Ultrasonic cleaning

@tuberculin,

Are you using the Triton X100 at 0.13%?  This would be about 6.8 times its critical micelle concertation (CMC) which is a pretty high concentration - but Paul Rushton specifies rinsing with a vacuum-RCM

Are you spacing the records at 1" as Paul specifies?

Are you spinning as slow as Paul says which is 3-revolutions/10-min which is 0.3-rpm/min?

If you read Chapter XIV of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press, how much does this differ?  PACVR would recommend only 2.5% IPA vs 5.0% IPA, and PACVR would recommend Tergitol 15-S-9 over Trition X100 because it's much more efficient - 6.8X CMC = 0.035%, and the record spacing is the same recommendation as is the slow spin speed.  The difference is that PACVR discusses the rational for the why.  

As far as hands on experience, I had many years of experience with using ultrasonic cleaning tanks to precision clean components where the consequences could be essentially an explosion (high pressure oxygen) or life threatening (life support systems).

As far as vacuum-RCM, except for the few automated units, it does no cleaning - it's merely convenience and the chemistry, the brush and the user's technique is what does the cleaning.  Otherwise, I have assisted people across of globe with setting up their record cleaning processes, and the lessons learned are not from one person's experience but from 100's.  

But after all is said and done, cleaning a record is not rocket science, the science of precision cleaning is well documented such as Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books.  The record benefits from being a relatively simple surface with no inaccessible surfaces.  The challenge is removing very small particles that can be very difficult to remove, doing no damage to the surface (which has a surface roughness equal to a highly polished surface) and leaving no residue.  

But if the goal post is hands on cleaning of a record with a UT tank, well then guilty as charged.  

Take care,

Neil Antin

@whart, Bill as always thank-you for the kind words and the acknowledgement and of course your efforts as editor and publisher.

One of the problems with record cleaning is that there are no clearly defined cleanliness criteria.  I address this in some length in Chapter XI but it's very technical.  Absent the criteria, the market is ripe for all forms of exaggerated claims by vendors selling what will be the latest and greatest cleaning agent and/or way to clean a record and the Edisonian technique of trial and error can be screwed by perception and bias.    

Here are 3 different power ratings for a new 40/80/120-kHz UT transducer model #CCH-4039D-120/80/40, PZT-4

35W - China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer (chinax.com)
50W - 50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner (ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com)
60W - Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank (ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com).

So, one of the challenges in putting together record clean processes is to understand the user's threshold - how much convenience do they want, how many records do clean?  If you are a power-user, the manual method is not practical.  How much money are they willing to spend - there is a big difference between an Elmasonic P-series UT and an inexpensive Chinese made UT tank.  But I can tailor a 'process' to accommodate the equipment differences.   But designing a process using a multi-frequency 37/80-kHz, high power Elmasonic P-series with multiple operating modes affords options the lower price equipment does not afford and is much easier with a near guaranteed success rate.  The only hick-up was very high throughput users where we had to install a radiator with the filter system to keep the tank temperatures under 100F (the Elmasonic P-series are powerful units).

So what have I learned from working with many people is how to work-around pretty much whatever limitation may be presented - be it the equipment or what cleaning agents are available; and obtain the best results from the equipment they have.  Does better equipment yield a cleaner record, that all depends on the process being used.  A weak UT tank can be overcome by a good pre-clean step; but your throughput can suffer.  Or we can increase the chemistry in the UT tank provided a post rinse is used.  So, after all is said and done, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.  

Take care, and best wishes for the Holidays - wishing all peace on earth and good will to all.

Neil

@scm,

FWIW:

If you compare the two SDSs between Trition X-100  TRITON™ X-100 Surfactant | Dow Inc. and Kodak Photoflo \14315sfp-1msdgenfilesarchivessds_usdefault�07903.pdf (lps.org), the CAS #’s are the same, so that adding Photoflo with Trition X-100 is not much benefit; especially considering that the Photoflo is diluted to 5-10%. Your Trition X-100 concentration of 3-ml/gal will get about 0.08% (+~800-ppm) which is more than enough (~4X the CMC) to get the wetting and all the detergency that Trition X100 can give.

