  The book presents various options for pre-cleaner and final cleaner chemistry, and as the book states:  All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. All methods & procedures specified here present opportunity for experimenting with different cleaning agents, different cleaning brushes, different drying cloths, and different cleaning equipment.

So, this whole hoopla has nothing to do with someone else's chemistry which the concept of alcohol + nonionic surfactant is nothing new.  If you read VIII.15.1 London Jazz Collector™ (LJC) LJC home recipe for vacuum record cleaning machines | LondonJazzCollector (wordpress.com) he indicates it's for vacuum record cleaning machines and does not recommend allowing to just evaporate to prevent leaving dissolved contaminants.  And if you analyze his formula (by volume), it's as follows: 25% IPA & 250 ppm nonionic surfactant (likely at 8 x CMC).   

The formula provided by @wizzzard is by weight 22% ethanol and 0.038% Tergitol 15-S-7 which ~380 ppm which is 10 x CMC.  If you review and understand Table XIII Hansen Solubility Parameter Record Polymers & Solvents, you will see the differences between 100% IPA and 100% Ethanol.  Based on @wizzzard  'credentials' it should be child's-play for him to do a comparison of two formulas - IPA + Tegitol 15-S-9 (which are inexpensive & easy obtained) and Ethanol + Tergitol 15-S-7 (which may not as inexpensive or as easily obtained); and hopefully he could put this in both 'by-weight' and 'by-volume' to make it more accessible to the average person and let people decide for themselves.

But, because I have a name, and you can find me, for liability reasons I will not make any recommendation for use of alcohol above 2.5%.  Additionally, I am not here to formulate cleaning agents - I let others do that.  Otherwise, my background in some of the most intensive quality assurance programs in world (Navy SUBSAFE The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Safety Standards (bsee.gov) & Deep Submergence Diver Life Support) and my development of the MIL-STDs to clean high-pressure oxygen and life support systems and the need to have every final cleaner approved by a three-panel medical board (toxicology, internal medicine & industrial health) have left me acutely sensitive to being protective of human health.  If I am to be criticized for being overly protective - guilty as charged. So, I will advise of the risk - beyond that you are free to take as many risks as you wish but you are at least fully aware; that is my policy.

So, myself and @wizzzard are fundamentally different - he is presenting a chemistry, I am presenting a 'process'; and it's my experience with developing and implementing (world-wide) precision cleaning processes - that to effectively clean a record - you need a process, and every process be it manual cleaning, manual-cleaning with vacuum assistance or ultrasonic cleaning, and combinations thereof require a variation of the chemistry for best results. 

Beyond that, I am not here to defend or promote my process.  The book goes into excruciating detail trying to explain the whys behind the process including a deep dive (Chapter XI) into just how clean the record needs to be to extract all the music it contains.  If you agree, that's great, if you don't, that's OK.  I am selling nothing and make no income from the book, and it was a good exercise to keep my skillsets high when I 'was' retired - no more, back to work and I really do not have the time anymore to expend as I have in the past.  So, this is likely my last post on this forum.

Take care and stay-well,

Neil Antin

PS/Given the state of affairs in cyber-space, I have adopted the 'zero-trust' cyber position, and consequently, I am now being very careful as to just what personally identifiable information (PII) I disclose.  

In the interest of accuracy, in my last post I stated - " The formula provided by @wizzzard is by weight 22% ethanol and 0.038% Tergitol 15-S-7 which ~380 ppm which is 10 x CMC."  I made an error, the concentration of Tergitol 15-S-7 is 38 mg, and for the resulting volume of about 1-L is + ~38 ppm which is the CMC for Tergitol 15-S-7.  Apologies for any confusion this may have caused. 

Note that the 2-drops specified appears too much for 38-mg noting the conversion mg = ml * 1000 * d.  The smallest near calibrated drop from the Nalgene Dropper Bottle is 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  Two drops = 0.08ml x 1000 x 0.91 (spg of 15-S-7) = 72.8 mg.  Standard eyedroppers can deliver as much as 2X that amount.  

