The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

Except where are the data or at least a description of the results comparing very low concentrations of an alcohol to more typically recommended concentrations that hover around 25% or precisely 22% if you follow Wizzzard? You may say you use 5% or “a splash”, and results are excellent, but that proves nothing.

And what is “distilled” Triton X100?

@lewm 

25% in US?

"dissolved."

And what is “distilled” Triton X100?

Since Triton x100 has been mentioned again, I have a question. My amateur mix has been 80% distilled water, 20% isopropyl alcohol and 4 or 5 drops of X100. I mix this in a one liter container.

I have never been sure if I should be using more or less of the X100. Would appreciate any input. I use an Okki Nokki vacum RCM. I rarely clean very dirty records.

Rich, Wizzzard explained why he recommends 22% ethanol, and his data support his choice. I’ve been using 25% isopropanol. Maybe I’ll adopt Wizzzards recommendation.

@lewm 
Both noromance and lilgerens are using UltraSonic cleaners and the alcohol was adjusted for such.
You are suggesting using 22% ethanol in an UltraSonic bath?

I am suggesting nothing for anyone else but me. And I do not own or ever use a US RCM. As previously noted, I use a VPI HW17. Good point if those other two stipulated they were using US. My bad.

@mijostyn ​@rhg3 ​@lewm ​@cleeds ​@dogberry ​@pindac ​@jasonbourne71 ​@richmon ​@whart ​@rich121 

Good evening to all,

Our original plans made for us have be readjusted for us again.  We need to go to another Hospital Tomorrow.  Then again leaving for yet another Hospital quite some distance away for a few days.  I may choose to leave, Sunday night and stay overnight at a Hospital related Hotel, or leave very early Monday morning.  Nevertheless, in either case, my wife needs to be away for two full days.  I am informing you of this because I will try to get some matters attended to until and when it does becomes possible to complete more.  So, you will be receiving my responses in "dribs and drabs" in as unspecified manner.

I am doing the best I can under all the circumstances, but, that has been our lives for some time now.  I occasionally question, whether or not I should have started something like this or not.  I hope you can relate, and I thank you for your patience and understanding.

Based on some recent comments, and on those awaiting answers especially @mijostyn , who now has to depend upon morphine to overcome his pain and suffering awaiting a response to his questions to me.

I considered and determined that I would employ an alternative method to be able to satisfy most, if not all, regarding my posted formulation and my intents.

Although the very original post is VERY CLEAR in every respect, it obviously, was not to some.  It may have been beneficial to some if a prologue of sorts was provided as well at the onset.  This, did now become more clear to me especially when @rhg3  posted (now, post #18) a link to what he described as a "tome", which I did read in its’ entirety,  before responding.  My response to @rhg3  is now recognized as (post #21) in the Forum.  (I state "now" because the Administrator blocked and removed  many postings, and, shall I say, justifiably so.  The Administrator was correct in His or Her actions.)

If all would please take the time to re-read my response to @rhg3 (posts #21), you will note my gratitude and appreciation, and my kind words, along with my applicable position that it differed to my "exclusive design selection method".  Again, another posting written in a very clear manner, however, many had taken this response as an affront to an almost "god-like admired contributor" and in an effrontery manner on my part for saying as much.  I shall refer to this individual in future writing as "Mister Wonderful" to keep things simple.  Now, Please do not make the same mistakes as in the past - that I am suggesting that this individual is "simple", and any associated derogatory implications that may be inferred.  Let us not start again!.  However,  the author of the "tome" (not my word), chimed in with his admirers, and included himself in this "self-admiration", which did not assist the misunderstandings.

An undeclared "war" was essentially initiated both against me and any additional comments I made, but, also against others, that acknowledged the value of my input, and requested further information.  Many deviated immensely from my good intention, and the forum spiraled into abuse, contempt, and further deviated entirely from any truly related matters, and sent the forum down a"rabbit-hole" of absurdities at times.

A clearly presented and simple formulation that contains ONLY THREE ingredients, and, precisely stating the exact amounts of each component to within three decimal place accuracy - upset the entire pre-established "Apple Cart" of understanding for many.

Absolutely Incredible!  And, beyond comprehension.

Since water has already been mentioned many times, and ethanol as well.  Only one ingredient remains that has not been discussed.  And, I would like to mention some attributes about the determined Tergitol before proceeding with my altered and modified approach to this matter for those with apparent difficulties.

And, before I cover some points about the Tergitol in the formulation, I would like to address those who "think" they know everything there is to know about water and ethanol.  And the answer is very simple indeed  -  YOU DON’T!  Otherwise, to this day, thousands of individuals would still not be studying and continuing research concerning water, and, the same applies to ethanol.

