Reminder on some European research projects in the cultural heritage conservation area

1Europe is the major continent as far as conservation science is concerned, with a large number of participants: public cultural heritage institutions, Universities and higher education establishments, museums, libraries, archives, archaeological institutions, associations, cooperatives, technical centres, private companies… There are many types of cooperation between these actors: bilateral cooperation, European networks and research projects, either in the frame of the successive FPs (Framework Programmes for Research and Development), or through COST actions (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), fellowships for thesis students, post-docs, invited scientists…

2Since 1989, the European Commission, via its Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has promoted a policy of knowledge distribution, networks constitution, collaborative research, access for scientists to large research facilities. This has been concretised in many calls of proposal. Michel Chapuis (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation), has published a synthesis of such projects. About 100 projects have been financed during the period 1991-2009, in the frame of the 3rd to 7th FPs¹. One can access to the details of these projects on the Cordis website², which represents a very rich source, in order to build up collaborations or to get research results…

3In parallel, an inter-government structure created in 1971, called COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology³, grouping together 36 countries, has supported networks between European research laboratories. Among them, some were dedicated to issues concerning “sciences and techniques dedicated to the cultural heritage”.

4The LRMF (Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France), which had the status of a common research laboratory between CNRS and the Ministry of Culture, participated to several projects initiated by Christian Lahannier and devoted to high definition digitisation of photographs or radiographs, tele-transmission of the resulting digital files, multi-spectral imaging techniques, image processing⁴. This started in 1989 with the VASARI and NARCISSE projects. The database resulting from the NARCISSE project is still available on the website of the Ministry of Culture (http://www.culture.gouv.fr/​documentation/​lrmf/​pres.htm).

5Jean-Claude Dran, in charge of the AGLAE team, developped with his team two COST actions⁵. COST G1, dedicated to “The applications of ion beam analysis for art and archaeology artefacts”, launched in 1992 by Michel Menu, was the first COST action devoted to cultural heritage subjects and was organised very soon after AGLAE was launched. It was composed by an initial core with two laboratories in Florence and Oxford. It took place during 5 years, with the participation of institutions from 12 countries. Then COST G8, with a larger spectrum of techniques « Analysis and nondestructive examination of museum objects » from 2001 to 2005, with participants from 21 countries !

6These two networks have established the AGLAE team’s fame among the community of ion beam elemental analysis of artefacts and materials of the cultural heritage and have procured the possibility to create strong links with European partners.

7As well as the LRMF, one must mention that in parallel the LRMH (Laboratoire de Recherche des Monuments Historiques) and the CRCDG (Centre de Recherches sur la Conservation des Documents Graphiques, presently named CRCC) were involved in European research projects, in their respective areas of competence.

The LabS TECH network

Origin of the network

8Italy was the initiator of a national network dedicated to the conservation science, driven by the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche): Progetto finalizzato beni culturali (1996-2000). In France, we drew our inspiration from this and created the CHIMART network, as a GdR (Research Group) driven by the CNRS, including about 30 laboratories (2000-2008) which has contributed to open relations between cultural heritage institutions, Universities, various other research laboratories. In Spain, the CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) has created the Red de Ciencia y Tecnología para la Conservación del Patrimonio (http://www.rtphc.csic.es) which is still active.

9In 1999, a meeting of the Ministries in charge of research of the G7 member states was held in Paris. On this occasion, a visit of the C2RMF laboratory was organised. Immediately after this visit, germinated the idea to put together and share the means and the skills of institutions of the G7 countries active in this field. The main arguments were:

• these cultural heritage institutions have been working on similar collections.

• the size of these collections are huge.

• the R&D public funds were not increasing (in 1999, we did not foresee that they would be plainly decreasing !).

• in this research area, there nearly does not exist any risk of intellectual or industrial property conflict.

• very likely, complementarities exist in terms of equipment and/or know-how between the potential participants.

• the restoration calls for tender were yet open to European competitors.

• at least, it was likely that the European Commission will give favourable consideration to such a collective structured initiative.

10Following this, our Italian colleagues of the Perugia University, Antonio Sgamellotti and Bruno Brunetti wrote a first draft of what will become the LabS TECH network.

