Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained

What exact model of Sonix4 do you have? This was a USA made UT tank and this is best info I can find https://www.interguidedental.com/equipment/instantsearch/result/?q=sonix and https://www.dentalcompare.com/1186-SearchResults/?search=sonix . The operator's manual makes no mention of kHz - https://c1-preview.prosites.com/106982/wy/docs/Installation_Guide-Sonix.pdf
IMG_2489.jpeg
It’s an older ST136H. I know that the Hz here is for the input power, not the transducers. When I bought it, it was specifically listed as being 60kHz, and the second link you provided shows exactly that in the specs (the versions with the H suffix have the built in heater).

It’s worth noting that I can stand next to the unit and not be overly bothered by the sound, my cat too, thus suggesting the higher operating frequency. It also takes was longer to puncture the tin foil, providing the same indication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin
View attachment 131041
It’s an older ST136H. I know that the Hz here is for the input power, not the transducers. When I bought it, it was specifically listed as being 60kHz, and the second link you provided shows exactly that in the specs (the versions with the H suffix have the built in heater).

It’s worth noting that I can stand next to the unit and not be overly bothered by the sound, my cat too, thus suggesting the higher operating frequency. It also takes was longer to puncture the tin foil, providing the same indication.
Well according to this https://www.dentalcompare.com/4720-...Ultrasonic-Cleaners/39318-ST136/?search=sonix, it is 60-kHz but it's also rated 180W, while this specifies 40-kHz https://www.allfordentist.com/st136...nd-timer-basket-and-amp-cover-prd-56654.html; and not make this any more confusing, this post indicates that there was three versions, https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ultrasonic-record-cleaner.218276/post-5459172, a 40-kHz, dual frequency 28/40-kHz and 68-kHz.

Do you have the digital control or the rotary knob control - what does the front look like?
 
The dilemma is trying narrow down what caused the increase in noise in the outer grooves. It easy to blame the UT, but that may not be cause or the only cause. But, @rDin who has and has used the Kirmuss UT ~6.5-L machine which is 35-kHz and ~180-watts (the Kirmuss does spin faster ~1.5-rpm) for single record cleaning in his cleaning regime as pre-clean step before his Degritter and has done spectral analysis same as you, to my knowledge never saw the difference you saw with 60-kHz and 100-W.
Yes, just to confirm that I continue to use the Kirmuss and Degritter, after manual cleaning, and *never* see anything like that added noise. If something is being added my guess would either be chemical residue that hasn't been sufficiently rinsed, or I guess ultrasonic damage of some sort? Anyway, just adding a data point here.

I'd grab a test record with a nice quite intro passage - and record it pre-clean - then clean with distilled only in the ultrasonic - see if noise is added - then if not, move to the chemical cleaning and check again.
 
As I said in my previous post, I had to do a separate rinsing cycle after adding 2ml of Degritter solution due to excessive (to my eyes) foaming. I also washed Degritter with several short cycles and one maintenance cycle with fresh DIW before starting medium cycles with records for rinsing. And immediately I noticed some foam in the water and on records as I was rinsing them! So, if you switch water tanks as Degritter recommends, you would have even more cleaning substance getting to your rinse tank with each cycle.

I’ve ordered a second tank, but now I am not sure I need it. I think a better process would be to do a batch of cleaning first, without drying or maybe add just one minute of drying, put your records on a drying stand, wash your Degritter thoroughly with several cycles of fresh DIW, wash you filter, wash your water tank. And then, put all the previously cleaned records through a rinse cycle with DIW plus IPA with proper drying. And you do not need a separate water tank to do it. What do you guys think? Does it make sense?

Yes it does if you can do the cleaning before the records dry. I would not count on rinsing to free dried particulate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abeidrov
And then, put all the previously cleaned records through a rinse cycle with DIW plus IPA with proper drying.
I sometimes do similar with no ill effects I can hear. I always use the SOAK cycle in the Degritter. The idea being that it allows any dirt to soften before the ultrasonics start. And I run multiple cycles, typically three or four on MEDIUM as I find this really opens up the soundstage. It’s diminishing returns, but I feel it’s worth it. Four x MEDIUM is ~10 minutes of ultrasonics in total. Using MEDIUM+SOAK also allows the water to cool a little such that you can keep running and rarely hit the cooling function.
 
Well according to this https://www.dentalcompare.com/4720-...Ultrasonic-Cleaners/39318-ST136/?search=sonix, it is 60-kHz but it's also rated 180W, while this specifies 40-kHz https://www.allfordentist.com/st136...nd-timer-basket-and-amp-cover-prd-56654.html; and not make this any more confusing, this post indicates that there was three versions, https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ultrasonic-record-cleaner.218276/post-5459172, a 40-kHz, dual frequency 28/40-kHz and 68-kHz.

Do you have the digital control or the rotary knob control - what does the front look like?
It never did look like any photos online. As I understand it, while Sonix4 was a reputable company for a long time (a former Sonix4 engineer started offering custom built machines in that diyaudio thread), the quietly switched to 40kHz machines at a certain point.

