Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper Paints
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2001 Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper Paints Mary M. Culver University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Culver, Mary M., "Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper aints"P (2001). Theses (Historic Preservation). 314. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/314 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Culver, Mary M. (2001). Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper Paints. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/314 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper aintsP Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Culver, Mary M. (2001). Performance Evaluation of Traditional and Modified Distemper aintsP . (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/314 uNivERsmy PENNSYLV^NL^ UBKARIE5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TRADITIONAL AND MODIFIED DISTEMPER PAINTS Mary M. Culver A THESIS in Historic Preservation Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 2001 4^ \kL0 'O ^^ Supervisor ^ Reader Frank G. N/j^tero A. Elena Charola, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Architecture Lecturer in Advanced Architectural Conservation Graduate (^roup Chair Frank G. Matero Associate Professor of Architecture YTf2n3Vii1L) \0 fUOl iVjT/\ \yj. to •lOii'^S'tOi'l 'JHU0O?.3A UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARIES DEDICATION To my family. 'i.M f .'- )}<rUi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the many people who lent their support and encouragement throughout this project. Frank Matero, as an advisor and mentor, has continually encouraged me to exceed my own expectations of what 1 can achieve. His culinaiy skills, breadth of knowledge, and passion for the field of architectiu-al conservation continue to be an inspiration to me. My classmates Dorothy Krotzer, John Carr, Linnaea Dix, Andrea Goldwyn, James Banta and Bob Hartzler made graduate school an enjoyable experience, both socially and intellectually. I would like to express my gratitude to the Conservation Department at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The opportunity to work as a technician in the Objects, Paintings, and Analytical Labs has proved to be an education in itself 1 would like to particularly thank Sally Malenka, Melissa Meighan, Beth Price, Andrew Lins, and Marigene Butler for their advise, encouragement and friendship over the years. In conclusion I would like to thank my family for tlieir constant love and support. I am especially gratefiil to my husband, Joe, whose enthusiasm and scientific advice made it all possible. • :>jiiOfi5 bfr£ lo^i .^i>j-, fie ^c .ofOJef/ -]i}Ki-( l>3t.oiq o) o!jfirt«oo node nsi/ioo lin»j:jOt/floiR']o bl-jil ;:>riJ idi rM ?Mo\si xiCl MSBrtfifJ ,tib'J> rjfJoi, ,it'VjoJ>! yrftoioC! rnua^til'.' ' t>ili Je TiT.»fr!tiRCpfI f)otlC7T»«oo"> orit ol ofauJriaig <ni iioiqxt iw'.eiitiM ii;Jnf»lK{'/ /Il6<'. jinfifil v^ ...It! bJoow I ."Jbelt ai Hotlroubj n^ jH '.-t ba .'Otq 3 Contents Introduction 1 1 Distemper Paints 4 1.1 Traditional Recipes for Common Distemper 7 1 .2 Surface Preparation 12 1 . Paint Application 14 1.4 Additional Types of Distemper 16 2 Distemper and Polymer Dispersion Paint Films 18 2.1 Film Formation and Anatomy 18 2.2 Pigment 21 2.2.1 Pigment Volume Concentration 24 2.3 Gelatin /Glue 26 3 Experimental Design and Laboratory Testing Program 29 3.1 Survey of Additives for Enhancing Mechanical Properties 29 3.2 Modified Distemper Formulations 35 iv !'.5n9)«o > f{!rrr>«»!>./'!l5!l 8< «nlH }fiift*< fioi«j«|/iO r r/ iilD V ndfi!- (sjifj/iriojih/ a<uofUi*if. 1 3.2. 1 Acrylic Emulsion Rhoplex AC-33: Properties 37 3.3 Evaluation of Optical Properties 40 3.3.1 Gloss (Specular Reflectance Measurement) 43 3.3.2 Opacity (Contrast Ratio Measurement) 48 3.3.3 Relative Hiding Power / Leveling (Visual Evaluation of Brushouts) 52 3.4 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties 55 3.4. Abrasion (Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser) 55 3.4.2 Adhesion (Parallel Groove Adhesion Test) 60 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 63 5 Bibliography 68 6 Figures 77 7 Tables 84 8 Appendices 91 8.1 Product Literature and Material Safety Data Sheets 91 8.2 ASTMTests 119 Index 131 innuiitji iifin /i'i(>i/i)i ;(ii)^ i. M...;<oiWi*' IfLl 1 List of Figures 6. Specular gloss measurements at 85° vs. fonnula 6.2 Opacity (contrast ratio measurements) vs. fonnula 6.3 Pigment volume concentration vs. formula 6.4 Opacity (contrast ratio measurements) vs. pigment voliune concentrations 6.5 Density measurements vs. fonnula 6.6 Density measurements vs. leveling evaluations 6.7 Density measurements vs. relative hiding power evaluations 6.8 Abrasion results: wear index (mg/cycle) vs. fonnula 6.8.1 Adhesion evaluations vs. formula •viijjjj'! "Jo iwJ •.