Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained

[Neil.Antin]

Neil,

that is very helpful indeed...thanks so much! With respect to the Polysorbate 20, is there only one grade suitable for all uses including cleaning records? Is there a recommended dilution for ultrasonic record cleaners and would I need a distilled water rinse after cleaning?

thanks again,
Ken

Ken,

Whatever 'grade' of Polysorbate 20 you buy (food grade or cosmetic) will be fine for record cleaning. As far as dilution and use for the HG - do exactly what is specified for Tergitol 15-S-9 https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/humminguru-an-inexpensive-desktop-rcm.32074/post-786132. You are substituting Polysorbate 20 for Tergitol 15-S-9. Pick the concentration and the effect you want. If want only wetting you can skip the rinse, if you want detergency then you want to rinse.

Neil

 

[tima]

@Neil.Antin - What is the issue with Tergitol 15-S-9 and Canada? Is not allowed for import? Thanks.

 

[Kenc]

Neil, thanks for your followup!

Tim, shipping from the US for one bottle varies from 48 to 66 USD depending on the method.
I could possibly source it here but I'm not sure its worth the effort at this point.

 

[Kingrex]

Hello Neil.
You helped me put together my cleaning process. This is what I landed on.
I have a Kirmuss machine. I shoot for about 5 drops of Tergitol in the Kirmuss tank. I take 2 dirty 12 inch records, put them in the tank and run it for a couple minutes.

I pull the first record and clamp it in the label protector. The I spray the record with 1.5 tsp to a quart mix of Alconox. I then use the Record Doctor brush and use a quick hand motion to creat small bubbles and go around both sides of the record twice for a out 40 seconds a side.
I then rinse the record with the Zero water filter, take it out of the label protector and put it back in the same Kitmuss ultrasonic tank for maybe 4 to 5 more minutes while I clean the other.

Finally I remove the record from the Kirmuss and drop it into a Spinclean with Zero water in it, and cycle it around both directions about 3 or 4 time.

I then put it on the table and use a tiger cloth to dry, then into the rack.

Do you see any issues or where to improve upon.

The Kirmuss is full of Zerowater, with the Tergitol.

I wear gloves the whole time.
Rex.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Hello Neil.
You helped me put together my cleaning process. This is what I landed on.
I have a Kirmuss machine. I shoot for about 5 drops of Tergitol in the Kirmuss tank. I take 2 dirty 12 inch records, put them in the tank and run it for a couple minutes.

I pull the first record and clamp it in the label protector. The I spray the record with 1.5 tsp to a quart mix of Alconox. I then use the Record Doctor brush and use a quick hand motion to creat small bubbles and go around both sides of the record twice for a out 40 seconds a side.
I then rinse the record with the Zero water filter, take it out of the label protector and put it back in the same Kitmuss ultrasonic tank for maybe 4 to 5 more minutes while I clean the other.

Finally I remove the record from the Kirmuss and drop it into a Spinclean with Zero water in it, and cycle it around both directions about 3 or 4 time.

I then put it on the table and use a tiger cloth to dry, then into the rack.

Do you see any issues or where to improve upon.

The Kirmuss is full of Zerowater, with the Tergitol.

I wear gloves the whole time.
Rex.

Hi Rex:

Nice process you have put together. Here some items to consider.

1. 5-drops of Tergitol 15-S-9 is about 0.3-ml and the Kirmuss tank is about 6-L, so (0.3ml/6000ml)100% = 0.005% = 50 ppm. At this concentration you get wetting and nothing else - no detergency. Since you are doing a final rinse with the SpinClean and Zero-water, try increasing the Tergitol 15-S-9 in the Kirmuss to 15-drops to get detergency, but not sure what you are using for an eyedropper. You may want to consider the Nalgene Dropper Bottle - Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store to improve the precision of how much you add. The Nalgene Dropper Bottle delivers a precise 0.04-ml/drop, so for 50-ppm wetting only you would add 8-drops' of undiluted Tergitol; for ~135-ppm detergency you would add 20-drops of undiluted Tergitol.