Your 4-ounces of 91% IPA will give you about 2.8% which is a good concentration and can be complimentary with the Triton X-100.

The 0.1-rpm can be too slow for some powerful machines. It can depending on the tank depth, place the record very close to the transducers for too long a period of time which may produce record surface damage - its variable since the record vinyl formulation does vary. But for your Vevor machine it’s obviously not a problem (damage can sometimes be seen as a dulling of the surface).

@lewm,

The reason I limit my recommendation for alcohol and UT cleaning is for a number of reasons:

• One is liability.  I am not anonymous – you can find me.  Those that remain anonymous, their identity is protected by law.  So, I am going to be very conservative.  I am not going to make any recommendation that I believe to be potentially dangerous.  And that includes fire and toxicity hazards.
• As I address in the book, there is a big difference between 25% IPA applied at 8 to 10 ml for vacuum-RCM used at room temperature and 1000’s ml in a heated UT tank.
• As I address in the book, for UT cleaning, alcohol at the lower concentrations will evaporate from the water faster than the water evaporates.  If you are filtering the UT tank to extend bath life and are not monitoring the alcohol with a hydrometer, after a few days, you really do not what you have.
• High concentrations beyond the fire-hazard can reduce the density and viscosity of the water enough to affect its cavitation performance.  As I address in the book, the best fluid for UT is a stiff fluid since it allows the greatest implosion force – ergo cavitation intensity. Water is a near ideal UT fluid.
• A small amount of alcohol can be beneficial and complimentary with surfactants. As I wrote in the book, the alcohol can assist with soil-swell and roll-up.  And this paper Alcohols Effect on Critic Micelle Concentration of Polysorbate 20 and Cetyl Trimethyl Ammonium Bromine Mixed Solutions (wiley.com) is suggestive that IPA reduces the critical micelle concentration (CMC) which is beneficial if you are trying to use as little surfactant as necessary while ethanol increases the CMC which may not be beneficial unless you are using so much surfactant that the decrease in CMC is inconsequential.

But for UT, it you are not going to read my book, then maybe you will read this paper awad-reprint II (crest-ultrasonics.com) - Ultrasonic Cavitations and Precision Cleaning, BY SAMI AWAD, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT CREST ULTRASONICS CORP. 

As far as your experience with Trition X100 and vacuum-RCM, given the CMC of 189-ppm and high concentration (at least 3X CMC) for detergency, post rinse is pretty much mandatory for a record free of residue.  Blower style vacuum-RCM do not suck all fluid from the surface.  As much as 30% is evaporated in-place based on testing I did with someone last winter when the cleaning agent was spiked with a high-performance UV dye (effective in ppb).  After the cleaner was vacuumed from the surface, inspection with a UV light showed no fluorescence.  But as soon as rinse water was applied, the rinse water now fluoresced indicating UV dye residue.  It took two rinses for the rinse water to show no fluorescence.  By back calculating knowing the cleaner/dye concentration and the measured amount of cleaner applied to the record, the vacuum-RCM efficiency could be calculated. 

But after all is said and done, if you are not going to read my book Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press, or any of the papers I reference, for both of our sakes, maybe its best you just ignore what I say, and spare me the time and effort it takes to write these detailed responses.  No insult here is intended – just being practical and pragmatic.  Otherwise, sincerely, best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year.

Neil Antin

@joenies,

Well pardon me if I choose not to your records - LOL, all in pun.  The UV light can be a double-edged sword.  Perfection is not really possible, and good-enough is practical.  But you will find some records are 'cleaner' than others, and that some records do not so well with the ubiquitous rice-paper/HDPE sleeves or there are variations in the quality of the rice-paper/HDPE sleeves (all made in China) that essentially shed.  I have thrown my hands-up with the quality issue and I am now 'trying' Amazon.com: NAGAOKA Anti-Static LP Inner Sleeves 50 Sheets RS-LP2 : Home & Kitchen.  They are very thin and not very convenient, you need to take a few extra seconds to insert into the jacket, but they are made in Japan, and I am now 'trying' them to see if they are better with regard to consistent quality.   So far so good.

Otherwise, best wishes the holiday and the New Year,

Take care,

Neil