Cellulase for cleaning mold from vinyl records

[bibliojim]

In a quest to find a way to clean a couple of boxes of my records that got very moldy (mildew), I have found a method I have not read about elsewhere which seems to have worked when other tried-and-true methods did not work for me. I want to share it in case it will help someone else. I think I may have found a method that will restore records that have been in a bad state for many years. The records I have cleaned and seem to have brought back to perfect playing condition were covered in mildew for six years. The records went slowly from wet to dry over a long period of time.

First, a description of how the records got into a bad condition and a description of what I started with.

I had two cardboard boxes of records sitting on the basement floor. Each box contained about 75 to 100 records stored vertically in the boxes. The records and jackets were mostly new or almost new, but there were a few that I had bought used at record sales. A few of the records were still sealed. Some records, sealed or not, still had the original cellophane over the jacket, but 90% did not. Albums from Mobile Fidelity, Reference Recordings, Angel, RCA Victor, Warner Bros., Geffen Records, etc.mostly from the 1980s and early 1990s. Almost all the records were still in the original inner sleeves which were of various materials ranging from paper to high quality archival HDPE sleeves.

My city was struck by a 100-year flood in August, 2018. My home had never had water in the basement and I simply was not worried. I should have been. Three months after that heavy rain I went into the basement and found that some water had come into the basement to a depth of perhaps 1/4" or 1/2", hard to tell exactly. The two boxes of records had sat in that water for as long as it remained in the basement. There was no water in the basement at that time, but boxes sitting on the floor still had wet bottoms. I tipped the boxes of records on their sides so the bottoms would dry. I did not have time or energy to deal with all those wet records, and they sat there in the unopened boxes until late 2022.

In 2022, I pulled the records from the boxes. If two adjacent records remained in their cellophane wrappers they could be pulled apart, but there was virtually no record jacket without a cellophane wrapper that was not stuck to the jacket next to it, so record after record had to be ripped apart from the record next to it, destroying the jackets. I looked at a few of the records, pulling them from the jackets and inner sleeves. An odor of mildew came off every record I pulled out, and every record I looked at showed at least a couple of small patches of mildew. The worst ones seemed caked with mildew inside the sleeves. Pretty disgusting. After looking at a dozen or so, I leaned them all against a wall in a corner where I could get at them one by one to clean them.

I spent time researching how to clean records and found three methods that seemed to have promise for restoring the records to playability, but during this search I saw more than once comments to the effect that if a record has been moldy for a long time it may not be possible to restore it. Thus, I was not very hopeful, but I persevered.

The three methods that seemed worth investigating were:
1. Handcleaning using a well-researched method devised by @Neil.Antin, and available here: https://thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2024/03/PACVR_3rd-Ed-Ch1_2024-03.pdf
2. Ultrasonic record-cleaning machines (USC)
3. Wood glue record cleaning method. No particular seminal reference, but here is one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/comments/2mgxov/yet_another_experience_with_wood_glue

For initial evaluation of the results of a method, I looked at the record under a 60x jeweler's loupe with LED illumination, readily available from amazon.com for a few dollars. That magnification is not enough to see individual mold spores or mold organisms, but one can easily distinguish the grooves and flat space between them, and the reflections from inside the grooves such as there may be. I was looking for any signs of grooves that were "clogged" with mold.

 

[bibliojim]

I started trying the handcleaning method. I obtained exactly the chemicals and materials Neil Antin mentioned in his publication and followed his procedure to the letter as best I could, slightly adapted for mildew issues. I put each record through the process one at a time. I temporarily saved the jackets so I could create home-made printed labels using information from the jackets, as they were going to have to be replaced with generic jackets.

1. Wearing nitrile gloves, I wiped the mildew off the labels with cotton balls such as used for removing makeup with 95% isopropyl alcohol on them. I did not wipe hard because the paper on some of the labels was fragile. I wiped harder in the runout area around the label, making a clear spot where the label protector could touch the record and have all the mildew outside the label protector.
2. Took the record over to a wash basin sink in the basement and ran water over it gently to try to moisten the entire surface without sending mold spores into the air. (I would recommend an N90 mask for this stage, but if you don't have one, be careful.)
3. Once the surface was moistened I turned the water force up a bit, but avoided unnecessary splashing, and turned the record under the water to remove whatever would come off from that force.
4. On both sides, one side at a time, I ran the record brush around the grooves about five times, keeping the record where the brush was moving under the running water. This sent all the remaining visible mildew down the sink drain.
5. I sprayed one side with liquinox solution from a hand spray bottle, prepared as Neil's book describes. I scrubbed the record as Neil described, turning the record quite slowly and thus taking about four or five minutes to clean one side of the record.
6. Without rinsing, I turned the record over and scrubbed the other side with liquinox in the same way.
7. I turned the record over and rinsed the liquinox off this side. With the record under running water, I ran the record brush around the record five times. Then turned the record 1/3 revolution and ran the brush over it five more times. The turned 1/3 revolution and ran the brush over it five more times.
8. On this side of the record from which liquinox had been removed, I applied citranox from a spray bottle, diluted as Neil Antin describes. Again took about 4-5 minutes to clean the side of the record.
9. Without rinsing off the citranox, I turned the record over and rinsed liquinox from this side.Then I scrubbed this side with citranox.
10. I flipped the record over and rinsed off the citranox.
11. I flipped it again and rinsed the citranox from this side.
12. That was all with tap water. I then sprayed each side of the record with distilled water, wiped each side with the clean room sponge recommended in Neil's book, and set the record to dray.

I did that to about six to ten records in a cleaning session.

When I inspected the records I had cleaned this way with a loupe I found there was obviously material filling some of the grooves on many of the records, perhaps 50% of them. The number of grooves affected on some records was quite high. On some I had to look for a while to find affected grooves. The 60x loupe shows so little surface area that it isn't practical to try to look at the entire surface. I looked closely at different areas for maybe a minute. If I didn't see any, I might have missed some that was there, or maybe that record was "clean". All the records looked clean to the naked eye; it was only with the loupe that I could see it was not clean.

I judged the hand-cleaning to be a failure at restoring the records to their original condition based on the 50% that still have gunk in the grooves, though indeed about half of them did seem fine after my loupe inspection.

I need to add two comments about the hand-cleaning:
1. If the records are not moldy, hand-cleaning with this method normally does a fantastic job.
2. Neil Antin himself says he has successfully cleaned mildew from records using the hand method. There must be something particularly groty about the condition of my records that led to mediocre results with the hand-cleaning method.

I sorted the several dozen records I had cleaned into two groups, records that looked clean and records that did not. For the records that did not look clean, I cleaned them by hand one more time. After I'd cleaned about six to ten of them the second time I inspected them again, and I didn't notice any improvement in their condition. There was still gunk in the grooves.

 

[bibliojim]

I got a cheap ultrasonic record cleaning machine, thinking the vibrations from the ultrasonic cleaning would get the crap out of the grooves. The machine I used for this ran only at 40 Khz frequency. I loaded the records on spaced as this machine seemed designed to space them, with spacers about 1/4" in thickness. I have learned since then that this close spacing reduces the effectivness of the cleaning, but that's what I did. I Used ilfotol as a wetting agent and sonicated them fo 15 minutes.

I did this to ten records, then put all ten through the handwashing process with only the citranox (acid) wash and rinse. After they were dry I inspected them with the loupe again. Their condition was not noticeably improved.

