Journal of the American Institute for Conservation

ISSN: 0197-1360 (Print) 1945-2330 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjac20

Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper

E. J. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King & N. Indictor

To cite this article: E. J. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King & N. Indictor (1982) Effects of Eraser
Treatment on Paper, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 22:1, 1-12, DOI:
10.1179/019713682806028496

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/019713682806028496

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 31

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjac20

Download by: [University of Leeds] Date: 25 April 2016, At: 20:51

 EFFECTS OF ERASER TREATMENT ON PAPER

E. J. Pearlstein, * D. Cabelli,**A. King,***and N. Indictor****

ABSTRACT-In the first part of this investigation, the composition and aging behavior of four dry cleaning
products (Opaline Pad, Pink Pearl, Magic Rub, and Kneaded Rubber erasers) are studied. The second part
consists of an examination of the effects on paper of eraser treatments performed with these products. Changes
in folding endurance, tensile strength, surface pH, color, texture, and wettability of aged and unaged samples
of Whatman Chromatography paper treated with the four dry cleaning products were observed and are
compared with results for untreated controls.
Conclusions are that the dry cleaning procedures performed with these products alter surface character-
istics but not mechanical properties of the paper. Pink Pearl and Kneaded Rubber erasers altered the paper
surface the most while the Magic Rub eraser altered it the least. The Magic Rub eraser was determined to have
substantially different organic constituents from the other three products, which have similarities in com-
position.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

INTRODUCTION
A PRELIMINARY TREATMENT for cleaning paper is often the use of a dry cleaning device,
such as an eraser or crumbs, to remove surface dirt. Dry cleaning devices might be
used when the paper or media cannot withstand aqueous treatment, or prior to
aqueous or solvent treatments which could set unremoved particulate dirt. What has
remained unknown to the conservator about these dry cleaning products is what they
consist of and whether they have any deleterious effects on paper.
The question of whether eraser residues remaining in paper might prove harm-
ful was addressed in 1966, when the Library Technology Program of the American
Library Association commissioned the McCrone Associates to study seventeen book
cleaning materials. 1 The materials tested for useon paper were all deemed safe. It was
postulated that the residue from some dry cleaning products would even be beneficial
if left on the paper.2 This study suffers from a lack of description of how the erasers
were used, and it therefore remained difficult to evaluate the results. Paul Banks, in
a 1969 article on paper cleaning, urged the removal of dry cleaning residue from
papers because of the possible long term destructive effect of eraser crumbs.3
Surface abrasion to papers subjected to dry cleaning has been studied by Kerry
McInnis.4 McInnis was interested in whether sizing protected aged and unaged papers
from the abrasive action of various dry cleaning products. In addition to the conclu-
sion that sizing did serve this protective function, the erasers were ranked for relative
abrasion of the paper surface and for the amount of residual crumbs deposited among
the fibers. 5
The current study is designed to evaluate four dry cleaning products and their
effects on both the surface and mechanical properties of paper. The products tested
appear in Table I, along with manufacturers' indications of composition. In Part I, the
composition and aging properties of the erasers alone are described. In Part II, eraser
treatments are performed on preaged and unaged paper samples followed by different
postaging times. Strength properties and optical properties were examined and com-
pared to untreated control samples.

*Objects Conservation, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 5th Ave. at 82nd Street, New
York, NY 10028.
*){-Dept.of Chemistry, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973.
***Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53rd Street, New York, NY 10019.
****Dept.of Chemistry, Brooklyn College, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY 11210.
 2 E./. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, N. Indictor

