JAIC 1989, Volume 28, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 79 to 96)
JAIC online
Journal of the American Institute for Conservation
JAIC 1989, Volume 28, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 79 to 96)


Elizabeth Estabrook


1. Paul Banks, “Paper Cleaning,” Restaurateur 1, no. 1 (1969): 52–66; Anne F. Clapp, Curatorial Care of Works of Art on Paper (Oberlin, Ohio: Intermuseum Conservation Laboratory, 1978), 59–61; Carolyn Horton, Cleaning and Preserving Bindings and Related Materials (Chicago: Conservation of Library Materials, 1969), 32–34, 62–64; Kerry McInnis, “Two Studies in Paper Conservation Practice,” ICCM Bulletin, 6, no. 2 (June 1980): 43–53; Elizabeth Moffat and Marilyn Laver, “Erasers and Related Dry Cleaning Materials” (Unpublished Canadian Conservation Institute Analytical Report, ARS No. 1738, File No. 7034-20-3, October 20, 1981), hereafter cited as CCI; Ellen Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, and N. Indictor, “The Effect of Eraser Treatment on Paper,” JAIC 22(1982): 1–12.

2. Verbal communication with the manufacturer, March and April 1987.

3. CCI, 5.

4. Horton, 33; Banks, 53.

5. CCI, 3–4.

6. McInnis, passim; Pearlstein, et al., 2.

7. W. J. Roff, Handbook of Common Polymers (Cleveland: CRC Press, 1971), 238–239.

8. Paul F. Hamlyn, “Microbiological Deterioration of Textiles,” Textiles 12, no. 3 (1983): 74–75.

9. Analysis of each eraser by means of pyrolysis gas chromatography was carried out by Alexander Shedrinsky at the Conservation Center, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University. Tapeten Reininger gave a trace similar to that of Pink Pearl and Art Gum, showing that it, too, is factice-based. Microchemical spot tests showed the presence of calcium carbonate.

10. C. V. Horie, Materials for Conservation (Boston: Butterworth, 1987), 91.

11. Pearlstein et al.,2, CCI, 2. Analyses were performed by X-ray primary emission spectroscopy in the scanning electron microscope and by IR spectroscopy. Chloride was detected with a specific ion electrode.

12. Horton, 33; Clapp, 78.

13. Kneaded Rubber, Pink Pearl, Art Gum, Opaline, and Magic Rub were tested.

14. CCI, 5.

15. G. G. Hawley, The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 10th ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1981), 841.

16. Banks, 53.

17. CCI, 7.

18. McInnis, 45; CCI, 4–6.

19. Pearlstein et al., 20.

20. Horton, 33.

21. Banks, 52.

22. Pearlstein et al.

23. Pearlstein et al., 2.

24. Pearlstein et al., 11.

25. The eraser was held against the cotton surface with gentle but firm pressure. However, without a more quantitative means of measuring and reproducing this force, this procedure represents, in all probability, the largest source of variables in the experiment.Because of concern regarding the use of mylar as a surface on which to erase the fabric strips, this portion of the experiment was repeated using both a formica and blotter paper surface. Mylar has a tendency to build up static charge, which may affect the quantity and/or tenacity of the eraser crumbs on the fabric. In this case, the results of the erasing procedure carried out on the other surfaces correlates with those from the mylar-supported strips, however, in the future mylar should be avoided.

26. The conditioning of the electrode was carried out as per A. Joel, N. Indictor, and N. Baer's recommendations, that is, “conditioning is optimum when the electrode is immersed in a buffer of pH near that of the test reading of the paper surface.” A. Joel, N. Indicator, J. F. Hanlan, and N. S. Baer, “Measurements and Significance of pH in Paper Conservation,” IIC-AG 12, no. 2(1972), 124.

27. This procedure was carried out by Pearlstein et al. (7) and is recommended by G. Shugar, R. Shugar, and L. Bauman in Chemical Technicians' Ready Reference Handbook (New York: McGraw Hill, 1973), 266. Three readings were taken of each of the following samples: 10A-E, 21D, 22B-D, 32B-D, 41A-E, 42A-E, 52B-E, 62B-E, 72B-E, and 829-F. The practice of triple readings was abandoned when it was noted that the pH of the cotton did not change in relation to the particular eraser used but rather was affected by the change in pH of the distilled water used to take the reading. One reading was taken for each of the remaining sample categories, that is, 21A, 21B, 21C, etc.

28. For matte surfaces, either setting (spectral inclusion or exclusion) can be used since the results are almost identical. 500/Plus Quick Key Color Measurement System Operator's Manual 1st ed. (New York: Macbeth, 1985). 6–5.

29. Tristimulus and brightness values were not obtained for most of the A samples. Their appearance was not perceptively different from that of the control samples, which was confirmed by the Macbeth readings for Art Gum A samples: these fall within the standard deviation of the A control samples.

30. The mixture of crumbs and water in covered beakers was inadvertently left to stand after the cold extraction pH readings had been taken. Within a week, the Absorene beaker had grown a layer of white fluffy mold and the water had turned a turbid brown. The Pink Pearl mixture had also begun to grow mold: numerous discrete, dark brown, branched particles were visible on the water's surface.

Copyright 1989 American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works