2. 1-1/2 teaspoons = 7.4-ml per 946-ml (1-qt) = 0.78%. This OK. I generally recommend 1%, but the small difference is consequential so nothing to change here.

3. The SpinClean with Zero-water. Here is an option to speed up drying; if you buy two Nalgene Dropper Bottles, use one with Tergitol diluted to 25% with DIW (fill 1/4-full with Tergitol, and then fill full with DIW) and then with the SpinClean holding about 650-ml DIW add 1-drop of the 25% Tergitol. This will get you ~15-ppm enough for some wetting but at such a low concentration not to be a residue risk. The tiny amount of wetting should minimize water droplets on the record speeding up the drying process. You can increase to 2-drops, but no more.

Good Luck,

Neil

 

[bazelio]

I was somewhat interested in the Kirmuss (sp?) machine after inspecting it at THE Show this weekend. However, the guy in the white lab coat (Milligram's experiment anyone?) spent too much time trashing his competition for my liking. He also said that Tergitol should never ever be used on vinyl records and when I referenced the literature to the contrary that we've discussed in this forum, he simply said he was familiar with it and it's wrong. I need to look at the Tergitol MSDS and research a bit. But for now, I'm confused.

 

[Neil.Antin]

I was somewhat interested in the Kirmuss (sp?) machine after inspecting it at THE Show this weekend. However, the guy in the white lab coat (Milligram's experiment anyone?) spent too much time trashing his competition for my liking. He also said that Tergitol should never ever be used on vinyl records and when I referenced the literature to the contrary that we've discussed in this forum, he simply said he was familiar with it and it's wrong. I need to look at the Tergitol MSDS and research a bit. But for now, I'm confused.

Book PACVR Table X, Note 1 states wrt Tergitols:

The DOW™ safety data sheets will show a small amount (<3 wt%) of “poly (ethylene oxide)” as an ingredient with a CAS No. 25322-68-3. This CAS No. translates to polyethylene glycol that is compatible with PVC, and SDS’s from some chemical suppliers such as Sigma-Aldrich™ will list the ingredient as polyethylene glycol. Additionally, all ethoxylated nonionic surfactants have ethylene oxide molecules as part of the chemical structure often referred to as levels or moles of ethoxylation. For the Dow™ Tergitol ™ 15-S family, the last digit is the levels/moles of ethoxylation, so Dow™ Tergitol ™ 15-S-7 has 7 moles while Dow™ Tergitol ™ 15-S-9 has 9 moles. However, ethylene oxide by itself is a gas that is not compatible with PVC, and some internet forums have incorrectly stated that Dow™ Tergitol™ is not compatible with PVC.

This is the SDS for ethylene oxide: 001081.pdf (airgas.com); its extremely flammable -20.5°F flashpoint, its explosive at 3% and above, and its damn toxic with an allowable exposure limit of 1-ppm. If there was a shred of truth in what the dear "Dr" has to say, the damage to a record would be the very least of our problems.

Otherwise, regarding his restoration process, you may find this post of interest, but be forewarned its quite technical - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition | Page 10 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums.

 

[bazelio]

Neil, interesting. What is the reason behind the discrepancy between the listing of ethylene oxide and the CAS number that identifies it as polyethylene glycol on the Dow safety sheet? Does this indicate that the latter is derived from the former? Could you outline the specific safety considerations with respect to polyethylene glycol at the specific grade and molecular weight present in Tergitol? Thank you.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Neil, interesting. What is the reason behind the discrepancy between the listing of ethylene oxide and the CAS number that identifies it as polyethylene glycol on the Dow safety sheet? Does this indicate that the latter is derived from the former? Could you outline the specific safety considerations with respect to polyethylene glycol at the specific grade and molecular weight present in Tergitol? Thank you.

The latest SDS from Dupont for Tergitol 15-S-9 now lists it as Poly(ethylene oxide) 25322-68-3 TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 Surfactant (dow.com). As far as Polyethylene Oxide versus Polyethylene Glycol Polyethylene glycol - Wikipedia.