PART I. ERASER COMPOSITIONS AND PROPERTIES

EXPERIMENTAL
Information on the composition of the Magic Rub, Pink Pearl, Kneaded Rubber,
and Art Gum erasers and the Opaline Pad was obtained from product literature and
from communication with scientists employed by eraser manufacturers (Table I). The
infra-red spectra of the Magic Rub, Pink Pearl, Kneaded Rubber, and Art Gum erasers
and Opaline Pad crumbs were obtained to confirm the presence of the organic constit-
uents indicated by the manufacturers. A Perkin Elmer 283 B infrared spec~
trophotometer with infrared data station was used.
The Art Gum and Pink Pearl erasers and Opaline Pad crumbs were dissolved
in a warm acetone/hexane mixture. The Kneaded Rubber eraser was dissolved in
chloroform, and the Magic Rub eraser in ethyl acetate. The residues after solvent
evaporation were either deposited onto AgCI plates or pressed into KBr plates.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

All but the Opaline Pad were dry oven aged separately in a Precision Scientific
Company Model 17 Oven at 100± 2°C for 7 days. The organic constituent of the
Opaline Pad is identical to that of the Art Gum eraser; this eraser was therefore used

Table I
Dry Cleaning Materials Examined

Product and Manufacturer Organic Constituents Inorganic Constituents

Opaline Dry Cleaning Pad Vulcanized vegetable Magnesium silicate

Durasol Drug and Chemical Co. oil
1 Oakland St., P.O. Box 35
Amesbury, Mass. 01913
Distributed by Morilla Co., N.Y.

Art Gum 100 Vulcanized vegetable

Faber Castell Corporation oil
P.O. Box 330
Lewisburg, Tenn. 37091

Pink Pearl 101 Vulcanized vegetable Pumice

Eberhard Faber oil Coloring agents
Cresswood, Rubber
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 18773 Antioxidants
Softeners

Kneaded Rubber Vulcanized vegetable Pumice

Eberhard Faber oil Calcium carbonate
Natural and synthetic Titanium dioxide
rubbers Carbon black
Antioxidants
Mineral oil

Magic Rub 1954 Polyvinyl chloride Calcium carbonate

Faber Castell Corporation Dioctyl phthalate

lAIC 22(1982):1-12
 Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper 3

for aging experiments since volume changes could be more easily determined.
Differences in color, weight, volume, surface pH, and UV fluorescence were
noted, along with any other changes that appeared significant. Colors, recorded using
the Munsell system,6 were observed in a Macbeth Spectralight light box set at max-
imum brightness of the daylight setting. Dimensional changes were determined by
measurement before and after aging with Spi 30-415calipers, Dial type 6932. A Mettler
H72 balance was used for weighing. Surface pH measurements were made using a
Beckman Expandomatic SS-2 pH meter with an Ingold glass electrode. The UV
fluorescence was observed in the Macbeth Spectralight light box at maximum intensity
of the UV setting. The results of the observation of aged and unaged erasers and
papers by UV fluorescence will be discussed together in Part II.

RESULTS
Communications revealed that the Art Gum eraser and Opaline Pad crumbs, as
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

well as over 90 brands of gum erasers and two other brands of dry cleaning pads, are
manufactured by one manufacturer. 7 They are said to consist of vegetable oil vulca-
nized, or cross-linked, with sulfur bonds. Vulcanized vegetable oil is known industri-
ally as factice. The IR spectra of Art Gum and Opaline Pad crumbs are identical to that
of factice. Magnesium silicate is added to dry cleaning pads to facilitate movement of
the eraser crumbs through the bag pores. 7
Though additional ingredients were also reported, the spectra of the Pink Pearl
and Kneaded Rubber erasers showed that factice is the major organic constituent. The
presence of soluble material in the erasers corresponding to the known spectrum of
factice suggests that substantial organic material in factice is not crosslinked. The Pink
Pearl eraser is also said to contain rubber, antioxidants, softeners, pumice, and col-
oring agents. Less product information was available on the Eberhard Faber Kneaded
Rubber eraser than on Faber-Castell's Kneadable Eraser. The composition of the latter
is included here, though it is the Eberhard Faber Kneaded Rubber Eraser which was
used and tested throughout this report. Like the Pink Pearl eraser, the Faber-Castell
Kneadable eraser is said to contain factice, rubber, antioxidants, pumice, and col-
orants. Unlike the Pink Pearl, it is said to contain mineral oil as a softener to prevent
curing, and CaC03 as a filler.
The Magic Rub eraser proved to be significantly different in composition from
the other erasers. The manufacturer reported its composition to be 30% by weight poly
(vinyl chloride), 35% CaC03 as a filler, and 35% dioctyl phthalate as a plasticizer. The
spectrum of the Magic Rub is dominated by the dioctyl phthalate, suggesting that the
poly (vinyl chloride) is crosslinked and hence insoluble.