The LabS TECH network, its organisation, its goals

11This network, called LabS TECH (Laboratories on Science and Technology for the Conservation of European Cultural Heritage - Ref.: HPRI-CT-2000-40018) started in January 2001 and ended in June 2004.

12The coordinator was Professor Bruno Brunetti of the University of Perugia, Department of Chemistry.

13Eleven Institutions from 8 countries were participating in this network (see details in Introduction, Table I).

14The main goals were:

• to collect and distribute information on European institutions involved in the areas of research and implementation of examination and analysis techniques applied to cultural heritage, leading to a better knowledge of the artefacts structure and composition, of the modifications or suffered alterations along their history, permitting to establish scientific basis for their conservation and restoration.

• to raise the research level, through collaborative work, improving the global efficiency, particularly through an easier access to the best large research facilities.

• to harmonise procedures, settle and distribute best recommended practices and/or standards.

• to facilitate young scientists training.

• to set up cooperative R&D projects dedicated to this area.

• to work out new conservation/restoration processes and/or materials.

• at least, to define what could be, at short or mean term, the basements of a European cultural heritage research structure, distributed, open and integrating large research facilities.

Main results – Assessment

15A survey was distributed to 225 institutions active in conservation science. At the end of the project, 114 institutions from 26 countries completed the survey. The more important contributions were from Italy, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, United States…

16The participating institutions were diverse: Universities, public research institutions, public cultural institutions, museums, restoration workshops, technical centres, libraries…

17One has created a database, collecting the main characteristics of these institutions: staff, concerned types of collections, studied materials, operated techniques… This information show clearly that the palette of techniques is quite large, and that even the large laboratories are not able to operate all these techniques, which justifies the interest of such a networking. This inventory work was continued during the Eu-ARTECH project.

18A website was implemented and periodically updated during the project life⁶.

19Many institutions got the possibility to discover each other and learned to work together, exchange experience and co-workers, and also share a common language.

20Synthesis documents were edited and distributed relative to various sets of themes: analysis of copper based alloys, of pigments, of organic binders, characterisation of stones, inventory of available reference materials collections, inventory of procedures of artefact examination before restoration as well as restoration protocols (easel paintings, mural paintings, metal artefacts, stone artefacts)…

21A collaboration with the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) started, with the goals of enlargement and « Europeanisation » of CAMEO⁷ (Conservation and Art Materials Encyclopaedia Online). This task will continue in the frames of Eu-ARTECH and CHARISMA projects (see M. Derrick in this issue).

22LabS TECH has also contributed in the elaboration of the working programme of the newly created Technical Committee of the CEN (CEN/TC-346), which from now on works out European standards concerning the “Conservation of Cultural Heritage”. Since its first meeting in June 2004, this Committee has edited a significant number of standards (13 published, 8 in circulation for approval, 1 at draft status).

What are the arguments for developing new examination or analysis tools and setting them at the disposal of the conservation/restoration community?

23The Initiators of LabS-Tech, after having completed an assessment of such techniques applied in this area, defined two tracks to be explored:

• facilitate the access to large research infrastructures, extending the detection limits in analysis, or providing new information about the structure of objects, or the provenance of materials… (AGLAE, and then FIXLAB).

• provide portable or transportable instrumentation at the disposal of curators, conservators and restorers, giving them the opportunity to realise on site measurements in archaeological excavations, historical buildings, museums, libraries, archive institutions, conservation workshops (MOLAB).

A. Facilitate the access to large research infrastructures up to then used nearly exclusively by physicists

24For Eu-ARTECH, AGLAE, the only accelerator yet dedicated to IBA (PIXE, RBS…) of cultural heritage artefacts, permitted to broaden the field of conventional methods (XRF, XRD, SEM-EDS…). The detection limits in elementary analysis were significantly improved (for instance the detection limit of iron concentration in a ceramics matrix went from 100 ppm by conventional XRF analysis, down to 5 ppm by PIXE analysis. One can also be interested in micro-analysis (measurement spot of 20-30 µm²) or surface analysis and enlarging the experimental domain, reaching low Z elements (Na, Mg, Al…).

