CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint ofthe Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Typeset by Charon Tee Ltd (A Macmillan Company), Chennai, India

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Cromwell Press Ltd, Towbridge, Wiltshire

All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publishers.

Published by: CRC Press/Balkema

P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Leiden, The Netherlands

e-mail: [email protected] www.crcpress"com-\vww.taylorandfrancis,co.uk - www.balkerna.nl

Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use ofthis publication and/or the information contained herein

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-47596-9

Lasers in the Conservation of Artworks - Castilleja et at. (eds) © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-47596-9

Laser for removing remains of carbonated matrices from Pleistocene fossils

L. Lopez-Polin & x.oue

Institut Catala de Paleoecologia Humann t Evolucio Social- Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili Tarragona, Spain

J. Chamon & 1. Barrio

Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologla, Universidad Autonoma, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT: This paper studies the feasibility of using lasers to remove carbonated sediment layers from Pleistocene bones. The laser facility is a portable Nd:YAG laser system with optical fibre. Laser cleaning is compared with mechanical cleaning with a scalpel, a tool that is normally used to prepare fossil remains. This comparison takes into account precision and the time needed to achieve similar results with both. laser .and scalpel. To assess precision, the changes on the.surface of the bones are monitored using Optical and Electronic Microscopy; Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM). The results show that laser cleaning is feasible and that, in some cases, it is more precise than mechanical cleaning.

1 INTRODUCTION

The study of fossil remains often depends on specimens which have been treated by conservators. For fossils to be classified taxonomically and fully Of partially observed, they need to be cleaned.

Compacted and hardened sediments are common in many sites, particularly in those in which the infiltration of calcium carbonate is usual. Calcium carbonate leads to the presence of hard deposits on the surface of the fossils which are difficult to remove.

Traditionally the enclosing matrix has been removed by mechanical tools and chemicals, which are also often used for final surface cleaning. Although lasers have been used in other fields of conservation for many decades, they have not been used (atleast to such an extent) in the field of ancient bone remains. In fact, very little work has been done on the application of lasers to palaeontological specimens (Landucci et a1. 1999,2000, 2003, Asmus 2000, Cornish & Jones 2003, Cornish et al, 2004) and there are very few papers that deal with lasers being used to remove particles of sediment (Landucci et al. 1999,2000,2003).

This paper presents the results of some tests on Pleistocene bones with two specific aims: to determine whether it is feasible to use lasers to removethe remains of a carbonated matrix; and to compare the effectiveness of lasers and traditional manual tools.

In this study, effectiveness is considered to be a combination of speed and precision.

In order to achieve these aims, separate test pits were made.in some specimens with both laser and scalpel. Then, the effectiveness of each of the techniques was compared by monitoring how long they wok and the final appearance of the fossils (particular attention was

. paid to the degree of cleaning and the respect for the original surface of the bones).

MATERIALS MID fETHODS

The fossil sample

The fossil sample consisted of macro mammal bones fromtwo Pleistceene site : Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atap e iI" .Burgos, SpaID. and La Cansaladeta (La Riba, Tarragena, Spain l.

In rhi - smdy. twelve samples were treated. Ten bones were from two different levels of the Gran Dolina site:

TD6 c.&OO_OOOyearsago andTDIO (c. 350,000 years ago) (Carbonell et al. 1999). One bone was from level K of La Cansaladeta (c. 400000 years ago) (Angelucci et at 2004). All these bones had carbonated sediment remains on their surface. Finally, a fragment of bone from TO l O of little scientifi c value was used for destructive assays.

477

The concretions that had to be removed were made up of carbonated sediment, mainly clay, but also silt and sand. The colour of the concretions (red) was different enough from the colour of the bone (white) to allow laser treatment.

2.2 The laser treatment

The laser equipment was a portable Nd: YAG laser system with optical fiber. It emits near infrared radiation (l 064 nm) in the Short Free Running mode (SFR).

In some cases, prior to laser cleaning, the concretions were reduced with mechanical tools to obtain a layer that was approximately I mrn thick.

Some initial tests were made on numerous samples (on more than the twelve selected for this experiment) to determine the- range of suitable parameters for safe and effective cleaning. As a result of these tests, the following parameters were chosen: energy between 0.7-1.1; a spot of 6 mm; fluences between 2.5 and 3.5 J/cm2; frequency between 4 and 10Hz.

The laser cleaning was performed in water-assisted conditions: that is to say, the surface was either kept wet during irradiation or the sample was totally immersed.

