Subject: Synperonic N
As previously mentioned on the DistList, Synperonic A7 is one of the replacements recommended by Uniqema (ICI) as a replacement for Synperonic N in washing textiles. This is based purely on the fact that its HLB number is very similar to that of Synperonic N and as mentioned by Mark Vine, it has been used in the industrial sector for many years prior as a fabric washing product. But it has not, as far as we are aware, been tested as a product for conservation. Uniqema are also recommending Synperonic 91/6 for use on hard surfaces--ceramics, stone, etc. but, again, no testing has yet been performed. As to the number of Conservators using A7, at the recent UKIC Textile AGM only one conservator had changed from Synperonic N and had indeed changed to Synperonic A7. Whether this lack of change is due to a decline in washing or conservators just using up their stocks was not made clear. The other recent comments by Flavia Perugini are also worthy of comment, and she is correct in her thoughts that Synperonic N and Triton X100 are the same molecule with a different trade name so we cannot use this either - unless it can be used and not dumped into the water system. We have already considered the suggestion of the use of Triton XL-80N (NOT 80XN) as a replacement and have listed it for testing. For the chemists amongst you it is an alcohol alkoxylate, namely alkoxypolyethyleneoxypolypropy ethanol. Its critical micelle concentration is less than Synperonic N. It also comes with a recommendation from Winterthur Museum and Richard Wolber. The only factor going against it is that it is significantly more expensive than its competitors and availability in Europe is not yet clear. The other surfactants we are testing are Dehypon (fatty alcohol--nonionic), Saponin (nonionic), Orvus Paste (anionic), Hostapon T (anionic), Nekanil LN (nonionic) and Irgasol NA (nonionic). Some of you may also have heard of the use of Pluronics (EO-PO block copolymers) and their suggestion as a replacement which we were considering. Unfortunately although these do appear to clean quite well (work done at the Boston Museum of Fine Art), they have been banned under EU regulation as they do not biodegrade within the specified time limits, even though the precursor and degradation products are considered environmentally friendly. We are currently devising a practical washing method which will be representative of washing performed by a textile conservator and as soon as this has been established we will begin testing. I hope this is useful and helps to clarify the picture a little. John Fields, Conservation Scientist Conservation Research Dept. The British Museum London WC1B 3DG +44 171 3238174 Fax: +44 171 3238636 *** Conservation DistList Instance 13:51 Distributed: Saturday, April 15, 2000 Message Id: cdl-13-51-001 ***Received on Thursday, 13 April, 2000