Low-risk removal of embedded surface soiling on delicate heritage objects can require novel alternatives to traditional cleaning systems. Edvard Munch’s monumental Aula paintings (1911–16) have a long history of exposure to atmospheric pollution and cleaning campaigns that have compromised the appearance and the condition of these important artworks. Soiling removal from porous and water-sensitive, unvarnished oil paintings continues to be a major conservation challenge. This paper presents the approach and results of research into the effect and efficiency of three novel systems used for soiling removal: soft particle blasting, CO2-snow blasting, and Nanorestore Gel® Dry and Peggy series hydrogels. Cleaning tests were performed on accelerated-aged and artificially soiled mock-ups consisting of unvarnished oil paint and chalk-glue grounds. Visual and analytical assessment (magnification using a light microscope and scanning electron microscope, as well as colour- and gloss measurement) was carried out before and after mock-up cleaning tests and the results were compared to those obtained using the dry polyurethane sponges employed in the most recent Aula surface cleaning campaign (2009–11). Although the results varied, the Nanorestore Gel® series proved promising with respect to improved soiling removal efficiency, and reduced pigment loss for the water-sensitive surfaces evaluated, compared to dry sponges.

No abstract

No abstract

HERIe was used to model the effect of changes to indoor climate on the risk of humidity-induced mechanical damage (cracking and plastic deformation) to wooden panels painted with stiff gesso in two Norwegian medieval stone churches: Kinn (mean relative humidity (RH, %) = 79%) on the humid west coast, and Ringsaker (mean RH = 49%) in the drier eastern part of the country. The risk involved in moving cultural heritage objects (paint on wood) between the churches and a conservation studio with more “ideal”, stable conditions was also modeled. A hypothetical reduction in RH to ~65% and, proportionally, of the climate fluctuations in Kinn, and an increase in the RH in Ringsaker to a more stable value of ~63% via conservation heating, were found to improve (Kinn) and uphold (Ringsaker) the conformity to relevant standards and significantly reduce the risk of damage, except in the scenario of moving objects from Ringsaker to a conservation studio, when the risk would increase. The use of conservation heating could save ~50% of the heating cost. The estimated risk reductions may be less relevant for objects kept in situ, where cracks in the original paint and gesso have developed historically. They may be more relevant when moving original objects away from their proofed climate into a conservation studio for treatment.