2.3 Surface examination techniques

The surface of the bones was examined after the treatment by means of optical and electronic microscopy to evaluate the precision of both the laser and scalpel cleaning techniques. The following equipment was used: an Olympus SZJ J stereoscope (with a digital photo system Infinity .Y), a JEOL 6400 Scanning Electron Microscope, and a FEI Quanta 600 Environmental SEM.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Induced damage

To characterize the potential alterations caused by laser irradiation, the surface of one of the samples was deliberately damaged.

The laser was used to irradiate the clean surface of a bone. A systematic sweep (making lines) was made using different parameters (Fig. 1). Half of the bone was dry; while the other half was wet.

In the dry half, the sweep produced visible grey or black lines. Furthermore, excessive exposure of bone to the laser produced small holes, craquelures, and a molten appearance. These surface modifications seem to have been caused by the heating of the surface under the laser spot. 611 the other hand; the wet half of the bone was mostly unaltered using the same parameters. Thus, the damage threshold depends significantly on the dampness of the surface. In this specific sample, the damage threshold for the dry substrate was established using the minimum parameters tested: energy of

Figure 1. Fossil showing damage induced by laser. The dark bands correspond to laser sweeps carried outusing different parameters. The box indicates the area shown in FIgures 2a' and 2b.

0.2 J; spot of 1 0 nun; fluence of 0,.3 J/cm2. The damage, threshold of the wetsubstrate, however, was considerably higher because a higher fluence of 4 J/cm1( energy of 0.5 J and 4 mm of spot) only left a slight mark.

This test showed the considerable difference between the effects of the dry and the wet cleaning. As other authors have. pointed out (Landucci 2000,< 2003), wetting is necessary to minimize the heat effect' of laser irradiation. This, then, limits the usefulness of laser treatment, as sometimes wetting specimens is not possible.

3.2 Laser cleaning

In some, bones, laser cleaning gave excellent results (Fig. 3) whereas in otherapparently similar bones from the same, sites, results were not so good (at least no better than results obtained with a scalpel). Results seem to be related more to how the sediment layer is joined to the bone surface than to its composition: concretions of similar compositions were treated but the results depended on the degree of adhesion.

In these samples, the minimum fluence for removing encrustation was 2.5 .I/crrr'. Taking into account the higher damage threshold in wet conditions, safe cleaning is possible. This value cannot be considered universal as both the original substrates and the.removable layers vary considerably. In fact, this parameter may need to be changed even when working on a single sample. Thus, an individual test is needed before any treatment is applied.

As mentioned above, surface wetting is needed to achieve safe cleaning: Furthermore, not only wetting but complete immersion of the bones in water gave good results. Immersion provides .continuous cool, ing of the surface and prevents heating. Immersion

478

..1".. In

fig 80(

mn me sur eTa mil the

-==~ _ -_-

.... ---- -

Figure 2. Detail of the bone surface after laser treatment at sao mJ,.S Hz, spot 4 mm, a) the spot under the stereoscopic microscope, b) the same area under the ESEM, low vacuum mode, c) enlarged view of the effects of laser on the bone surface (area marked by a white box in 2b), small holes, craquelures, and a molten aspect arc the features ofthethermal alteration produced by an excessive exposure of bone to thelaser,

Figure 3. Mandible of bovidae from level TD6 of Gran Dolina site. Detail of the same area before cleaning (a), and after cleaning with laser (b).

also causes the formation of bubbles; which seems to improve the mechanical action.

Laser is especially useful in difficult access areas (nooks) or in rough zones where other tools (e.g, scalpels) cannot access or are not selective enough.

3.3 Laser versus scalpel

Tbis study has compared treatment by laser and by scalpel Both these tools are used to treat thin layers and provide precise cleaning (scalpels in particular are commonly used by conservators).

In some cases the appearance of the treated surfaces and the ' ... ·orking times after using a laser or scalpel were similar in the same sample but in other samples the differences were considerable. In some cases, when th arbonated ediment was strongly adhered to the bone surface, the laser was quicker than the scalpel (and apparently mor precise) (Fig. 4). Furthermore, on softer bones, the scalpe 1 common ly left some marks while the laser did not. In some cases, then, the laser is a clear improvement

To summarize, each Case has its own characteristics.

