The BEST way to clean & preserve vinyl

[ryanm84]

I've got a bunch of vinyl that I clean with a damp microfiber towel and when dry an antistatic carbon fiber brush. Vinyl is dirty almost immediately! Would also like to see more about this.

[DizRotus]

I did some research, and these are the exact same chemical structures as Cyastat SN:

https://www.reagentw...23122&protype=0

http://www.dbbecker....istatico_KN.pdf

I had already PMed this to Neil. Perhaps we could source one of them.

Thanks to MG's legwork, I've contacted Reagent World regarding the ant-static agent. If nothing comes of that, I'll contact the other potential source.

An evaluation kit has been sent to MG. I'm eager to get his feedback.

As I explained to MG in a PM, getting a reasonably large quantity of Cyastat SN, or its equivalent, is not the hurdle. Finding a "retail" source willing to sell an anti-static agent to many individuals in the relatively small quantities needed is proving to be difficult. I can get more than a lifetime's worth of the stuff, but I can't become a bottler, distributor and shipper of this stuff.

Unfortunately, without the anti-static agent, the excellent PVA facial becomes just another good way to temporarily clean a record. With the anti-static agent, the static charge is broken, the dirt is released, the PVA lifts it away and the static-free record no longer pulls dirt from the air. The anti-static effect seems to last indefinitely.

In my experience, records are quieter immediately after the cleaning. Any residual surface noise is typically further diminished after each playing. The stylus collects surface dust, which is easily removed from the stylus with a Magic Eraser.

I apologize if I created interest prematurely. Until the anti-static agent is readily available to individuals, the rest of the system is, in my opinion, too much work.

[Jeeper]

Neil,

Thanks for trying, mabee something will shake out.

I think anyone who listens to LP's is always looking for ways to lower backround noise.

Personally I enjoy the anolag sound, compared to digital.

[mustang guy]

I've got a bunch of vinyl that I clean with a damp microfiber towel and when dry an antistatic carbon fiber brush. Vinyl is dirty almost immediately! Would also like to see more about this.

This from the Reg Williamson article Part 1 at the top of this thread or thereabouts:

Records are made of plastic, as you

know—actually, a copolymer of vinyl chloride

and vinyl acetate which forms part of a list of

materials we call a triobic series. If any two of

these materials come into contact with one

another and are then separated, the material

higher in the list acquires an electrostatic charge

of positive polarity and the one below it in the

list gets a negative charge. Since the vinyl used

for discs is near the bottom of the list, it follows

that most sleeve materials are likely to give the

records a charge merely as we remove it; and

since most sleeves are made of either paper or

another plastic higher in the list, the record ends

up negatively charged almost every time. Some

plastics are lower in the triobic list than

vinyl—PTFE is one; but a safe rule is, that the

charge will be negative.

Actually, the polarity does not concern us at

this stage; its effect does. The charge level can

be quite massive given a dry environment,

reaching at the moment of removal from the

sleeve many kilovolts of magnitude. Not lethal,

of course—it is virtually current-less; but the

effect is to attract within the immediate area of

the disc’s two surfaces every floating particle of

dust in the atmosphere, which will stick there

with a tenacity that beats any known glue and

defies all attempts at removal by any orthodox

cleaning method, which invariably make the

situation worse by “topping up” the charge.

Handling the disc doesn’t help, either: human

skin is fairly high in the triobic list. To

compound your increasing despair, when you

come to play the thing, the movement of the disc

beneath the pickup can emulate a miniature Van

de Graff generator: minute discharges across the

stylus tip result in some pretty unnerving cracks

out of your speaker system that sound like lumps

of granite in the grooves.

[DizRotus]

Craig, aka Mustang Guy, is the right person to evaluate this stuff.

We had a long conversation yesterday. His background and location in "Chemical Valley" makes him uniquely qualified for this assignment. Craig understands the need to find a source for the anti-static agent, Cyastat SN (or equivalent), in small enough quantities to be useful to individuals. It's not a solution ( pun intended) if any individual gets a drum of anti-static agent and then has to re-bottle it in small quantities and ship to individuals. We need to find a distributor who does that as his/her business.