Table II
Aginga Behavior of Erasers
% Weight % Volume % Density Surface pH Colorb
Eraser Change Change Change Un aged Aged Un aged Aged
Art Gum 100 -10% - 6.3% - 4% 6.6 6.8 10 YR 7/8 10 YR 3/4
Pink Pearl 101 - 2% + 23% - 20% 8.1 9.0 5R 7/8 5R 7/6
Kneaded Rubber -4% -10% +7% 6.9 5.8 7.5 BG 6/0 5 GY 6/0
Magic Rub 1954 0 0 0 7.4 6.2 5Y 9/1 7.5 Y 9/2
aDry oven aged for 7 days at 100 ± 2° C.
bMunsell colors observed under the maximum brightness of the daylight setting of the Macbeth
Spectralight light box.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 4 E./. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, N. Indictor

The results of the aging behavior of the erasers appear in Table II. After oven
aging at 100 ± 2°C for 7 days, the Art Gum eraser lost 10% of its weight and 6.3% of
its volume. The color change was extreme, from an ochre (Munsell 10 YR 7/8) to a deep
brown (10 YR 3/4). The eraser emitted a pungent odor. The Kneaded Rubber eraser
after identical aging lost 4% of its weight and 10% of its volume. It emitted a rubber
odor and turned warmer in color, from Munsell 7.5 BG610 to 5 GY 610. It also became
firmer in texture than an unaged Kneaded Rubber eras~r. The Pink Pearl eraser also
emitted a rubber odor upon aging and lost 2% of its weight, but gained 23% in volume.
The large decrease in density of this sample suggests that decomposition products
from the oven aging are entrapped in the eraser network. The color grayed slightly,
from Munsell 5R 7/8 to 5R 716, and the surface of the eraser took on a granular
appearance. After heating, the Magic Rub eraser remained dimensionally stable. It
did, however, take on a warmer, grayer appearance (Munsell 5Y 9/1 to 7,5Y 9/2),
become soft and sticky, and emit an odor. This eraser remained slightly more flexible
and continued to emit an odor even after cooling to room temperature.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

Surface pH of the erasers was measured before and after oven aging. After oven
aging, all erasers remained within approximately 1 pH unit of their original value. The
Pink Pearl was the most alkaline. The unaged Magic Rub eraser was neutral and it
became slightly acid upon aging. Both the Kneaded Rubber and Art Gum erasers were
slightly acid both before and after aging.

PART II. ERASER TREATMENTS ON PAPER

EXPERIMENT AL

Treatment
All paper samples were }t2" x 6" strips, cut from the same roll of Whatman
Chromatography paper number 1, basis weight 87 g/m2, thickness 0.16 MM., medium
flow rate, supplied in }t2" by 300' rolls. Whatman Chromatography 1 is a 100% cotton
paper, manufactured without fillers and with constant thickness.8 Test data for
artificially aged untreated paper are given in Table III. The dry cleaning materials used
for treatments were the Magic Rub, Pink Pearl, and Kneaded Rubber erasers and the
Opaline Pad. For erasing, the Whatman papers were individually tacked at each end
to a piece of Fome-Cor covered with a sheet of mylar which was changed between
erasers. All eraser treatments were performed on the felt side of the paper.9
The Magic Rub and Pink Pearl erasers were used by angling the erasers so that
an edge was in contact with the total width of the paper strip. These erasers were
pulled at equal pressure five times along the 6" length of the paper and five times with
some overlap along the Y2" width of the paper. In order to maintain as consistent an
experimental procedure as possible, the Kneaded Rubber was handled first to soften,
and then an edge was formed to perform approximately the action just described. It
was thought that the use of the Kneaded Rubber eraser as a tamping device might
disturb the paper surfate less; however, McInnis used it in that way and still found
it abrasive to the paper surface.4 The Opaline Pad was used by squeezing the bag to
emit some of the crumbs, and by using the pad to rub five times along both the length
and width of each paper.
Half of the treated samples were subjected to removal of the eraser crumbs by
brushing along the length of the paper with a Japanese brush, 31;2" wide and with 1}t2"
JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper 5