 Figure 39 – Water + Alcohol Surface Tensions of at 25°C from PACVR
(adapted with permission copyright 1995, American Chemical Society)

 Data for Figure 39 is from “Surface Tension of Alcohol + Water from 20 to 50°C”, Gonzalo Vazquez, Estrella Alvarez, Jose M. Navaza, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 1 May 1995.    

@lewm, 

In polymer science there is an entire field of study surrounding the Hansen Solubility Parameters with a brief introduction here:  Mechanical Properties of Polymer Nanocomposites (turi.org).  There is a large handbook available to purchase just search Hansen Solubility Parameters Handbook.  Below is a table showing the Hansen Solubility Parameters for various solvents.  The % volume in parenthesize for the alcohol-water is just a specific gravity correction such as IPA is here - Density and Concentration Calculator for Mixtures of Isopropyl Alcohol and Water (handymath.com).  

Without going into the details, if you were to model the record which is a co-polymer of PVC and PVA, determine its solubility sphere radius, and then compare with the alcohol-water solvents above using the Hansen procedures, you would see that the alcohol-water solvents are a safe distance away with no real risk of damaging the record (at room temp) consistent with many users experience.

Note that when building the record model, it’s important to do a stepped proportional analysis where PVCa at the allowable variation using the RCA patent as a guide (1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) is first determined. Otherwise, doing just an analysis of the total PVC + PVA will yield a solubility sphere much larger making the record appear less compatible than it likely is based on years of user experience.

Otherwise, how the record will be attacked by a solvent follows a fairly well-defined path - The paper A review of polymer dissolution, Beth A. Miller-Chou, Jack L. Koenig, Prog. Polym. Sci. 28 (2003) 1223–1270 states: “First, the solvent begins its aggression by pushing the swollen polymer substance into the solvent, and, as time progresses, a more dilute upper layer is pushed in the direction of the solvent stream. Further penetration of the solvent into the solid polymer increases the swollen surface layer until, at the end of the swelling time, a quasistationary state is reached where the transport of the macromolecules from the surface into the solution prevents a further increase of the layer.”. So, for a polymer, evidence of swell and maybe weight gain should be the first evidence of attack.

What about extracting plasticizer - that should be unlikely.  From the RCA Patent the small amount of plasticizer used is 1% of a soybean oil epoxide (ESO).  Plasticizers can migrate from polymers based on three general mechanisms 1) evaporation to the ambient – same as off-gassing; 2) extracted by being soluble with liquids in contact; and 3) transfer from one surface of another.  If the record had any significant % plasticizer it could never last as long as it does, and the ESO plasticizer is very stable.

The paper Kinetics Study of the Migration of Bio-Based Plasticizers in Flexible PVC, Ching-Feng Mao and De-Bin Chan, 2012 International Conference on Life Science and Engineering IPCBEE vol.45 (2012) tested the migration of five different plasticizers (at concentrations about 30%) from very thin flexible PVC of 1 mm under contact with polystrene sheets at 190°C for 10 min. The plasticizers tested were acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC), di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di (2-ethylhexyl), adipate (DEHA), and epoxidized soybean oil (ESO). The PVC/DEHP weight loss was about 2%, PVC/ATBC was about 7% weight loss, PVC/DEHA was about 12% weight loss, and the PVC/ESO showed no weight loss.

Most of the above was excerpted from the book if that is of any interest.  Regardless, above are sufficient references to read on your own, and hopefully guide you on you making your own assessment.  Enjoy the deep-dive.

@mijostyn, 

RE:  Is there any data on the extraction of ESO by Chlorofluorocarbons? Granted it is only 1% of the formulation but wouldn't extraction of ESO actually harden the PVC?

Not that I am aware of. 