As far as risk are concerned, none beyond the risks specified in the Tergitol SDS which as a concentrated product needs to be handled with care. However, once diluted to use, is very safe, safer than dish detergent that is upwards of 40% concentrated - here is Dawn - CPID (whatsinproducts.com). Tergitol as are many nonionic surfactants are of the family of alcohol ethoxylates and here is an EU risk assessment -Microsoft Word - HERA AE Report _Version 2 - 3 Sept 09_.doc (heraproject.com).

 

[bazelio]

Neil, thank you for the references. I'll take a closer look at the safety data. But the conversation around compatibility seems to have gotten a bit circular. Poly(ethylene oxide) (CAS 25322-68-3) is a different compound compared to polyethylene glycol, is it not? Its compatibility with PVC is still a question in my mind. You previously indicated that the concentration and molecular weight of poly(ethylene oxide) is paramount and this is intuitive. You've referred to the specific formulation of vinyl as well. Many variables. So what ultimately determines the compatibility of poly(ethylene oxide) with PVC as present in Tergitol after dilution in distilled water such that it is a safe recommendation in general for vinyl? Thanks again.

 

[bazelio]

Not true. The bubble formation and collapse is not directional with the transducers, its far more chaotic - see this post - Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com). Also pay attention to the average bubble size versus kHz.

Here are two other cavitation simulations that are pretty cool - Simulations of the acoustically-driven growth and collapse of a cavitation bubble near a wall - Bing video; Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video

The Kirmuss "Dr" further stated (this past weekend) that a device like Degritter with side mounted transducers can not be considered an ultrasonic cleaner at all. That it can only be considered as a bubbler. Is this statement factual?

 

[Lxgreen]

I use Tergikleen (tegritol mix) and I had read somewhere that the USA Libraries of Congress uses Tergitol for their restoration and cleaning of records. Kirmuss told me they no longer use it so I sent them a note and as a few years ago when I wrote them they indicated they still use it . I sent that reply back to Kirmuss and he said he would have to call them to set them straight but I never heard back from him.

 

[bazelio]

I use Tergikleen (tegritol mix) and I had read somewhere that the USA Libraries of Congress uses Tergitol for their restoration and cleaning of records. Kirmuss told me they no longer use it so I sent them a note and as a few years ago when I wrote them they indicated they still use it . I sent that reply back to Kirmuss and he said he would have to call them to set them straight but I never heard back from him.

The Kirmuss guy in the white lab coat unequivocally stated they don't use it and further that it should not be used in vinyl applications. This is being discussed above.

 

[Lxgreen]

I found this on Library of Congress website. They show technician using tergitol

https://www.loc.gov/collections/nat...says/making-the-jukebox/?st=slideshow#slide-6

 

[audio.bill]

The Kirmuss guy in the white lab coat unequivocally stated they don't use it and further that it should not be used in vinyl applications.

That would be Charles Kirmuss.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Poly(ethylene oxide) (CAS 25322-68-3) is a different compound compared to polyethylene glycol, is it not? Its compatibility with PVC is still a question in my mind.

If you read this Polyethylene glycol - Wikipedia it states: "Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is... PEG is also known as polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyoxyethylene (POE), depending on its molecular weight." But POE has different cas #, so PEG and PEO are the same.

As for the compatibility of PEG/PEO with the record, to be completely honest who cares. If you are familiar with the book PACVR, the maximum in-use concentration for Tergitol 15-S-9 is 0.1% (for manual cleaning). That is a 1000:1 dilution of the concentrated solution that is addressed in the SDS. So, in-use, PEG/PEO which is listed as <3% is diluted to (3%/1000) = <0.03% = ~<30 ppm.

Understand that unless compatibility tables say otherwise, they reference solutions at 100% concentration. At an in-use concentration of 0.03% (30-ppm) this could be the imaginary ethyl-methyl-death, and it would not harm that record. This should be just obvious common sense any more than the record could be exposed to ethylene oxide which is a gas.

What does this say about someone saying that Tergitol 15-S-9 in-use is going to harm a record? I leave you with silence and the caveat that silence can speaks volumes.

 

[Neil.Antin]

The Kirmuss "Dr" further stated (this past weekend) that a device like Degritter with side mounted transducers can not be considered an ultrasonic cleaner at all. That it can only be considered as a bubbler. Is this statement factual?

You're kidding right? With everything I have written on this site such as my previous post and the links to the summary I provided on ultrasonic cleaning, and let's not forget Chapter XIV of the book PACVR and the over 1000 pages of referenced books and reports; what do you think I am going to say? This one is right next to Terigtol 15-S-9 and how ethylene oxide is going to damage the record; and how it is so important to review the SDS (edit) without considering the in-use dilution. All of it is just pure nonsense fabricated for the sole purpose of convincing you his is the best and he is the expert.

 

[bazelio]

You're kidding right? With everything I have written on this site such as my previous post and the links to the summary I provided on ultrasonic cleaning, and let's not forget Chapter XIV of the book PACVR and the over 1000 pages of referenced books and reports; what do you think I am going to say? This one is right next to Terigtol 15-S-9 and how ethylene oxide is going to damage the record; and how it is so important to review the SDS (edit) without considering the in-use dilution. All of it is just pure nonsense fabricated for the sole purpose of convincing you his is the best and he is the expert.

As I suspected. Thank you.

 

[rich121]

Not true. The bubble formation and collapse is not directional with the transducers, its far more chaotic - see this post - Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com). Also pay attention to the average bubble size versus kHz.

Here are two other cavitation simulations that are pretty cool - Simulations of the acoustically-driven growth and collapse of a cavitation bubble near a wall - Bing video; Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video

Here is a quote from your book:
"(NASA) Parts positioning, important in most cleaning operations, is doubly important in
ultrasonic cleaning. If possible, critical areas to be cleaned should face the transducer(s). This
is intuitive except consider that Industry often cleans complex shapes with inaccessible
areas; whereas the record in comparison is a relatively simple shape with no inaccessible
surfaces."

 

[Neil.Antin]

Here is a quote from your book:
"(NASA) Parts positioning, important in most cleaning operations, is doubly important in
ultrasonic cleaning. If possible, critical areas to be cleaned should face the transducer(s). This
is intuitive except consider that Industry often cleans complex shapes with inaccessible
areas; whereas the record in comparison is a relatively simple shape with no inaccessible
surfaces."

And here is two other quotes from the book:

XIV.1.7 Standing Waves: In a traditional UCM with bottom firing transducers, the acoustic waves that are propagating upward through the liquid will reflect downward from the fluid surface. When reflected downward the acoustic waves will combine with the upward acoustic wave and the subsequent wave can be constructive(amplifying) if in-phase or destructive (attenuated) if out of phase. Ultimately areas/layers of higher acoustic energy/cavitation (standing waves) will form and there will be areas/layers of lower acoustic energy/cavitation. The standing waves tend to layer at a distance 1/2 of the wavelength with Table XXI showing the wavelengths and resultant standing wave of common UCMs frequencies; highlighted blue. The spacing of the standing wave is relative to themselves. Their position in the tank relative to a fixed point is dependent on the reflected surface – is it hard or soft; water height and other factors such as the type of transducer and water temperature. Based on an article by the late John Fuchs Ultrasonics - Near Field and BEYOND! - CTG Technical Blog (ctgclean.com), the first standing wave reflected from a hard surface (such as a tank metal wall) is about 1/2 the wavelength, while the first standing wave reflected from a soft surface (such as the water surface) is about 1/4 the wavelength. So, for UCMs with bottom firing transducers and the Degritter™ with side firing transducers into the record (soft surface), the location of the first standing wave relative to the water surface or record could be as close as 1/4 wavelength. Subsequent standing waves will be spaced about 1/2 wavelength apart.

And this is mostly associated with bottom firing transducers:

XIV.1.8 Sweep Frequency: Many ultrasonic tanks advertise a “sweep frequency” function. The “sweep frequency” function essentially modulates the main ultrasonic frequency about +/- 1 to 2 kHz with results shown Table XXI. The intent of “sweep frequency” is to minimize narrow standing waves that will form in the tank when using a fixed frequency which is valuable for cleaning parts that are layered static in a UCM. Sweep frequency tends to equalize the cavitation intensity throughout the tank. But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity.