A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

The chemist is correct for aqueous cleaners; years ago, CFC-113 was a near perfect solvent, but the Montreal Protocol put an end to that.  But, let me counter that there is no one cleaning method for all types and levels of contamination.  If you are trying to use UT for all types of contamination, then you will need a variety of chemistry.  BUT, there are limits to the power that UT can apply before it damages the record surface.  BUT, if you use multiple cleaning methods, then one chemistry may work.  As I said earlier in this thread, if you buy a Goodwill record that is just gunky, pre-clean it first.  Use the VinylStack record label protector, and use the Tergitol to brush/scrub the surface.  In manual cleaning with water rinse, you can use a slight higher cleaner concentration.  If you use a Record Doctor nylon record brush, the bristle diameter will cover the groove width, but not penetrate the groove which is protective, but it will drive the Tergitol deep into the groove, and the brushing action along with the Tergitol low surface tension will cause a lot of agitation.  However, if the record has dried glue or similar dried and hardened contaminant, you are going to have to move to a much more aggressive (potentially damaging, and likely hazardous) chemistry, but why buy the record anyway unless very rare and you are will just try.  Otherwise, trying to use a UT in one step for all types and levels of contamination is mis-application of the technology, it was never intended for that.  If you want to better understand UT check out the blog https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2019/11/the-purpose-of-this-blog/.  John Fuchs has been active in UT cleaning for decades.

All,

For those of you that are using UT and using large quantities of distilled water, something to consider is a demineralizer, and this is the best value I have found, https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/.  It kind of expensive (but for this crowd, maybe not 😁), but if your tap water is of reasonable quality, it can produce about 2000 gallons of demineralizer water at a cost of $0.20/gallon, and it can be refilled ($200 for 2 refills), and the valve arrangement can make a very convient install.  If you have a source of readily available cheap DI water, then you don't need to worry about bath life or filters/pumps etc to extend the bath life. And, you could easily add an effective rinse step as follow:

Step 1.  Clean records in UT tank with aqueous chemistry
Step 2.  Drain tank to household waste drain.
Step 3.  Refill UT tank with only DI water and using ultasonics, perform rinse/final clean to remove any cleaner residue and any remaining very fine particulate.
Step 4.  Remove records to dry.
Step 5.  If cleaning another batch of records, just add cleaner to the existing DI bath and begin at Step 1.

Quick analysis with a 1.5 gal UT tank volume.  There the demineralizer should provide enough for 1333 tanks, and assuming you are cleaning 3 records/batch, that is 4000 records.  The initial cost is $0.30/tank for DI water, and for the Tergitol at 6 ml/tank, is $0.28/tank for at total of $0.58/tank or about $0.20/record.  After the first 1333 records, the DI water cost drops to $0.07/tank, so the total per tank cost drops to $0.35/tank, and the per record cost drops to $0.12/record based on the assumptions of this analysis.  Clean more than 3 or less than 3 records per batch, and the per record cost adjusts proportionally.

I made of couple of tweaks to the WEWU.  First - changed to a 5 volt power supply which slowed the rotation way down.  Would like to try a 3 volt but only had the 5 volt sitting around.  Second - put 3 rubber washers between each plate.  You can only clean 3 records at a time but it spaces the records much farther apart.

Micheal Fremer has a youtube with 10 record cleaning reps-wotsits on the panel.
It was mentioned that Tergitol is ethylene oxide - bad for PVC.
At any concentration.

@sammmmmmmy,

Both Tergitol and Triton X-100 non-ionic detergent (which has been used for cleaning vinyl records for decades) material safety data sheets list Poly (ethylene oxide), as a small impurity as part of the surfactants at <3%.  However, the CAS number listed is 25322-68-3 which actual traces to poly (ethylene glycol).  Tergitol 15-S-7 is what the Library of Congress uses to clean delicate lacquer records.  Ethylene oxide gas is considered incompatible with PVC, but that is not what we have here.  The record cleaning reps are wrong.