The Navy in 1994 reported testing of Non-Rigid PVC immersed in CFC-113 (the CFC solvent you have used for record cleaning) for 24-hours @70F.  The average tensile strength loss was 3% and the average weight loss was 2.47%.   The particular nonrigid PVC tested was ASTM-D2287; nonrigid vinyl chloride polymer and copolymer classes in which the resin portion of the composition contains at least 90 % vinyl chloride. The remaining 10 % can include one or more monomers copolymerized with vinyl chloride or consist of other resins mechanically blended with polyvinyl chloride or copolymers thereof.  These nonrigid vinyl compounds are defined by a hardness range and include the necessary stabilizers, plasticizers, fillers, dyes, and pigments to meet the designated requirements.  No other details regarding the specific plasticizer are available.   However, the probability that ESO was the plasticizer for the ASTM D2287 sample is remote - it's not frequently used - July 2010 Phthalates CHAP Meeting: Uses of Phthalates and Other Plasticizers, Allen Godwin (cpsc.gov)

If the plasticizer is extracted, the results can be surface cracks - recall the cracking of older car dashboards.  

Knowing your history from prior posts of a few years back, and anticipating the reason for your question, has your incidental use of CFC-113 as a simple, short spray wash of a record caused damage, extremely unlikely.  

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane is also officially identified as CFC-113 by the EPA such as Ozone-Depleting Substances | US EPA, by ASHRAE STD -34, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, and by CDC such as Preventing Death from Excessive Exposure to Chlorofluorocarbon 113 (CFC-113) | NIOSH | CDC, to name just a few.  Freon is a DuPont trademark, which is why it's officially not identified as Freon-113 although it's acknowledged that this is another term.  In some circles CFC-113 was also known as Freon PCA (precision cleaning agent).

I was part of the Navy's CFC Elimination Program and spent too many years developing solutions to eliminate CFC-113, but for the most part was successful being awarded an EPA Ozone Protection Award in 1995 - Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA

I know more about CFC-113 than I care to admit.   I also assisted with establishing the DOD CFC-113 Mission Critical Reserve and here is one piece of trivia, kept in sealed contained away from moisture CFC-113 has an 'indefinite' shelf life.

Now back to your regular scheduled programming....

@lewm,

The KL Audio is 40kHz, with four 50W horizontally positioned transducers, two each side (200W total) with a UT tank volume of only about 0.78L - that is it's a very powerful machine.  Note that the reservoir is 2.4L, but someone recently measured the change in reservoir volume to fill the unit - ergo the UT tank volume.  With the very small volume and amount of power available, it does not need any enhancement with chemistry.

Here is a quick summary of UT concepts and some basic thumb rules:

Ultrasonic tanks 'grow' bubbles Principle-of-ultrasound-cavitation-16-The-initiated-bubbles-grow-due-to-evaporation.png (850×553) (researchgate.net) until the bubble collapses. Watch this video between 6:19 and 8:30 Cavitation - Easily explained! - Bing video to see how the bubble collapses.

Here are the basic thumb rules for ultrasonic tanks:

-The power to produce cavitation is proportional to the kHz, so a 120kHz UT needs more power than a 40kHz.
-For ultrasonic tanks, the bubble diameter is inversely proportional to the kHz, so a 40 kHz UT produces a large bubble than a 120kHz UT.
-The cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble diameter and the tank power (watts/L) but there is a maximum power above which no addition cavitation intensity is obtained.
-The number of cavitation bubbles produced is proportional to kHz, so a 120kHz produces more bubbles than a 40kHz, but smaller bubbles.
-The smaller the tank volume, the more power that is required. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to its interior surface area.
-For lower kHz units (<60kHz), if the tank bath flow rate (from filtering or spinning) >50% of the tank volume per minute, cavitation intensity decreases.

For records, in general, the most difficult items to clean/remove are particulate.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces: Aerosol Science and Technology: Vol 7, No 2 (tandfonline.com) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a surface, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

-The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the complete cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thin as 2 microns.