25In the frame of CHARISMA, FIXLAB was extended to other infrastructures:

• a synchrotron (SOLEIL) which delivers monochromatic (from far infrared up to 80 keV X-rays), focused and intense beams of photons (up to 10 billion times more intense than those delivered by the best X-ray tubes used for XRF analysis), permitting to carry out studies of speciation, composition or structure, going further in detection limits and/or on smaller examination volumes (2D mapping, 3D micro-tomography).

• a nuclear research reactor (BNC) providing external neutron beams. The interactions of neutrons with matter are quite different from those of photons or charged particles (protons, deuterons…) offering a range of possibilities to explore the compositional or structural features of artefacts. Capture-like phenomena can reveal, by the detection of characteristic γ-photons produced in (n, γ) reaction, the bulk elemental composition of the objects. Neutron diffraction (elastic scattering) patterns will permit to give indications on the atomic, molecular or nano-scale structural properties. Thus crystalline/amorphous morphology, phase composition, mechanical strains, impurities, etc. can be revealed on metallic, glassy, or stone objects and so returning to their elaboration process. Neutron radiography and tomography will in some cases give different and complementary information from that given by X-ray or gamma radiography.

26Table I gives summary of the main characteristics of these analytical methods.

B. In geology or in mining prospecting, the use of portable or transportable instrumentation is a routine practice

27In the cultural heritage area, one observed a lack of such a practice. Either the devices were not appropriate, or the conservation community was not familiar with such potentially useful existing equipment. It is obvious that on site measurements (on excavations, historical buildings, museums, libraries and restoration workshops) present a major interest.

28So, in the frame of Eu-ARTECH and then CHARISMA, MOLAB’s goal was to adapt and propose to end users teams various devices (elemental analysers, molecular analysers, imaging devices at various wavelengths…) operated by teams mastering those techniques and familiar with the cultural heritage issues.

29MOLAB has also innovated by the use of new equipment developed in the R&D task of the Eu-ARTECH and CHARISMA projects (nuclear magnetic resonance mini-tomograph, infrared/Raman spectrometer, X-ray fluorescence/X-ray diffraction analyser…).

30In the process of the large number of examination campaigns carried on by quite different teams, the accumulated experience with all these tools, in conjunction with the encountered large palette of artefacts and materials and of various usage conditions has validated a broad new field of practices.

Eu-ARTECH – Access Research and Technology for the Conservation of the European Cultural Heritage, Ref. RII3-CT-2004-506171 (June 2004-May 2009)

31Starting from the results obtained in the frame of LabS TECH, taking in account the development level of various techniques, the existing synergies between potential partner institutions, a 5 years long new project called Eu-ARTECH (Access Research and Technology for the Conservation of the European Cultural Heritage) was approved, as an « Integrated Infrastructure Initiative » of the 6th FP.

32The coordinator was Prof. Bruno Brunetti, University of Perugia (Italy), Department of Chemistry.

33Thirteen institutions of 7 countries took part in this project (see details in Introduction, Table I).

Tableau I. Caractéristiques comparées des méthodes d’analyse utilisant des rayonnements ionisants

Comparative characteristics for elemental analysis with ionising radiations
Technique	Type of analysis	Mobile (Y/N)	Typical limit of detection (ex.: iron in ceramic matrix)
X-ray fluorescence/wavelength dispersion	on sample - surface (about 10 µm to 100 µm depth)	N	100 ppm
X-ray fluorescence/energy dispersion	on sample - surface (about 10 µm to 100 µm depth)	Y	0,05 to 0,1%
SEM-EDX	on sample - surface (about 1 µm to 10 µm depth)	N	100 ppm
PIXE	on the object - surface (some mm to some 100 mm depth)	N	5 ppm
SR-XRF	on the object - surface (about 10 µm to 1 mm depth)	N	5 ppm
PGAA	on the object - global	N	100 to 1000 ppm
XRD	on the object - grazing incidence - on sample - on crushed sample	Y	5%

34The purpose of this project was to build up a long lasting operational network between the various partners, in order to establish cooperation and knowledge exchange with the whole European communities of research and cultural heritage. Different types of profiles contribute to the project: physicists, chemists, material specialists, curators, archaeologists, art historians, conservators-restorers… The project is structured in three activities: networking for knowledge and good practices, transnational access and joint research activity so as to strengthen and improve the transnational access.

