Record Cleaning Machines

1.  Water is for all intense purposes classified as nonionic; ASTM D1193, Standard Specification for Reagent Water, Type 4 achieved by distilled water (condensation of steam) has a resistivity >200K ohms and a total dissolved solids <2.5 ppm.  

2.  In general, surfactants can be:
-nonionic (if you measure with TDS - there will no change),
-anionic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a negative (-) charge.  Anionic surfactants are the backbone of all general detergents.
-cationic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a positive (+) charge.  Cationic surfactants are not very good detergents but they can kill viruses so are very common in disinfectants and if a residue is left behind can acts as anti-static because they absorb water from the air making the record electrically dissipative to static, but this capacity decreases below 35% humidity.
-amphoteric can ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head, depending mostly on the solution pH, is either anionic (-) or cationic (+).

3.  Ionizing the fluid in a general wash - such as laundry soap - helps to remove particulate from clothing by charge repulsion.  However, particulate adhesion is governed by a number of factors.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a hard surface, such as a record, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

4.  The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the cavitation bubble that is created. A 35-40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble 'can' produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers but only up to point above which more power has no benefit.

5.  Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it.  At 35-40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.

6.  There are other variables, but depending on the initial cleanliness level of record, an ultrasonic tank with just a small amount of a high performance nonionic surfactant (such as Tergitol 15-S-9) can effectively remove light soils (finger prints, etc) and particles.  However, for heavily soiled records (i.e. flea market), a pre-clean step using more aggressive cleaning agents (such as Alconox Liquinox which is a combination of nonionic & anionic surfactants) or a wide range enzyme (soak) cleaner is generally necessary. 

7.  As far as mold-release, the following is sourced from the RCA patent US3960790A - Disc record and method of compounding disc record composition - Google Patents for vinyl records which is probably the best knowledge we have for vinyl record composition:  Lubricant: 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is "homogenized" into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Overall, a good record should not have any mold release to remove.  Otherwise, the discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant which should not be common. 

8.  Big problem with old records is the buildup of residue from any number of sources be it detergent residue, hard water scale, tar from smoke, and who knows what.  In these cases, as previously addressed, a range of different chemistries with different methods for pre-cleaning is generally required, let just say they may need a lot of love. 

 @antinn  Thanks, that is very informative. One thing that I think is missing in this conversation is that IF one is buying old records ( flea market as an example) the potential for noise is going to be high, regardless of the cleaning regimen. Simply because the grooves are likely to be damaged beyond repair. Damaged by scratches, chunks missing, warping and the like. Nothing to do with detritus in the grooves! Therefore, IMO the regimen of deep cleaning ala the Kirmuss method, while probably a little helpful in reducing the overall noise floor, will do absolutely nothing to getting at the root cause of the issue, the damaged groove. OTOH, with vinyl that is say VG++ or better, the regimen would possibly give some benefit, BUT I believe the increase is fairly marginal compared to a simple US clean in distilled water. Plus, when we read about the fact that the frequency of the ultrasonic means different size bubbles, ( in the case of the Kirmuss at 40Khz--and therefore a larger bubble that cannot deeply impact the groove) this IMO goes a long way to explain why all other machines that are using higher frequency waves do not need the same regimen as the Kirmuss to perform what they do. 
So, the big problem with old records is really not the buildup of residue, but the likelihood of poor handling and damage by the prior owner(s) who were using worn styluses and didn't have too much problem walking on their records with steel tipped boots......

Wow! Talk about complicated and time consuming. Not to mention keeping track of which records were cleaned when.

With all the micron talk, nobody is talking about sound quality.

Since my records are shiny and in visibly excellent condition and have no surface noise, I’m going to stick with the carbon fiber brush before every stylus drop. If it only gets rid of the audible dust particles and doesn’t pick up the microscopic dust that doesn’t interfere with the stylus tip scraping through the groove thousands of times its size, who cares?

Neil, I just want to say THANK YOU, again; not only for your guidance specifically related to my queries but, more importantly, to the education your are so graciously providing to all of us interested in this subject. I'd be lying if I said I understood all of it but I am grasping enough to feel confident in improving my cleaning methodology which, hopefully, will translate into further improvement(s) in audio fidelity.

I realized right after clicking "Post Your Response" for my last post how foolish it would have been to, effectively, experiment with the Super Record Wash not knowing what it really contains. I was assuming "non-toxic, natural degreasers and dirt solvents" would be benign enough but, you're right, or course. Better safe than sorry.

All the best!

Sokogear, I hear 'ya! This may sound paradoxical at this point but it's a lot easier than it sounds; that is, once you get or decide upon what your cleaning approach is going to be.

I use a carbon fiber brush, as well. I also use an Onzow stylus cleaner that I love. Using one of those shows you what kind of gunk or dirt a stylus picks up, even on a "clean" record after one play. I like the Onzow a heck of a lot better than the liquid brush-on stylus cleaners I've used.

As far as keeping track of which records have been cleaned, etc. That's easy. I've started using poly outer sleeves for all of the ones I run through my UCM and stick LAST stickers on them.