-Lowering the surface tension of the fluid reduces the energy needed for cavitation and can improve cleaning efficiency - better opportunity to penetrate the boundary layer.  The KL Audio unit does it by brute power.

-But there is a delicate balance with using chemistry and UT that can improve the cleaning efficiency more than the small expense to the cavitation intensity (more an issue with low power units). But use too much chemistry or the wrong chemistry and it's all downhill.

There is an entire science about particle adhesion and removal and if you wish to entertain yourself here is a good book to start with - Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books.  

Beyond all this, if you are going to get into an academic discussion on record cleaning, there is the existential question of just how clean a record needs to be to provide maximum playback fidelity?   From my research, the answer is quite complex and a topic unto itself.  But absent the details, people default to trial and error, and what they hear.   Which is perfectly acceptable, and which is why when someone asks me what is best, I will always say, what is best for you.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.  

@wizzzard,

You can say what you wish, but the law (29 CFR 1910.106) is very specific as to what is classified as flammable - NFPA_30_Fact_Sheet_2021.ashx. And, in larger volumes, in small spaces, flammable vapors can be build up - NFPA Journal - Safe Distilling, Mar Apr 2018.

Yes, as you have implied the flame speed and heat of combustion of water alcohol solutions are low, but the minimum ignition energy is well within the range of a 120V electrical contact. But are you familiar with what is now available for ultrasonic tanks - Amazon.com: VEVOR Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner 6L 40kHz Vinyl Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine Knob Control Record Ultrasonic Cleaner 4 Records Vinyl Sonic Cleaner Stainless Steel Tank w/Mechanical Heater & Timer : Industrial & Scientific. Do you think these low-cost PRC manufactured UT tanks are UL listed?

You have no idea of people’s domestic use situation. Some people put these low-cost UT tanks in closets or small bathrooms (w/o venting) because they are so noisy.

I have education in fire science and I have firefighting training from when I was in the Navy, and I would not make any general recommendation for use of any fluid in larger quantities such as in a UT tank that the law classifies as flammable, without a whole lot of caveats, and I suspect that the NFPA would not even think that was safe. But that is me, and of course you and anyone reading is free to take exception.   And with this being said, I have nothing else to say.

@kylehildebrant .

My reference for a concern was an open top UT tank with 6000-ml and larger volume. Your HG contains 350-ml in a mostly closed tank. Ask the manufacturer who is very responsive to requests what they think.  Beyond flammability that unit uses a lot of plastic that may not be compatible with the alcohol.

@wizzzard,

The discourse with using Hansen solubility parameters is not unknown - Hansen solubility parameter - Wikipedia.  My use of it within this forum was only as a prediction.  If your feelings on this subject are so intense, you have a possible avenue through Wikipedia to set the story straight if it needs to be.  

However, not to cause you any further grief, you may wish to check the math on the drops.  Drops can be 0.04 to 0.06 ml each (for those reading 1-ml water = 1-g).  I like the Nalgene Dropper Bottle that delivers a fairly accurate 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  

Peace

FWIW:

The benefit of the nonionic surfactant Tergitols 15-S-7 & 15-S-9 are their very high performance as compared to the older Triton X100.

-Surface tension of the water is ~72 dynes/cm.

-Surface tension of the record is ~37 dynes/cm.

-10 ppm (0.001%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~45 dynes/cm.

-20 ppm (0.002%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~37 dynes/cm. This is enough to quickly 'wet' the record. For UT cleaning, wetting the record has the advantage that water runs off the record and does not bead-up on the record significantly quickening the drying time. Drops take a long time to evaporate.

-52 ppm (0.0052%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~30 dynes/cm. Adding anymore will not lower the surface tension any further and is known as the critical micelle concentration (CMC) and at >52 ppm, and you begin to get detergency.

-3X to 5X CMC will give the full detergency that the surfactant can give.

The CMC for Tergitol 15-S-7 is 38 ppm and the resultant surface tension is 28 dynes/cm.  The CMC for Triton X100 is 189 ppm, and the resultant surface tension is 33 dynes/cm.  