Networking and knowledge distribution, in the continuity of LabS TECH

35Eu-ARTECH’s aim consists in promoting and exchanging knowledge, distributing good practices in conservation science, establishing common protocols, contributing to the elaboration of European standards…

36In order to share knowledge and resources in the area of examination and analysis of artefact san effort was done in order to identify the actors and their know-how and distribute the information produced by the consortium. At the end of the project, 600 correspondents from 363 institutions among 47 countries (of the 5 continents!) were registered on the distribution list of the project’s periodical newsletter: Universities, public research institutions, museums, cultural heritage institutions, restoration workshops, instrumentation manufacturers, libraries, local authorities…

37The survey, initiated in the frame of LabS TECH, dedicated to the examination and analysis techniques was extended and updated continuously. At the project’s end, 151 institutions or enterprises have collaborated in this database. Table II gives the list and the frequency of use of the more used techniques (on a total number of 114).

Tableau II. Fréquence d’utilisation des techniques

Most frequently used techniques (LabS TECH and Eu-ARTECH
Rank	Technique	Frequency
1	Reflection Light Microscopy	107
2	Transmission Light Microscopy	99
3	Classical Visible Light Digital Photography	91
4	Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)	89
5	Classical Visible Light Silver Emulsion Photography	73
6	Infrared Spectrometry	73
7	Visible and Ultraviolet Spectrometry	60
8	Diffractometry	57
9	Standard Colorimetry	57
10	Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography	57
11	Powder Diffractometry	56
12	Low HV (<150kV) X-ray Radiography	53
13	Environmental Weathering Tests (Chambers)	52
14	Infrared Spectrometry Microscopy	52
15	Digitisation and Image Archiving	49
16	Gas Chromatography (GC)	43
17	High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)	42
18	Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)	41
19	Infrared Silver Emulsion Photography	41
20	Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA / TG / DTG)	40
21	X-ray Fluorescence Analysis - X-ray Tube - Laboratory Fixed Instrument	39
22	Universal Mechanical Testing	39
23	Low Angled Photography	39
24	Infrared Reflectography Electronic Camera	39
25	Spectro-Photo-Colorimetry	38
26	Accurate Colour High Resolution Digital Photography	36
27	High voltage (150 < HV < 450 kV) X-ray Radiography	33
28	Ion Chromatography	32
29	Raman Spectrometry	32
30	X-ray Fluorescence Analysis - X-ray Tube - Portable	30
31	Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC)	29
32	Atomic Emission spectrometry (ICP-AES)	28
33	Electron Microprobe	27
34	Atomic Absorption Analysis (AAA)	26
35	Environmental Natural Weathering Tests (Outdoor)	26
36	Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography (Py-GC)	22
37	Mercury Porosimetry	22
38	Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE)	21
39	Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy (Py-GC-MS)	18
40	Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM)	18

Enquête effectuée dans le cadre des projets européens LabS TECH et Eu-ARTECH. (N.B. : 114 techniques mentionnées par 151 institutions participantes).

38The domains in which are involved the participants in the survey are quite different, as far as type of collections and studied materials are concerned.

39In order to promote the results obtained in its frame, Eu-ARTECH organised international conferences, workshops, courses and thematic seminars, the majority of them lead to publications 12 to 20. For others, documents are available on the project website¹¹. The main concerned subjects were nondestructive analysis techniques, dyes analysis, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tomography, paintings techniques, glazed ceramics techniques (Della Robbia) or monitoring methods of architectural surfaces.

40At the occasion of the final meeting of the project, in the ICN premises in Amsterdam, the participants have presented, in working conditions, all the instruments employed during all the MOLAB campaigns (see chapter 3.2) and those developed during the cooperative research task (see chapter 3.3). This was done on real artefacts. Also posters on all the various tasks accomplished during the project were presented. This show was opened to the press, institutions’ staff and students.