I read that you get better cleaning force if the records are further apart. I cleaned a couple of records all by themselves a couple of times to see if that let them come clean. If that had worked, then I just had to find a good spacing for the records. However, even cleaning only one record at a time for ten or fifteen minutes left the record with stuff in its grooves.

I can't say it wasn't "better" - but it wasn't restored to its original condition.

I read a thread somewhere where somebody said "You have to soak those records in water overnight before you can get that old mold off." I got a couple of 14" x 14" x 4" plastic containers and went through many of the records again, soaking two at a time overnight with ilfotol wetting agaen and sonicating them again immediately after that together with some other records. I think I must have cleaned about twenty or thirty records after overnight soaking. When I inspected them all with a loupe, they were no cleaner than before, as far as I could tell. Soaking overnight was not the solution.

 

[bibliojim]

I had not yet tried the wood-glue method, but another thought came to me, which ultimately proved to be a successful approach to cleaning these records. This is the method that works, i.e. after this process is completed none of the records showed stuff visible in the grooves under a 60x loupe. It requires use of an ultrasonic record-cleaning device which preferably sonicates at 80 Khz, but 40 Khz might work as well.

1. Purchase a bottle of cellulase, an enzyme that breaks up cellulose. Here is one source, from Carolina Biological Supply Company:
Cellulase from Carolina Biological Supply
(https://www.orientaltrading.com/car...lulase-laboratory-grade-25-g-a2-14353643.fltr)
2. Purchase a scale that will weigh substances in quantities less than one gram. Here is what I use:
Weighing Scale
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ESHDGOI)
2a. Purchase weighing paper to help weigh small substances - buy the paper with dimension 60 x 60 mm
Weighing Paper
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MZT2NRG)
2. Put moldy records through the handwashing process as described in my second post to this thread. After ten of them (or more) have been washed by hand:
3. Turn on the power to the USC device. Add distilled water to capacity and add wetting agent. Set the temperature to 35-degrees C. Run the sonication for 30 minutes to degas the liquid. Towards the end of the 30 minutes, add 1 gram of the cellulase.
4. Load the USC spindle with ten records. After the degassing sonication has been completed, place the rotation device into position so the records can spin in the bath and turn on the spin motor without turning on any sonication.
5. Set the rotation rate to one rotation every 1.5 to 2 minutes.
6. Run the sonication (cavitation) for two minutes.
7. Let the records spin quietly on the spindle for ten minutes without any sonication.
8. Repeat steps 6 & 7 nine more times,
9. (optional) Increase the rotation rate slightly, to perhaps 1 rotation every 30 seconds - the exact amount is not important. This is to reduce the probability of all the liquid evaporating from some location of the record while that portion is out of the bath. Let the records spin at the increased rate without cavitation for two more hours.
10. One at a time, remove each record from the spindle leaving remaining records spinning and apply a record label protector to the record. Take the record to the sink and follow these steps:
10a. Under running tap water, run the record brush around the record a few times, on each side of the record.
10b. Do a manual wash step with liquinox, turning the record as you scrub at a faster rate than usual, so you can clean a side of the record in only a minute or so. After you do one side, flip the record over and do the other side without rinsing.
10c. Flip back to the first side. Rinse the record under tap water with the record brush extremely well. Run the brush around the record 10 times, then turn the record 1/3 and brush another 10 times, then 1/3 and another ten times, for a total of 30 runs of the brush around one side of the record.
10d. Flip the record and rinse it the same way.
10e. Spray the record well with distilled water.
10f. If possible get especially high quality water and submerge the record in the high quality record and rock it a bit to encourage the water to flow into the grooves. Whole Foods is one place that sells this water in "refills". You can find a good container to use for this here:
14" x 14" x 4" containers
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CB92X7P7)
I actually use two of these, submerging once in one, then submerging again in the second one. This whole step may be overkill, but I'm doing it.
10g. Wipe the record with the clean room sponge Neil Antin recommends in his publication. Be sure it has been sitting in a bowl of the super-pure water if you use it. Change that water every day or two.
10h. Place the record on a drying rack to dry.
Drying Rack

A word about optional step 9. Judging strictly by the appearance of the records after wiping with the sponge in step 10g, the records are cleaner with the extra two hours' spin. Since that is two hours of unattended time it doesn't add a big burden unless you start too late in the day. Once the records are in the bath with the cellulase, you probably want to complete the entire process for the whole batch. One could turn off the heat and let the records spin in the bath overnight in step 9 for a break, but I think the evaporation might be too much and wind up depositing bad water with mold in it back onto the record. It might be worth trying if you don't mind the possibility of having to clean it again if it causes too much evaporation.

When I say step 9 gets the records cleaner, I mean, old fingerprints are usually gone by this time. I don't think this is due to the cellulase enzyme. I have been using a mixture of Triton X-100 and Tergikleen as the wetting agent in the bath, and one or both of those is probably helping the fingerprints to "dissolve off the record" as it simply spins in the bath. However, it's debatable whether those fingerprints can be heard in playback at all. If they can't be heard, there is no need to do this. But it does give a warm fuzzy feeling on more records if you have time for the extra spin. Or so I have found.

 

[tima]

Thanks for creating this post -- lots of good information here.

 

[bibliojim]

Another very important point about the cellulase. On the link I provided, the company says "This laboratory grade cellulase must be refrigerated and the optimal pH for activity is pH 5. The optimal temperature for activity is 55 degrees Celsius. This 25 gram supply contains 1,000 to 150,000 cellulase units per gram. This product is specially made for use in science education laboratories and no certificate of analysis is available."

I wasn't able to find precisely how one unit of cellulase is defined, but it is not a weight unit. It is a measure of enzyme activity, and it varies by up to 150-fold in what you get in the bottle. In other words, a specific weight of the enzyme may work 150 times faster from one bottle than the same weight would measured from a different bottle.

This is absolutely horrible for reproducibility. I only bought one bottle, and one gram works well. I tried 0.5 grams and it seemed to work about as well. I don't know what the minimum amount would be, but even if I determined it for the bottle I bought, it would not be a reliable amount for the bottle you would buy.

There are certainly other sources of cellulase. I found one place that sold cellulase from a number of different organisms, and they had pretty high optimum temperatures. This one has an optimum temperature of 55 degrees Celsius, but 35 C is what you want to use for vinyl, and it worked at 35 C. If the optimum temperature is 70 degrees Celsius, the activity might take a much bigger hit for working at 35 C.

In general, the variability in the activity or "strength" of the enzyme in this product is the biggest drawback to using this method to clean records. On the other hand, I only bought one bottle and it was good with 1 gram, and at 0.5 grams. In other words, I didn't have to search through ten or fifty bottles to find one that had enough enzyme activity. If anybody tries this method, it would be very helpful to mention your experiences with how much enzyme is needed. If we were in a biochemical lab we could assay the activity of each bottle individually, but the company is the only logical place where that would be done and they state that no certificate of analysis is available. Another product from elsewhere could provide such a certificate that would allow calculation of the amount of enzyme to weigh out from a given bottle to get a reproducible result. Maybe somebody could find and post a source of such, for a product with a reasonable price.

 

[bibliojim]

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. How do these records sound? I have not had time to play many of them yet. However, I played eight of them. I chose eight that had been like new when I put them in the boxes that were on the basement floor, each played no more than two or three times if at all. Seven of the moldy disasters played like brand-new records after the cellulase cleaning process. One of the eight had some patches with a low-level static-y sound in the background. I attributed it to incomplete cleaning. It was either that, or a destroyed record. I put it through another ten cycles of treatment with cellulase and liquinox clean/rinse. Then I replayed it, and it sounded like new.