I want to apologize publicly to Craig for forgetting to send the Elvanol in the package. Apparently, I've been around too many chemicals, thus damaging the few remaining functioning brain cells. I was flabbergasted when he mentioned the absence of Elvanol, and then I saw the small container that was intended for the evaluation kit. As we spoke on the phone, Craig was on the ChemicalStore.com site purchasing his own stash of PVA.

As promised, when the anti-static agent is sourced, a list of supplies and sources will be posted. In the meantime, if you want to try the PVA facial alone, get some Elvanol 71-31 from ChemicalStore.com, and Kodak Photo-Flo 200, and glycerin from Amazon (see attachment). Distilled water and suitable alcohol are no problem.

Edited November 12, 2013 by DizRotus

[DizRotus]

http://www.aclstaticide.com/antistatic_coatings.html

same color as CYASTAT SN

Schu-

That could be the same thing--or close enough. They're stingy regarding the chemical makeup, referring to it as "proprietary."

You're correct, it does look like Cyastat SN. I've requested the MSDS and contacted the local distributor.

I like how the attached product details describes the taste as "slightly bitter." I strongly recommend against tasting it.

EDIT: 11/12/13 @ 12:17 PM EST

I've attached the MSDS. I'm not a chemist, nor do I play one on TV. Is this stuff suitable?

Staticide_product_details.pdf

Staticide_3000 MSDS 13.pdf

Edited November 12, 2013 by DizRotus

[mustang guy]

I posted a message on the Materials and Nanochemistry forum in chemicalforums.com. This is a subsection of specialty chemicals, and hopefully will have people who can offer some assistance as to the sourcing of smaller portions of the anti stats we are looking at or more modern antistatic agents which may be an order of magnitude better. Chemical technology has come a long way since the 80's!

Here is my posts there: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=71775.0. I have linked my post to this forum as well.

[DavePlatt]

Re Staticide and Cyastat SN and benzalkonium chloride and etc. - here's my $.02 worth. I'm not a chemist, just an avid reader of technical stuff.

These chemicals all appear to be in the same general family... they are quaternary ammonium compounds. This is a very large family of related materials... different lengths, different side chains and ends. As I understand it, most of these compounds share certain characteristics - they are surface-active agents (surfactants) with a hydrophobic (water-avoiding) end and a hydrophilic (water-seeking end). As such, they act as effective detergents and wetting agents.

The ones we're interested in are (as far as I can tell) all cationic surfactants. The hydrophobic end is attracted to the vinyl, the hydrophilic end sticks up in the air and attracts atmospheric moisture, and the thin layer of moisture reduces the sheet resistance of the vinyl surface and allows static electricity to drain away.

The keys to whether they're useful (or ideal) for our purposes seem to include the following:

- Are they effective surface-active agents on vinyl (polyvinyl chloride, PVC)?

- Do they form thin films, without building up and clogging the surface?

- Are they hydrophilic enough to act as effective anti-static agents?

- Are they chemically compatible with vinyl? Is there any risk that their presence will degrade the vinyl?

- Are they long-lasting or do they tend to degrade or evaporate?

- Are they safe to use?

On the latter issue first: both Staticide concentrate, and benzalkonium chloride concentrates, are listed in their MSDS as having a level 3 health rating ("danger"). They are NOT safe for skin or eye contact and can cause severe tissue damage... BK is specifically described as being "corrosive" when in concentrated form. Trust me on this, it's true... some years back I got a drop of a quaternary-ammonium concentrate (mildew killer) on my skin, didn't rinse it off promptly, and ended up with an extremely painful pus-filled blister. From what I can see in the Cyastat SN MSDS, it shares similar hazards. Gloves, eye protection, N100 dust mask, precautions against splashing or getting them on the skin, wash carefully after handling, store safely and properly... do what's necessary, folks. In concentrated form these chemicals are no joke.

As to whether they're equally effective as vinyl-surface antistatic agents... I don't know, not having used any of them. My guess is that they're all in the same general category in that regard, as they are "first cousins" chemically. There are probably differences in detail but they might not be relevant in our application.

As to chemical compatibility with vinyl... again, I don't know. I did surf around a bit, and found some reassuring information: polyvinyl chloride is described as being highly resistant (effectively inert) to contact with benzalkonium chloride, even in high concentrations (2%). It also appears that polyvinyl alcohol is compatible with benzalkonium chloride... some prescription eye-drops contain both substances (PVA as a thickening agent and BK as a preservative). If the same is true of other, related quaternary ammonium compounds, then Staticide and Cyastat SN might also be quite suitable for adding to the "brew".

I did go ahead and order a pint of BK concentrate last week. It arrived last night, but there was a bit of a slip-up - their shipping department sent me (and billed me for) a full gallon of the stuff. That's more than I could plan to use in a lifetime. I called them this morning, they're shipping me a sealed pint and a return label for the gallon.

Once it arrives I'm going to try making up a standard dilution of BK (the usual dilution sold for medical purposes is 1:750), and then try this and some successive dilutions on a sacrificial vinyl record to figure out how much it can be diluted and still act as an effective wetting agent and anti-static surface coating. With luck I'll find a range which works well for both purposes.

I was thinking, too, that a stronger dilution of BK might work as a very effective "pre-scrub" for really dirty or mildewed records - it's an effective detergent. Scrub with this, rinse well, dry, and then do a facial?

I've also been researching an alternative type of anti-static treatment which was alluded to in Williamson's article... Armostat. Armostat includes a whole line of different anti-static materials intended for the plastics trade. Many of them are intended for incorporation into the plastic itself. Williamson mentioned Armostat 900, which as far as I can tell is no longer being manufactured. The closest I could see in their current product line is Armostat 3002, which is a sulfonate (a different class of surfactant). It's described as being 100% soluble in water, and suitable for spraying onto plastic to create an anti-static film. I'm trying to get ahold of a sample.

[mustang guy]

DavePlatt,

Thanks for the information and welcome to the forum!

Here was the reply from Enthalpy in the specialty chemical forum request.

"The proper place for an antistatic agent would have been in the vinyl... but it's too late.

The second best place would be the inner sleeve where you store the vinyl. The usual paper is a bad choice, it should better be conductive.
Your "CAS 2764-13-8" returns many suppliers. ReagentWorld delivers lab quantities.
The compound looks like a soap. Did you try soap instead? The bad liquid ones that are hard to rinse away. Diluted with much distilled water for car battery.

His English seemed a bit broken, and he has missed the point a bit, but it is interesting that he imediately recognized this as a surfactant and described it in a round about way as hydrophobic and hydrophilic (bad liquid ones that are hard to rinse away). The most interesting thing he said was "Did you try soap instead?" The answer to that is no. Could it be that simple? I do preclean records with dawn and warm water to degrease before I facial them with Elmers. I do this because I know glue will not adhere to oil. I hadn't considered the mildew issue you brought up.

I will be looking forward to your opinions on the benzalkonium chloride. I would be particularly interested in knowing "how hard it is to rinse away" as Enthalpy puts it. In other words, how permanent the treatment is. Since you did read the article this thread is based upon, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the antistat treatment followed by conical stylus playing to deep clean the tracks rather than the facial approach Personally, I like it better. A diamond shaped like the record groove will knock things loose the facial cannot hope to cling to.

Edited November 13, 2013 by mustang guy

[DizRotus]

I just received a book, The LP Is Back (2d Edition © 2000, available from Amazon), as a present. While I haven't had a chance to digest it fully, it appears to have interesting--albeit somewhat dated--articles.

Note the ad for "WILLIAMSON LP RECORD CARE KIT" at page 159. I assure you the information is outdated. Old Colony Sound Lab is gone. AudioXpress no longer sells this stuff. Nonetheless, it's interesting to note the cost in 2000 for a whole kit: $9.95, or 3oz. of Elvanol: $4.95, or 0.5 oz of de-static: $4.95. One pound of Elvanol is currently available from ChemicalStore.com for $16.00.

