A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

Antinn, that is very interesting.....one of the variants of the original formula was to use Tergitol S-15-3 and S-15-9 (not sure in what combination %) but then it was posited using Triton 100-X would work just as well so that is what I went with.  This is still a process, and I appreciate all observations to improve upon it.  If elimination of IPA is possible, that also reduces the cost quite a bit although it's not hugely expensive.  On the other hand, when considering doing about 15-20 records per tank and then cleaning/refilling with the goal of doing an entire collection of >3,000 records, it might become considerable. Thank you for your thoughts.

Tergitol 15-S-3 is not water soluble, it is intended for oils.  Dow has a nice pdf handout with tables on all the Non-Ionic-Surfactants/Detergents, and you can read on the differences.  For the Tergitol, use 0.5 to 1.0% solution concentration, which assuming my quick math is correct should be about 0.5 ounces per gallon.  Note that that that the 'cloud point' is the temperature were the surfactant comes out of solution.

"Tergitol 15-S-3 is not water soluble, it is intended for oils."

Maybe that is why that formula also called for the IPA?  I don't know, just a guess so that it might be necessary for the 15-S-3 to become soluble.  In any case, this is way above my understanding of the chemistry involved.  What might you suggest as a formula that will work without the IPA?  Just leave it out, substitute 15-S-9 for the Triton?  Add Hepastat and try that?

Anovak,
First, sorry my calc for ounces of 15-S-9 per gal is incorrect, its about 1 ounce per gal. I was in a hurry and rushing out and could not remember if a gal was 64 or 128 ounces, but it would about 30 ml for a gal that is 3.78 liters.

The IPA which is completely miscible with water, at the specified concentration would not make the 15-S-3 soluble.  There is absolutely no technical reason to add both 15-S-9 and 15-S-3, they are intended for entirely different chemistries.  The IPA may improve the "solvency" the ability to dissolve oils/greases, but this would be more inclined to heavy duty metal cleaning.  There is a pretty powerful water soluble solvent known as 2-Butoxyethanol that is common in heavy duty cleaners. But its not really warranted here, and at high enough concentration can damage the vinyl (extracts the plastizer), easily recognized as a dulling of the vinyl finish.

I would try with only a 0.5 to 1.0% concentration, leaving out the IPA and the Hepastat.  This would be the absolutely safest chemistry to you and the vinyl.  If you have some really grungy records, do a pre-clean step to remove the visible contamination - put a label protector on, and pre-clean with a soft brush and the 1% 15-S-9 solution, rinse under flowing fresh water (i.e., kitchen sink), or use a vacuum record cleaning machine and then put in the UT for the final clean.  The DOW literature shows that a 1% concentration of 15-S-9 will reduce the water surface tension from 72 down to about 30, so the solution will wet the record nicely, and may drain off fast enough to avoid need for a separate rinse.  After the UT clean step, if you can, a quick spin of the record(s) in air should leave the record(s) near dry.  And, with the record heated to about 100-125 deg F from the UT process, it will dry completely very quickly.

Antinn, thank you immensely and you sound a lot like that Phantomrebel guy, who has a slightly different take on it but I will give it a shot.  For one, makes it a whole lot easier, no need to mix up a solution, just add it to the distilled water and you're done.  If it works as well as what I'm doing now, all the better and that would certainly be a great place for anyone to start in terms of getting their US cleaning system going.  I am going to ask the question of Phantomrebel to see what he thinks about it and will post back here.  This is kind of an adventure we are all on for what's most effective and simple at the same time.....I'm all for that.  Very kind of you to chime in here with your knowledge, much appreciated indeed.