 

[bibliojim]

Thanks for creating this post -- lots of good information here.

In the other thread you asked if I was starting with a fresh tank for the ultrasonic cleaning. I think the stepped procedure I posted above and my response in the other thread clarifies that. But that got me thinking about something. When the gunk or mildew or whatever it is is filling the grooves, the chemicals being used for cleaning during the initial hand-cleaning steps are not getting into those portions of the grooves. The gunk isn't fully removed from the grooves until the cellulase treatment. After that, any chemicals can get to the bottom of the grooves. After the cellulase cleaning I am doing a quick liquinox clean, then rinse. With what I am doing, the acid wash that @Neil.Antin recommends is never touching the grooves where they are initially filled with the gunk. Neil says there are even some records than need two acid washes to remove all the noise, though I guess whether one does the second one will depend on whether you still hear noise when the whole manual process (without mold etc) is done. I'm thinking that if I was determined that every record will be at its absolute best without having to listen in order to evaluate, then I would follow up the cellulase treatment with the liquinox scrub, plus additionally the acid scrub, followed by rinse.

Neil's treatment finishes with the tergitol Final Rinse, but in the procedure I laid out the record is in such during the cellulase treatment and optional subsequent two-hour spin, and I don't know if it would benefit to do the final rinse with Tergitol at the end immediately before distilled water rinse.

For me personally, the whole process feels long because I have so many moldy records to put clean, and I think I am content to leave the final acid wash after cellulase off, but someone else might be motivated to do it. I'm sure some records would benefit from that additional step. To be clear, I am talking about doing steps 10a and 10b above twice on each record, except using liquinox the first time and acid (citranox) the second time.

It's always possible to take any records that still sound noisy after the procedure as written is done and give them another round of cellulase treatments followed up with the acid wash instead of liquinoix, or just do the acid wash separately by hand without another cellulase treatment.

Thanks for raising that question.

 

[bibliojim]

If you are concerned about how to get rid of left-over mold spores from your USC bath after going through this process before you start to clean other non-moldy records with your USC again, probably the best thing to do is rinse the bath with water once, then fill the bath with 3% hydrogen peroxide and leave it in there for at least three hours. That is supposed to be the most effective way to kill mold spores. Make sure it is "new" hydrogen peroxide because even in a sealed bottle it turns into water over time. I read somewhere it is stable for six months at room temperature, but stability is prolonged if it is stored in the refrigerator. You won't know how long it has been at room temperature before you buy it from the store. You can read up on how to tell if hydrogen peroxide is still at strength.

If you are able to fully rinse your USC bath with water several times, though, there might not be a reason to worry about any leftover spores. There are mold/mildew spores literally everywhere anyway, no matter what you do. One probably just needs to get rid of a significant excess and several water rinses should do that, in my opinion. But if one is concerned, there is the option I've mentioned.

As for the records, the only spores left on them after all the scrubbing and rinsing should be on the label. The isopropyl alcohol wipe I mentioned is from a description of how museums will attempt to preserve fragile paper documents that have been affected by mildew, but I don't think there is a claim that it kills all spores. One user mentioned that borax on the label might be effective. Maybe somebody could try it and see how it works out. A good recommendation is, don't store the records in a humid environment, and then there won't be any mildew growing on them even if spores are present - and that's the recommended practice even if the records have not had mildew growing on them before, because as I said, there are mold spores everywhere.

And needless to say, don't put your records in boxes on the basement floor even if you think you will never get water in the basement. Let it never be said I don't learn from my mistakes! Oh, wait, I still have records sitting on the basement floor now. Shoot.

 

[Neil.Antin]

When the gunk or mildew or whatever it is is filling the grooves, the chemicals being used for cleaning during the initial hand-cleaning steps are not getting into those portions of the grooves. The gunk isn't fully removed from the grooves until the cellulase treatment. After that, any chemicals can get to the bottom of the grooves. After the cellulase cleaning I am doing a quick liquinox clean, then rinse. With what I am doing, the acid wash that @Neil.Antin recommends is never touching the grooves where they are initially filled with the gunk. Neil says there are even some records than need two acid washes to remove all the noise, though I guess whether one does the second one will depend on whether you still hear noise when the whole manual process (without mold etc) is done. I'm thinking that if I was determined that every record will be at its absolute best without having to listen in order to evaluate, then I would follow up the cellulase treatment with the liquinox scrub, plus additionally the acid scrub, followed by rinse.

Jim:

Keep in mind what the acid being used for, and also note that I do inspect all cleaned records with UV light, and it is helpful in identifying records that will need a second acid clean.

IV.8 What is the source of the very fine particles that are in the groove? After reading this post Record Cleaners - a confession | Page 2 | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums, it occurred to me that the particles can be mineral salts (such as calcium & magnesium carbonate) which fluoresce intensely. The source is not the record formula, it’s from the natural aerosols that are in the air. Natural aerosols are (ref: NASA) “tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere. Some aerosols come from natural sources, such as dust, volcanic eruptions, and sea salts. Some aerosols are produced by humans, such as pollution from industries or automobiles, or smoke from fires.” Depending on the pressing plant cleanliness, ventilation and handling, these natural background aerosol particles can be pressed-in or deposited on the record. Very small mineral salt particles are easily dissolved/removed with a weak acid; the same process applies when using distilled white vinegar to clean a coffee pot. The record in Figure 11-C was cleaned with 1.5% Alconox™ Citranox™ acid cleaner (V. Step.6) and the particles were removed, and the record played much quieter.

Also, the purpose of the Tergitol 15-S-9 is use a gentle non-ionic surfactant that compatible with all surfactants to ensure no surfactant residue remains. The Lquinox rinses quite well, but the Citranox does not rinse as easily, and the Tergitol acts as final cleaner/polish to remove any surfactant films that may remain. FYI - Tergikleen is blend of two nonionic surfactants, 15-S-9 that is very water soluble and 15-S-3 that is not water soluble. 15-S-3 is commonly used in paints for better flow on a surface.

Once you move from the manual-sink method to your ultrasonic enzyme cleaning you are into a whole other cleaning process. As I wrote earlier, enzymes are commonly used with nonionic surfactants to improve cleaning efficiency. FYI - ILFOTOL would not be my recommendation since it contains a biocide for shelf life. Once diluted to use, whether that would have any interference with the enzyme is unknown.

Additionally, consider the difference between disinfecting and sterilizing: Otherwise, chemicals are used to kill and/or control microbial growth such as bacterial, spores and viruses; and they can be categorized as those that can sterilize (kill everything), disinfect (kill most) or inhibit (prevent growth). Hydrogen peroxide at 3% for 1-hr is sporicidal (kill mold spores) and sterilizes the surface. Alcohol is only a disinfectant. FYI: Borax has two properties that make it less hospital for mold - its alkaline which molds does not like and its hygroscopic removing moisture which the mold needs for growth. Otherwise, it is not sporicidal and maybe just inhibits mold growth.

Take care,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

It might make sense to make this modification of the procedure I have

Jim:

Keep in mind what the acid being used for, and also note that I do inspect all cleaned records with UV light, and it is helpful in identifying records that will need a second acid clean.

