ZZ Top-Tres Hombres-45 RPM Vinyl Record
Lyra
A Chemical Engineer Talks Record Cleaning
By: Michael Fremer

May 19th, 2026

Category:

Interviews

A Chemical Engineer Talks Record Cleaning—Fluids and Cavitation

A surfactant is just soap

At 2023's AXPONA I spoke with this gentleman about record cleaning: cavitation, surfactants, the molecular charges of water and vinyl and all kinds of interesting facts related to record cleaning. Along with being a chemical engineer, he's an audiophile and a record collector. This was published on YouTube in an AXPONA video but Charles Kirmuss asked me to find and send it to him and I think now is a good time to run it separately.

Why? Because I read all of these "recipes" for home made record cleaning fluids that contain too much alcohol and too much SOAP. Soap? As he explains "surfactant" is another word for SOAP. The surfactant is designed to reduce water's surface tension and make the cleaning fluid flow more easily into the grooves, but does it really do that? Watch what he says.

If you're using a vacuum machine type record cleaner and you cover the record with surfactant and high alcohol content fluid and then vacuum it off, you are leaving a molecular coating of soap and probably alcohol on your record. The vacuum does pull most of the fluid off the record but the rest dries up on it.

As he explains, if you use cavitation, the cavitation action (if the machine is properly designed) softens oils and fingerprints that you should be able to wipe away, no surfactant needed. I use the Kirmuss machine but also the KLAUDIO, which works with pure cavitation, no surfactant or other fluid added and it's the most effective record cleaning device I've ever used (also costly). I use the Kirmuss machine to restore records and it works removing layers of baked on fluids accumulated on older records (Kirmuss also demonstrates how new records have mold release compounds heat separates from the vinyl pellets and brings to the surface that can be removed to produce better sound).

I've read reviews where people claim adding a surfactant to the KLAUDIO water is beneficial. It is not! That only adds soap that the fan dries on the record, which denigrates the KLAUDIO cavitation process.

The other critical issue discussed here is the molecular charges of water and vinyl. They are the same. Therefore water and vinyl repel each other like magnets! And guess what? Surfactants do not change that fact. He explains that Kirumuss uses an ionizing agent to change the charge of the record so it's the opposite of water, which is critical to get the water to be attracted to the record and not repelled by it! It seems no one else is doing that.

This gentleman also explains (without explicitly saying it) why putting 8 or 6 closely spaced records on a spit and putting it in a cavitation vat is not likely to cavitate the record at all, and if it does at all, it's possible damage could occur.

So watch what he says.

My conclusion is, rather than saving a few dollars and concocting your own fluid based on what some online non-authority suggests, you are much better off buying fluid from a known company that specializes in record cleaning fluids and formulates them for specific purposes like vacuum machines or cavitation machines. The same fluid isn't necessarily useful in both circumstances. I'd also be wary of buying fluids from companies that manufacture record cleaning machines. That doesn't make them chemists! Record cleaning fluid companies I trust include Audio Intelligent, and Disc Doctor.

Comments

  • 2026-05-19 10:50:51 PM

    ghn5ue wrote:

    Something I always wondered about all this ... is the repelling force between water and the record so great that it can't be overcome with a little force? You would think pushing water into the depth of a record groove could be easily accomplished with a typical record brush or ultrasonic cleaners.

    • 2026-05-20 03:51:57 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      The size of a water droplet is 100-110 microns. Groove size is smaller. Added where as explained, the record repels water.

      • 2026-05-22 10:36:26 AM

        ghn5ue wrote:

        But isn't water fluid? I can put a drop of water on a surface and change its shape by moving it around. Can't it be pushed into a groove with a little force? A water molecule is about 0.00028 microns. I would think that is the smallest area you can get water into.

  • 2026-05-20 12:46:24 PM

    tony a wrote:

    Although I now use a cavitation machine, I did use "home brew" recipes when I used a vacuum RCM. The idea of leaving both alcohol and surfactant residue on the LP after vacuuming becomes immaterial (to my satisfaction) because their percentage of total fluid volume was minutely low.

