Microscopic analyses of the effects of mechanical cleaning interventions on cut marks

Valtierra, Noé; Courtenay, Lloyd A.; López‐Polín, Lucía

doi:10.1007/s12520-020-01153-8

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three immersion cycles were carried out for 10 minutes. Between each immersion, the samples were dried for 20 minutes at 35 C. Samples surfaces were documented for possible changes before and after each immersion using the HIROX KH-8700 3D Digital Microscope at Â200 magnification, FOV 2.18-0.31 mm (Valtierra et al, 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although cleaning is a necessary procedure, there is always the potential risk of introducing surface modifications. This may imply the loss of important information for subsequent research (Caldararo, 1993(Caldararo, , 2005L opez-Polín, 2012), such as taphonomic studies, and several applications that have noted the possible modifications that different cleaning treatments can introduce on archaeological bone (Bromage, 1984;Fernández-Jalvo & Marín-Monfort, 2008;Graham & Allington-Jones, 2018;Marín-Monfort et al, 2018;Valtierra et al, 2020Valtierra et al, , 2022Wiest et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, little is known about how they can influence the properties of archaeological bone in the context of the cleaning process. In previous works, we have identified modifications derived from the interaction between the mechanical cleaning tools and the archaeological bone surface (scalpel, brush, and cotton swab) (Valtierra et al, 2020(Valtierra et al, , 2022. However, the role of the liquids was not analyzed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cleaning archaeological bones: Influence of water, ethanol, and acetone on microhardness

Valtierra

Courtenay

Fabregat‐Sanjuan

et al. 2023

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of conservation treatments on archaeological bone is, in many cases, a necessary step for its study. Cleaning interventions can generate modifications on the surface of the material or even modify elements of the study. The variables involved in this process have been scarcely characterized. The present study reports on the characterization of how different liquids commonly used in cleaning processes can contribute to the onset of modifications by influencing microhardness. Three media were experimented with water, ethanol, and acetone. The Knoop microhardness test was used to measure the hardness of bone samples from two archaeological sites: Gran Dolina and two localities at Barranc de la Boella, before and during exposure to the liquids. Results note that all the solvents produce a decrease in sample microhardness. These variations in hardness should be considered when cleaning because they make it simpler to damage the bone surface with cleaning tools.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cleaning archaeological bones: Influence of water, ethanol, and acetone on microhardness

Valtierra

Courtenay

Fabregat‐Sanjuan

et al. 2023

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to these solvent-based cleaning methods, there are also a variety of dry-cleaning methods. The best-known dry methods include mechanical cleaning, plasma cleaning, laser cleaning, dry ice cleaning, jet cleaning and UV/O 3 cleaning processes [3,[15][16][17][18][19][20]. In general, drycleaning processes often have the advantage of safety and environmental friendliness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective equipment for surface pre-treatment for cleaning and excitation of substrates in semiconductor technology

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a cost-effective ultraviolet-ozone cleaner (UV/O3 Cleaner) for surface pre-treatment of substrates in the field of semiconductor technology. The cleaner consists of two chambers, the upper one contains the electronics, including the time counter. The lower chamber contains the two UV sterilisation lamps and a UV reflector of anodized aluminium, which confines the area of high Ozone concentration in the area of interest. The device is successfully used for surface cleaning and modification of different materials. To this end, the two important wavelengths 253.7 nm (excitation of organic residues) and 184.9 nm (production of ozone from the atmospheric environment as a strong oxidant) were first detected. The effectiveness of UV/O3 cleaning is demonstrated by improving the properties of indium tin oxide (ITO) for OLED fabrication. The contact angle of water to ITO could be reduced from 90° to 3° and for diiodomethane, it was reduced from 55° to 31° within the 10 min of irradiation. This greatly improved wettability for polar and non-polar liquids can increase the flexibility in further process control. In addition, an improvement in wettability is characterized by measuring the contact angles for titanium dioxide (TiO2) and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The contact angle of water to TiO2 decreased from 70° to 10°, and that of diiodomethane to TiO2 from 54° to 31°. The wettability of PDMS was also greatly increased. Here, the contact angle of water was reduced from 109° to 24° and the contact angle to diiodomethane from 89° to 49°. Article Highlights We report a cost-effective dry-cleaning device for surface cleaning and modification based on ultraviolet-ozone irradiation. Contact angle measurements show an increase of wettability for different materials due to surface modification. The UVO3 pre-treatment improves layer formation and optoelectrical properties of OLEDs.

show abstract

“…There has been little methodological development devoted to the study of surface textures on other materials such as ochre (Rosso et al 2017) or bone (Bradfield 2020;d'Errico and Backwell 2009;Lesnik 2011;Martisius et al 2018;Watson and Gleason 2016), and even more rarely on taphonomic alterations of bone (Vietti 2016). Other 3D quantitative techniques applied to bone surface modifications such as cut marks, trampling traces, and tooth marks on archaeological materials have benefited from a fair amount of methodological advancement (Archer and Braun 2013;Bello and Soligo 2008;Bello et al 2011;Gümrükçü and Pante 2018;Harris et al 2017;Pante et al 2017;Valtierra et al 2020), which has been largely motivated by a debate over a report of cut-marked bones substantially older than 2.5 Ma (Dominguez-Rodrigo et al 2010;McPherron et al 2010). To ensure that interpretations of these controversial marks are secure, new methods including the use of Bayesian statistical analyses have been advanced (Harris et al 2017;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method for the taphonomic assessment of bone tools using 3D surface texture analysis of bone microtopography

Martisius

McPherron

Schulz‐Kornas

et al. 2020

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly researchers have employed confocal microscopy and 3D surface texture analysis to assess bone surface modifications in an effort to understand ancient behavior. However, quantitative comparisons between the surfaces of purported archaeological bone tools and experimentally manufactured and used bones are complicated by taphonomic processes affecting ancient bone. Nonetheless, it may be reasonable to assume that bones within the same deposits are altered similarly and thus these alterations are quantifiable. Here we show how unworked bones can be used to quantify the taphonomic effect on bone surfaces and how this effect can then be controlled for and incorporated into an analysis for evaluating the modified surfaces of purported bone tools. To assess the baseline taphonomy of Middle Paleolithic archaeological deposits associated with typologically identified bone artifacts, specifically lissoirs, we directly compare the surface textures of ancient and modern unworked ribs. We then compare the ancient unworked ribs and lissoirs to assess their differences and predict the ancient artifacts’ original surface state using a multilevel multivariate Bayesian model. Our findings demonstrate that three of five tested surface texture parameters (Sa, Spc, and IsT) are useful for distinguishing surface type. Our model predictions show that lissoirs tend to be less rough, have more rounded surface peaks, and exhibit more directionally oriented surfaces. These characteristics are likely due to anthropogenic modifications and would have been more pronounced at deposition. Quantifying taphonomic alterations moves us one step closer to accurately assessing how bone artifacts were made and used in the ancient past.

show abstract

Microscopic analyses of the effects of mechanical cleaning interventions on cut marks

Cited by 13 publications

References 71 publications

Cleaning archaeological bones: Influence of water, ethanol, and acetone on microhardness

Cleaning archaeological bones: Influence of water, ethanol, and acetone on microhardness

Cost-effective equipment for surface pre-treatment for cleaning and excitation of substrates in semiconductor technology

A method for the taphonomic assessment of bone tools using 3D surface texture analysis of bone microtopography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About