bristles, until crumbs were no longer visible to the naked eye. This frequently included
brushing crumbs off the untreated side of the paper. On the rest of the samples, there
was no attempt to remove whatever eraser crumbs were deposited by the described
treatment.

Table III
Physical Propertiesa of Untreated,
Artificially Agedb Whatman Paper

Aging Times Folding Tensile Surface

Days Endurancec Strength pH
(Double Folds kg
to Rupture)
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

o 59±4 4.3±.1 7.4±.1

Pre-aged 7 62±7 4.1±.4 7.2±.1

Pre-aged 7
Post-aged 7 55±7 4.1±.3 7.1±.1

Post-aged 16 34±10 4.3±.O 7.6±.O

aAverage and standard deviation o£"6 measurements.

bDry oven aged at 100 ± 2° C.
c500 g counter weight.

Aging
Paper samples were artificially aged by dry oven aging both before and after
eraser treatments. Aging took place in a circulating dry air oven at 100°C. The aging
categories for treated and untreated samples were as follows: unaged, aged for 7 days
prior to treatment with erasers (preaged), aged for 7 days after treatment with erasers
(post-aged), aged for 7 days prior to treatment and 7 days after treatment with erasers
(pre- and post-aged), and aged 16 days after treatment with erasers (post-aged 16
days). All samples were equilibrated prior to testing in a constant temperature and
humidity room. The range of conditions during this set of analyses was 18 ± 1°C and
34±6% RH.

Photomicrography
Two sets of photomicrographs were taken to record both the eraser particulate
in the paper and the surface abrasion. Photomicrographs were taken using an Olym-
pus OM-l camera and an Olympus 202028 stage microscope, connected by an Olym-
pus adaptor. In the first set, magnification was 33.3, and transmitted light was from
an Olympus lamp 256667 connected to a rheostat and set up for Kohler illumination. 10
In the second set of photomicrographs, magnification was 13.2 and raking light was
from 2 Tensor lamps.ll

}AIC 22(1982):1-12
 6 E.J. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, N. Indictor

Folding Endurance 12
All paper samples were tested for folding endurance on a Tinius-Olsen Model
Number 2 instrument (M. I. T. Folding Tester) with a dead weight of 500 grams. The
machine counts the number of double folds necessary to rupture the paper. The
results, appearing in Table IV, are the means and standard deviation of six trials at the
90% level of confidence.

Table IV
Folding Endurance Test Resultsa

Aging Time Untreated Kneaded Rubber Opaline Pad Pink fear! Magic Rub
Days A B A B A B A B
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

0 59±4 45±10 52±8 53± 13 53± 13 48±20 59±7 37±5 47± 11

Pre-aged 7 67±7 40±8 48±6 46±18 38±8 39± 11 43±9 46± 10 49±4

Post-aged 7 63±11 48±7 46±6 58±8 38±7 51±8 47± 16 48±6

Pre-aged 7 55±7 47±11 43±5 36±11 35±12 54±6 42± 13 58± 14 44±4
Post-aged 7

Post-aged 16 34±10 38±7 39±9 26±4 37±8 31±8 36±2 40±6 43±4

aDouble folds to rupture using a 500 g weight.