41The sharing of knowledge and good practices also included the setting up of identification and analysis protocols of dyes and other organic components and the publication by a group of contributors of a book “Scientific examination for the investigation of paintings. A handbook for conservator- restorers”²¹.

Access to research infrastructures and to analytical instruments

42Two transnational accesses were proposed by members of the consortium to European end users:

• AGLAE, located in the C2RMF laboratory, close to the Louvre Museum in Paris. This was, in the world, the only accelerator dedicated to ion beam analysis of cultural heritage artefacts and materials. European teams (out of France) could benefit from 20% of the available beam time to complete the various palette of elemental analysis techniques (PIXE, PIGE, RBS…) (fig. 1).

• MOLAB, bunch of 10 portable or transportable analytical instruments, developed or adapted by Italian research laboratories (University of Perugia ; ICVBC, OPD and INOA in Florence). Such instruments could be used on various European sites (historical monuments, museums, libraries, restoration workshops, archaeological excavations…), to realise measurement campaigns by teams of the cultural heritage community users together with scientific research teams: optical fibres infrared spectrometer, Raman micro-spectrometer, infrared reflectometer, laser micro profilometer, X-ray fluorescence analyser, mini-NMR tomograph, infrared scanner, drilling resistance measurement system (DRMS), optical fibres UV-vis fluorescence spectrometer, photo-spectrometer.

43This concept was a « première », for the European research projects and played probably a decisive argument when the Commission made his decision.

44The measurement campaigns are done after call of proposals, which have been evaluated and selected by a committee of experts external to the consortium (see C. Pacheco in this issue). The total effective number of useful days for the whole project duration, for AGLAE and MOLAB together, was 540. 105 studies have been completed and the total number of users has been 305.

45User teams from 20 countries have taken benefit from these campaigns (see fig. 3 for the allotment). One can underline the important participation of user teams from Italy, United Kingdom and Germany.

46Besides the geographical origins of the user teams and the quantitative success encountered at the occasion of the calls of proposal, one must underlined the efficiency and the availability of the AGLAE and MOLAB teams, and at least, the large diversity of artefacts and/or materials which have been analysed.

Coordinated research projects

47Among the selected themes, one can mention:

48Development and tests of portable or transportable instruments for examination or analysis: nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) mini-tomograph (RWTH), multi-spectral imaging scanner (INOA and OADC), Raman micro-spectrometer coupled with UV-vis fluorescence (Uni Pg), X-ray fluorescence analyser coupled with X-ray diffractometer (C2RMF)²³ (see also J. Castaing in this issue) (fig. 2).

49Settling of new conservation treatments for open air exposed artefacts; following through bronze corrosion (BLfD and LNEC) or stone degradation (ICVBC, OPD and LNEC)

50One of the most interesting studies was conducted by Maarten van Bommel (ICN) and Jo Kirby (NGL), dedicated to the re-discovery of preparation recipes of natural dyes: blue (indigo), yellow (safflower, weld, dyer’s broom) and red (Brazil wood, cochineal, madder), their fixation processes on different textile fibres or their use for lacquer elaboration²².

All these exchanges of information and this co-working for our common cultural heritage were made possible owing to the communicative energy of Bruno Brunetti and the friendly participation of:
S. Bittner, B. Blümich, S. Bracci, T. Calligaro, L. Cartechini, J. Castaing, Y. Chryssoulakis, J. Delgado, M. Derrick, A. de Tagle, J.-C. Dran, M.-D. Gayo, C. Higgitt, I. Joosten, J. Kirby, G. Lanterna, M. Mach, M. Matteini, M. Menu, C. Miliani, J. Mimoso, B. Moignard, L. Pezzati, J. Perlo, L. Pichon, D. Pinna, A. Pinto, S. Röhrs, A. Roy, J. Salomon, M. Schreiner, A. Sgamellotti, R. Snethlage, S. Sotiropoulou, M. Spring, L. Toniolo, M. van Bommel, M. van Bos, I. Vanden Berghe, J. Wadum et d’autres. Let us sincerely thank them.