Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
cce
bA
e We
Fre
of
rs e-PRESERVATIONScience
Y ea
10
e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
ISSN: 1581-9280 web edition
ISSN: 1854-3928 print edition
e-Preservation Science (e-PS)
A PRELIMINARY FTIR-BASED EXPLORATION OF THE
SURFACTANT PHASE SEPARATION PROCESS IN
is published by Morana RTD d.o.o.
www.Morana-rtd.com CONTEMPORARY MURAL PAINTINGS
1 Introduction
Emulsion paints are one of the most common media used to create con-
temporary murals. In the recent years, the development of these paints has
been reviewed,1-3 and waterborne formulations have been reported as com-
plex chemical systems consisting of numerous components. Among these,
there are many additives which are included during the production of the
latex binders and the subsequent formulation of the paints to satisfy manu-
facturing requirements and to enhance the performance of the final prod-
ucts. These additives are mainly freeze-thaw agents, protective colloids,
coalescents, biocides, thickeners, buffers, defoamers and surfactants.
During the formulation of paints, further surfactants are added to wet the
pigments and to finely disperse them in the waterborne medium. Typical
wetting agents are oligomeric non-ionic surfactants, characterized by
received: 04/06/2012 hydrophobic chain lengths of 10-12 carbon atoms and hydrophilic heads of
accepted: 28/01/2013 6-8 ethylene oxide (EO) units.
key words:
Mural painting; emulsion paint; surfactant;
Anionic surfactants (mainly polyphosphates, polyacrylic acids and polycar-
FTIR reflection spectroscopy boxylates) and non-ionic polyethoxylated compounds (characterized by 20-
10
© by M O R A N A RTD d.o.o.
30 EO units) are employed as dispersing agents. The itself, the adhesion of the paint could be influenced by
former are preferred to disperse inorganic pigments the presence of surfactants at the support-film inter-
and the latter to disperse the organic ones, but a mix- face.14
ture of the two dispersant typologies is often used in
the same formulation.4 A number of mock-ups simulating the properties of
mural paintings were prepared and subjected to capil-
Considering the overall composition of an emulsion lary rise cycles. This method was preferred to other
paint (where water content can vary from 40 to 60% by degradation processes (e.g. simulation of rain) because
weight), the total amount of additives is generally it was likely to accelerate delamination of the paint lay-
lower than the 10% (w/w), with surfactants varying ers, allowing the examination of the film-support
from 1 to 3% (w/w).1,2,4 With the exception of some interface. Previous trials also revealed that, simulating
volatile compounds, all these additives remain in the the absorption of water into the mortar supports by
dry paint film and, even if their concentration is still capillary rise mechanism, it was possible to wet the
low, they may affect the properties of the paint layers paint layers in a controlled way and to easily evaluate
and their responses to environmental conditions or the permeability of the films to liquid water. The phase
conservation treatments. A number of studies have separation of water soluble components of the paints
been recently carried out on laboratory samples and toward the support-film and the film-environment
real canvas paintings5-8, with the aim of exploring interfaces, was evaluated by mid-near FTIR reflection
these aspects. spectroscopy, which had been successfully used to
study this degradation process.7,8 The surfaces of ref-
It has been shown that non-ionic polyethoxylate erence mock-ups stored under laboratory conditions
(PEO)-type surfactants tend to spontaneously desorb were also studied to verify the occurrence of exuda-
from the bulk paint layers, leading to the formation of tion processes not induced by water.