A indicates that no attempt was made to remove eraser crumbs.
B indicates that brushing was performed in an attempt to remove eraser crumbs.

Tensile Strength 12

Tensile strength of all paper samples was obtained on an Instron Model TM-M
1101 Universal Tester. The data were recorded as stress versus time under a uniform
increase in extension, and are reported as breaking strength in kilograms. The results
appearing in Table V, are the means and standard deviations of three to six trials at
the 90% level of confidence.

Table V
Tensile Strength Test Resultsa
Aging Times Untreated Kneaded Rubber Opaline Pad Pink Pearl Magic Rub
Days A B A B A B A B

0 4.3 ±.1 4.1 ±.5 4.0 ±.1 4.1 ±.1 4.2 ±.1 4.1 ±.1 4.2 ±.06 3.8 ±.1 4.0 ±.2
Pre-aged 7 4.1 ±.4 4.1 ±.1 3.9 ±.3 4.1 ±.4 4.0 ±.2 4.0 ±.1 3.9 ±.2 3.8 ±.1 4.0 ±.2
Post-aged 7 4.2 ±.2 4.2 ±.8 4.3 ±.3 4.2 ±.1 4.1 ±.4 4.2 ±.3 4.1 ±.1 4.2 ±.1
Pre-aged
Post-aged 7 4.1 ±.3 4.0 ±.3 4.0 ±.1 4.0 ±.1 4.2 ±.5 4.2 ±.3 4.2 ±.2 4.2 ±.2 4.2 ±.1
Post-aged 16 4.3 ±.O 4.4 ±.1 4.3 ±.2 4.5 ±.2 4.5 ±.1 4.4 ±.1 4.5 ±.1 4.3 ±.4 4.4 ±.1

aFull scale load was 10 kg. Tensile strength expressed above is in units of 1 kg.
A indicates that no attempt was made to remove eraser crumbs.
B indicates that brushing was performed in an attempt to remove eraser crumbs.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper 7

Surface pH12
Surface pH was measured on all paper samples, using a Beckman Expan-
domatic SS-2 pH meter with an Ingold glass electrode. The pH meter was calibrated
with buffer solutions of pH 5.0 and 7.0. Distilled water was dropped from a medicine
dropper onto the paper surfaces at the reading sites. The electrode was rinsed with
distilled water and wiped dry with Kimwipes between each reading. Nitrogen gas was
bubbled through the distilled water to maintain the pH of the water at 8.3-8.6. Three
readings were taken on each paper. Results appear in Table VI and are the means and
standard deviations of 18 readings on 6 papers at the 90% level of confidence.

Table VI
pH Test Results
Aging Times Untreated Kneaded Rubber Opaline Pad Pink Pearl Magic Rub
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

Days A B A B A B A B

0 7.4 ±.1 7.5 ±.1 7.3 ±.1 8.6 ±.1 8.2 ±.1 8.4 ±.1 8.5 ±.1 7.5 ±.1 7.4 ±.1
Pre-aged 7 7.2 ±.1 7.3 ±.1 7.2 ±.1 8.2 ±.1 8.2 ±.1 8.4 ±.1 8.1 ±.1 7.5 ±.1 7.2 ±.1
Post-aged 7 7.3 ±.1 7.4 ±.1 8.0 ±.2 8.0 ±.1 8.3 ±.1 8.4 ±.1 7.4 ±.1 7.3 ±.1
Pre-aged
Post-aged 7 7.1 ±.1 7.3 ±.1 7.0 ±.1 8.2 ±.1 8.2 ±.1 8.5 ±.1 8.2 ±.2 7.2 ±.1 7.4 ±.1
Post-aged 16 7.6 ±.O 7.2 ±.O 7.3 ±.O 8.6 ±.O 8.7 ±.O 8.3 ±.O 8.3 ±.O 7.7 ±.1 7.3 ±.1

A indicates that no attempt was made to remove eraser crumbs.