Now, to discuss the last and only remaining ingredient - Tergitol 15-S-7.  Tergitol is a Registered Trademark name belonging to The Dow Chemical Company to differentiate a particular class of surfactants from others that they also produce, as well as other Companies.

Tergitol 15-S surfactants are first and foremost "Non-Ionic Surfactants".  Non-Ionic Surfactants are THE ONLY TYPE of surfactant to be used for cleaning records.  Period!

Dow Chemical designed the 15-S series to be very high performance Secondary Alcohol Ethoxylates (S A E) to be used in place of Primary Alcohol Ethoxylates (P A E) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (N P E), and Octylphenol Ethoxylates (O P E).  Triton X-100, which was also developed by Dow many years ago, is an example of an (O P E) surfactant.

The "S", or, as written earlier above as, S means it is a Secondary Alcohol.  And, what that means is that there is a Hydroxyl group along the mid-section of the hydrocarbon chain to connect it to the "Hydrophilic Chain" of repeating Ethylene Oxide units.  The "15" was selected because it represents the maximum number of possible "Hydrophobic Hydrocarbon" atoms in the alcohol chain of the series.  Note, it represents the maximum, not necessarily, the exact number.  The actual number may be from 11 to 15 depending upon the specific product.  This is all in accordance with the "designed intentions".  I could be more specific at this point, but, I do not wish to go "deep into the woods", at this point.

The 7 in Tergitol 15-S-7 represents the number of Moles of Ethylene Oxide used to make the end-product, which  relates to the Equilibrium Surface Tension Relationship intended by design again, which is a specifically calculated amount, which is extremely significant.  All of the above mentioned criteria essentially indicates that it is the best and wisest choice to be used on a hard surface substrate as the vinyl records, with which we are most concerned.

In the interim, also keep in mind, that ONLY four types of surfactants exist in the world.  This will be important to remember when I provide my "modified approach presentation" later on.  The four types are:  A.) Anionic.   B.) Cationic.   C.) Non-Ionic.   D.) Amphoteric.    Amphoteric surfactants have both a positive and negative charge on their Hydrophilic end.  The dual charges cancel cancel each other out, that is why they are, at times, referred to as Zwitterionic, and then the pH of of a given solution will determine how the Amphoteric surfactant will behave and react.  This is very interesting Chemistry, but, it will not concern us and record cleaning.  The important thing to remember is that ONLY NON-IONIC SURFACTANTS can be used for cleaning records.  This also will be further explained.  I do NOT intend to get "deep into the woods" with my later adaptation, I intend to "walk around the edges" of the forest and occasionally "peek" into the deep wooded areas, and "label each peek" with a number that can be referred to if someone requires additional information, or, further explanation.

The Dow Chemical Company designed the Tergitol products with Specific intentions.  Dow further designed the Tergitol 15-S with additional specific intentions.  Dow then further designed specific items  within that designed criteria.  All very specialized with specific intended end usages.

And many of you thought that Tergitol 15-S-7 was just "some number designation" that was picked to simply differentiate it from other Tergitols.  If you did, do not feel bad, many, if not most chemists, would easily make a similar incorrect assumption.

When I selected a "Specific Scientific Methodology" and "Determined, and Selected Modalities" within the selected "Specific Scientific Methodology", I designed  a cleaning formulation with water, which then determined the incorporation of ethanol exclusively, and then determined the exact concentration of ethanol, I was left with the challenge to determine the best surfactant to utilize, and then to calculate the precise amount of surfactant to produce "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".  And, to verify the anticipated results to determine if it matched All the Parameters desired, and fulfilled all the criteria required to be certain that it is "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" as intended.  This was all accomplished by "Design" !

I am assured that the formulation is the "Very Best", and, I hope that you would at least attempt to acknowledge my knowledge and my efforts.  And, at some point, be as assured and as confident as I am.

@noromance 

Triton X-100 is a Non-ionic Surfactant made by Dow Chemical Company.  It is Octylphenoxy polyethoxyethanol glycol tertoctylphenylether.  9.5 Moles of Ethylene Oxide are utilized.  It is, what is referred to as an OPE Surfactant.

Distillation has no part or meaning.  Do not understand your statement.

@rich121 

I refer you to my response to @mijostyn with regard to the graph.  It is EXACTLY the transition point where the slope changes dramatically.  This is simply mathematical calculations determined as to the relationship of Surface Tension in dynes/centimeter and the WEIGHT percentage of ethanol.

Nothing to discuss, just simply to examine and understand the significance of this exact amount of Ethanol.

Anything else?

@ericsch 

I refer you to my response to @mijostyn in a previous posting.  I provided him with the exact amount that he is required to use of Triton X-100 if he chooses to continue to use Triton X-100 rather than switching the Tergitol 15-S-7.

It should be clear, if not, please inform me that you need additional information.

@ericsch 

Sorry, I should have also stated that please do NOT use isopropyl alcohol, it is imperative that you switch to Ethanol.  Again, explanations provided in other previous posting.

@noromance 

"You are missing the boat"

@ljgerens 

Thank you very much for your post.  Another one that I truly admire and respect.  I have extensive knowledge in Ultra Sonic Baths, but, not as you would think.  My knowledge is more Industrial and on much larger scale.  Nevertheless, the fundamentals are the same as you have also demonstrated.

I sincerely appreciate your post, and it deserves considerable attention as does my response to @mijostyn .

I will need to get back to you as soon as I possibly can.  A few adjustments, and a bit more understanding of the Chemistry and you will be on a much better track, and, I assure you more pleased with the results.

In the interim, is it possible to inform me of the Surfactant that you used that is similar to the Tergitol 15-S 7.  It would assist me.  And, by the way DO NOT use Dawn, I will explain.  The residue is from 6 of the 8 ingredients incorporated in Dawn.  Also Dawn contains significant amounts of anionic surfactants as well.

Hang in there, I admire you, and I will get back to you.  My time is not in my control.  You are next after my modified presentation that is already prepared and my response to @mijostyn .

Take care! And, thank you again.

@peporter 

The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is the very best record cleaner of any manner.  We are discussing the abilities of the cleaner.  It is the best regardless if you brush it on, spray it on, dip it in, apply with microfiber cloth, use vacuum cleaning device, etc.

I personally prefer the ease and convenience of using a vacuum cleaning machine.  And, if feeling lazy, even a simpler method will do to a reasonable extent.  Recall, the evaporation rate is rapid due to the azeotropic characteristics.  And, accumulation of residue has more to do with evaporation rates than any application characteristics.  Assuming you are using distilled water and pure Ethanol and the proper amount of surfactant.

The cleaning characteristics are independent and a separate issue with regard to methodology.  Six shots of Tequila will get you just as drunk whether you are at home or in Istanbul, or Ashtabula, Ohio. It is independent of location.  Well, correct that, altitude plays an important factor as well.  Poor attempt at an analogy late at night. 

To all,

It is Good Night for now until my next opportunity.

I thank all those who have expressed serious concerns.  I apologize that I have not been able to respond as I would have wished.

Please, accept my request to re-read some of the original postings in a frame of mind that takes the time to understand what I actually stated and posted.

Thank you all again.

@ericsch 

I should have just stated, that in your case, that would be Approximately 11 to 12 drops.

Sorry!

@wizzzard I never said "distilled". I said dissolved. The reason being is that the X100 will not dissolve well in the US bath and is best dissolved in a separate container, and then added to the bath. In fact, there are instructions on my bottle to that effect.

Distilled water / 39C / a splash of 91% isopropanol / few drops of previously dissolved Triton X100.

Apologies to @wizzzard for going a little off topic as I was responding to @ljgerens post earlier.

@noromance 

"You are missing the boat"

This is interesting. I’m going to hand over my X100!

Unlike Triton X-100, TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 is biodegradable and has lower toxicity. Triton X-100, on the other hand, is classified under REACH as a substance of very high concern and can now only be used in the EU with authorization.
TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 (Triton X-100 replacement) (itwreagents.com)

When purchasing Tergitol 15-S-9, remember it has a shelf life of 24 months.

https://ehslegacy.unr.edu/msdsfiles/34840.pdf

@rich121 

I sincerely hope that nobody believes that I, Wizzzard, am suggesting that anyone should ever purchase Tergitol 15-S-9.

I am just making certain that I have only suggested the incorporation of Tergitol 15-S-7, and NOTHING else.

Do not be mislead in any way because I had suggested to @mijostyn  to continue to use Triton X-100 if he is pleased with his current existing results, and, because he has/had access to Triton X-100 and has an existing supply.

 Recall, I suggested that he switch to Tergitol 15 -S-7, to obtain superior results.  That does mean that I am endorsing Triton X-100, but simply acknowledging that it is also not a surfactant that I would be so foolish as to forbid its' use.  Or, discourage to use, if one is acceptable of its performance. 

Do you perfectly understand why it has been forbidden recently.  And, do you fully comprehend the affects and similarities to other surfactants.  Can you relate that Environmental/Governmental decision, and, the somewhat similarities to forbidding the laundering of "your dirty socks and underwear"?  How would you react if you were forced to wash your dirty socks and underwear along a river bank using only the river water and some rocks?  Matters such as these should always be put into perspective.

@wizzzard
Would like to also add that Tergitol 15-S-7 has a shelf life of less than 24 months.

Only reason I posted this, and I meant my previous post to include both but was distracted and posted without doing so, as there were a number of previous posts talking about the small amounts needed for a record cleaning mixture and that a 100ml bottle would be a ’lifetime’ supply... which, apparently is about 24 months.

How about Isopropyl Alcohol?

@david1964 
It is mentioned a few times in the thread...

@wizzzard  thanks for sharing your expertise.  

@mijostyn 

I just arrived at the conclusion that if you are to await my "prepared hand response", and, the time it would take me to key in in onto the forum, you may not receive it until after the Summer, or, perhaps, even after the "Rapture".   (Perhaps, a bit of exaggeration).

Therefore, I have determined just to simply comment on some points you covered in your collective postings, and provide a comment or response.  And, if you have a particular issue in mind, you can relate back to the categories I have placed them in.  Also, I do not have sufficient details of some particular subjects to accurately determine and calculate an appropriate formulation that will accommodate all your requirements.  When I have that info, then the process is much easier for me to do, rather than review the "grand scheme of related issues".  So, here we go:

A.). You made a statement in a post, and I quote, "Ultrasonic Cleaning is an unfortunate Fad".  In only 6 words you have expressed yourself so succinctly, I can not conceive a more concise and accurate way of expressing that position.  I congratulate you and admire the clarity.  Obviously, you will not find any disagreement from me in this matter, so I will move on.

B.)  Your "residue" experience buy placing 1 cc. of store purchased distilled water leaving residue on a black glass plate is NOT related to the water.  I decided to duplicate what you did in a somewhat different manned.  First, I used 3.5 inch clear glass slide plates that would fit onto my wife’s $13,000.00 Leica microscope.  I should inform you that our house is heated and cooled via forced air.  In addition to a pre filter, we have installed the largest Electrostatic Air Cleaner that is made for residential purposes by Honeywell.  Afterwards the air flows to a combo activated carbon after filter.  Also awe have throughout the house 3 of the largest HEPA room filters made by Honeywell as well.  One of these is in my home office where I conducted the tests.  The Temperature that day in the office was 68 F, and the Relative Humidity was 35%.  I should state we live in the country in a rather dusty environment due to the clay soil, and, at the time we were being affected by the wildfires in Quebec.   

I injected 1 cc of store bought distilled water onto the plate.  It created a slightly irregular 36 mm diameter circle.  I did the same with double distilled water, and then did the same using my "formulation", that is when I noticed "I needed a bigger boat".  It had spread across all the glass.  The "formulation" evaporated in 13 minutes.  The two water samples went beyond 3 hours and 45 minutes.  This is where I gave myself a failing grade. I forgot to either change or check the battery in the timer.  Whoops!  Did look at the samples after 9 hours under the microscope.  Ignore this initial test.  Changed the amount of sample material to 0.20 cc for all samples.  Ran all the following: Store-bought Distilled Water,  Double distilled water, my "Formulation", Tetrahydrofuran, Freon 113 (1,1,2 trichloro-1,2,2, trifrluroethane), Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Ethanol (95.6% pure with water), Cosmetic Grade Isopropyl Alcohol (99.999% purity), Butanol, Toluene, Heptane, Hexane, and Naphtha.

My wife examined the residue, basically because she is great at identifying "things".  Also, she probably does not like me "playing" with her Leica microscope.  Now, I can swamp you with details, however, the results became very obvious very quickly.  First, let me state there was NO DIFFERENCE between the store bought distilled water, and the double distilled water which was run through a 4 stage deionizing unit prior to distillations.  Second, all the residues were basically very, very similar.  The major residue (37%) was particles caused by the clay environment, (34%) was "house dust", surprisingly (15% to 18%) were from dust particles from the Sahara Desert.  Said, surprisingly because of the wind direction at the time and the time of year.  The other (12% to 13%) was organic in nature.  Dead skin deposits, insect parts and debris.  No ash was noted or identified.  Obviously, the most abrasive material was from the Sahara and afterwards the clay particulates.  I believe insect bits would also be abrasive.

But, the AMOUNT of residue was directly related to the evaporation rates.  Freon 113 having the least (basically nothing) followed by the others.  Pure ethanol did well.  The "Very Best Record Cleaner Formulation" did well primarily because of the Azeotropic chacteristics, but also related to the Surface Tension because it covered a far greater area for the evaporation to occur.

So, there you have it.  The residue formation is essentially related to EVAPORATION RATE and SURFACE TENSION.  Keep in mind, that unlike your original formulation that also contained a very large quantity of BAK, these test samples contained NOTHING ELSE except my 'Formulation" that contained a minute of Tergitol 15-S-7.

