Subject: Amines in steam humidification systems
James Stroud <stroud [at] mail__utexas__edu> writes: >If anyone has information or experience regarding the effects on >collections that may result from the use of amines in direct steam >humidification systems, we would be grateful to hear them. In 1996/97, under contract to Indiana University Art Museum (IUAM) supported by a grant (Analyzing the Effect of an Indoor Pollutant on Traditional Easel Paintings) from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT), I analyzed 74 samples from 21 paintings from IUAM thought to be affected by diethylaminoethanol (DEAE) contamination introduced into the atmosphere by live steam humidification, in order to determine if the paintings were damaged by the DEAE. Two Reports of Results were written and are available from NCPTT (<URL:http://www.ncptt.nps.gov>). 1. Williams, R.Scott, Canadian Conservation Institute. Analyzing the Effect of Diethylaminoethanol, an Indoor Air Pollutant, on Traditional Easel Paintings-Phase 1 Report: Analytical Procedures for DEAE in DEAE [diethylaminoethanol] Contaminated Paintings. Natchitoches, Louisiana: NCPTT. 1998. (22 pp; appendices). [PTT Publications No. 1998-16]. This report describes analytical procedures for detecting the presence and effects of diethylaminoethanol on paintings. 2. Williams, R.Scott, Canadian Conservation Institute. Analyzing the Effect of Diethylaminoethanol, an Indoor Air Pollutant, on Traditional Easel Paintings-Phase 2 Report: Infrared Spectroscopic Analysis of Varnish and Paint Samples from IUAM Paintings for the Presence of DEAE. Natchitoches, Louisiana: NCPTT. 1998. (15 pp). PTT Publications No. 1998-17] This study is based on analytical procedures developed in Phase 1 of the DEAE analysis project The report presents infrared spectroscopic analysis of varnish and paint samples from paintings for the presence of diethylaminoethanol, an indoor air pollutant, in an effort to analyze the effects of DEAE and conservation treatments on DEAE-contaminated paintings. I have summarized below the results for painting and model compound samples. Details are in the NCPTT reports. A. Summary of Results of IR spectroscopic analysis of painting samples 1. FTIR analysis was performed on 74 samples from 21 paintings from IUAM. Most painting samples has several components or layers, and all were analyzed. More than 500 spectra were collected for these components, and interpreted to identify the chemical composition of these components. 2. Model compounds to represent the major organic components of paintings were exposed to various concentrations of DEAE and the products of reaction were analyzed. 3. Studies on the model compounds showed that DEAE can react with the acidic components of paintings, in particular with the resin acids in natural resin varnishes, and free fatty carboxylic acid in drying oils. However, DEAE does not react with carboxylic esters of glycerol, and therefore is unlikely to react with the triglyceride esters that comprise the major component of drying oils. 4. DEAE reaction products, specifically DEAE carboxylate soap, was tentatively identified in only one painting, "Peinture" by Soulages. It was found in the ground layer, but in no other layers, including an acidic oil layer on the surface, where the potential for reaction is greatest. 5. Small amounts of oxalate compounds, perhaps calcium oxalate, were detected in several paintings. One source of oxalic acid and its salts is metabolic by products from molds, fungus, and algae. 6. The analyses reported here indicate that the IUAM paintings have not been damaged by reaction with DEAE. B. Detailed summary of results of FTIR analysis of products of reaction of DEAE with model compounds 1. DEAE reacted only with the acidic components of model compounds. DEAE produced DEAE resinates from dammar by reacting with the resin acids in dammar, DEAE soaps by reacting with carboxylic acids (myristic, palmitic and stearic acid) and the acid components (fatty acids) in linseed stand oil and trilinolenin. 2. Ammonia and morpholine reacted with carboxylic acids in a similar way to produce ammonium and morpholine carboxylate soaps. 3. DEAE did not react with esters including tripalmitin and tristearin and methyl stearate. 4. DEAE did not react with metal soaps including aluminum, calcium, sodium or zinc stearate. 5. The amount of reaction of DEAE with model compounds decreased with the concentration of the DEAE. 6. In vapors above 10000 ppm DEAE in water solution, dammar, copal, and all acids liquefied and the IR showed DEAE soaps. The methyl and glycerol esters, and metal soaps did not react (nor did they react when exposed to 100% DEAE vapors in a hanging drop apparatus). 7. In vapours above 400 ppm DEAE in water solution, DEAE soaps were formed from myristic acid, and to a lesser extent from palmitic acid. The myristic acid liquefied, whereas the palmitic acid was only "moistened". Stearic acid looked unchanged and did not show DEAE soap in its spectrum. This suggests that the reaction may depend on crystallinity, being least favored for the most crystalline stearic acid. 8. Dammar did not react with vapours above 400 ppm DEAE in water solution. 9. The DEAE appears to react with resin and carboxylic acids in a straightforward acid-base neutralization reaction to produce a DEAE salt (DEAE resinate or DEAE carboxylate soap). 10. DEAE does not hydrolyse or saponify triglyceride ester. DEAE will not damage oil paint media by this reaction. 11. DEAE does not enter into ion exchange reactions with metal soaps to replace the metal ion by DEAE ion. R. Scott Williams Senior Conservation Scientist (Chemist) Conservation Processes and Materials Research Canadian Conservation Institute 1030 Innes Road Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0M5 613-998-3721 Fax: 613-998-4721, *** Conservation DistList Instance 14:43 Distributed: Tuesday, February 6, 2001 Message Id: cdl-14-43-001 ***Received on Tuesday, 6 February, 2001