EDIT: 11/13/13 @ 8:26 PM EST

Turns out the two Reg Williamson articles from The Audio Amateur are included in the book at pages 9-13.

After further review, most of the articles are interesting but the information is genuinely dated. Save your money for records; pass on this book.

The_LP_Is_Back.PDF

The_LP_Is_Back_2.PDF

Edited November 15, 2013 by DizRotus

[DavePlatt]

Mustang guy: I have a feeling that the "facial peel", and the "clean by playing with a stylus" cleaning methods are rather complementary... they'll do different things, to different sorts of contamination in different parts of the groove.

Playing the groove with a stylus (after applying an anti-static treatment) would tend to scrape out many particles from the groove. I don't think it's a panacea, though. The stylus won't actually contact the entire groove wall (both conical and elliptical styli have a fairly narrow contact region, part way up the groove wall) and small particles above or below the contact zone wouldn't be touched. If you were to "clean" by playing several times with a conical stylus, and were then to "play for listening" using a stylus with a different contact pattern, you might find that the cleaning passes had missed much of the dust and grit which your play stylus will then "hear".

As I understand it, it's the more exotic "line contact" styli (micro-line, micro-ridge, Shibata) which actually have a contact shape that closely resembles the original cutting heat, and thus would "clean out" most of the groove during a play.

Also... the contact between stylus and groove wall is not a gentle one, and there's a great deal of pressure directed against the groove wall... which could tend to push dust particles into the groove wall and not knock them away.

The facial peel... well, if it's applied as theory suggests (with a wetting agent to break the surface tension), it should tend to "encapsulate" the upper portions of whatever contaminant particles it contacts. When dried and removed, there would be a tug-of-war between the peel (the PVA's adhesion to or encapsulation of the contaminant), and whatever forces are holding the particle in place against the vinyl (static electricity, mechanical, etc.). Which party wins, will depend on the details of the particle in question. The advantage of the peel is that it should be able to get down into every portion of the groove... and so its cleaning benefits will apply to whatever stylus shape you use to play the LP afterwards.

In my own brief tests of record peeling, I've been very impressed. Even without a staticide in the mix, and using Titebond II (which is notorious for generating static when peeled off), there seems to be very little dirt or gunk remaining after the peel and then an alcohol/water wipe and vaccuming. Most of the (few) occasional pops and ticks which remain, seem to be from scratches rather than dirt.

I haven't had the opportunity yet to play one of these cleaned discs several times and see if the remaining noise level decreases. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this happened, though.

[DizRotus]

I received a response from the local distributor of Staticide. The "factory" had questions about the intended use. I answered candidly. We'll see what they say.

Edited November 15, 2013 by DizRotus

[Schu]

I am wondering what... ILLEGAL... uses there are for the stuff.

@$600gal for the stuff I posted in concentrate form, it's not cheap.

[mustang guy]

Mustang guy: I have a feeling that the "facial peel", and the "clean by playing with a stylus" cleaning methods are rather complementary... they'll do different things, to different sorts of contamination in different parts of the groove.

Playing the groove with a stylus (after applying an anti-static treatment) would tend to scrape out many particles from the groove. I don't think it's a panacea, though. The stylus won't actually contact the entire groove wall (both conical and elliptical styli have a fairly narrow contact region, part way up the groove wall) and small particles above or below the contact zone wouldn't be touched. If you were to "clean" by playing several times with a conical stylus, and were then to "play for listening" using a stylus with a different contact pattern, you might find that the cleaning passes had missed much of the dust and grit which your play stylus will then "hear".

As I understand it, it's the more exotic "line contact" styli (micro-line, micro-ridge, Shibata) which actually have a contact shape that closely resembles the original cutting heat, and thus would "clean out" most of the groove during a play.

Also... the contact between stylus and groove wall is not a gentle one, and there's a great deal of pressure directed against the groove wall... which could tend to push dust particles into the groove wall and not knock them away.

The facial peel... well, if it's applied as theory suggests (with a wetting agent to break the surface tension), it should tend to "encapsulate" the upper portions of whatever contaminant particles it contacts. When dried and removed, there would be a tug-of-war between the peel (the PVA's adhesion to or encapsulation of the contaminant), and whatever forces are holding the particle in place against the vinyl (static electricity, mechanical, etc.). Which party wins, will depend on the details of the particle in question. The advantage of the peel is that it should be able to get down into every portion of the groove... and so its cleaning benefits will apply to whatever stylus shape you use to play the LP afterwards.

In my own brief tests of record peeling, I've been very impressed. Even without a staticide in the mix, and using Titebond II (which is notorious for generating static when peeled off), there seems to be very little dirt or gunk remaining after the peel and then an alcohol/water wipe and vaccuming. Most of the (few) occasional pops and ticks which remain, seem to be from scratches rather than dirt.

I haven't had the opportunity yet to play one of these cleaned discs several times and see if the remaining noise level decreases. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this happened, though.

Excellent thoughts. The theory of using a conical stylus made the assumption of a deeper and more closely matched shape of the needle and groove. In the following, the theory would seem to be substantiated:

There is a problem, however. The above is a misrepresentation of reality. These are more realistic contact area clues:

Even if you had a linear contact stylus, the way the groove changes width and the oscillation in those grooves would preclude a true cleaning. I believe you to be right that play-cleaning with the stylus you intend to use would be the best solution. It may also be true that the cleaning would be more effective if allowed to play an much lower speeds so as to allow the stylus to settle into the groove. It may also be true that this mechanical cleaning is akin to using a grinder to clean the rust from steel after using paint stripper to remove the paint on the non-rusted portions. It would seem to make sense to do the facial peel first.

I tried Titebond II, and found the adhesion to the actual vinyl to be too strong. I changed my glue cleaning method to Dawn and warm water pre-clean, with a follow up with plain old Elmer's.

I received a response from the local distributor of Staticide. The "factory" had questions about the intended use. I answered candidly. We'll see what they say.

It never hurts to ask. It would be funny if this were Cyastat SN.

[mustang guy]

I am wondering what... ILLEGAL... uses there are for the stuff.

@$600gal for the stuff I posted in concentrate form, it's not cheap.

Holy cow! I am speechless...

[Schu]

I am wondering what... ILLEGAL... uses there are for the stuff.

@$600gal for the stuff I posted in concentrate form, it's not cheap.

Holy cow! I am speechless...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACL-STATICIDE-3000G-Antistatic-Liquid-Concentrate-1-Gallon-/331031064580?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d12fd3004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what about these items?

http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.194/.f

http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.191/.f

http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2848/.f

[DizRotus]

I received the distributor's reply which included the response from the factory. According to the factory, "Staticide is not the same composition as Cyastat . . . " That doesn't mean it can't serve the intended purpose as well as, or possibly better than, Cyastat SN.

I've attached the entire email stream, as well as a page from photodon.com, which sells 4 oz bottles of Staticide for $4.80.

Distributors email.pdf

Staticide 4 oz.pdf

Edited November 16, 2013 by DizRotus

[jcmusic]

So where are we on this at present time?

[mustang guy]

I have all the supplies except the alcohol. I have been overwhelmed the last couple weeks. Tomorrow I travel to a university to take 2 of my sons to a tour.

I am extremely excited to do this, but so much crap comes up.

As soon as I get the chance, I will do a before and after comparison. If I can pull it off, I will take a between 60-100x picture of before and after using a microscope. I will have to experiment with my iPhone and my little portable microscope.

[DizRotus]

I have all the supplies except the alcohol. I have been overwhelmed the last couple weeks. Tomorrow I travel to a university to take 2 of my sons to a tour.

I am extremely excited to do this, but so much crap comes up.

As soon as I get the chance, I will do a before and after comparison. If I can pull it off, I will take a between 60-100x picture of before and after using a microscope. I will have to experiment with my iPhone and my little portable microscope.

Craig-

That sounds great. I empathize with having too much to do.

You might be able to score some alcohol at the university.