I dunno. Maybe mine was never genuine? Or they always shared the wrong photos? It’s challenging getting consistent information.

Anyway, here’s the front of my machine: IMG_2491.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin
Yes, just to confirm that I continue to use the Kirmuss and Degritter, after manual cleaning, and *never* see anything like that added noise. If something is being added my guess would either be chemical residue that hasn't been sufficiently rinsed, or I guess ultrasonic damage of some sort? Anyway, just adding a data point here.

I'd grab a test record with a nice quite intro passage - and record it pre-clean - then clean with distilled only in the ultrasonic - see if noise is added - then if not, move to the chemical cleaning and check again.
FWIW, the rotation is currently 0.6rpm, and I rinse the record IMMEDIATELY after the cleaning process to try to avoid anything being dried in the grooves. But then of course I most recently followed this up with a full Tergitol cleaning and rinse that did nothing. This particular AIVS enzymatic formula is supposed to be a rinse-free formulation.

Dunno, folks. Maybe my machine is bad somehow, but I've owned it so long that I can't exactly get support for it from Sonix4. I can't say that I'm eager to risk another record on these experiments either. And I simply cannot justify the expense of a purpose-built machine like the Degritter, especially since I apparently need a new water heater and my wife bought Yet Another Couch (long story). So, back to the tedious scrubbing with Liquinox and Tergitol dilutions.
 
It never did look like any photos online.
There are similar photos such as https://estatesales.org/online-auctions/sonix-iv-ultrasonic-cleaner-ss-52547997. The question is what is the kHz?

Back when I asked you to do the aluminum foil test, you showed pictures after 1-2 min. The photos show mostly dimpling with a few holes. If it was <60-Hz you would see more than few holes. A 40-kHz machine in a few minutes will punch more than few holes. Checkout this Degritter (120-kHz) aluminum foil test

Someone has checked the AIVS for residue by allowing a few drops to dry on a clean surface and nothing was left behind.

It is possible that the UT is cleaning out debris deep into the grooves that the Liquinox and Tergitol will not touch which is why for manual-sink cleaning I added an acid wash. There is risk when deep cleaning older records. There are aspects that will be better, such as better high frequency replay, but there are also aspects that may not be better such as a higher noise floor. Keep in mind, that under intense magnification, very smooth surfaces such as the record are not perfectly flat. And cartridges with highly profiled styluses (microfine, etc) can better read the surface.

If you decide to continue using your UT tank, first start with only DIW, increase spin speed to 1-rpm and reduce your duration to 10-min.
 
There are similar photos such as https://estatesales.org/online-auctions/sonix-iv-ultrasonic-cleaner-ss-52547997. The question is what is the kHz?

Back when I asked you to do the aluminum foil test, you showed pictures after 1-2 min. The photos show mostly dimpling with a few holes. If it was <60-Hz you would see more than few holes. A 40-kHz machine in a few minutes will punch more than few holes. Checkout this Degritter (120-kHz) aluminum foil test

Someone has checked the AIVS for residue by allowing a few drops to dry on a clean surface and nothing was left behind.

It is possible that the UT is cleaning out debris deep into the grooves that the Liquinox and Tergitol will not touch which is why for manual-sink cleaning I added an acid wash. There is risk when deep cleaning older records. There are aspects that will be better, such as better high frequency replay, but there are also aspects that may not be better such as a higher noise floor. Keep in mind, that under intense magnification, very smooth surfaces such as the record are not perfectly flat. And cartridges with highly profiled styluses (microfine, etc) can better read the surface.

If you decide to continue using your UT tank, first start with only DIW, increase spin speed to 1-rpm and reduce your duration to 10-min.
Yeah, the "only dimpling" (mostly) and less obnoxious noise level was the main reason I didn't second guess it being 60kHz. And yes, I do use a MicroLine stylus (Audio Technica AT33PTG/II). If I find a record I don't mind risking in another test, I'll try the faster rotation and plain distilled or deionized water for the shorter duration as a power rinse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin
Interesting... So they're dipping further into chemistry, and borrowing some tech from the AudioDesk for a new monster machine? As if their existing machine weren't already prohibitively expensive!

Also interesting that they include the chemical details of their new cleaning solution at 4:46 in the video. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that, @Neil.Antin !

 
  • Like
Reactions: rDin
OK, at long last I finally tried a faster rotation (1rpm), shorter cycle (10 minutes), with just plain distilled water from CVS, with 2 records, starting bath temp 80F, ending temp about 82F. The difference is subtle but significant. On a 45 year old album that I'd cleaned twice with the Liquinox/rinse/Tergitol 15-S-9/rinse process on my vacuum RCM, the ultrasonic power rinse (and quick rinse/vac afterward) didn't remove any more clicks, but it did sound as though the overall noise floor was lowered, and some sounds that seemed over-driven and harsh previously felt more natural and less distorted. It's subtle to be sure, but does seem like an improvement. There's no visible difference in the waveform other than some occasional clicks seeming less prominent.

