Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T23:23:23.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Solvent Quality on Some Properties of Thermoplastic Amorphous Polymers Used in Conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Eric F. Hansen
Eric F. Hansen*
Affiliation:
The Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Get access

Abstract

This paper reviews the effects of solvent quality on the physical “amorphous” polymers applied from solution, with a focupsh yosni craelc epnrto pteesrttiinegs ooff materials used in the conservation of art objects. Because the solvent composition or quality affects the shape and orientation of polymer molecules in solution, the nature of the partly crystalline dry film can also be affected. Thus, the physical and optical properties of a number of polymers have been shown to vary when deposited from solutions of different quality. This phenomenon is specifically related to the desired performance of a coating, adhesive or consolidant used for the conservation of an art object. The effects of “good” or “poor” quality solvents on the physical properties of solution-cast films of poly(vinylacetate) and Acryloid B-72 are discussed. In addition to polymer specific variations due to solvent quality on the glass transition temperature and the tensile properties (strength and elongation), the effects of quantitative amounts of retained solvent on these properties are considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 352: Symposium – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV , 1995 , 807
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Tess, R. W. in Applied Polymer Science, 2nd ed. edited by Tess, R. W. and Poehlein, G. W. (American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1985) pp. 661–702.Google Scholar
2. Funke, W., Prog. Organic Coatings, 289 (1973/1974).Google Scholar
3. Rosen, S. L., Fundamental Principles of Polymeric Materials (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982) pp. 81–83.Google Scholar
4. Hsu, S. R., PhD thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, 1985.Google Scholar
5. Hansen, E. F., Derrick, M. R., Schilling, M. R. and Garcia, R., J. American Institute for Conservation, 30, 203 (1991).Google Scholar
6. Feller, R. L., Curran, M. and Bailie, C. in Photodegradation and Stabilization of Coatings (American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C., 1981) pp. 193–196.Google Scholar
7. Gerassimova, N. G., Melnikova, E. P., Vinokurova, M. P. and Sheinina, E.G., ICOM Committee for Conservation, 4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 1, 4–1 (1975).Google Scholar
8. Domaslowski, W., Wiener Berichte uiber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst. 4/5, 402 (1987/1988).Google Scholar
9. Lawrence, C., Masters thesis, Queen's University, 1990.Google Scholar
10. Hansen, E. F. and Schilling, M. R., presented at the AIC Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, 1994 (unpublished).Google Scholar
11. Olayemi, J. Y. and Adeyeye, A.A., Polymer Testing, 3, 25 (1982).Google Scholar