small rounded crystals or translucent layers at the
paint-environment interface. This exudation process
may be influenced by a number of factors, such as: the 2 Experimental
nature of the polymer binder and the tendency of its
particles to coalesce; the type and quantity of surfac- 2.1 Selection of Materials and Preparation of
tant; the binder-surfactant interactions; the film drying Samples
mechanism.5 The process is also influenced by the
environmental conditions (it is enhanced by dark stor- Samples were prepared using three professional grade
age and high temperatures)7,9 and the properties of the artists’ emulsion paints, encompassing different types
support.5 Comparing the stability of samples prepared of binders: (i) Flashe by Le Franc & Bourgeois, consist-
by applying the same commercial paints on different ing of a vinyl resin; (ii) Heavy Body (H.B.) by Liquitex,
kinds of support, the exudation of PEO-type surfac- consisting of an acrylic resin; (iii) Brera by Maimeri,
tants was more evident for samples cast on Teflon consisting of a styrene-acrylic resin. Five paints of each
rather than for samples cast on acrylic primed cotton commercial brand were selected, including three inor-
canvas (more porous).6 The changes to the bulk films, ganic and two organic pigments: titanium white (PW6),
due to typical cleaning treatments and removal of the ultramarine blue (PB29), an iron based yellow (PY42),
exuded surfactants, have been also evaluated.6-10 phthalocyanine green (PG7) and quinacridone violet
(PV19). These 15 paints were used to create film sam-
To the best of our knowledge, little attention has been ples as well as mock-ups.
paid to the study of the surfactant phase separation in
the context of mural paintings. Nevertheless, the The films, cast as draw-down on Mylar® supports and
leaching of water soluble components of emulsion having a final average thickness of 100-150 μm, were
paints has been reported as one of the degradation used only to assess the composition of the paints by
processes which could affect contemporary murals,11 ATR-FTIR analysis. The mocks-ups simulated the prop-
and the exudation of surfactants has been proposed as erties of real murals. The supports of the mock-ups
one of the causes of bleaching of paint layers.12 were prepared using a commercially blended cement-
lime mortar (mixed according to the technical data
This work was developed in the attempt of exploring sheet, using clean water). A total of 60 supports were
these degradation processes, considering a number of mould-shaped (5 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm) and left to cure for
factors which could influence the surfactant phase approximately 12 months (20 ± 2 °C, 60 ± 5% RH).
separation in murals. The chemical composition of the Before painting, all loose particles, dirt and dust were
paint layers was taken into consideration, as well as the removed and the supports were further conditioned in
properties of the mural support and the role played by an oven (60 °C), until reaching constant weight (Δw% ≤
water. Most murals are outdoor works of art, directly 0.01%) as measured day-to-day. The emulsion paints
exposed to rain or painted on supports affected by were then diluted with distilled water (paint:water ratio
water infiltration and rising damp. On the one hand, 4:1, by weight), and brushed on the supports until the
the presence of the hydrophilic additives in the bulk fresh paint weight of 500 g/m2 was obtained. Previous
film is expected to enhance water permeability of the trials suggested that this amount of wet paint would
paint layers,13 especially if they were recently applied result in 200 ± 50 μm thickness of dry films.
and the film formation process is still not complete. On
the other hand, water is expected to promote the The painted samples were left to dry in laboratory con-
phase separation process, driving the hydrophilic paint ditions for 24 h and further conditioned in a T and RH
components towards both the surface and the sup- controlled environment (20 ± 2 °C, 50 ± 5% RH) for 3
port. As far as this last aspect is concerned, it is weeks before testing.
remarkably that many murals are affected by delami-
nation of the paint layer and, even if this phenomenon Four mock-ups were prepared per paint: the first one,
is often due to the properties of the mural support considered as a reference, was stored in laboratory
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
11
www.e-PRESERVATIONScience.org
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
12
© by M O R A N A RTD d.o.o.
It was verified that the binder of Flashe paints was a assess of the phase separation process of paint water
polyvinyl acetate-vinyl versatate copolymer (PVAc- soluble additives (e.g. surfactants).
VeoVa), the binder of H.B.-Liquitex paints was a n-
butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate copolymer As can be seen in Figure 2, representing a selection of
(p(nBA-MMA)), while that of Brera paints a n-butyl the results (specifically of the blue paints), spectra
methacrylate-2-ethylhexylacrylate-styrene terpoly- from the extracts of Flashe and H.B.-Liquitex paints
mer (p(nBMA-2EHA-styr)). were characterized by absorption bands ascribable to
a polyethoxylated
Paint Components compound, possibly a
Commercial Brand Paint Name ID Cod
Pigment Other components non-ionic alkylphenol
titanium dioxide and possi- ethoxylate surfactant.