IV.8 What is the source of the very fine particles that are in the groove? After reading this post Record Cleaners - a confession | Page 2 | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums, it occurred to me that the particles can be mineral salts (such as calcium & magnesium carbonate) which fluoresce intensely. The source is not the record formula, it’s from the natural aerosols that are in the air. Natural aerosols are (ref: NASA) “tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere. Some aerosols come from natural sources, such as dust, volcanic eruptions, and sea salts. Some aerosols are produced by humans, such as pollution from industries or automobiles, or smoke from fires.” Depending on the pressing plant cleanliness, ventilation and handling, these natural background aerosol particles can be pressed-in or deposited on the record. Very small mineral salt particles are easily dissolved/removed with a weak acid; the same process applies when using distilled white vinegar to clean a coffee pot. The record in Figure 11-C was cleaned with 1.5% Alconox™ Citranox™ acid cleaner (V. Step.6) and the particles were removed, and the record played much quieter.

Also, the purpose of the Tergitol 15-S-9 is use a gentle non-ionic surfactant that compatible with all surfactants to ensure no surfactant residue remains. The Lquinox rinses quite well, but the Citranox does not rinse as easily, and the Tergitol acts as final cleaner/polish to remove any surfactant films that may remain. FYI - Tergikleen is blend of two nonionic surfactants, 15-S-9 that is very water soluble and 15-S-3 that is not water soluble. 15-S-3 is commonly used in paints for better flow on a surface.

Once you move from the manual-sink method to your ultrasonic enzyme cleaning you are into a whole other cleaning process. As I wrote earlier, enzymes are commonly used with nonionic surfactants to improve cleaning efficiency. FYI - ILFOTOL would not be my recommendation since it contains a biocide for shelf life. Once diluted to use, whether that would have any interference with the enzyme is unknown.

Additionally, consider the difference between disinfecting and sterilizing: Otherwise, chemicals are used to kill and/or control microbial growth such as bacterial, spores and viruses; and they can be categorized as those that can sterilize (kill everything), disinfect (kill most) or inhibit (prevent growth). Hydrogen peroxide at 3% for 1-hr is sporicidal (kill mold spores) and sterilizes the surface. Alcohol is only a disinfectant. FYI: Borax has two properties that make it less hospital for mold - its alkaline which molds does not like and its hygroscopic removing moisture which the mold needs for growth. Otherwise, it is not sporicidal and maybe just inhibits mold growth.

Take care,

Neil

I stand corrected, it sounds like the need for a second acid rinse can be determined based on inspection with UV light. Thank you Neil.

Also, my thought that an acid cleaning could be added at the end without following it with a tergitol rinse might not be a great idea. Your publication I believe added that final rinse in a version after the one I initially studied, and I did not know the purpose because I had not read the recent version in detail. Thank you for mentioning it. However - Neil - I am running the brush around each side of the album 30 times after the liquinox wash at the end. If citranox was inserted there, do you think citranox might possibly not be fully rinsed even after 30 runarounds with the brush?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get across about Tergikleen. Do you believe that Tergikleen is not suitable for a final pre-distilled water rinse in a manual process because it contains 15-S-3 which is not water soluble? It does sound like if citranox is added at the end, it should be followed by the nonionic surfactant - but see my question at the end of the previous paragraph.

Thanks for the note about ilfotol containing a biocide, what you say about that for use with an enzyme makes sense. I don't believe I ever used it with the cellulase because it seemed like a more complicated sort of formulation, just as well.

Good info about borax. Doesn't sound like it's a solution because what is used probably can't stay on the label indefinitely and borax would have to stay there to remain effective in deterring growth. I don't think hydrogen peroxide can be safely (safe for the material being sterilized) used on a record label, or any paper object, for hours. I have a feeling it would be likely to significantly damage the record label; it would be like soaking the label in water for that long, not to mention the chemical activity. On the other hand, the jacket is already a generic jacket, maybe at this point it doesn't matter what it does to the label? Anyway, personally I'll continue to use the isopropyl alcohol. I'm not worried about mold spores remaining on the label leading to further midew growth. I don't believe it would be a problem unless the record is stored in damp conditions, in which case basically every record will get mildew on it - witness my original experience. But it is indeed interesting to consider it. Thanks for the info on borax! I wasn't up on what it does with mold.

I was thinking today about how to add in a more effective acid wash into this process without adding extra work. What do you think of this potential change, if you don't mind considering it? Right now I have been doing, basically: liquinox --> citranox --> cellulase (USC) --> liquinox --> H2O. If it was changed to the following, there would be no extra effort. Would it be a reasonable way to use the citranox on cleaned grooves?

liquinox --> cellulase (USC) --> citranox --> liquinox --> H2O

We normally use citranox after liquinox because the linquinox gets the grooves clean so the citranox is fully in contact with what is on the record. In the process I just mentioned, we are putting liquinox first, but it doesn't get the grooves clean (always) because of the residue that isn't being removed from mildew or messy cellulose-based crap from the too-long-wet sleeve/jacket or whatever. But after the cellulase, the grooves are cleared for the obstructive materials. So then citranox should be effective. You are saying citranox doesn't clean off as easily, but there would be a "normal" rinse under tap water after the citranox, plus scrubbing with the following liquinox, then 30 times around the record with water before the distilled water. Would you still be leery about the citranox not being removed without the Tergitol rinse before H2O?

There is also an option of this:

liquinox --> cellulase (USC) --> citranox --> Tergitol --> H2O

But what is coming out of the cellulase bath is a record potentially with a protein film on it, and it seems like liquinox would be the best thing to remove that, that's why I'm using it now. Ugh. So if that was on the record, maybe the liquinox really has to be in there first after the USC. And then if the citranox is added after, so must the Tergitol. Definitely less work if one is willing to compromise and do the acid wash before the cellulase and be content with an imperfect clean if the subsequent additional acid wash was actually needed for perfection.

Would it be viable to stick with my current process of liquinox --> citranox --> cellulase (USC) with Tergikleen/Triton X-100 --> liquinox --> H2O, and then use a UV light to see if an additional acid wash is needed now that all the interior of the grooves are exposed? Maybe that's what you were meaning to suggest.

Thanks for any further thoughts.

Jim

 

[Neil.Antin]

Jim:

Your publication I believe added that final rinse in a version after the one I initially studied,

Tergitol 15-S-9 as the final cleaner has been in the book since the 1st Ed. Only the acid was added in the 3rd Ed as the 2nd pre-clean step after the Liquinox pre-clean step.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get across about Tergikleen. Do you believe that Tergikleen is not suitable for a final pre-distilled water rinse in a manual process because it contains 15-S-3 which is not water soluble? I

Fundamentally, when you get to the final clean step, the record should be >90% clean. Whatever is left is some particulate or surfactant film from the pre-clean steps. The insoluble component in Tergikleen at this final step becomes a contaminant. But if you are only doing a one-step clean process with Tergikleen that's different. The insoluble 15-S-3 oil may have benefit. It's one of principles of chemistry that "like dissolves like", but Tergikleen does not rinse easily, and the depending on the concentration it can short-change getting the maximum emulsifying detergency of the 15-S-9 which is based on its CMC (see the discussion in the beginning of Chapter VII that does a quick overview of surfactants).

Anyway, personally I'll continue to use the isopropyl alcohol. I'm not worried about mold spores remaining on the label leading to further midew growth. I don't believe it would be a problem unless the record is stored in damp conditions, in which case basically every record will get mildew on it

What you are doing - wiping the label with alcohol is fine. But use 70% or greater isopropyl alcohol (IPA) for the maximum disinfection property. One error to note wrt to last post: VIII.11.3.b The safest sporicidal solution that should be compatible with records to kill mold spores is simple hydrogen peroxide. The one disadvantage is kill-time; 3% = 2.5-hrs while 6% = 1-hr which is the same specified by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/chemical-disinfectants.html.

I was thinking today about how to add in a more effective acid wash into this process without adding extra work. What do you think of this potential change, if you don't mind considering it?

The reason for applying the Liquinox 1st is that acid is ineffective against oil & greases can shield contaminants underneath. Even though the Citranox has some surfactants, it is not as effective as Liquinox. So, the process follows the industry standard process when using an acid, which is to first degrease the surface then apply the acid. With that in mind, this what I would recommend.

Complete manual sink clean: liquinox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, citranox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, Tergitol 15-S-9 final clean, tap-water rinse, DIW spray rinse, dry. You want to do the whole process since you will clean a batch of records before moving to UT clean, and you do not want dry citranox residue left on the record since it will dry semi-hard and may not rehydrate very quickly. Any Tergitol 15-S-9 residue is the same as a very thin oil and it will dissolve in water very quickly.

Ultrasonic clean: cellulase + 0.015% Tergitol 15-S-9 then DIW rinse. As I said, you want to use the Tergitol 15-S-9 (https://www.talasonline.com/Tergitol-15-S-3-and-15-S-9?quantity=1&size=32&quality=15) as both a wetting agent and to help keep whatever the enzyme digests in solution so it does not reattach to the record.

Beyond the UT-Enzyme-Clean, I see no need for the follow-on acid. If the acid did not remove it during the manual-sink cleaning, that is why you moved to UT + Enzyme. Whatever, UT + Enzyme does not remove, you should accept as groove damage.

FYI - when cleaning a surface, the chemistry and mechanics are complimentary. When working with surfactants and citranox, when you are brushing the surface, fluid agitation (fluid velocity) is critical since it breaks through the fluid boundary layer. Whenever a fluid is moving across a surface, a static layer - the boundary layer forms, with the fluid moving above the boundary layer. As the velocity increases, the boundary layer thins and the moving layer gets closer, and from studies we did many years ago, the transition point is about 3-fps. The concept of moving the brush quickly back & forth (sections at a time) is to achieve the velocity necessary. It's the chemistry and agitation that does the cleaning in the manual-sink method. However, in UT, the same boundary layer concept applies.

XIV.1.5 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. This concept is also applicable to pipe flushing and was addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:. At 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. While this implies that 120-kHz is better. Maybe, if and only if, there is enough power with the right chemistry. Otherwise, high powered 40-kHz can be effective by just brute power.

FYI -From my first quick research on fungi (which is mold) is that its cell structure is comprised of "The cell wall is a specific and complex cellular organelle composed of glucans, chitin, chitosan, and glycosylated proteins". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6962315/pdf/fmicb-10-02993.pdf. I am not finding any reference to fungi (mold) https://image.slideserve.com/175345/structure-of-fungal-cell-wall-l.jpg having a plant type cellulose cell structure https://image.slidesharecdn.com/cel...ucture-and-function-19-1024.jpg?cb=1507789560 and most enzyme products for mold remediation do not contain cellulase; they contain the other three enzymes. Which is why I still feel that what you are trying to remove is the byproduct of either the moisture and the liner and/or what the fungi was able to digest, noting that an acid like citranox (or vinegar) would not be effective against a cellulose type of detritus that is essentially glued to the record surface.

Good luck,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

Jim:


Tergitol 15-S-9 as the final cleaner has been in the book since the 1st Ed. Only the acid was added in the 3rd Ed as the 2nd pre-clean step after the Liquinox pre-clean step.

Fundamentally, when you get to the final clean step, the record should be >90% clean. Whatever is left is some particulate or surfactant film from the pre-clean steps. The insoluble component in Tergikleen at this final step becomes a contaminant. But if you are only doing a one-step clean process with Tergikleen that's different. The insoluble 15-S-3 oil may have benefit. It's one of principles of chemistry that "like dissolves like", but Tergikleen does not rinse easily, and the depending on the concentration it can short-change getting the maximum emulsifying detergency of the 15-S-9 which is based on its CMC (see the discussion in the beginning of Chapter VII that does a quick overview of surfactants).

What you are doing - wiping the label with alcohol is fine. But use 70% or greater isopropyl alcohol (IPA) for the maximum disinfection property. One error to note wrt to last post: VIII.11.3.b The safest sporicidal solution that should be compatible with records to kill mold spores is simple hydrogen peroxide. The one disadvantage is kill-time; 3% = 2.5-hrs while 6% = 1-hr which is the same specified by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/chemical-disinfectants.html.

The reason for applying the Liquinox 1st is that acid is ineffective against oil & greases can shield contaminants underneath. Even though the Citranox has some surfactants, it is not as effective as Liquinox. So, the process follows the industry standard process when using an acid, which is to first degrease the surface then apply the acid. With that in mind, this what I would recommend.

Complete manual sink clean: liquinox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, citranox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, Tergitol 15-S-9 final clean, tap-water rinse, DIW spray rinse, dry. You want to do the whole process since you will clean a batch of records before moving to UT clean, and you do not want dry citranox residue left on the record since it will dry semi-hard and may not rehydrate very quickly. Any Tergitol 15-S-9 residue is the same as a very thin oil and it will dissolve in water very quickly.

Ultrasonic clean: cellulase + 0.015% Tergitol 15-S-9 then DIW rinse. As I said, you want to use the Tergitol 15-S-9 (https://www.talasonline.com/Tergitol-15-S-3-and-15-S-9?quantity=1&size=32&quality=15) as both a wetting agent and to help keep whatever the enzyme digests in solution so it does not reattach to the record.

Beyond the UT-Enzyme-Clean, I see no need for the follow-on acid. If the acid did not remove it during the manual-sink cleaning, that is why you moved to UT + Enzyme. Whatever, UT + Enzyme does not remove, you should accept as groove damage.

FYI - when cleaning a surface, the chemistry and mechanics are complimentary. When working with surfactants and citranox, when you are brushing the surface, fluid agitation (fluid velocity) is critical since it breaks through the fluid boundary layer. Whenever a fluid is moving across a surface, a static layer - the boundary layer forms, with the fluid moving above the boundary layer. As the velocity increases, the boundary layer thins and the moving layer gets closer, and from studies we did many years ago, the transition point is about 3-fps. The concept of moving the brush quickly back & forth (sections at a time) is to achieve the velocity necessary. It's the chemistry and agitation that does the cleaning in the manual-sink method. However, in UT, the same boundary layer concept applies.

XIV.1.5 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. This concept is also applicable to pipe flushing and was addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:. At 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. While this implies that 120-kHz is better. Maybe, if and only if, there is enough power with the right chemistry. Otherwise, high powered 40-kHz can be effective by just brute power.

FYI -From my first quick research on fungi (which is mold) is that its cell structure is comprised of "The cell wall is a specific and complex cellular organelle composed of glucans, chitin, chitosan, and glycosylated proteins". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6962315/pdf/fmicb-10-02993.pdf. I am not finding any reference to fungi (mold) https://image.slideserve.com/175345/structure-of-fungal-cell-wall-l.jpg having a plant type cellulose cell structure https://image.slidesharecdn.com/cel...ucture-and-function-19-1024.jpg?cb=1507789560 and most enzyme products for mold remediation do not contain cellulase; they contain the other three enzymes. Which is why I still feel that what you are trying to remove is the byproduct of either the moisture and the liner and/or what the fungi was able to digest, noting that an acid like citranox (or vinegar) would not be effective against a cellulose type of detritus that is essentially glued to the record surface.

