Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34532965›Full record

ReviewChemistryOpen2021

A Critical Review on the Analysis of Metal Soaps in Oil Paintings.

Francesca Caterina Izzo, Matilde Kratter, Austin Nevin, Elisabetta Zendri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ChemistryOpen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Francesca Caterina IzzoSciences and Technologies for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Department of, Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Via Torino 155/b, 30173, Venice, Italy.
Matilde KratterSciences and Technologies for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Department of, Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Via Torino 155/b, 30173, Venice, Italy.
Austin NevinHead of Conservation The Courtauld Institute of Art, Vernon Square, Penton Rise, Kings Cross, WC1X 9EW, London, United Kingdom.
Elisabetta ZendriSciences and Technologies for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Department of, Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Via Torino 155/b, 30173, Venice, Italy.

Funding

Canadian Conservation Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Up to 70 % of the oil paintings conserved in collections present metal soaps, which result from the chemical reaction between metal ions present in the painted layers and free fatty acids from the lipidic binders. In recent decades, conservators and conservation scientists have been systematically identifying various and frequent conservation problems that can be linked to the formation of metal soaps. It is also increasingly recognized that metal soap formation may not compromise the integrity of paint so there is a need for careful assessment of the implications of metal soaps for conservation. This review aims to critically assess scientific literature related to commonly adopted analytical techniques for the analysis of metal soaps in oil paintings. A comparison of different analytical methods is provided, highlighting advantages associated with each, as well as limitations identified through the analysis of reference materials and applications to the analysis of samples from historical paintings.

Indexed as

conservation scienceFT-IRion migrationmetal soapspaint degradationRaman spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID34532965
PMCPMC8446710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.