One curious negative of sorts is that whatever was removed by the ultrasonic power rinse must have been whatever there was left from the Tergitol clean that provided anti-static properties, as this power rinsed version was loaded with static after just a quick vacuum, then again after playback the record wanted to stay stuck to the platter in a way that I haven't experienced in quite some time. And that's AFTER blasting it with the Milty Zerostat after the final rinse/vac pass.

I'll try some more examples as time allows from my recent recording passes. It's good at least that 1rpm and 2 records for 10 minutes avoids any groove damage in the outer grooves!
 
One curious negative of sorts is that whatever was removed by the ultrasonic power rinse must have been whatever there was left from the Tergitol clean that provided anti-static properties, as this power rinsed version was loaded with static after just a quick vacuum, then again after playback the record wanted to stay stuck to the platter in a way that I haven't experienced in quite some time. And that's AFTER blasting it with the Milty Zerostat after the final rinse/vac pass.
Depending on your exact vacuum-RCM cleaning procedure - what concentrations were you using, and did you rinse between the Liquinox and Tergitol it is possible to leave some cleaner surfactant residue, and any surfactant residue can act as an anti-static since they are all hygroscopic to varying degrees. See the latest version of the book Chapter XIII and read the section XIII.5 Importance of Rinsing for testing that was done that showed the blower style vacuum-RCM does not remove all fluid from the surface - some is evaporated/dried in-place.

Although curious, you did not mention static as an issue when you previously cleaned records with your UT tank. But depending on your environment and how dry you got the record when you rinsed vacuumed dry, there is always the risk of inadvertently developing static.
 
Depending on your exact vacuum-RCM cleaning procedure - what concentrations were you using, and did you rinse between the Liquinox and Tergitol it is possible to leave some cleaner surfactant residue, and any surfactant residue can act as an anti-static since they are all hygroscopic to varying degrees. See the latest version of the book Chapter XIII and read the section XIII.5 Importance of Rinsing for testing that was done that showed the blower style vacuum-RCM does not remove all fluid from the surface - some is evaporated/dried in-place.

Although curious, you did not mention static as an issue when you previously cleaned records with your UT tank. But depending on your environment and how dry you got the record when you rinsed vacuumed dry, there is always the risk of inadvertently developing static.
Yes, I rinse and agitate after each cleaning fluid pass, including between the Liquinox and Tergitol steps. But I generally just do a single rinse pass after the Tergitol. And no, I didn't notice static when I'd used the ultrasonic previously, though then I was using the AIVS Enzymatic for Ultrasonic fluid. Perhaps the extra turn or two of the clamp for the rotation to keep things tight made it worse? Dunno. It's not THAT dry in my basement/audio area. *shrug*
 
I'm posting this method of removing mold here as it requires use of an ultrasonic cleaner. I have not seen this method mentioned elsewhere, though there is plenty I have not seen.
I have read multiple times that it "may not be possible" to remove mold from records if it has been there for a long time. I can vouch that this is true, with a caveat. I had two boxes of records on the floor in a basement that got a bit of water in it during a flood. I didn't realize there had been water in the basement for three months, and when I finally discovered it I was too sick about the records to even open the boxes. About six years later I finally had time and energy to try to clean them up. They were as bad as I feared. I used the hand-wash method Neil Antin published, even doing the whole sequence twice, and it did not fully remove the mold. I used an ultrasonic cleaner and it did not remove the mold. I soaked records in water overnight with a label protector and wetting agent followed by a round of hand-cleaning and then ultrasonic cleaner, and it did not remove the mold. To be accurate, the mold seemed to be completely removed from most records with the simple hand wash. Some remained on about 20% of the records with any of those methods.
To identify presence of mold - thoroughly dried by this time on most of the records - I was using a 60x jeweler's loupe. The mold clung to the insides of the grooves and was readily visible in the grooves.
However, I hit upon a method that did remove the mold and it seems worth sharing.
A significant portion of mold cell walls - I think I read about 25% - is cellulose. I bought some Laboratory Grade cellulase from Carolina Biological Supply Company. Quantity 25 grams. What I purchased has an optimal temperature of 70-degrees C and optimal pH of 5.0. The 70-degrees C is out of the question for vinyl records. I bought some sodium acetate and created a 0.1 M acetate buffer with pH approximately 5.0. After degassing the water in the USC, I added 1 gram of the cellulase to the USC at 35-degrees C, with the water bath containing 15 liters of distilled water and three capfuls of record cleaning fluid for USC from iSonic. I ran the USC for two minutes at a time, a little over one full record revolution. I let the records spin at normal slow speed in the enzyme bath for ten minutes, then ran the sonication for two minutes, then spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, etc. I did this for ten cycles. Afterwards I removed the records from the USC bath one at time and rinsed them in a sink under running tap water. I saw that as the records spun for a long time in the bath evaporation would tend to deposit some material on the vinyl, so the sink rinse became one quick cleaning round of liquinox scrubbed in the sink by hand, followed by sufficiently long tap water rinse, followed by distilled water spray, then submerge in a separate bath of ultrapure water, then put on a rack to dry.
Following the cellulase treatment using the method I just described, there was no longer mold visible in the grooves when viewed with the 60x loupe.
The purpose of the cycling is to repeatedly give the enzyme a new surface to act on. The grooves were packed with mold to the depth of the grooves. The enzyme can only act on what the water can get at. I imagined that the mold was fairly impervious to water or it would have come out after overnight soaking followed by hand scrubbing and USC. The mold cell walls are only 25% cellulose, so I picture the cell walls becoming greatly weakened at the surface where the enzyme can act, but still hanging together due to the portion of the cell walls that are not cellulose. I hoped that once the cell walls were weakened at the surface the sonication would now be able to blast the weakened portions away from the remaining mass in the grooves, and luckily it seemed to work out that way. I did not look into the minimum number of cycles needed, different lengths of cycles or resting time, etc.
I experimented with doing the same thing without adjusting the pH and the enzyme did seem slightly less effective, which can be remedied by giving it extra time to work on the mold between the two-minute sessions. Or alternatively, by using more of the enzyme in the water bath.
I also experimented with using only 0,5 grams of cellulase. That seemed to be just as effective.
One might wonder about the effect of cellulase on the paper record labels, if the label gets wet from water containing the enzyme while the records are spinning. It's a valid concern. I cleaned about eighty records this way on a USC that does not do a good job of protecting the labels and didn't notice labels being damaged, but it only makes sense to avoid getting the labels wet from the bath as much as possible.
There are some enzymatic cleaning solutions; I noticed Neil Antin's publication says cellulase is usually not included as one of the enzymes in these solutions. However, some may contain cellulase and work in the same way as what I found. Some enzymes may work on other components of the mold cell walls; I have no information on that.
I should mention that this method leaves mold spores in the USC cleaning bath. If the records are sufficiently rinsed it shouldn't affect the records, but I stuck to strictly cleaning batches of moldy records, changed the contents of the bath "fairly often", and made sure I cleaned it well before I cleaned any other records that had not been moldy. Filling the bath with a 6% solution of hydrogen peroxide for one hour should do a pretty good job of killing the mold spores in the USC. You can get gallons of 12% hydrogen peroxide on amazon.com. Keep in mind that mold spores are everywhere anyway.
The enzyme I got from Carolina Biological Supply said it was for teaching purposes only, and might not be what they sell now. The strength of the enzyme I got varies drastically from batch to batch according to the assay paper that came with the bottle, and the exact number of enzyme activity units I got from 1 gram cannot be determined from the information on the bottle. Therefore, if someone else tries this method and gets enzyme with a much lower number of activity units per gram, a proportionally greater amount of enzyme would be needed to get precisely the same results I did.
If nothing else, please consider this post a lesson to fulfill the unspoken contract to use the material for teaching purposes.
I was focused on removing the mold from my records, and not on determining the most efficient and effective use of this method. I'm sure there are opportunities for improvement. I hope someone will find this useful!
 
Last edited:
Thank you bibliojim for your interesting contribution about cleaning moldy records.

It sounds like your approach was to expose the moldy record to the cellulase enzyme to break down the cellulose (mold) then to 'peel off' the broken down cellulose in succesive layers with the ultrasonic action across multiple cycles. I have a couple questions and a couple suggestions.

I ran the USC for two minutes at a time, a little over one full record revolution. I let the records spin at normal slow speed in the enzyme bath for ten minutes, then ran the sonication for two minutes, then spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, etc. I did this for ten cycles.

If I understand correctly one cycle in your description include 10 minutes of rotation to expose the record to the enzyme without ultrasonic cavitation followed by 2 minutes of ultrasonic cavitation -- so 12 minutes total for a cycle. You ran 10 cycles, so 120 minutes per record. Is that correct ?

Do you know what surfactant is in the Isonic solution?

My suggestions are: to include the url/address to the page at the Carolina Biological Supply Company that offers the cellulase. And to edit your post to include white space between paragraphs for ease of reading.

Fwiw, I found this recipe for making a 0.1 M acetate buffer with pH approximately 5.0.

Thanks again.