Good luck,

Neil

I wish I had noted the URL that made me think cellulase might be effective when I saw it a year or more ago. I was just looking again now for info on mold cell walls, and nothing that makes one think cellulase would be effective stood out. When I was looking for a solution before, I remember looking for a long time before I found information that looked like it might suggest a possible solution, in the form of cellulase. I did find this just now, which talks about cellulase being actually a combination of three enzymes: Multi-enzyme Property of Cellulase. They act on different materials, not just specifically cellulose. But I don't think I should focus on cellulase being effective on mold. I think I was putting it that way, and that may be a mistake. The purpose of me mentioning it was to state that it removed material on MY moldy records that I could not remove by other more standard methods. That is its value. You said, Neil, "I still feel that what you are trying to remove is the byproduct of either the moisture and the liner and/or what the fungi was able to digest, noting that an acid like citranox (or vinegar) would not be effective against a cellulose type of detritus that is essentially glued to the record surface." I have no basis for saying you are wrong; you may be exactly right! Record jackets from these records frequently had to be torn apart. That had to be because material in the jackets dissolved in the water and percolated out of the jackets, and then redeposited to act in a way similar to glue. Is it possible that this material percolated inwards towards the records at exactly the same time as it was percolating outwards towards the jacket of the record next to it? What would happen to this material if it percolated inwards towards the records? Of course it's possible that this material is what got into the grooves and could not be removed by regular hand washing or USC. That occurred to me many times. It could be exactly this material which cellulase is effective against. I do not know. Your hypothesis makes a lot of sense. The exact nature of the material is certainly interesting. The most important thing I wanted to share is that, when records in jackets and liners get wet and remain so for a period of days or weeks, then copious amounts of material can wind up in the grooves of the records which can be removed by treatments with cellulase after removal of as much "loose" surface material, such as caked-on mildew, by hand as possible.

I have a feeling that my records are not unique and that many people may have had the same stuff deposited on their records. Those people might benefit by trying to clean with cellulase, which I understand from Neil is not typically included in enzymatic cleaners but was effective for me.

 

[bibliojim]

Beyond the UT-Enzyme-Clean, I see no need for the follow-on acid. If the acid did not remove it during the manual-sink cleaning, that is why you moved to UT + Enzyme. Whatever UT + Enzyme does not remove, you should accept as groove damage.

About the acid wash. This week I cleaned ten more moldy records that came from the same sad incident. I used 0.5 g of the cellulase with 2 hours of spin in the enzyme bath after the tenth cycle of sonication. When I wiped the records with the sponge after the DIW wash, I saw that on two of them there were still obvious patterns in the appearance of the freshly-wiped record. Usually those patterns have gone away. I don't know if they did not because the cellulase is getting old now and becoming less effective so that more is needed, or because 0.5 g is sometimes not enough, or because I did not replace the water in the USC before I sonicated these so the chemical activity in the wash was different, or because of something else entirely.

I looked at the two records under the 60x loupe and they looked bad. Even though they looked clean with no magnification, there were many places where it looked as though something had deposited on the records and not redissolved. The grooves were not filled with crap like they tended to look before cellulase treatment. I don't know if the remaining deposits were what caused the patterns, but it could be. I played the records. One was a record I bought used and had never listened to. Under the loupe it looked like it had a lot of just plain old scratches, and it sounded that way. I wasn't sure what effect the white deposit was having because of the many visible scratches. I noticed that nearly all the white deposits did *not* extend down into the grooves; in other words, there would be a patch of white stuff and the grooves would appear as black stripes through the white. However, in some places the white would go down into the grooves.

I thought maybe the acid wash would be the best thing to remove the white material. I washed the first scratched record with the citranox acid wash, spending about five minutes on each side with the record brush. Under the loupe, the record looked a lot better, but of course the scratches were still there. When I played it, I didn't notice an improvement. If I'd had software that counted clicks it would have been telling, but I don't have that.

The other record was one I bought new and only played a few times. It also looked fairly bad with the white deposits. I played it as it was, and it sounded amazingly good. I heard some quiet ticks in the quiet places between bands, but while there was music I could not hear that at all. I also washed it with citranox for five minutes on each side. (For both of them I followed up with another liquinox wash, not having tergitol, then extensive rinsing.) It looked much better after washing. I played it again. Maybe there were fewer ticks, I can't swear to it.

This acid wash after the USC was not just the simple straightforward acid wash I was wondering if I should do, which Neil said probably would not be useful. It was a time-intensive acid wash acting against whatever was still on the surface even after all the USC cleaning. But in terms of needing to do it, as I said, even though it made a big difference in the appearance of the record under the loupe it did not make a distinct difference in the amount of noise I heard on the record, for either one of those two records.

After the extended acid clean I eventually wiped again with the sponge. The pattern in the reflected water was better, but still not completely gone. Neil has advised against using acid on a vinyl record for more than fifteen minutes. I could spend some additional time with the acid wash, but I don't think it would make enough difference in how the record sounds to be worthwhile. If they were the only records I have affected by the water incident, maybe it would be worth it, but there are too many. I won't feel badly, that record that wasn't scratched actually did sound really good. Oh, and when I looked again, I saw that where there were ticks between bands, I saw a number of transverse "surface scratches" that should not have made much difference, but possibly one or two of them actually are audible and could be responsible for most of the ticks I heard, which would imply that the whitish deposit which was mostly removed by the intensive acid wash actually didn't have a significant audible effect at all. I don't know what specifically caused those surface scratches; they could be very old. (I bought the record new, but it was a long time ago.)

 

[bibliojim]

Jim:


Tergitol 15-S-9 as the final cleaner has been in the book since the 1st Ed. Only the acid was added in the 3rd Ed as the 2nd pre-clean step after the Liquinox pre-clean step.

Fundamentally, when you get to the final clean step, the record should be >90% clean. Whatever is left is some particulate or surfactant film from the pre-clean steps. The insoluble component in Tergikleen at this final step becomes a contaminant. But if you are only doing a one-step clean process with Tergikleen that's different. The insoluble 15-S-3 oil may have benefit. It's one of principles of chemistry that "like dissolves like", but Tergikleen does not rinse easily, and the depending on the concentration it can short-change getting the maximum emulsifying detergency of the 15-S-9 which is based on its CMC (see the discussion in the beginning of Chapter VII that does a quick overview of surfactants).

What you are doing - wiping the label with alcohol is fine. But use 70% or greater isopropyl alcohol (IPA) for the maximum disinfection property. One error to note wrt to last post: VIII.11.3.b The safest sporicidal solution that should be compatible with records to kill mold spores is simple hydrogen peroxide. The one disadvantage is kill-time; 3% = 2.5-hrs while 6% = 1-hr which is the same specified by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/chemical-disinfectants.html.

The reason for applying the Liquinox 1st is that acid is ineffective against oil & greases can shield contaminants underneath. Even though the Citranox has some surfactants, it is not as effective as Liquinox. So, the process follows the industry standard process when using an acid, which is to first degrease the surface then apply the acid. With that in mind, this what I would recommend.