vinyl binder p(VAc-VeoVa) The most diagnostic
001-white* FLPW6 bly lithopone white
(PW6-PW5) calcium carbonate extender features of this kind of
artificial ultramarine blue surfactants are: a
043-ultramarine blue FLPB29 non-ionic surfactant
Flashe (PB29), traces of kaolinite
(PEO type) characteristic C-H
(LeFranc&Bourgeois) Synthetic iron oxide yellow
302-yellow ochre FLPY42
(PY42)
stretching region
*anionic surfactant
(polyacrylate type)
profile, dominated by
388-ruby red FLPV19 quinacridone red (PV19)
an absorption around
512-armor green* FLPG7 phthalocyanine green (PG7) cellulose derivative thickener 2880 cm-1 and show-
432-titanium white LQPW6 titanium dioxide (PW6)
ing two additional
weak absorptions at
380-ultramarine blue artificial ultramarine blue acrylic binder p(nBA-MMA)
(green shade)
LQPB29
(PB29), traces of kaolinite 2741 and 2694 cm-1
Heavy Body 332-transparent raw synthetic iron oxide yellow
non-ionic surfactant (Ar-O-CH2- stretch-
LQPY42 (PEO type) ing); a small band at
(Liquitex) Sienna* (PY42)
110-quinacridone crimson LQPV19 quinacridone red (PV19) *anionic surfactant about 1511 cm-1 (-
(polyacrylate type) C=C- ring stretching);
317-phthalocyanine green
(blue shade)
LQPG7 phthalocyanine green (PG7) a doublet around
titanium dioxide 1360 cm-1 and 1342
018-titanium white BRPW6 cm-1; a sharp band at
(PW6)
artificial ultramarine blue styrene-acrylic binder about 1110 cm-1 (vas
390-ultramarine BRPB29
(PB29), traces of kaolinite p(nBMA-2EHA-styr) C-O-C).
Brera
synthetic iron oxide yellow
(Maimeri) 131-yellow ochre BRPY42 cellulose derivative thickener
(PY42) These bands were
256-primary red magenta BRPV19 quinacridone red (PV19) less clear for the
321-phthalo green BRPG7 phthalocyanine green (PG7)
extracts of some
Flashe paints, which
Table 1: The commercial names and the composition of the 15 artists’ grade waterborne paints included in the study showed broad
(as confirmed by ATR-FTIR analysis).
The water extracts of the film samples were character- Figure 2: ATR-FTIR spectra of the water extracts of blue paints. The
main spectral features to be considered in the assessment of the
ized by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, with the purpose of phase separation process of paint water soluble components are indi-
identifying diagnostic features potentially useful to cated.
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
13
www.e-PRESERVATIONScience.org
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
14
© by M O R A N A RTD d.o.o.
Figure 6: Micrographs (20X) comparing the surfaces of H.B.-Liquitex Figure 7: Reflection mid-FTIR spectra of the H.B.-Liquitex transparent
transparent raw Sienna mock-ups: the reference (LQPY42) and sample raw Sienna mock-ups: in comparison to the reference (blue), sample
LQPY42_1 that, after 17 rising water cycles, is affected by a white LQPY42_1 (red, 17 cycles) is characterized by the absorption features
deposit. of calcium carbonate.
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
15
www.e-PRESERVATIONScience.org
also due to the fact that, as the capillary rise cycles of calcium carbonate: the inverted bands at 873 (v2)
were carried on, the exuded surfactant was partially and 1415 cm-1 (v3), and the combination modes at 1796
re-dissolved by water and driven back into the paint cm-1 (v1+ v4) and 2521 cm-1 (v1+ v3).19 It should be
layer during the drying process. noted that gypsum and/or calcium carbonate were
detected on the surface of all the aged H.B.-Liquitex
After 17 degradation cycles the surface of LQPY42_1 mock-ups.
sample (Figure 6) was clearly affected by a white mate-
rial. As seen in Figure 7, the spectrum from the surface Table 3 shows the results obtained from the Flashe
of this sample (red) was characterized by the features samples. In this case, it was not possible to evaluate
the surface carbonation process because the paint lay-
ers contained calcium carbonate extender.