For surfactant residue (assuming specific gravity of 1.0 for ease of use), a simple thumb rule is 1-mg of residue uniformly applied to the record surface will yield a residue film thickness of 0.1-micron.  From my research, the surface roughness of the record is about 0.01-micron and smallest recorded modulation is 0.1-micron (high frequencies).  From working with people across the globe in setting up record cleaning processes, the threshold for hearing soft 'viscous' nonionic surfactant residue is about 0.03-micron or 0.3-mg and it's noticed as a dulling of the high frequencies. 

Everyone's threshold of hearing residue is different based on physiological differences in hearing sensitivity as well as the playback system and the person's experience.  There is the obvious point when the residue is so high that it is now apparent on the stylus.  The big benefit of the Tergitols (15-S-7 & 15-S-9) over Triton X100 is that much less is needed, so the risk of audible residue is less.  Triton X100 should not be used w/o a rinse step.

This last Xmas I worked with someone in the UK, and we did a qualitative study of the vacuum efficiency of a German made high quality blower-style vacuum-RCM, similar to VPI.  Cleaners of known concentration were spiked with a high-performance UV dye (sensitivity in the ppb).  The vacuum-RCM was only on average 80% efficient in removing all fluid from the record.   About 20% was evaporated in-place.  For vacuum-RCM, if using a cleaner with high concentrations of surfactant (>50 ppm), at least one post rinse is recommended.

@bdp24,

+1👍

@mijostyn, 

Thank-you for the complement.  

@lewm,

The records were dried enough to leave the record dry without static. However, I suspect you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say. So, let me rephrase this mathematically. If 5-ml of cleaner was applied to the record, 4-ml was sucked up from the record and 1-ml was dried in-place. After cleaning and vacuuming the records were dry with no visible residue under white light or UV light. However, when DIW rinse water was then applied, the rinse water quickly fluoresced. After vacuuming if the 1st rinse fluoresced, rinse water was applied a 2nd time to see if it continued to fluoresce. If not, then the surface was assumed residue free. For some high concentrations of cleaner that were used, two rinses were required to achieve a residue free surface. For all tests, the quantity of cleaner and rinse water applied was measured out and the concentration of cleaner (& dye) was known. If there is ever a 4th Ed of book, the full details will be described in Chapter XIII that discusses vacuum RCM. Otherwise as always use this info as you see fit.

FWIW: I do not believe the point-source vacuum RCM such as the Monks with small tip (no large lip) and much higher vacuum and much less are air flow would behave the same. I suspect that their ability/efficiency to draw/suck-up fluid from the record is much higher but only actual testing would confirm.

@mijostyn, 

"I'm a bit confused. You said the record did not fluoresce but the rinse water did. The stuff that did not fluoresce on the record now fluoresces in the rinse water. I'm having trouble with that."

The residue that was on the record was at levels below visually detectable.  The general rules of thumb are a person with unmagnified 20:20 vision can under bright white light (100-foot candle source positioned 18" above the surface) see a 50-micron particle while with intense UV (assuming the film/particle is fluorescent) can see 25-35-micron depending on the UV light source.  Industrial UV inspections lamps can be 100W (and can could damage the record) while what was used was 10W.  

However, once the UV dye was rehydrated and dissolved by the rinse water, and being effective at "ppb's", the rinse water covering the surface the record becomes easily detected.

The Tergitol is like water soluble oil. It is slippery stuff. This may be psychological but it seems to me that the background noise present in all records is quieter after cleaning and I question a lubricant effect. 

The quantity of Tergitol 15-S-7 you are using is 38 mg/L, which is the same as 0.038 mg/ml.  If you leave behind 1-ml, 0.038-mg uniformly spread across the record will yield a uniform film thickness of about 0.0038-microns.  This is below the best info I can find the record surface roughness of 0.01-micron which is smoother than a #8 Super Mirror Finish/Non-Directional Mirror Finish used to produce/polish stainless steel mirrors.  If the Tergitol 15-S-7 did provide a lubricant effect, then you should also believe that the LAST treatment works.  The LAST treatment as @wizzzard elaborated being nothing more than a perfluorinated oil (such as Fomblin Y45 datasheet.aspx (ulprospector.com)) dissolved in in a fluorinated solvent, the solvent evaporates leaving behind an oil film.  

Now all nonionic surfactants are somewhat hydroscopic, but they pale in comparison to the hydroscopic nature of the cationic surfactant BAK-50 that you use as an external anti-static.  

Note that RCA developed an internal cationic anti-static record composition over 60-years ago G. P. Humfeld, Anti-Static Phonograph Records, RCA Engineer Magazine Vol. 6, No.3. October-November, 1960 1960-10-11.pdf (worldradiohistory.com).  Given the complexity of coating the pellets, and the experiences with modern pressings, I doubt that this internal anti-static treatment is much in use today.

As far as 'why' your records have a lower background noise - you never indicated the composition/concentration of what your cleaner was, but you earlier indicated that detritus was periodically building up on your stylus - is that still the case?  If not, you may have your answer.  Any detritus that builds up on a stylus can have profound effects on playback beyond the simple background noise.  Read this article - STYLUS MASS AND DISTORTION, by J. WALTON, Wireless World, April 1963, Wireless-World-1963-04.pdf (worldradiohistory.com).

Take care,

@wizzzard,

And now "Mr. W" relates "grade school guidelines" about drops and weights, never stopping to consider that I, Wizzzard, actually weighed out two drops of Tergitol 15-S-7 on his $5,600 Sartorius analytical balance. Not just once but five times and taking the average of the five readings. This never crossed his mind because his mind does not even allow such things to ever enter or even be considered. Fact is, that 1 drop of Tergitol 15-S-7 weighs 0.02888 g. So in my presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" which is based on parts by weight, I state to use 0.038 g. to produce 1 kg or (Approximately 1 Liter) actually 998.203 ml. of cleaning fluid at 20°C, and, I placed in parentheses "Approximately 2 drops".  Two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required. 

Did it ever occur to you that the size of a drop would be different from different eye-droppers, let alone a precision pipette?  I know that because I have measured it and others have also.  Of course, not with the extreme accuracy of scientific scale, but with a simple digital VTF scale.  Drops can easily be in the range of 0.03 to 0.06 mg/drop by measuring 10-drops and then dividing by 10 (to ensure the reading is in the range where the device has some reasonable accuracy).  The simple benefit of the Nalgene Dropper Bottle is that it delivers a fairly accurate 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).   So, the variable of the drop is mostly eliminated - close enough.

Otherwise, if you knew "two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required", given how specific, how scientific you were in the formulation, why did you not provide a tolerance for the composition which is normal engineering practice? 

Yell, scream, holler all you want, but my responses to people on this thread is to present information in a way that most anyone can hopefully understand.  When I trained many people in critical oxygen cleaning processes where death, injury and destruction were consequences of failure, and the deck-plate technician may have only a high school education, you keep it simple.  I reference scientific papers for those that may wish to dive deeper. 

Yes, you and I are wildly different - you are a scientist, I am an engineer.  You know what they say about engineers:  The optimist will say the glass is half-full, the pessimist will say the glass is half empty, the engineer just says you used the wrong size glass.  

@wizzzard, 

"I know Engineers, and, you sir are no Engineer"

You're attempt at using the infamous "Benson Quayle" debate line as an insult is pathetic.  Just make sure you tell U.S. Navy and NAVSEA that they were wrong to award me the Engineer of the Year twice which no one else has ever done, or to use the manuals I wrote for the design of some nuclear submarine fluid systems, or to use the host other documents and designs that will be in-use and in-service with some to the end of this century.

Otherwise, now that you are back, having not abandoned people, and you claim this forum-post as your own, I have no reason to further participate which should just make your day.