PS - another thought. You might consider making your write-up into its own post -- maybe something like 'Cleaning Moldy Records'. It is a specialized topic that deserves a dedicated post which will make it easier to find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holmz
I'm posting this method of removing mold here as it requires use of an ultrasonic cleaner. I have not seen this method mentioned elsewhere, though there is plenty I have not seen.
I have read multiple times that it "may not be possible" to remove mold from records if it has been there for a long time. I can vouch that this is true, with a caveat. I had two boxes of records on the floor in a basement that got a bit of water in it during a flood. I didn't realize there had been water in the basement for three months, and when I finally discovered it I was too sick about the records to even open the boxes. About six years later I finally had time and energy to try to clean them up. They were as bad as I feared. I used the hand-wash method Neil Antin published, even doing the whole sequence twice, and it did not fully remove the mold. I used an ultrasonic cleaner and it did not remove the mold. I soaked records in water overnight with a label protector and wetting agent followed by a round of hand-cleaning and then ultrasonic cleaner, and it did not remove the mold. To be accurate, the mold seemed to be completely removed from most records with the simple hand wash. Some remained on about 20% of the records with any of those methods.
To identify presence of mold - thoroughly dried by this time on most of the records - I was using a 60x jeweler's loupe. The mold clung to the insides of the grooves and was readily visible in the grooves.
However, I hit upon a method that did remove the mold and it seems worth sharing.
A significant portion of mold cell walls - I think I read about 25% - is cellulose. I bought some Laboratory Grade cellulase from Carolina Biological Supply Company. Quantity 25 grams. What I purchased has an optimal temperature of 70-degrees C and optimal pH of 5.0. The 70-degrees C is out of the question for vinyl records. I bought some sodium acetate and created a 0.1 M acetate buffer with pH approximately 5.0. After degassing the water in the USC, I added 1 gram of the cellulase to the USC at 35-degrees C, with the water bath containing 15 liters of distilled water and three capfuls of record cleaning fluid for USC from iSonic. I ran the USC for two minutes at a time, a little over one full record revolution. I let the records spin at normal slow speed in the enzyme bath for ten minutes, then ran the sonication for two minutes, then spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, spin again for ten minutes, sonication again for two minutes, etc. I did this for ten cycles. Afterwards I removed the records from the USC bath one at time and rinsed them in a sink under running tap water. I saw that as the records spun for a long time in the bath evaporation would tend to deposit some material on the vinyl, so the sink rinse became one quick cleaning round of liquinox scrubbed in the sink by hand, followed by sufficiently long tap water rinse, followed by distilled water spray, then submerge in a separate bath of ultrapure water, then put on a rack to dry.
Following the cellulase treatment using the method I just described, there was no longer mold visible in the grooves when viewed with the 60x loupe.
The purpose of the cycling is to repeatedly give the enzyme a new surface to act on. The grooves were packed with mold to the depth of the grooves. The enzyme can only act on what the water can get at. I imagined that the mold was fairly impervious to water or it would have come out after overnight soaking followed by hand scrubbing and USC. The mold cell walls are only 25% cellulose, so I picture the cell walls becoming greatly weakened at the surface where the enzyme can act, but still hanging together due to the portion of the cell walls that are not cellulose. I hoped that once the cell walls were weakened at the surface the sonication would now be able to blast the weakened portions away from the remaining mass in the grooves, and luckily it seemed to work out that way. I did not look into the minimum number of cycles needed, different lengths of cycles or resting time, etc.
I experimented with doing the same thing without adjusting the pH and the enzyme did seem slightly less effective, which can be remedied by giving it extra time to work on the mold between the two-minute sessions. Or alternatively, by using more of the enzyme in the water bath.
I also experimented with using only 0,5 grams of cellulase. That seemed to be just as effective.
One might wonder about the effect of cellulase on the paper record labels, if the label gets wet from water containing the enzyme while the records are spinning. It's a valid concern. I cleaned about eighty records this way on a USC that does not do a good job of protecting the labels and didn't notice labels being damaged, but it only makes sense to avoid getting the labels wet from the bath as much as possible.
There are some enzymatic cleaning solutions; I noticed Neil Antin's publication says cellulase is usually not included as one of the enzymes in these solutions. However, some may contain cellulase and work in the same way as what I found. Some enzymes may work on other components of the mold cell walls; I have no information on that.
I should mention that this method leaves mold spores in the USC cleaning bath. If the records are sufficiently rinsed it shouldn't affect the records, but I stuck to strictly cleaning batches of moldy records, changed the contents of the bath "fairly often", and made sure I cleaned it well before I cleaned any other records that had not been moldy. Filling the bath with a 6% solution of hydrogen peroxide for one hour should do a pretty good job of killing the mold spores in the USC. You can get gallons of 12% hydrogen peroxide on amazon.com. Keep in mind that mold spores are everywhere anyway.
The enzyme I got from Carolina Biological Supply said it was for teaching purposes only, and might not be what they sell now. The strength of the enzyme I got varies drastically from batch to batch according to the assay paper that came with the bottle, and the exact number of enzyme activity units I got from 1 gram cannot be determined from the information on the bottle. Therefore, if someone else tries this method and gets enzyme with a much lower number of activity units per gram, a proportionally greater amount of enzyme would be needed to get precisely the same results I did.
If nothing else, please consider this post a lesson to fulfill the unspoken contract to use the material for teaching purposes.
I was focused on removing the mold from my records, and not on determining the most efficient and effective use of this method. I'm sure there are opportunities for improvement. I hope someone will find this useful!
Thank you for posting your experience.
For me, by the time a record has this much of a mold problem, I will toss it unless it is VALUABLE.
There is risk with keeping such records and in my experience, by the time a record has had a mold issue for an extended amount of time there is usually just too much damage to the vinyl to save it.
Over time mold will eat into the vinyl and I imagine with the amount of mold issues you had and it contaminating the records for 6 years that the vinyl must have had damage.
 