Nevertheless, traces of gypsum were detected on the
surface of some samples, as seen in Figure 8 which
includes the spectrum from one of the yellow ochre
mock-ups at the end of the 20 capillary rise cycles
(FLPY42_1, red line). No salts were detected on the
surface of the aged Brera samples.
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
16
© by M O R A N A RTD d.o.o.
Figure 9: Reflection mid-FTIR spectra from ruby red-Flashe mock-ups: Figure 10: Reflection μ-FTIR spectra from one of the delaminated
the absorption features of the PEO-type surfactant are not detected, areas of LQPY42_3 sample: the back of the paint layer (blue) and the
neither on the surface of the reference (blue) nor on the surface of surface of the mortar support (red). In black the ATR-FTIR spectrum
FLPV19_1 sample (red). In black, the ATR-FTIR spectrum of the paint from the back of the paint layer. C: calcium carbonate. G: gypsum.
water extracts.
3.2.2 Exploration of the Paint-support Interface tory conditions for 18 weeks. This possibly suggests
that indoor murals, created on supports which are not
After 20 degradation cycles, some of the samples pre- affected by damp and water infiltration, would not be
pared with Flashe white, H.B.-Liquitex titanium white affected by early exudation phenomena. Since the
and H.B.-Liquitex transparent raw Sienna paints, desorption of some components of the paints from the
showed delamination (blisters). In the attempt of bulk films to the paint-environment interface may
assessing the cause, the paint layers were locally develop considering longer periods of time, it would
peeled off and the film-support interfaces were stud- be interesting to continue monitoring the condition of
ied by μFTIR-reflection spectroscopy. The water solu- the surface of the reference samples.
ble components of the paints were not detected, nei-
ther on the back of the paint layers nor on the surface The investigation of the mock-ups subjected to the ris-
of the mortar supports. ing water cycles suggested that phase separation
could be promoted by water absorbed into the sup-
As an example, the results collected from one of the port and wetting the paint layers.
delaminated areas of LQPY42_3 sample are shown in
Figure 10. The spectrum from the back of the paint Different results were collected from samples pre-
layer (blue) was characterized by absorption features pared using different paints, possibly depending on the
that could be ascribed to the bulk film, to calcium car- chemical composition of the paint layers. The H.B.-
bonate (one of the main components of the support) Liquitex samples were prone to the process, with the
and gypsum. The spectrum collected from the surface PEO-type surfactant (presumably an alkylphenol
of the support (red) revealed the presence of gypsum. ethoxylate one) which desorbed from the acrylic bulk
films, leading to the formation of patchy translucent
The back of the paint layer was also explored by ATR- layers at the paint-environment interface. Consistently
FTIR (black), confirming the results of previous investi- with the reported use of non-ionic compounds as the
gations: bands at 3530, 3400, 1685, 1622, 1112, 673 most appropriate agents to disperse organic pigments,
and 603 cm-1 were assigned to gypsum; bands at 1796, the highest amounts of the surfactant were detected
1402, 872 and 713 cm-1 to calcium carbonate; that at on the surfaces of the aged quinacridone crimson
1006 cm-1 to silicon-based sand in the mortar support. (PV19) and phathalocyanine green (PG7) samples.
Similar results were gathered from all the samples,
suggesting that delamination is due to the sub-surface Besides being characterized by the same typology of
crystallization of water soluble salts originating from surfactant, the Flashe samples seemed not to undergo
the supports, rather than to the presence of paint addi- the exudation process. This could be due to many
tives. causes: brand dependency reasons (the amount of
surfactant used to formulate the paints), the interac-
tion between the paint components, the degree of
4 Conclusions coalescence of the paint films, the response of the
paint layers to water.
