Subject: Barrier materials used in framing
Emily Gilbert <emily_gilbert [at] hotmail__com> >I am currently researching materials used as a barrier between the >back of a mount and the backboard of a frame (usually oil tempered >hardboard). I am currently looking at the effects of using melinex, >aluminium foil, 'marvelseal' and 'moistop' At the Netherland Institute for Cultural Heritage (ICN) we are studying since some years the effect of backboard protections on the conditions of a canvas. In particular we have focussed our attention on the effect of backboard protection on the microclimate behind the canvas. This analysis can be applied to mountings of paper objects as well. We have seen that the materials used can be divided in three category: * hygroscopic and permeable materials, like simple cardboard, * impermeable and hygroscopic materials, like kapa-line (polyurethane foam between sheets of paper) or lexan sheets (polycarbonate) with a sheet of cardboard added between the canvas and the lexan. * impermeable, not hygroscopic materials like simple lexan, perspex, melinex. They can also be attached in different ways, they can be nailed to the stretcher or taped. Our conclusion is that in constant temperature conditions backboard protections have an effect in reducing RH fluctuations on the back of the object and that the extent of this reduction depends on: 1. the leakages present in the system (materials permeability, eventual corners cut-off in the backboard, other leakages). The higher the leakages, the smaller the RH fluctuations reduction; 2. the total amount of hygroscopic materials present in the system (the object itself and the backboard material, if hygroscopic, etc). The higher the amount of hygroscopic material, the higher the RH reduction. 3. the speed of the hygroscopic material to respond to RH changes.Thin open materials like cardboard are very fast and do buffer RH fluctuations, while thick materials like wood are very slow and have only a small effect on RH buffering in comparison with their mass. In the case of a temperature gradient between the back of the object and the front (due for example to a cold wall), the situation is more complicated. We have performed some measurements on the effect of a cold wall on the internal RH for the National Trust. If the object is hanged on the cold wall (say at 10 deg. C) with a certain distance, the temperature gradient between the room (kept at 20 deg. C) and the backboard is of the order of 5-8 C. In this case if the backboard is hygroscopic, it will buffer the back of the object to a higher RH than the room value, say about 3% higher. This value was experimentally measured and it can be predicted looking at the temperature dependence of the sorption isotherm of hygroscopic materials. The consequences of more dramatic temperature gradients are nicely described by Tim Padfield in his "Himalayan legend" <URL:http://www.natmus.dk/ixgb.htm>. We plan to study in the future the temperature effects of backboards and therefore to take into account the use of thermo insulating materials. If you would like to know more about our research you could read our paper on the last number of Studies in Conservation (vol 44 number 4 (1999)) and the follow up published on the proceeding of the 12th Triennial meeting of ICOM-CC in Lyon. For the use of aluminium or metallic backboard you could also consult the final thesis of Manuela Frankestein and the following research at the Fachhochschule fuer Konservierung in Koln. As far as I understand from the geometry you describe, you use an impermeable material between the back of the object and the backboard and you are basically screening off all the RH buffering effect of the hygroscopic backboard. Did you think about applying the impermeable material on the back of your backboard? Giovanna Di Pietro (1-2) and Frank Ligterink (2) (1) Abt. fuer Wissenschaftliche Photographie, University of Basel (2) Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam *** Conservation DistList Instance 13:36 Distributed: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 Message Id: cdl-13-36-001 ***Received on Wednesday, 22 December, 1999