Thank you for posting your experience.
For me, by the time a record has this much of a mold problem, I will toss it unless it is VALUABLE.
There is risk with keeping such records and in my experience, by the time a record has had a mold issue for an extended amount of time there is usually just too much damage to the vinyl to save it.
Over time mold will eat into the vinyl and I imagine with the amount of mold issues you had and it contaminating the records for 6 years that the vinyl must have had damage.
No damage is visible, at least. I should probably start to play them, but my system isn't really in order right now. But I played one that had been especially bad and it sounded perfect. Two possibilities: 1) There are different types of mold (mildew in my case, technically) and maybe some don't do damage 2) What one thinks is long-term damage from mold may be mold that is still adhering to the grooves because it really didn't get cleaned up. You can't see what's going on at the detail level without a higher-powered microscope than pretty much anyone has. I definitely agree it takes a lot of time and dedication to clean these records up and it has to be important to you, for whatever reason, to get the records back in good shape. Sometimes that's the case. This is a unique way of getting rid of the mold and theoretically rather surgical (similar to some kind of specific monoclonal antibody treatment for cancer, if that makes sense), and it probably should have more consideration than assuming the results are the same as for any other way to get rid of mold. I'll test a few more of the records on my backup system and see if they all sound good, and try to mention what I find here. If the typical results are actually vinyl damage you are right, but it could be, as I said, that what one normally winds up with is not actually vinyl damage. Just a possibility.
 
I used the hand-wash method Neil Antin published, even doing the whole sequence twice, and it did not fully remove the mold.
To be accurate, the mold seemed to be completely removed from most records with the simple hand wash. Some remained on about 20% of the records with any of those methods.

Thank-you for adding the details of what worked for you, understanding that the book https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/ does address killing mold with hydrogen peroxide VIII.11.3 MOLD, and 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.

I would like to add, that when dealing with mold, a manual sink-method should be the first pre-clean step to minimize getting the mold airborne.

A couple of questions though and these are not criticisms, just trying to nail the details:

1. When you say mold, you specifically identify mildew; were the records dry or still wet?
2. When you did the manual sink method, did you use the acid and if so which one?
3. What were the record inner sleeves - where they paper or better-quality HDPE?
4. Using the 60X jewelers' loop, how were you able to distinguish mold from other detritus?

Again, thanks for sharing,

Neil
 
Thank-you for adding the details of what worked for you, understanding that the book https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/ does address killing mold with hydrogen peroxide VIII.11.3 MOLD, and 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.

I would like to add, that when dealing with mold, a manual sink-method should be the first pre-clean step to minimize getting the mold airborne.

A couple of questions though and these are not criticisms, just trying to nail the details:

1. When you say mold, you specifically identify mildew; were the records dry or still wet?
2. When you did the manual sink method, did you use the acid and if so which one?
3. What were the record inner sleeves - where they paper or better-quality HDPE?
4. Using the 60X jewelers' loop, how were you able to distinguish mold from other detritus?

Again, thanks for sharing,

Neil
Here is the full information, including answers to your questions, and also what I got from listening to the records.
Answers:
1) The records started in a couple of cardboard boxes, bottom seams on the bottom of the box and hence basically on the cement floor. Water came into the basement, pretty shallow, maybe 1/4" or 1/2" and then went away, and the boxes remained undisturbed for three months. I then went in the basement and realized what had happened, and I turned the boxes on their sides so they could dry out a little bit, but I did not open the boxes. Six years later I opened the boxes and took the records out. Everything was dry after that period of time. Record jacket that did not have the cellophane on them were stuck together. But records that had the cellophane on them had trapped moisture inside for a long time and still got mildew. The mildew sometimes was blotchy on the covers. Inside, records with no inner sleeve were very bad with nildew and a very few seemed to have cardboard fibers stuck to the vinyl. If there was a paper sleeve, the mildew was equally bad but at least it came out of the jacket easily enough, or I could tear the jacket open and get it out. If there was a high-quality HDPE sleeve similar to mobile fidelity sleeves, on a very few records I couldn't see any mildew, but for the most part I could still see at least small patches of mildew. HDPE sleeves definitely helped, but could not actually prevent a mildew problem in this severe scenario. A few of the records were still sealed - and they still almost always had at least a touch of mildew on the inside. I think out of about 100 records so far, two records that happened to have been still sealed and also had HDPE inner sleeves survived "mildew-free", judging strictly by lack of odor on the vinyl and no visible patches of gray on the surface. This much was by simple visual inspection, the mildew was plain to see before any cleaning. Regarding dry or still wet - I didn't pull the records apart and immediately clean them. I pulled them apart and set them leaning against a wall in a corner for months before I actually started trying to clean them. If they weren't totally dry inside the box, they dried out over those months leaning loosely against the wall.
I am identifying mildew - it wasn't fuzzy, it was more or less grayish and everything had a musty smell if there was any mildew on it anywhere. It was dry - but any kind of fungal spores can remain viable a long time even in the absence of water. And the stuff actually has a "body" which is like tubes growing around, I'm sure you've seen electron micrographs. I suppose that as it becomes dessicated material in the cell walls remains, and if there were polysaccharies or such they get "crisp" and sort of cemented together. This is just conjecture on my part, though.
2) Using vinyl gloves, I initially used 95% isopropyl alcohol on cotton balls and lightly wiped the labels. The mildew and water had severely damaged some of the labels, but most looked OK after that light wiping. I did not press hard or scrub, it was just light wiping. I tried hard not to grab the record where there were patches of (old) mildew visible. Most of the mildew was towards one edge of each record, the edge that had been on the floor.
After wiping the labels on both sides of an album I waited a few seconds for the alcohol to evaporate, then Immediately put a label protector on, again trying not to disturb the mildew areas where the spores were, and went to the sink. I ran water over both sides of the record, not with so much force that it was splashing all over the place, again trying to keep the spores in the sink and going down the drain. That does not do a great job of dislodging visible patches of mildew. I ran the record brush around each side of the record several times to get rid of visible mildew. Then I cleaned with liquinox, then with citranox. When you ask, "Which one" was the acid, it was citranox at the recommended dilution. I was turning the record quite slowly, so the brush went over a particular spot maybe 30 times in each direction.
3) It was quite a varied group of records, a few with no inner sleeves, most with paper, some with original HDPE sleeves, such as Reference Recordings and Mobile Fidelity releases. I mentioned differences in rought appearance depending on sleeve type above.
4) With the jeweler's loupe, after the liquinox/citranox/distilled water rinse/dry, I looked at different areas of the record carefully. Of course there was nothing "loose" on the record surface any more at that point. I could not literally see "tubes" of mold at that low level of magnification, but what I could see was the grooves. Over most of the album the grooves simply looked black, maybe shiny and broken up where light was reflecting off them. But there would be areas of grooves that appeared brownish under the LED on the loupe. Where there was brown stuff in the grooves, I could follow it along the groove and see where it came to an end; and generally if there was that stuff in one groove, it was also in the adjacent groove. However, it was somewhat broken up, i.e. there might be some millimeters of groove with no brown stuff, then a millimeter or two of black "free" area, then more brown stuff. And on the opposite end of the record that had presumably been away from the floor, it was clear. Many of the records had only a few small areas of that stuff after the sink cleaning. On some, I couldn't even find any - but it's not possible to cover every square millimeter of a record with a 60x loupse, as you can imagine. Telling the difference between mildew in the grooves and other detritus in the grooves just by using a loupe probably isn't possible - but whatever it was, it looked pretty much the same on all the records where I found it.
One very interesting thing I noticed. After spraying the records with distilled water after the final tap water rinse, all areas of the record looked the same. But when I wiped it with the clean-room sponge you have recommended, it was obvious that not everything had come off. I have found that fingerprints look a certain way, But the mildew had often been on the record in visible wavy patterns when I removed the vinyl from the inner sleeve - I suppose the waviness corresponded to areas where moisture had remained for longer, or something. Anyway, after cleaning and wiping the records with the sponge, I could sometimes see the same wavy pattern in the moisture reflections off the record. And so I correlate what was remaining on the record with where the mildew had been.
After I did that sink wash of quite a few records I saw they weren't coming clean but I was not really done anyway. I had already planned on treating them with hydrogen peroxide. I put them on the spindle ten at a time and put 3% hydrogen peroxide in the US in 1% ilfotol and just let them spin for a couple of hours. Then I turned on the sonication (40 Khz) for 15 minutes. After that I took them back to the sink and did another full round of liquinox on both sides and rinsed again. I looked closely at the records with a loupe again and some of the records seemed free of mildew (?) in the grooves at that point, and others did not. I didn't fully trust that any of them were fine because looking with a loupe is too limiting. I did separate them into two groups though. The hydrogen peroxide probably killed the mold, but it did not clear the dead stuff from the grooves.
I got some 4" x 14" x 14" plastic containers and soaked two still-dirty records overnight and then immediately ran them through the USC followed by liquinox again. I'd look at them and would often see there was still stuff in the grooves. The soaking did seem to help, but not enough. I tried the soaking followed by USC & liquinox on about 40 or records before I decided it wasn't helping enough and I definitely had to try something else.
At that point all the records from the two groups went back into the same mental grouping of "not cleaned well enough". I did not try to play any of them yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin
Thank-you for adding the details of what worked for you, understanding that the book https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/ does address killing mold with hydrogen peroxide VIII.11.3 MOLD, and 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.

I would like to add, that when dealing with mold, a manual sink-method should be the first pre-clean step to minimize getting the mold airborne.

A couple of questions though and these are not criticisms, just trying to nail the details:

1. When you say mold, you specifically identify mildew; were the records dry or still wet?
2. When you did the manual sink method, did you use the acid and if so which one?
3. What were the record inner sleeves - where they paper or better-quality HDPE?
4. Using the 60X jewelers' loop, how were you able to distinguish mold from other detritus?

