4.5 Article

Novel nannofossils extraction methods from paintings, coupled with GC-MS for provenance determination and binder analysis

期刊

HERITAGE SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s40494-022-00773-8

关键词

Cultural heritage; Painting; Calcareous nannofossils; Extraction; Provenance; Binder; FAME; GC-MS

资金

  1. Centre for Geosphere Dynamics [UNCE/SCI/006]
  2. GAUK [956120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of calcareous nannofossils for provenance analysis in cultural heritage, specifically in paintings, is an important topic. This study aims to develop a disaggregation method to extract more determinable nannofossils from painting micro-samples. The method allows for the determination of binders fatty acids and has a low impact on the painting samples.
The use of calcareous nannofossils for provenance analysis is a new-old topic for cultural heritage. Several studies have already mentioned it for ceramic, but less for paintings. Preparatory layers of the paintings are often made with chalk, which is composed of microfossils. To extract a calcareous nannofossils assemblage from a painting layer, we need to disaggregate it. The method is to plunge the micro-samples into water and heat it if water alone does not work. The disaggregation process takes a long time and is not efficient in terms of quantitative results. In this work, we aimed to develop a disaggregation method that increases the number of determinable nannofossils extracted from a painting micro-sample. As these samples are valuable and unique, we decided that a combination of analyses on the disaggregated micro-sample should be tried to extract the most information from it. We studied the possibility of binder determination by gas chromatography-mass spectrometer after the nannofossils assemblage extraction on the residual liquid from the disaggregation. The method we are presenting is easy to apply, has a high disaggregation rate for most paintings, and a low impact on binders fatty acids for their determination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据