The experiments presented in this work contributed to
better definition of the degradation processes that Considering outdoor real murals, the paint layers are
affect contemporary mural paintings, through a pre- often wetted by rising water or rain. Depending on the
liminary assessment of phase separation of the water composition of the paint layers, this may lead to an
soluble components of different emulsion paints using early exudation of the water-soluble components
FTIR reflection spectroscopy. (such as the PEO-type surfactants). Nevertheless, it is
rather unlikely that this process is the main cause of
No evidence of paint additives was detected on the the bleaching of paint layers, with accretions of white
surface of the reference samples stored under labora- materials possibly due to other degradation mecha-
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
17
www.e-PRESERVATIONScience.org
nisms. The results collected from H.B.-Liquitex and tific evaluation of surface cleaning acrylic emulsion paintings, in: 15th
Flashe samples suggested that, since the mortar sup- Triennal meeting, ICOM Committee for Conservation, New Delhi,
2008, pp. 865-873.
ports are characterized by water soluble components,
the rising water may become the vehicle of soluble 9. B. Ormsby, T. Learner, The effects of wet surface cleaning treat-
salts, leading to surface crystallization processes. ments on acrylic emulsion artists’ paints- a review of recent scientific
research, Rev. Conserv., 2009, 10, 29-41.
Neither phase separation nor surface salt crystalliza-
10. E. Kampasakali, B. Ormsby, A. Cosentino, C. Miliani, T. Learner, A
tion were detected in the Brera mock-ups. The higher preliminary evaluation of the surfaces of acrylic emulsion paint films
stability of these samples was presumably due to the and the effects of wet-cleaning treatment by Atomic Force
hydrophobic character of the paint layers, character- Microscopy (AFM), Stud. Conserv., 2011, 3, 216-229.
ized by a styrene-acrylic binder. On the other hand,
11. M. Golden, Mural paints: current and future formulations, essay
most of the relatively fresh (3 weeks old) acrylic and presented at Mural Painting and Conservation in the Americas sympo-
vinyl paint layers were permeable to liquid water. sium, Los Angeles, 16-17 May 2003, http://www.getty.edu/conserva-
tion/publications_resources/pdf_publications/golden.pdf (accessed
The sensitivity of the paint layers to water is possibly 22/05/2012).
enhanced by hydrophilic additives. If phase separation
12. A. Rava, The conservation of open-air murals: a case comparison,
occurs it is probably better to remove the exuded in: P. Iazurlo, F. Valentini, Eds., Conservazione dell’arte contempo-
compounds from the surface of the paintings. ranea. Temi e problemi, il prato, Padova, 2010, pp. 143-146.
However, it is reasonable to assume that after being
exuded, the additives will rapidly deteriorate due to 13. P. Whitmore, H. Morris, V. Colaluca, Penetration of liquid water
through waterborne acrylic coatings, in: T. Learner et al., Eds., Modern
outdoor weathering conditions (exposure to rain and Paints Uncovered, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles,
UV radiation).5,7 2007, pp. 217-223
No evidence of paint water-soluble components was 14. J. Charmeau, E. Kientz, Y. Holl, Adhesion of latex films; influence
detected at the film-support interface, with data sug- of surfactants, Progr. Org. Coat., 1996, 27, 87-93.
gesting that the delamination of the paint layer was
15.V. Pintus, S. Wei, M. Schreiner, UV ageing studies: evaluation of
mainly caused by the sub-surface crystallization of lightfastness declarations of commercial acrylic paints, Anal. Bioanal.
water soluble salts. In contrast to what is observed on Chem., 2012, 402,1567-1584.
canvas paintings, the additives of emulsion paints
seem to play a minor role in affecting the stability of 16. J. Plesters, Ultramarine Blue, Natural and Artificial, in: A. Roy, Ed.,
Artists’ pigments. A handbook of their history and characteristics, vol.2,
mural paintings. In these, degradation processes are National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C, 1993, pp. 55-65.
primarily influenced by the condition and the proper-
ties of the supports. 17. C. Miliani, F. Rosi, A. Daveri, B.G. Brunetti, Reflection infrared spec-
troscopy for the non-invasive in situ study of artists’ pigments, Appl.
Phys. A, 2012, 106, 295-307.
Surfactant Phase Separation in Contemporary Mural Paintings, e-PS, 2013, 10, 10-18
18