^ia^r^o"rffiTt^fl1ll•Ic^^)'^iaaqO ^i> • enoL'i"; ii,' '. n'vvocj .ambifl ovitfibi .Kv <vJfi'j' n^^nsU List of Tables 7. 1 Sainple preparation summary 7.2 Specular gloss measurement data 7.3 Opacity (contrast ratio) measurement data 7.4 Pigment volume concentration and density data 7.5 Brushout evaluation data: actual spreading rate, relative hiding power, relative leveling (ASTM test D 344 - 89) 7.6 Abrasion test data (ASTM test D 4060 - 90) 7.7 Adhesion test data (ASTM test D 3359 - 90) fMdtillo tfi.i meb Ja- ;i.iii''; V) '>Y!!f;Jv! , 'SvrtJila! .3>fn uftibfisKja ifii '.' ooOM7j<^wr/': IntroducHon Traditional distemper paints are generally known and appreciated for their soft luminous appearance. Although distempers were widely used until the first part of the 20th century, they aie rarely recreated for modem restorations in tlie United States. Distemper paints applied in architectural settings usually consist of a glue binder with calcium carbonate as the base pigment. They are considered to be rather ephemeral in nature due to their high pigment content, and gelatin's propensity for absorbing moisture which often compromises the integrity of the paint film (distempers can usually be removed with warm water and a sponge). Flat polymer dispersion paints (commonly, but not always correctly, referred to as 'latex' paints) are often substituted for distempers in spite of their different optical and physical properties. Tliis thesis examines the potential benefits of adding an acrylic dispersion to a traditional distemper paint fonnula in an effort to enhance its mechanical properties without compromising its distinct appearance The primary reason for the predominant use of polymer dispersion paints is economics: they are durable, produce a consistent and predictable finish, and are convenient - purchased ready-to-use. In contrast, traditional distempers are considered to be much less practical. They have the reputation of being less wear-resistant and more time-consuming to apply. Distempers, which require some fonn of preparation, are made in smaller batches dictated by the amount to be 1 I f»j»ft.ji:!.aiiij! ':...'•; . iqqi: bfm ffwor ;.• iff'? f-odiAjijy? >i.-'j(h >!f?i'r . fi& .fi liitKsno'! imisq KXfHtt'aib letionibaa b ol oowi-; aMjRift^qK tDfiiKifa e)i gtuiUDo^qmoo Joofftrw aormqotq ',.. ' / j;.;".i I'l VII - .yij-0J-^{bfi3'i b'wiiritmjq . j'Miii^ i-c-L?..iL:'j!q L'i j; '!i;;^i-;;:OJiJ r>'-. applied on a given day, therefore running die risk of slight variations in appearance. In addition, the viscosity of the wet distemper paint is temperature dependent, and so may require periodic adjustments during the application process. Although a traditional distemper may be less convenient to use, it should be kept in mind that there is a perceivable difference in appearance between the two types of paint. An experimental program was implemented to evaluate the optical and mechanical properties of various matte paint fonnulas. The testing program was developed to address several questions about the nature of these paints. 1 ) Are there quantifiable differences between the optical properties of a traditional distemper and a matte polymer dispersion paint? 2) Will the addition of a stable polymer dispersion enhance the mechanical properties of a traditional distemper paint film? 3) If so, are there paiameters for an optimum quantity of polymer dispersion that can be added before the optical properties become compromised? Practical and theoretical reasons substantiate the case for preserving surviving historic painted surfaces and replicating original finishes using tiaditional paint recipes. The physical properties of traditional paints are often sympathetic to their substrates - for example, both distemper paints and traditional plasters are porous, breathable materials. As previously mentioned, traditional paints often have a distinct appearance that cannot be accurately reproduced with modem synthetic materials. Maintaining the physical integrity of historic buildings promotes knowledge of traditional