Although I'm in my mid 60s, I just caught the Vinyl audiophile bug--primarily in vintage classical. Although I am a Chemical as well as Electrical Engineer, my career has been in the product/process development of electrochemical glucose sensors for Diabetic patients; recently retiring from Medtronic as the VP of Global Operations. So, beyond a few first principles and only ~ month researching Vinyl and Vinyl cleaning methods, I am mostly ignorant of the subject matter. I was brave enough to engage Neil Antin (quite the Vinyl cleaning geru) and in my second reply to Neil's advice, I queried him on the benefits of QUATs as a thin NVR anti-stat coating step following clean/rinse. Neil indicated that the RCM thread was not the best place for a QUAT discussion, but being that I am new to forum engagement, please forgive me if I have initiated this thread in the wrong place. Let me provide a bit of background reference material that I have come across and then my query to the members so inclined to engage.
In the attached 1960 paper Anti-Static Phonograph Records, G. P. Humfeld, the cationic material Catanac SN is described as an antistatic agent and cationic surfactant (specifically, stearamidopropyldimethyl-l3-hydroxyethylammonium nitrate) manufactured by American Cyanamid Co. Note that Catanac SN has been discontinued due to its aquatic toxicity.
In the attached RCA patent, filed in 1974, 1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) for Vinyl record composition, Methylammonium methosulfate is listed as one of the ingredients which is a type of quaternary ammonium cation (QUAT) that the patent claims was added to the RCA Vinyl formulation for its antistatic properties.
I have stumbled across references to other cationic surfactants, including Quaternary Ammonium Salts that are suggested as beneficial in providing anti-static effects as well as even serving as a stylus lubricant. This suggests an intentional Non Volatilizing Residue (NVR) additive that will migrate from the bulk of the Vinyl polymer to provide a replenishable groove coating to enable the anti-static benefit. And yet, if an anionic surfactant (e.g. in Liquinox) residue remains in the groove, due to insufficient removal in rinsing, that anionic surfactant will cationic surfactant can form a sticky paste type residue; making rinsing off of the anionic surfactant quite critical.
Please share your thoughts on the antistatic benefit(s) of adding a Cationic surfactant coating to a cleaned record? If beneficial (I'm reticent to incorporate into my process) is something like Hepastat 256 (Reference attached MSDS) a good option; appreciating that other non-QUAT additives are in its formulation such as ethoxylated alcohol (CAS 68439-46-3), Sodium EDTA and Sodium metasilicate (Na₂SiO₃)? Other QAUT choices possibly being one of the common Quaternary Ammonium Salts such as alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (ADBAC), benzalkonium chloride (BAC), benzyldimethylammonium chloride (BKC), or dialkyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) or one of the Quaternary Ammonium Salt Type Cationic Surfactants from Sanyo Chemical or possibly Deuteron's LE 292 (reference attached data sheet) which is in a IPA solution.
Here's the provocative question: If a cationic additive that is intentionally left as a hygroscopic (moisture adsorbing) groove coating to mitigate static charge is beneficial; appreciating that RCA intentionally formulated 0.6% Methylammonium methosulfate into their PVC/PVAc resin for its anti-static benefit, then are > 120 KHz Ultrasonic cleaning processes removing this intended coating from the groove surface for the purpose of removing that coating because it contains embedded undesirable particulate, but once removed, we would ideally replace that antistatic coating as a final post clean/rinse restoration step? Hmmm, things that make one go hmmm (Well, at least me)....
In the attached 1960 paper Anti-Static Phonograph Records, G. P. Humfeld, the cationic material Catanac SN is described as an antistatic agent and cationic surfactant (specifically, stearamidopropyldimethyl-l3-hydroxyethylammonium nitrate) manufactured by American Cyanamid Co. Note that Catanac SN has been discontinued due to its aquatic toxicity.
In the attached RCA patent, filed in 1974, 1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) for Vinyl record composition, Methylammonium methosulfate is listed as one of the ingredients which is a type of quaternary ammonium cation (QUAT) that the patent claims was added to the RCA Vinyl formulation for its antistatic properties.
I have stumbled across references to other cationic surfactants, including Quaternary Ammonium Salts that are suggested as beneficial in providing anti-static effects as well as even serving as a stylus lubricant. This suggests an intentional Non Volatilizing Residue (NVR) additive that will migrate from the bulk of the Vinyl polymer to provide a replenishable groove coating to enable the anti-static benefit. And yet, if an anionic surfactant (e.g. in Liquinox) residue remains in the groove, due to insufficient removal in rinsing, that anionic surfactant will cationic surfactant can form a sticky paste type residue; making rinsing off of the anionic surfactant quite critical.
Please share your thoughts on the antistatic benefit(s) of adding a Cationic surfactant coating to a cleaned record? If beneficial (I'm reticent to incorporate into my process) is something like Hepastat 256 (Reference attached MSDS) a good option; appreciating that other non-QUAT additives are in its formulation such as ethoxylated alcohol (CAS 68439-46-3), Sodium EDTA and Sodium metasilicate (Na₂SiO₃)? Other QAUT choices possibly being one of the common Quaternary Ammonium Salts such as alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (ADBAC), benzalkonium chloride (BAC), benzyldimethylammonium chloride (BKC), or dialkyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) or one of the Quaternary Ammonium Salt Type Cationic Surfactants from Sanyo Chemical or possibly Deuteron's LE 292 (reference attached data sheet) which is in a IPA solution.
Here's the provocative question: If a cationic additive that is intentionally left as a hygroscopic (moisture adsorbing) groove coating to mitigate static charge is beneficial; appreciating that RCA intentionally formulated 0.6% Methylammonium methosulfate into their PVC/PVAc resin for its anti-static benefit, then are > 120 KHz Ultrasonic cleaning processes removing this intended coating from the groove surface for the purpose of removing that coating because it contains embedded undesirable particulate, but once removed, we would ideally replace that antistatic coating as a final post clean/rinse restoration step? Hmmm, things that make one go hmmm (Well, at least me)....
