The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

My experience of Neil's guidelines on formulation of a Mixtures to produce a Solution to serve as a Cleaning Agent, does without doubt cause extraction.

The extraction I am experiencing is more details from within the Groove during a albums replay. 

Mijo, Where is the chlorofluorocarbon in the formulations we have been discussing? Is that compound (BAK?) you use for anti-static a CFC?

@antinn 

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?

@bdp24 

You have to get out of grade school first😆

Neil is our most reliable source.

Dang, I shoulda finished high school. ;-)

Thanks, Antinn.

@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.

Just to be clear about my own position. I have no reason to criticize Wizzzard’s recommendations, and I do respect that in the field of analytical chemistry his knowledge is much greater than mine. However, before he laid down his wisdom here, I have been using 25% IPA plus about 0.1% Triton X100 exclusively for more than two decades. Any LP I have ever washed was washed with the foregoing solution. So naturally when Wizzzard implies that IPA is potentially damaging, I want to know why and how and what would be the consequences. It is not enough, at least for me, just to be told that only Ethanol among all other alcohols and water do not damage vinyl.  If Wizzzard does not have the information, that is OK by me, and he only needs to say so. But I object to being excoriated for asking.

As far as I know there is no evidence that Alconox Liquinox detergent and/or Talas Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant damage PVC/Vinyl LP’s. And who needs alcohol of ANY kind? (except to drink, of course.) My sources tell me 15-S-9 is the best Tergitol in terms of the leaving of residue on the LP, hence easier final rinsing.

Dear Wizzz, Here is what you wrote on June 6 at 6:25 PM, at the end of your tirade: "All materials including resins and resin blends, whether natural synthetic, have many characteristic parameters. I have correctly restricted myself to include the parameters that are of relevance. Because we are using solvents (and diluents) one of our primary objectives in not to alter or damage the substrate (vinyl recording). We want something that will clean the record the very best without causing harm, hence, "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".The parameters are: Hildebrand Parameter , Dipole Moment, Dielectric Constant, Polarity, Fractional Polarity, and Hydrogen Bonding (van Der Waals forces).As we review ALL the alcohols available and other ingredients, only 2 ingredients have NO detrimental effect to vinyl records, and they are, distilled water and ethanol."

In the above passage, you clearly do imply that IPA is harmful to a vinyl LP. I guess you think that answered my question. But my question is and always was as follows: Exactly what is the nature of the harm that IPA (at about a 25% concentration at room temperature and with an exposure time of approximately 2 minutes) could do to a vinyl LP? This question you have not answered. But as I also wrote many times, you are under no obligation to provide any response. As noted previously, I do take umbrage that you excoriated me on June 6 in your post of 6:25 PM for claiming that the stylus exerts 300 lbs per square inch pressure on an LP. For the second time, I am not the individual who made that obviously and patently erroneous claim. And most any of us would know how to calculate the stylus pressure per square inch, given the dimensions of the contact patch and the VTF.  Including the individual who made the innocent error in the first place. It would behoove you to keep in mind that your audience here on this forum is not a bunch of idiots.

Great post. As a chemist myself (now retired) and having experimented with many formulations over the years, I find your simple formula is very good and effective. I have used a similar one substituting 100% isopropyl versus ethanol, but I believe Ethanol is a better alternative after reading the post. Thanks for your info.

@lewm 

I suspect @wizzzard is not doing experiments but is following charts that specify the behavior of various chemicals and mixtures thereof. This is all well known to scientists that deal with it on a regular basis, the Dow Chemical types. I suspect wizzard belongs to this group. In medicine we all know the 1/2 life of the drugs we use by heart, information that is lost on a lawyer. 

@wizzzard , I have a couple of yards of very conductive fabric, zero ohms over 10 cm. I am talking with Christan at Sota over making me a platter with this fabric instead of the standard fabric. I do not care to take the platter apart on my own without backup. 

My grandmother used to have a saying, very dated now: "Good manners cost nothing."

@lewm 

cc:  @ljgerens ​​@cleeds   @dogberry ​​@rich121 ​​@noromance   

Just returned home earlier today.  Have some appointments tomorrow.  Intend on posting some responses Wednesday, 5 July 2023.  Have no more time today.