  • 2026-05-20 12:51:26 PM

    Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

    I like this guy's position/explanation. Audio Intelligent has a no-foam, low-solids ultrasonic fluid that works well. (Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions (AIVS) Enzymatic Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machine Concentrate) It is not positively charged. (Some argue against charging water with such: "It is designed to safely lift away organic material and dirt without leaving behind an electrical charge, which is important for preventing contaminants from re-adhering to vinyl grooves." Totally reasonable at $60. as a concentrate that will last years. I use the Humminguru Nova unit with the add-on water filling system and love it, especially with AI fluid.

    I have flirted with Kirmuss' solution at an expensive $95+ per bottle ONLY because of the positively charged water content. That as a straight, distilled water product at a lower price, would be great. For $95 as a concentrate for 5 refills? No, thanks. And paying $2500 and up for a water de-ionizer is not doable, but it would be a fix if I could rationalize using it for other health needs.

    Needless to say, 2 manufacturers have 2 fundamentally different approaches towards ultrasonic cleaning and it leaves me questioning both positions.

    • 2026-05-20 03:56:54 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      The cost per record is between 32 and 48 cents depending on the number of 2 or 4 minute cycles in the machine. Our liquids is sprayed on the record. Not a surfactant. Certainly not poured into our 7.1 liter tank. A gallon of distilled water is abt a $1.40. One can buy a stainless steel water distiller for $150 that produced 3 gallons in 4 hrs..we use 1.78 gallons.

      The Kirmuss process after a record was previously cleaned with a DeGritter: Full A-B-C before and after testing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WP4cRkj8S4

    • 2026-05-21 12:21:48 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Video clip below to better explain and demonstrate how record ionization works with the Kirmuss, our IP over other traditional approaches with ultrasonics, where additionally the colorant within the ionizing spray allows one to see step by step the removal over 3 or 4 cycles of the known layers of contamination on the record, namely: (1) The pressing plant’s "release agent". (The Shure Brothers in the 70’s called this a “pressing oil”). This oil that surfaces allows the record to pop out of the press, and as the record cools, also sees dirt and dust that lands on the record at the pressing plant “fused” in this cooling oil, cause of those nasty and irritating pops heard in new records. (2) There are also films left over from prior cleaning processes that are air, vacuum or spin dried onto the record. The needle fights with these. (3) Sandwiched between both, the film deposited by the outgassing of the plasticizer while in the record’s sleeve. Cause of most of those visible scratches on the record and ticks heard.

      (1) The pressing plant’s "release agent". (The Shure Brothers in the 70’s called this a “pressing oil”). This oil that surfaces allows the record to pop out of the press, and as the record cools, also sees dirt and dust that lands on the record at the pressing plant “fused” in this cooling oil, cause of those nasty and irritating pops heard in new records. (2) There are also films left over from prior cleaning processes that are air, vacuum or spin dried onto the record. The needle fights with these. (3) Sandwiched between both, the film deposited by the outgassing of the plasticizer while in the record’s sleeve. Cause of most of those visible scratches on the record and ticks heard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w5csRyzjcs&t=68s

    • 2026-05-23 05:27:52 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      BTW: Ionize the record with the ionizing solution, not adding it to the water. Received a phone call asking.

  • 2026-05-20 01:52:45 PM

    Steelhead wrote:

    Interesting and I have used Ultrasonic cleaning with very good results with a cheap Vevor machine that a friend actually gifted me. I use distilled water and tergikleen in the ultrasonic and follow with distilled rinse and then SOTA lp cleaner (similar to the VPI 16.5) with mofi enzyme and record wash, LAST preservative and mofi sleeve. Tedious but worth the effort.

    I appreciate the dive into but kind of set in my ways and more power to the folks deep diving into the intricates of ultrasonic efforts and results

    • 2026-05-20 02:34:11 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Kirmuss thinks Tergikleen is bad....but I forget why. I'll ask him!