Again, thanks for sharing,

Neil
I found a source for the cellulase with the thought and hope, as I mentioned before, that if the crap in the grooves was caked-on mildew the cellulase might loosen it. I began to go through the records 10 at a time and treated them with the cellulase as I mentioned in my previous message. Now when I wiped the records with a sponge there were no more wavy patterns or big blotchy patterns, and when I looked for crap in the grooves with a loupe I couldn't find any. More than not being able to see any more crap in the grooves with a loupe, I trusted the absence of any of the patterns I had been seeing before in the sponge wipe step as evidence that the vinyl had been cleaned up, and the loupe was confirmation of that. Interesting, I did sometimes still see what looked like fingerprint marks immediatley after running the sponge over them, which was interesting (and frustrating). But those marks are small and circular - I am sure you know exactly what they look like! - very different from what I saw from the mildew. None of the earlier treatments had yielded very much change in the pattern left after sponging them dry, but suddenly the pattern was gone.
I need to add that with the first batch of ten records I treated with cellulase and ten cycles of 10-minute spin then sonicate, I was taking the records off one at a time and cleaning them one more time in the sink, and I noticed that as I moved down the spindle, i.e. started removing records that had been spinning on the spindle for a longer amount of time after the last 2-minute sonication, the sponge wipe patterns got cleaner and cleaner, i.e. there were at least slight water patterns after the sponge wipe for the first two or three records, and after that I had a sense that the patterns got even lighter and by the time I got to the last three or four records the sponge wipe pattern was perfect. So after that first batch of cellulase treatment I have tried to let the records just spin in the bath with cellulase plus wetting agent for two hours beyond the last sonication treatment, before I even start to do the final clean under the sink. That definitely makes a positive difference and usually the sponge wipe pattern on the first record I remove is perfect except possibly for what appears to be from a fingerprint.
I should also add that initially I was using an inexpensive USB that only had a 40 Khz sonication speed, but before I started using the cellulase I bought a better one that supports 40 Khz, 80 Khz, and 120 Khz, and still allows up to 18 discs to be sonicated at once in a 15L bath. With the cellulase, I ran about the first six cycles at 80 Khz and the last four cycles at 120 Khz. I did this because the literature for the USB said 40 Khz is best for particular matter like dust (which I had already cleaned off), 80 Khz was good for smaller particles like mold, and 120 Khz will produce sonication bubbles small enough to fit inside the grooves and help remove even chemical residues. I reasoned the mildew crap was down in the grooves and it might work best to get the force closer to the remaining stuff in the grooves as what was higher up in the grooves was eaten away. But that's purely a guess; it's just what I did.
After I cleaned about 80 of the records with cellulase I took a Reference Recordings record that had been literally unplayed. This was one of the albums which, despite a decent inner sleeve, even had had what originally looked to me like some mineral deposit or something on it - it was a whitish color and it looked like somebody had dipped the record vertically in an inch-deep solution of something which had left a deposit on the record. What that actually was, I cannot say. Plus there had been mildew on it. This was the record I chose for a first play test. I thought I would hear some kind of noise from where it was still discolored, but I could hardly believe it, the entire record played with absolutely no background noise, it was beautiful. No hint that there had ever been anything going on with it as far as I could tell from listening, even with all that messing around with it trying to get it clean. But I didn't have a side-by-side copy to compare against. What I know is, there was no background sound and it sounded really nice to me.
Since my last note I have listened to both sides of eight of these records. Some had only a few spots of visible mildew when I pulled them out of their sleeves before cleaning, but most had more than just a few spots. One of them yielded a very telling experience. This record, which I specifically recall had been badly covered by the mildew over about 50% of the record surface and whose label had been accordingly damaged more than most as well, did not sound perfectly clean. In some areas of the record, I heard what sounded like static in the background. It was either literal destruction of the vinyl having been "eaten" by the mildew, or else the cellulase and USB had not sufficiently removed everything from the record. I have a hypothesis, that there is no such thing is mold or mildew "eating" vinyl, or destroying vinyl, but that all bad sounds created from mold/mildew come from inadequately removing the stuff from the grooves. I can't truly prove the hypothesis. However, based on the hypothesis, one would logically see if additional cellulase treatment would remove the last of the mildew leftovers and the static would disappear. I took this record and put it through ten more cycles of 2-minute sonication with cellulase separated by 10 minutes of spinning in the bath (and followed up by over two hours of continued spinning in the bath with cellulase and, as I had started doing with the cellulase treatments, also Triton X-100 (not ilfotol). After that second cellulase treatment, I played again, and there was no static. That supports my hypothesis that mold does not destroy vinyl and all you have to do is clean it effectively. But that takes a lot. What I did appears to clean it effectively. As to the other seven records I tested this week, none played with any static. I had specifically chosen records I knew had not been played more than two or three times at most after I got them years ago and *should* play as quietly and perfectly as any brand-new record that has been cleaned. I felt they all met that standard.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu