Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:18:34.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracking consolidant penetration into fossil bone using neutron radiography∙

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2014

A.S. Schulp ,
R. Schouten ,
L. Metten ,
A. van de Sande  and
A. Bontenbal
A.S. Schulp*
Affiliation:
Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, De Bosquetplein 6-7, 6211 KJ Maastricht, the Netherlands Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands
R. Schouten
Affiliation:
Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
L. Metten
Affiliation:
Institute for Energy, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
A. van de Sande
Affiliation:
Institute for Energy, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
A. Bontenbal
Affiliation:
NRG, Petten, P.O. Box 25, 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
*
Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the conservation of fragile fossil bone material, impregnation by solvent-borne consolidant is often required. Understanding the mode of penetration of consolidants into fossil bone is of crucial importance. It is governed by a variety of factors; neutron imaging is a powerful tool to monitor and visualise this penetration (non-destructively). The consolidation of a vertebrate fossil from the Maastrichtian of the southeast Netherlands was imaged at the High Flux Reactor facility at Petten, the Netherlands. The analysis shows current conservation practice to result in a sufficiently deep and isotropic penetration.

Keywords

Consolidant penetrationneutron imagingfossil boneconservation
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 92 , Issue 2-3 , September 2013 , pp. 177 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2013

Footnotes

∙

In: Mulder, E.W.A., Jagt, J.W.M. & Schulp, A.S. (eds): The Sunday's child of Dutch earth sciences - a tribute to Bert Boekschoten on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

References

Cnudde, V., Dierick, M., Vlassenbroeck, J., Masschaele, B., Lehmann, E., Jacobs, P. & Van Hoorebeke, L., 2007. Determination of the impregnation depth of siloxanes and ethylsilicates in porous material by neutron radiography. Journal of Cultural Heritage 8: 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cnudde, V., Dubruel, P., De Winne, K., De Witte, I., Masschaele, B., Jacobs, P. & Schacht, E., 2009. The use of X-ray tomography in the study of water repellents and consolidants. Engineering Geology 103: 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, A. & Alderson, S., 2009. An introduction to solution and reaction adhesives for fossil preparation. In: Brown, M.A., Kane, J.F. & Parker, W.G. (eds): Methods in fossil preparation. Proceedings of the First Annual Fossil Preparation and Collections Symposium. Petrified Forest National Park (Petrified Forest, Arizona, USA): 53–62.Google Scholar
Down, J.L. & Kaminska, E., 2006. A preliminary study of the degradation of cyanoacrylate adhesives in the presence and absence of fossil material. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26: 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedak, T.J., 2006. Using capillarity for determining and maintaining a polymer consolidant concentration after solution preparation. Collection Forum 20: 108–112.Google Scholar
Hameed, F., Schillinger, B., Rohatsch, A., Zawisky, M. & Rauch, H., 2009. Investigations of stone consolidants by neutron imaging. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A605: 150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koob, S., 1986. The use of Paraloid B-72 as an adhesive: its application for archaeological ceramics and other materials. Studies in Conservation 31: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, N.R., 2010. Literally a ‘mammoth task’: the conservation, preparation and curation of the West Runton Mammoth skeleton. Quaternary International 228: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Polín, L., Ollé, A., Cáceres, I., Carbonell, E. & Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., 2008. Pleistocene human remains and conservation treatments: the case of a mandible from Atapuerca (Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 54: 539–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macgregor, C., 2009. The role of the conservator in the preservation of megafaunal bone from the excavations at Cuddie Springs, NSW. In: Fairbairn, A., O'Connor, S. & Marwick, B. (eds): New directions in archaeological science. Terra Australis 28: 255–262.Google Scholar
Newey, C., Boff, R., Daniels, V., Pascoe, M. & Tennant, N., 1992. Adhesives and coatings. The Conservation Unit of the Museums & Galleries Commission (London), 140 pp.Google Scholar
Ohlídalová, M., Kučerová, I. & Novotná, M., 2006. Identification of acrylic consolidants in wood by Raman spectroscopy. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 37: 1179–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Słupik, A.A., 2000. Consolideren van subfossiel bot. Cranium 17: 60–77.Google Scholar
Słupik, A.A., 2001. Passieve en actieve conservering van fossielen in het Natuurmuseum Rotterdam. Cranium 18: 25–28.Google Scholar