Acceptable results can be provided by lasers depending

479

Figure 4. Fossil from La Cansaladeta site (La Riba, Tarragona), completely covered by sediment strongly adhered to its surface (a), first, the sedimentwas removed with an ultrasonic piezoelectric device, until a thin layer of carbonated sediment had been revealed (1 mm approximately). Then one half was cleaned with a Jaser (right) and the other half with a scalpel (left), in order to compare effectiveness as well as damage to the bone surface.

on the combination of such factors as the sedimentbone adhesion, the hardness or weakness of the bone, the kind of surface (rough), etc. Finally, although the techniques have been used separately for purposes of comparison, a complete treatment would certainly involve some sort of combination.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Lasers Can be effective at removing carbonated sedimerit layers up to 1 rnm thick on thiskindoffossil bone.

The working irradiation parameters have to be adjusted to the characteristics of the sample which is to be cleaned, which must be wetted for good results.

Laser IS especially useful in difficult access areas or in rough zones. Furthermore, as laser isa non-contact tool, it is a, good solution when the bone is fragile and thin. With conventional tools pressure is inevitably exerted on the specimen and this can sometimes be a risk.

In some samples, lasers are as precise, effective and efficient as scalpels, that is to say, results 'with both tools can be similar. In others, lasers are quicker and more precise than scalpels, and they leave fewer marks on the bone surface, which is a clear improvement. At times, however, they are as effective as scalpels only when high energy parameters, which may damage the bone surface, are used.

Further research about the chemical composition of the removable layers and their adhesion to the substrate is needed to better understand when the lasertechnique is really helpful.

Figure 5. Details of the bone surface of'the fossil in Figu:eunder stereoscope microscope once cleaned. The white <separates the area treated by scalpei (left) from the ~ cleaned by laser (right). Enlarged view under ESEM ( vacuum mode) Of both areas (b and -c respectively). laser did not leave visible marks (although some microscep __ detaching can be observed on the bone surface after treatment).

Finally, whether results are good or not depends on what is known about the material treated (bo:L: the fossils and the characteristics of the enclosing rock matrices), on previous experience in conserration treatments, and, especially, on the user's skill handling the laser cleaning equipment.

480

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Weare grateful to M. Mancusi and M. Stankova of the Microscopy Unit of the Scientific and Technical Service of the URV. We also thank E. Catalan and A. I. Pardo for their assistance at the Conservation Laboratory of the Universidad Autonorna de Madrid, L.L-P.

"..,/ . -,

is the recipient of a pre-doctoral research grant from the Rovira i Virgili University. lCh. received a predoctoral research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. Thanks are also given to EL. EN. (Italy) and Laser Tech Iberica.

REFERENCES

Angelucci, D. E., Caceres, 1., Lozano, M., 011e, A, Rodriguez, XP. & Verges, 1M. 2004. El jaciment de la Cansaladeta (la Riba, Alt Camp) en el marc del Plistoce mitja catala. Cypsela 14: 151-170.

Asmus; 1 F. 2000. Laser divestment for natural history museum collections. Journal of Cultural Heritage 1:

259-262. .

Cornish, L & Jones, C.G. 2003. Laser cleaning of natural history specimens and subsequent SEM examination. In J H. Townsend, K. hemin & A. Adriaens (eds),

Conservation science 2002 : papers from the conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland, 22-24 May 2002. London:

Archetype.

Cornish, L., Miller, G. & Jones, C. 2004. Pulsed laser cleaned natural history specimens with reference to the removal of conductive coatings. In K. Dickmann, C. Fotakis & 1. F. Asmus (eds), Lasers in the Conservation of'Artworks. Lacona V Proceedings, o snabriick, Germany, September 15-18,2003. Springer Verlag.

Carbonell, E., Esteban, M., Martin, A., Mosquera, M., Rodriguez, X. P., 0116, A., Sala, R., Verges, 1. M., Bermudez de Castro, 1. M. & Ortega, A. 1.1999. The Pleistocene site of Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain: ahistory of the archaeological investigations. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 313-324.

Landucci, F., Pecchioni, E., Pini, R., Siano, S. & Salimbeni, R. 1999. A new laser approach in the conservation of pale 011- tological findings. In A. Guarino (ed.) 2nd International Congress on Science and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, 5-9 July 1999, Pans, France: Proceedings. Paris: Elsevier.

Landucci, F. Pini, R., Siano, S., Salimbeni, R. & Pecchioni, E. 2000. Laser cleaning of fossil vertebrates: a preliminary report. Journal oj' Cultural Heritage 1: 263-267.

Landucci, E, Pecchioni, E, Torre, D., Mazza, P., Pini, R., Siano, S. & .Salimbeni, R., 2003. Toward 311 optimised laser cleaning procedure to treat important palaeontological specimens. Journal a/Cultural Heritage 4: 106-110.

481