Complete manual sink clean: liquinox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, citranox pre-clean, tap-water rinse, Tergitol 15-S-9 final clean, tap-water rinse, DIW spray rinse, dry. You want to do the whole process since you will clean a batch of records before moving to UT clean, and you do not want dry citranox residue left on the record since it will dry semi-hard and may not rehydrate very quickly. Any Tergitol 15-S-9 residue is the same as a very thin oil and it will dissolve in water very quickly.

Ultrasonic clean: cellulase + 0.015% Tergitol 15-S-9 then DIW rinse. As I said, you want to use the Tergitol 15-S-9 (https://www.talasonline.com/Tergitol-15-S-3-and-15-S-9?quantity=1&size=32&quality=15) as both a wetting agent and to help keep whatever the enzyme digests in solution so it does not reattach to the record.

Beyond the UT-Enzyme-Clean, I see no need for the follow-on acid. If the acid did not remove it during the manual-sink cleaning, that is why you moved to UT + Enzyme. Whatever, UT + Enzyme does not remove, you should accept as groove damage.

Good luck,

Neil

Thank you very much for you time in outlining the procedure that makes most sense to you! I'll try that with most of my remaining records. I guess I wasn't using Tergitol because I didn't understand why it was helpful together with not knowing how to get it. Now I do understand and thank for you explaining.

 

[bibliojim]

In a parallel effort with cleaning the moldy records, I have been cleaning other records that were not subjected to the adverse conditions of the flood. Most of those were bought new by myself and treated pretty well, but some were purchased used from some used record sale(s). I have been playing a few of those after cleaning them with a more normal cleaning procedure recently, and came across a very interesting test case.

The "more normal" procedure I have used is:

quick tap water rinse --> liquinox --> citranox --> extensive water rinse --> distilled water --> air dry --> sleeve --> ultrasonic with mix of triton X-100 and tergikleen --> liquinox --> extensive water rinse --> distilled water --> air dry

Not perfect, I need to at least add the Tergitol rinse after citranox, which is in the works. But that's what I have done for some number of albums.

In general, these records sound excellent if they were bought new by myself. The used records tend to have more scratches than I want to hear.

One of the used records sounds far worse than the others I've listened to. It had more than its share of scratches, but there were lots of ticks, and in many places a rough static-y background sound. In the static-y sections, I envisioned the needle being pulled along grooves lined with extremely fine sandpaper. It wasn't loud, but it was very obvious. Again, this is a record which had already been through the "normal" cleaning procedure I mentioned. As I listened, I suddenly realized the static-y background noise was very similar to, though more extreme than, what I heard on the one-in-eight records I mentioned above in post #7, on a record I had put through the cellulase cleaning, but which needed one more cellulase treatment before it would play cleanly. I wondered if cellulase would improve the sound of this record.

I looked at the record under a 60x loupe. It looked bad. There were essentially no dust particles, I saw these problems:
- numerous scratches
- the vinyl was everywhere covered with a grayish material that looked like it might have been deposited by water because it was in streaks and some of the streaks had quite defined edges. Some of this went into the grooves.
- the vinyl had many places where the black was not covered by the whitish material, but many of those looked like they had something else on it that was slightly brownish.
- I could see in the runout area where there were grayish or whitish streaks that had feathery shapes and edges. These had the appearance of something that might have come out of the vinyl itself.

The gray deposits reminded me a little of what I'd seen on a few of my cleaned moldy records, which I mentioned in post 14, but it was over almost the entire record. I couldn't tell with a 60x loupe if the deposits had a depth to them. The slightly brownish cast to parts of the vinyl reminded me of the same color I'd found on my ex-moldy records, which cellulase had removed.

There is a mystery with this record. The record jacket is in quite good condition. Definitely no sign I could detect from the jacket that it was ever exposed to a water-in-the-basement kind of incident. Yet, what I saw on the record was very similar to what was left on many of my records records that got soaked and moldy, after I cleaned them, but worse. There is a slight scent to the jacket. It is not a moldy smell, but somewhat sweet. Faint, not overpowering. That scent is the same that was in the iSonic record cleaning fluid I have used. I thought that a previous owner tried to clean the record but rinsed with very hard tap water instead of distilled water, wiped it with something that did a very ineffective job of removing the water, and then let it air dry, and that's where the grayish stuff all over the record comes from. And then somebody subsequently tried to clean it again with some chemicals that left the scent in the jacket but could not clean the crap off it so they got rid of it somehow. But that doesn't explain where the brownish stuff would come from. That story is my wild guess, but it's really a mystery of how the record got like that.

I did an experiment with this record:

Step 1 - I washed it "extensively" with acid - citranox with manual hand clean for five minutes per side - then looked at it again, and played it again.
Step 2 - Then I treated it with cellulase as I've described earlier, looked at it again, and played it again.

Results:

Step 1: After the extensive acid wash the record looked like the whitish material might have been partly removed, but similar to my experience in post 14 the whitish material was far from completely removed. In fact, I couldn't swear there was an improvement. I was sure the brownish material was somewhat improved, by perhaps 30% based on appearance and estimation. When I listened to it, at first I thought the static-y background might have been nearly gone, but then it got to a groove where the static suddenly started like crazy - no better than before in intensity - and remained for several turns of the record, at which point I lifted the needle. I concluded the extended acid wash did nothing at all for the static-y background sound. Whether it helped with the whitish coating across the record or with the ticks is debatable. Maybe it did, a little.

Step 2: After I cleaned the record with cellulase, I looked and the whitish material did not seem to be significantly changed, but the brownish material was GONE! Gone, except for one small spot around the size of a nickel where, whatever it is, the material seemed to have been a lot thicker. One caveat, it's hard to look at every square centimeter of a record with a 60x loupe, so when I say "gone" it's more of an impression than a fact. I then listened to the record. I played both sides completely through. The record remained relatively noisy, but there was no spot where I heard the static-y sound as though sand had been poured into the grooves.

Tentative Conclusions:

1. The streaked whitish material across the entire record is the same material I have a little bit of on a few of the records I cleaned using cellulase, and which even extended acid cleaning did not remove well.

2. The brownish material, whatever it is, is a substrate for cellulase, is associated with the static-y sound, and can be removed by treatment with cellulase; and it is the same material I saw in the grooves of very many of my records that got wet and moldy which remained even after I cleaned them with the same or similar "normal" method I mentioned above and which was removed from my records by cellulase.

3. It is not necessary for a record to have been through some nasty flooding experience that one can identify by inspecting the album jacket in order for cleaning with cellulase to be beneficial.

4. Visualization of a colored material, especially with a brownish or dark reddish cast, on the record through a loupe after it has already been cleaned with a normally effective cleaning procedure is an indication that treatment with cellulase may greatly enhance the playability of the record.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Jim:

mix of triton X-100 and tergikleen

There is little or no benefit to adding Triton X100 & Tergikleen. Tergikleen is a nonionic surfactant blend of water-soluble Tergitol 15-S-9 and non-water soluble 15-S-3. Triton X100 is a water-soluble nonionic surfactant. However, surfactant properties can vary and for example there is a property called Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC). Very briefly, this is the concentration when the water surface tension will not decrease any further. When the surfactant concentration exceeds the CMC, the surfactant forms aggregate cylindrical and spherical type structures called “micelles” which are what provide the detergency. Surfactant CMC (and the resulting surface tension) can vary a lot. Triton X-100 CMC is 189-ppm while Tergitol 15-S-9 is only 52-ppm. So, to get any good detergency benefit from the Triton X100 you would need to use 3-5X the CMC which is 0.06 to 0.1%. But Tergitol 15-S-9 is the replacement of Triton X100, each with similar emulsifying properties. So, using both has little if any value.