However your last post is staring me right in my face as I type.  If you are going to ask ljgerens a question at least get your question correct.  Apples to apples, and, oranges to oranges.  Remember that one?

You finally stated a few posts earlier that you are using deionized water, and  "laboratory grade isopropyl alcohol that is 98.00% alcohol.  You also stated that you are using Triton X-100, but, you did not state how much you incorporate.  And, you stated that your formulation is by volume.

If you are comparing your formulation to The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I posted, than you question to ljgerens should read:  "...exposure to 22.000% Ethanol vs 19.635% IPA".   The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is stated in parts by weight, not by volume.

Also, if you persist on "beating this dead horse", and insist on using your 98.00% IPA with your deionized water (recall, I told you I have no difficulties with your deionized water), and Triton X-100 (which is acceptable (refer to my post to @mijostyn )), then, at least formulate it at the "best correct balance".

Your formulation in parts by weight, would then be as follows:

          Deionized water.                         804.772   grams

          Isopropyl alcohol (98.0%).          195.000   grams 

          Triton X-100                                   0.228   grams 

                  Total Weight:                   1,000.000   grams

There is no need to use more than 19.5% of your 98.00% in parts by weight, or, which is by volume 24% not 25%

The primary inflection point of your IPA with regard to Surface Tension at 20 degrees C.

PLEASE, look back when you first asked the question about "Why Ethyl alcohol versus Isopropyl alcohol".  I answered your question to you directly on 6 June 2023 at 6:25 PM.  You first asked the question only 2 days earlier on 4 June 2023.  And, you persist on asking the same question over and over again.  And, you ask it of others as well.  If you did not understand the answer, why did you not ask a specific question of me about the answer.  Because it was answered.  I don't understand why you keep asking the same question.  Are you expecting a different answer?  Because, guess what you already have the CORRECT ANSWER, and had it for 27 days now.  It is a different matter if you do not understand the answer.

Regards,

Can you describe exactly how you did these experiments?

As noted, I am only concerned about very short term exposure to 22% Ethanol vs 25% IPA.  I certainly don't expect you to repeat your work to appease me, but it would help to better understand your methodology for studying the effects of lower concentrations of various short chain alcohols.

lewm posted "Have you identified molecules that elute with IPA? In this regard, is ethanol safer? Thx."

@lewm The main additives diffusing to the surface with concentrated alcohols were identified as plasticizers as well as some stabilizers, scavengers and conditioners. Ethanol and Propanol behaved similarly in this regard although I did not study this in great detail with vinyl records so there may be subtle differences. I was not able to detect any leaching of additives with alcohol concentrations <10% for a few minutes exposure.

With 28,500 LPs and 7,000 78s, I often must clean records prior to play.  I used the VPI 16.5 for 35+ years using a few formulations including disc doctor.  Then I bought Kirmuss ultrasonic cleaner.  Much quieter and easier with just distilled water, dried on the VPI.  It cleans vinyl and shellac.  No problem with the process, unfortunately, it also uncovers damage hidden by dirt and debris in the grooves of used records.  So, I often end up with a noisier record post-cleaning.  The benefit of the ultrasonic cleaning is superior resolution and overall sound quality from the record.  Using a high end audio system, the "new" noise from wear and damage is obvious, for many listeners it may not be.  So I do recommend ultrasonic cleaners that safely work at cleaning records despite the potential increased noise(s) from damaged/worn records.  

WOW what? If one might ask.

WOW

rich121

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.

That’s very interesting. My first exposure to proper record cleaning was with a Keith Monks machine. My local ARC dealer (at the time) had one and sold coupons you exchanged to clean your LPs on his machine. It did a fantastic job.

A while later, Nitty-Gritty introduced its machine and I snapped up one of the first. (That was before VPI entered the RCM market.) I still have and occasionally use it, but the Klaudio US cleaner can handle most any record I’m playing these days. And it is so-oooo much more convenient.

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.

@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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Question:

After how many plays do you guys rewash  your albums?

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.

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.

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.

@ljgerens 

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

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!

@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,

@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!

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?

@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!

@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!

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.

@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.

@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 ,

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 

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  thanks for sharing your expertise.  

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

How about Isopropyl Alcohol?

@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.

@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.