      • 2026-05-20 04:05:50 PM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        Before any liquid is used either in a machine or on a PVC record, review the manufacturer's ingredients list. No list, no buy. If you want to see what is under the hood, ask for the MSDS. It will show the ingredients. Then compare the ingredient with the PVC and Plasticizer Chemical Compatibility Chart. (If using a machine with pumps, need to check the neoprene and rubber compatibility chart. (Many vacuum and ultrasonic machines have failed prematurely.)

        Tergitol is Ethylene Oxide. Considered and graded a D , dangerous to plastic by Calpaclab. As are Ethyl and Benzyl Alcohols.

        One sonic distributor of dental cleaning machines is providing am Ether based cleaning solution with their record adapter. Not good for vinyl records.

    • 2026-05-20 04:17:03 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      If you do a test with a signal analyzer after the above process, you will note a drop in signal output from the cartridge and less spectrum as while initially your have surface cleaned the record with the Vevor (using a frequency for cleaning metal and automotive car parts and the like and have cleaned your record, the shine left by the additional chemicals sees the needle not make better contact with the record groove. An A-B Test: Restoring a record cleaned by a peer Ultrasonic: Before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBu_3PyMd5Q After: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RZ50MIPtVA

      The peer machine air dried onto the record whatever fell into the water off the record. Per the chemical engineer and the discussion of the Triboelectric Table of Charges, a "restored" record should need no air, vacuum or spin drying as the record and water repel each other.

      The liquid used in the described machine does surface clean.

  • 2026-05-20 06:22:37 PM

    Will wrote:

    Can you please expand? Are you saying that water does not get into record groves when the record surface is submerged in water?

    • 2026-05-21 12:26:11 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Correct. The size of a droplet of water is 100-110 microns in diameter. Does not enter the groove.

  • 2026-05-20 06:37:22 PM

    db wrote:

    Correct me if my logic is wrong here... During cavitation cleaning, the tiny bubbles collapse NEAR the surface of the LP and they release small jets and shock waves that knock soils off the surface of the LP. Therefore, the water does not need to get into the LP groove. Hence, no need for an ionizing agent.

    • 2026-05-21 12:29:48 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      The record's negative charge repels the electronegativity of water. The efficacy of the process is improved by applying an ionizing agent. Further at end of this cyclic process sees a record emerge virtually dry, proof of the Tribolectric Table of Charges premise.

      • 2026-05-21 01:39:57 PM

        db wrote:

        Here's what I understand of your process... 1) An ionizing agent is put on the LP which gets into the groove and gives the LP a positive charge. 2) The LP is placed into a bath of water which has a negative charge. 3) The water is attracted to the LP, but the water droplets are too big to get into the LP groove. 4) The ionizing agent is blasted out of the LP groove by cavitation. 5) The LP and the water are rubbed together in the bath which changes the LP to have a negative charge. 5) The LP comes out of the bath clean and virtually dry.

        Is that correct?

  • 2026-05-21 09:36:22 AM

    Steelhead wrote:

    Thank you Mr. Fremer and Mr. Kirmuss

    I use Tegikleen as that is (or was) used by the Library of Congress for vinyl preservation. I am not wedded to it but thought I was using "best principles" to clean my vinyl. As stated the process works for me but I appreciate Mr. Kirmuss doing a very deep dive into the process.

    My young audio dealer and vinyl maven has the Kirmuss machine and has my original mofi Dark Side, my UHQR Pepper, and my 45rpm clarity Tull and is doing them up so I will have them back in my cave and be able to actually have a real world comparison. He is very excited and invested in the Kirmuss method.

    In any event thank you for responding and appreciate the science behind the process.

    Happy Listening.

  • 2026-05-22 09:46:48 PM

    dmk wrote:

    Thank you Michael! Very interesting and informative as usual. Need to do more homework into this. Makes a TON of sense!