FYI - I bought REVITALENZ® 2000 https://dyadni.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/TDS-REVITALENZ-2000-2020-FOR-PRINT.pdf which is an endoglucanase type cellulase and did a 30-min 30C warm water sink soak at 2X the recommended concentration with Liquinox at about 2.5% concentration (yielding ~1.25% active) for wetting and some detergency. I had two records with known sleeve rash - these were NOS records that were stored with paper sleeves recalling the inherent problem with paper sleeves are they are not acid-free and will breakdown with time. One of the record jackets had evidence of one-time mold in on corner. Both records had been previously twice acid cleaned. After soaking, each record was then brish washed with the enzyme-Liquinox solution, rinsed, and then acid washed with Citranox and final cleaned with 15-S-9. In both cases, the results were no change; the playback staticky type noise remained and under 40X loop there is some white type of "streaked" detritus in the grooves.

This is just a data point, but under a soak process cellulase does not appear to have any value and somewhat echoes your results.

1. The streaked whitish material across the entire record is the same material I have a little bit of on a few of the records I cleaned using cellulase, and which even extended acid cleaning did not remove well.

I have one more option to remove the white type of "streaked" detritus and that is applying a strong caustic like potassium hydroxide. I just not sure I want to deal with the safety and disposal issues; it reaches the point of not being worth it.

Take care,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

There is little or no benefit to adding Triton X100 & Tergikleen. Tergikleen is a nonionic surfactant blend of water-soluble Tergitol 15-S-9 and non-water soluble 15-S-3. Triton X100 is a water-soluble nonionic surfactant. However, surfactant properties can vary and for example there is a property called Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC). Very briefly, this is the concentration when the water surface tension will not decrease any further. When the surfactant concentration exceeds the CMC, the surfactant forms aggregate cylindrical and spherical type structures called “micelles” which are what provide the detergency. Surfactant CMC (and the resulting surface tension) can vary a lot. Triton X-100 CMC is 189-ppm while Tergitol 15-S-9 is only 52-ppm. So, to get any good detergency benefit from the Triton X100 you would need to use 3-5X the CMC which is 0.06 to 0.1%. But Tergitol 15-S-9 is the replacement of Triton X100, each with similar emulsifying properties. So, using both has little if any value.

I understand what you are saying. Over the weekend I read carefully your information on Final Clean compounds in your publication 3rd edition-Change 1. I realized I am doing something that definitely doesn't make sense based on your publication. The reason I am experimenting with both is because of a URL I read - I didn't bookmark it, unfortunately, and now I can't find it - which says that different sonic benefits were realized for Triton X-100 vs. Tergikleen, in terms of the result in different frequency ranges. They guy saw the same effect on multiple recordings that were cleaned by one versus the other. The guy said he wishes he could find one chemical that would give the benefits of both, and I thought, "Why not clean with both at the same time? Maybe it would give the benefits of both." But ironically I am not set up to listen critically to the results, so I can't make any comments about it or draw any conclusions. And after reading your material much more carefully than I did before, I can see that what I am doing doesn't make much sense, because of the concentrations I am using. I thought if I was going to clean with both I should use half the "single" concentration of each, but because of the way micelles work, I don't think that's the thing to do now. I thank you for bringing the point up, though. I may still try to use both, but not do more with that specifically until I can set up to listen critically to the results and see if it makes a difference. Or if I can even hear the same difference this guy mentioned, at all. I can't think of a reason why there should be an audible differnece between cleaning with one versus the other, where one would be good in one area and the other be good in a different area, but sometimes there are things we don't know that we don't know, and all I can think is that this is one of those things. In any case, I did use both and when I post something here I am going to try to report what I did whether it currently makes sense or not. Otherwise it isn't reproducible. But I certainly get where you are coming from!

 

[Neil.Antin]

I may still try to use both, but not do more with that specifically until I can set up to listen critically to the results and see if it makes a difference. Or if I can even hear the same difference this guy mentioned, at all.

Jim:

Did this "guy" specify the concentrations he was using. If not, his data is at best skeptical; other than the Triton X100 may help to keep the insoluble Tergitol 15-S-3 in solution. Keep in mind without a soluble emulsifying surfactant, Tergitol 15-S-3 that has no CMC is immiscible in water. Note that some history of the development of Tergikleen is discussed in Section IX.9.

Take care,
Neil

 

[bibliojim]

FYI - I bought REVITALENZ® 2000 https://dyadni.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/TDS-REVITALENZ-2000-2020-FOR-PRINT.pdf which is an endoglucanase type cellulase and did a 30-min 30C warm water sink soak at 2X the recommended concentration with Liquinox at about 2.5% concentration (yielding ~1.25% active) for wetting and some detergency. I had two records with known sleeve rash - these were NOS records that were stored with paper sleeves recalling the inherent problem with paper sleeves are they are not acid-free and will breakdown with time. One of the record jackets had evidence of one-time mold in on corner. Both records had been previously twice acid cleaned. After soaking, each record was then brish washed with the enzyme-Liquinox solution, rinsed, and then acid washed with Citranox and final cleaned with 15-S-9. In both cases, the results were no change; the playback staticky type noise remained and under 40X loop there is some white type of "streaked" detritus in the grooves.

This is just a data point, but under a soak process cellulase does not appear to have any value and somewhat echoes your results.


I have one more option to remove the white type of "streaked" detritus and that is applying a strong caustic like potassium hydroxide. I just not sure I want to deal with the safety and disposal issues; it reaches the point of not being worth it.

Take care,

Neil

Interesting to know, Neil.

The whitish stuff is not the stuff that was removed by cellulase when I saw it was making a difference - that was something else. The whitish stuff was not removed. I think that's what you meant, just clarifying. It would be easy to get confusing or contradictory information on here.

I mentioned I have a bunch more records from the same couple of boxes which haven't had any cleaning treatment yet. Maybe I'll get some of the REVITALENZ and see if it removes the reddish stuff which the cellulase I have tried seems to be active against. I'll let you know when I have been able to test that.

I know what you mean about potassium hydroxide. I am familiar with sodium hydroxide, it usually comes in pellets, is hygroscopic and nasty to work with and dispose of just as you mentioned. HOWEVER I saw you mentioned it earlier and I searched and saw on Amazon that one can buy 0.1 M NaOH in bottles. A 0.1 M solution should have a pH of 13. In that form it should be easy to dispose of and easy to use. No danger of accidentally adding water to a jar of NaOH pellets, a nightmare vision I always used to have in my head every time I unscrewed the lid on it when I would have to use it.

I bought some of the 0.1 M solution, it is sitting on my kitchen table. I plan on using it with 1 mM EDTA to see if it will remove the whitish stuff. No point in saying more until I see what it does. I also bought some of the 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 and am waiting for them to arrive before I do any more cleaning of any kind.

0.1 M NaOH Solution

I also bought one of the handheld UV lights you mentioned - thanks for mentioning the exact model. That arrived today and I looked at the two records I have where I noticed the whitish stuff. It doesn't seem to fluoresce that I can see, a pity. I probably should go back through all the records I've cleaned from my disaster collection and see if I can find any others with that stuff on it. There could be some more, I'd like to have more to do tests on.

Thanks Neil