C.)  How did you make out locating and obtaining the 2-phenoxyethanol?  To prevent mold growth.

D.). I find vacuum cleaning of records extremely convenient and effective.  As I mentioned to someone else, I was given a VPI-HW17 Record Cleaning Machine from someone that I had purchased other items.  That was 28 years ago and never considered anything else.  When I am lazy, I also take "Short-Cuts", which seems to be O.K. as well, as long as I am using my formulation and not rinsing, just air-drying in both cases.

E.)  We need to discuss your static problem and avoid including another ingredient if it is not necessary.  If we determine it is necessary, then I can suggest non-ionic surfactants that are specifically designed for such purposes.  Not saying that cat-ionics,  quaternary ammonium salts are not great antistatic agents.  But, they are not necessary, and, especially at the levels you introduced.

I have no idea what kind of turntable you have.  You did not say.  And that would help.  Bun, let me take a guess by reading you and your posts "between the lines" as I did the Triton X-100.  I believe you may have a SOTA.  Either a SOTA Cosmos, or, an adaptation from SOTA.  Nevertheless,  you should not be generating THAT much static that consistently, and that frequently.  No disrespect to SOTA (if it is a SOTA), or, any other quality turntable manufacturer.  However, sometimes turntable manufacturers overlook some basics.  I assume they are using vacuum tubing.  I know that the vacuum is not great and does not necessarily need vacuum tubing, but, they shouldn’t skimp in this area for pennies.  If it is vacuum tubing, I hope that it is CONDUCTIVE, or, at least SEMI-CONDUCTIVE, and that all the fittings are made of either copper (preferred), or, a conductive material.  And, that this is all grounded properly.  Also, the vacuum pump should be shielded with copper coated foil, or copper foil, or copper mesh which is also grounded.  I do not know, I have never examined a vacuum clamping system or investigated it, nor, do I intend to, other than the turntable that you possess.

If this was not done, then it should be corrected, and I can help you. So, I would need that information first.  Because if you attend to this matter in this way, you do not need to consider additives.  I will await your information.  If it is attended to already as outlined, then I would require some other specifics to make accurate calculations and give you some alternative options to consider.  There are Non-ionic surfactants that would be incorporated at much lower levels.  Surfactants such as DOWFAX 63N10, or DOWFAX 20B102, or ECOSURFTM Bright 12 Surfactant.  Or, other items such as Polyethylene Glycol with a Equivalent Weight of 200, or, amines, such as DETA (Diethylenetriamine).  But, we can cross that bridge when we arrive there.

First feedback on the CONDUCTIVITY of the turntable system, if than necessary, answers to a series of questions before I speculate any further.  I just wanted to tell you these things because you have options, and, they are very good options.

I have some other matters, but, it may be best that I await your feedback.

Take care.  Till a later time again, hopefully, it will not be so long this next time.

Thank you for listening.

@wizzzard ,

Great experiment Wiz. Thank your wife for me. It backs up my argument against evaporative and for vacuum drying. Any silicone residue is disastrous for both record and stylus wear. I think you should make the experiment the subject of another post. 

I have a Sota Cosmos with vacuum sporting a Schroder CB arm and either a MSL Signature platinum, MC Diamond or Lyra Atlas SL cartridge. 

The turntable is well grounded. The  tubing is plain neoprene as far as I can tell And the pump is well shielded and four feet away from the table. You can not hear it run at all. I use a Hudson conductive sweep arm during play and ALWAYS use a dust cover during play. Records are NEVER allowed to sit out.

After playing a record side, if I remove an untreated record immediately, with the lights off, you can see and hear the sparks jump to the nearest grounded item which would be the cartridge! The mat is not conductive and very thick. If I leave the record on the platter, within 10 minutes the record will discharge probably via the spindle and there will be no noticeable charge. This is a wonderful example of how static electricity is a surface phenomena. Discharge is being slowed by the label as the paper is at the opposite side of the triboelectric series to PVC. The static is being generated at the surface of the mat. Making the surface conductive would be the only way I can think of to resolve the problem. Graphite powder would do it but it would contaminate the records. Very fine wire netting or fabric in contact with the spindle might work as long as it does not interfere with establishing a vacuum. I have not found any suitable material. I could also contaminate the mat with an ionic substance, an experiment I keep meaning to try.  BAK in the cleaning formula definitely works extremely well but leaves a residue on the records. It is readily dissolvable in water, easy to clean off. It does not accumulate. I can see it on the stylus after 7 or 8 sides. (under the microscope) It cleans right off. 

I have switched to ethanol and Tergitol. I use a Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro which is a beautiful machine and the importer, Musical Surroundings is a wonderful company to deal with. I was lucky and got an open box unit with a full warranty at a 20% discount just before the last price increase. IMHO it is the best record cleaning device out there. You put a record on it push one button and 2-3 minutes later you have a perfectly clean and dry record, both sides. The secret to successful record cleaning is spending as little time as you can doing it. 

@mijostyn 

E.). Forgot Scales.  You can buy very good weigh scales on eBay for just &15.00 each.  You need to buy two, one in 2 decimal places, the other in 3 places.  O.K. they ar not  a Mettler or  a Sartorrius, but, they are decent.

@wizzzard I appreciate your expertise, and your desire and willingness to share your knowledge of record cleaning solutions. For me, your first post was enough, and I appreciated someone willing to share what they think is best. Very helpful.

Personally, while the rest of the five page thread may have been helpful, it was of little interest to me; and honestly, at times became tedious, acrimonious, and opinionated to the point I could not, or chose not to, follow it. No disrespect meant to the many very smart people here, just sharing my experience.  I have ADD.

In that same spirit, I would like to take you up on an earlier offer. I would be interested in your suggestions for turntable damping, and record mat materials.

Thank you for your commitment to providing information. I hope your family’s health conditions become easier to manage for you all.

Best regards.

PS: if you come back, suggesting Townsend pods, I might be suspicious. << That last sentence was an old inside joke. Don’t take it personally.

Please forgive me; I’m using a cell phone on a moving train. I’ve been doing some research on how alcohols affect surface tension of water, here on the train. I found this publication from 1995: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/je00019a016

The tables therein suggest that for a given concentration (by weight) and temperature both 1- and 2-propanol are more effective at lowering the surface tension of water, compared to ethanol at the same conditions. For example, at 25 degrees C and 25% concentration (w/w), the surface tension of ethanol:water was found to be 35.51. Whereas the respective surface tensions of 1- and 2-propanol:water solutions was 26.64 and 28.78. In this study they did not look at 22% ethanol:water and so may have missed the minimum inflection point that Wizzzard noted. But at both 20% and 25%, the propanols were superior at least with respect to lowering surface tension of water. So I am still not clear what’s wrong with IPA or propanol. Thanks for any guidance.

@cleeds 

You still "Do Not Get IT". Please re-read some of my posts again.  And, you are welcomed to get back it touch with me again.  It has NOTHING to do with degrees of contamination.  Keep that in mind while you are taking the time to re-read the postings.

Thank you!

@lewm 

Yes, I know what the Surface Tensions are with ALL the ALCOHOLS are.  The Surface  Tension is an  "aspect of design" after the selection of water.  

The choice of Ethanol as the "EXCLUSIVE" option is based on an entirely different "aspect of design", and, that is in relation to the "PARAMETERS" of the composition of. the Vinyl Record.  This is stated in previous postings as well.  Please review that aspect of design.

Thank you!

wizzzard

 

It has NOTHING to do with degrees of contamination.  

Then why are you cleaning your records? They're already clean.

Presumably, your records are not clean. So I'm just asking: What is it that they are contaminated with that alcohol is required for removal? It's such a simple question. Why are you so evasive when it's asked?

@cleeds 

Re:  Your recent posting at 3:57 PM today.

First, I should inform you that I had just completed a written (hand written) lengthy, and very sincere apology to you, and to several others regarding my responses. And, I had just sat down at my desk to keyboard this apology for my previous response to you at 1:09 PM today.  And to make myself more clear to you and to others with a qualified explanation that would be understood without any difficulties.

When I sat down to begin, I and noticed that you submitted another post at 3:57 PM today.

Thank you VERY MUCH for submitting this most recent post.  And, I sincerely mean that for reasons that require no explanation.

I no longer need, nor feel compelled to apologize to either you or any others that I had in mind.  You have saved me a considerable amount of time and I can move on to respond to others that have sincere interests and deserve my attention and appreciate my inputs.

With regard to your post at 3:57 PM today, I have no response to you because "IT" can not be answered.  "IT" can not be answered because it is irrelevant. 

I truly am grateful that you submitted another post so promptly, and, I believe that others will understand my appreciation.

Thanx you!

@gemoody 

Just when I was beginning to think that nobody was ever going to open that door, here you come along and do just that.

We are leaving very early tomorrow morning, and, are now not expected to return until Wednesday night, and, that is if all goes well and according to plans.  Our Medical conditions demand our attention, but, as I mentioned to others, I appreciate your understanding and patience.

I will respond, and because of some very recent developments due to the postings of others. I will avoid being distracted and attend to those seeking knowledge first and foremost.

Thank You,

@mijostyn 

Good guess on the SOTA Cosmos.  I did not know that I possessed paranormal capabilities.  I need to be brief, because we are preparing to leave.

I do have some other Mechanical and Physical suggestions for you now that I know what you have.

While we are away, I suggest you look into acquiring Conductive vacuum tubing and fittings.  These are common. items at "Industrial Hose and Hydraulic" facilities.  Most places that I am aware of do not require an account if you pay "Cash". Also these items are not very expensive.  Perhaps even a Home Depot or a Lowes may now carry such items.  Because, if the system is not conductive throughout and then properly grounded, your other efforts may be futile.  I will take a wild stab and state that if you do this, you will not have any static issues ever again.  Also remember static charges are better controlled by larger gauge copper wire, and, in this case, fewer strands are better than many strands.  You stated a distance of several feet.  The longer the distance the greater requirement for substantial wiring. 

Till later!

@ljgerens 

I have not forgotten about you.  Will be touch in ASAP.  Later this week or early next.

Thank you!

Dear wizzzard, while I agree that you did hint that the reason not to use IPA has to do with its capacity to damage vinyl, my point in rehashing the issue is simply to learn the mechanism by which e.g. 25% IPA might damage vinyl, because I can find no relevant info on line. You never did get around to specifying the nature of the danger.

I mention this next item because it sticks in my craw; it was not I who incorrectly claimed the stylus pressure on vinyl is only 300 lbs/sq inch. And I’m perfectly capable of calculating the correct value, if I cared to do so. Finally, thanks for correcting me; ethanol doesn’t evaporate, it’s hygroscopic. But the difference is moot if you need a 70% solution in water to be stable. And before I’m misunderstood, that was to precipitate nucleic acids, not to clean vinyl.

In the UK the saying is that 'there are many ways to kill a cat.' I find that the cat gets skinned when the same sentiment is expressed here in north America (superficially that sounds kinder, but one hopes the cat was killed prior to skinning.😕)

The point is that one can clean a record in many ways, although maybe one is the very best (from a certain point of view: speed, expense, effort, and of course, results). As well as consideration of the solvent/detergent solution used, there are mechanical factors to consider. Hand vs. machine brushing, and with which kind of brush? Or ultrasonic agitation? Or a combination of two of those, or even all three?

I see people saying ultrasonic cleaning is a fad, and I think to myself, you haven't tried it yet. Surely, thorough mechanical cleaning, by hand or machine, can be very good. Accepting that, why dismiss the possibility that ultrasonic cleaning offers nothing beyond a fashion? I've been playing vinyl a long time, and discovered early that cleaning records was a huge (and cheap) upgrade. Hand washing, vacuum machines, point-source vacuum machines and ultrasonic all tried. They all work, and some better than others. I've settled on the point-source Loricraft followed by a Degritter. This results in nearly all records coming out silent, save for any with a scratch. I have experimented with solutions, and have settled on a homebrew mix of distilled water, ethanol and either PhotoFlo or L'Art du Son as the detergent in the Loricraft. I can't really say I can hear a difference when the Degritter fluid is used or pure distilled water in the second stage, but remember that comes after the Loricraft so most of the crud is already gone. Either way, the fraction of silent records is higher with the ultrasonic following the mechanical cleaning. Once everything has been cleaned, I expect (supposition: unproven) that the Degritter alone will refresh them to as quiet as they can be. I have not yet got to the point where I think any disk needs re-cleaning. I read of many people deciding that ultrasonic alone is as good as they need, but given how good the Loricraft alone is, I see it as useful even if just to keep the greater part of the dirt out of the Degritter tank, which gets re-used for several records. It also makes an easy way for me to do a DW rinse and dry if I have used Degritter fluid in that machine.

I guess my only message here is that one should not dismiss ultrasonic cleaning as a fad. It does add something to even the best vacuum machines, and many say it does a creditable job alone. Is there any theoretical reason why this should not be so? The cavitation bubbles, for example, from a 120KHz transducer are far smaller than the tips of any exotic record cleaning brush.

As I hoped to convey, I have no problem with Wizzzard's recommended approach, but it does differ from what I have been doing for at least 20 years, in that his formula uses ethanol, and I've been using isopropanol, specifically lab grade 98% isopropanol diluted to a final concentration of ~25% (v/v) in deionized, distilled water.  I add Triton X100, but I have no allegiance to that particular nonionic detergent; it was the most common reagent in my lab, used for fractionating mammalian cells, back in the day.  We had more esoteric NIDs on hand but only for specialized procedures.  Over all this time, I have detected no damage to any LP that could be ascribed to my wash solution, but we all know that we are very good at kidding ourselves on issues such as that one.  If you do a search on isopropanol (or 2-propanol) for cleaning vinyl, there are many conflicting opinions but none of them is accompanied by any related facts regarding the interaction of IPA with vinyl.  Maybe Wizzzard can provide some, since he deems IPA to be potentially harmful.

Question:

After how many plays do you guys rewash  your albums?

Speaking for myself, I wash newly acquired "pre-owned" LPs, only. I buy only pristine copies, when I do buy pre-owned LPs. (Of course, I also do buy new LPs.) I wash newly acquired pre-owned LPs just once. Then I put a circular sticker on the album cover to indicate that the LP inside has been washed. In addition, I discard old paper sleeves in favor of new static-free sleeves, after washing. Lest my response be lost in the details... buy mint used LP, wash once, be happy.  I don't wash brand new LPs; I can't ever recall doing that.

What Lewm said. I’ve washed all the LP’s that I had collected over the years and, of course, I wash all used LP’s that I buy. However, I do wash new LP’s with distilled water to get rid of any manufacturing debris. All LP’s are washed once and then just dust removal with a Audioquest record brush. There are occassions where I might wash a LP twice if there is a problem area on the disc.

I echo the positive comments of those experienced with UltraSonic machines, as like I mentioned earlier, I have been using a Keith Monks (have had 2 in my lifetime) for over 30 years and still think it is the best, if I had to choose just one machine.

But... even after using my Keith Monks I can say I almost always find another level of quiet background, less pops/clicks and more noticeable detail after the use of an UltraSonic cleaner.

@lewm 
Try cleaning your new records, I find that they are just as important to clean as used, especially if you use other than an inexpensive stylus.
There most surely can be more crap on a new record than a well kept used record and another benefit I find is that I will clean a new record, then play and find that after the first play I clean again, there are significantly less clicks and pops and often quieter background... sometimes a new record may need this procedure done multiple times to get the desired quietness.  I find this especially true with Analog Productions vinyl, as they do not 'polish' their plates, as Chad believes that polishing removes some of the highs and detail... but admittedly, leaves tiny 'burrs' in the grooves that may take multiple cleanings/playing to remove.
I clean every record before it lands on my turntable... this alone adds much life to your stylus.

It is my opinion/experience that procedure/routine, quality of tools/brushes and best designed machines trump how picky your cleaning solution is...many of us have already been using similar to what is being suggested and like @dogberry says, there are many ways to skin a cat.
Furthermore, I find it very ironic how the person posting here who probably has the least experience cleaning records is the one first to put down UltraSonic cleaning.
Very curious what experience and what machines he has used, if any...or is this just unfounded bias.

@lewm Regarding isopropyl alcohol causing damage to vinyl records. My experiments using several surface sensitive analytical techniques have shown that neither isopropanol or ethanol will cause any damage to a vinyl record surface if used in dilute solutions for short exposures. My analysis of vinyl record test samples exposed to pure isopropanol or pure ethanol for extended periods does indicate that additives will begin to leach from the bulk of the vinyl record to the surface.

@rich121 I agree with your observations regarding ultrasonic cleaning of records. I always found that ultrasonic cleaning of new records resulted in an improvement in SQ, as you stated less pops/clicks and more noticeable detail.

Ljgerens, please define “dilute solutions” . Also, in an earlier post you mentioned your analytical techniques. I don’t recall a procedure that permits detection of “additives “ in vinyl, before vs after cleaning, whatever those additives may be. Thx for responding.

I should add that in my procedure, the LP is exposed to 25% IPA for about 2 minutes. Then vacuum-dried. Then the surface is flooded with unadulterated distilled, deionized water and vacuum-dried again.

@lewm I can’t put a specific number on dilute alcohol solutions but I would think that anything below 25% and exposed for a few minutes should not be a concern.

The migration of additives from the bulk to the surface is a common phenomenon in polymers which can be accelerated by contacting the surface of the polymer with a suitable solvent. Vinyl records are no different. The detection of additives migrating to the surface of a vinyl record is trivial using Photoelectron Spectroscopy as long as the additive has a suitable chemical signature for identification. For some additives this is not the case. In these cases I carried out two different experiments. One method was to dry the alcohol solution on a suitable substrate (typically a UHV prepared Si wafer) and analyze the residue with Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Thermal Desorption Mass Spectrometry. The second method was to just do Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry on the solution.

If I was doing the experiments today, I would include TOF Static SIMS and ATR-FTIR Spectroscopy along with Photoelectron Spectroscopy for analysis of vinyl record test samples.

Yes, I was thinking after my last post that photoelectron spectroscopy might do what I asked for. Have you identified molecules that elute with IPA? In this regard, is ethanol safer? Thx.