B indicates that brushing was performed in an attempt to remove eraser crumbs.

Visual Examination
All paper samples were examined under illumination from a Macbeth Spec-
tralight light box set at maximum brightness of the daylight setting. The surfaces of the
papers were examined to note any alteration in texture.
A minimum of three paper samples with the same treatment and aging were
viewed under ultra-violet illumination from the Macbeth Spectralight light box. Sam-
ples from sets of untreated papers, aged and unaged, were compared with the treated
samples to separate changes in fluorescence due to aging from those due to treatment.

RESULTS

Photomicrography
Preaged and unaged papers which received the same eraser treatment could
not be differentiated in the photomicrographs. The set of photomicrographs taken at
a higher magnification and using transmitted light showed very clearly that attempts
at complete-r~mova1of-eraser crumbs-were unsuccessful. All of the eraser treatments
employed left eraser crumbs among the paper fibers.
The set of photomicrographs taken at a lower magnification and using raking
light was moderately successful in recording observed surface abrasion caused by
certain eraser treatments. The surfaces of papers treated with the Pink Pearl and
Kneaded Rubber erasers are abraded; a lifting of individual fibers above the plane of

JAIC22(1982): 1-12
 8 E.f. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, N. Indictor

the paper was clearly evident. No such disturbance was recorded on the surfaces of
papers treated with either the Magic Rub eraser or the Opaline Pad. The small depth
of field of optical microscopy limits it as a technique for recording surface abrasion of
paper. Plans have been made to subject eraser treated samples to scanning electron
microscopy in order to improve the documentation of effects of eraser treatments and
of brushing on the paper surface.

Fold Strength
Untreated, unaged Whatman paper had a fold strength of 59 ± 4 double folds
to rupture which fell to 34 ± 10 after 16 days of dry oven aging. Little or no reduction
in fold strength is observable as a result of eraser treatments. The effect of pre-aging,
post-aging, or brushing the samples was not detectable when comparison is made
with untreated samples.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

Tensile Strength
Untreated, unaged Whatman paper had a tensile strength of 4.3 ± .1 kg. which
was virtually unchanged after 16 days of dry oven aging. As with the folding endur-
ance tests, no reduction in strength was observed as a result of eraser treatments.

Surface pH
The surface pH of untreated, unaged Whatman paper was 7.4 ± .1 which was
virtually unchanged after 16 days of dry oven aging. Samples treated with the
Kneaded Rubber and Magic Rub erasers, whether or not brushed to remove surface
crumbs, retained that pH within .2 pH unit upon aging. Papers treated with the
Opaline Pad and Pink Pearl eraser increased in pH by about 1.0 ±.2 pH units. No
effect of aging or brushing was detectable. A spot check on the unerased sides of
papers treated with these two erasers showed pH values lower than the erased sides
but slightly higher than untreated papers.
Since both aged and unaged Art Gum erasers, chemically identical to Opaline
crumbs, had an acid pH, the magnesium silicate in the Opaline Pad (see Table I) was
indicated as the alkaline agent. Magnesium silicate deposited on an unaged Whatman
paper sample increased the paper's pH from 7.2 to 8.2, an effect consistent with that
observed on Opaline treated paper sample, suggesting that the magnesium silicate is
the alkaline agent.

Wetting
The procedure for measuring the surface pH involved dropping distilled water
on to the surface of the paper. It was noted that certain treated papers exhibited a
resistance to wetting. The papers exhibiting the most resistance to wetting were those
treated with the Pink Pearl eraser. Papers erased with the Kneaded Rubber eraser
were resistant to wetting after post-aging and pre- and post-aging. The Opaline Pad
caused a slightly less dramatic effect, though upon wetting, papers both pre- and
post-aged with no attempt to remove crumbs had a spotty appearance. Only the Magic
Rub eraser caused no incidence of altered wettability. After 16 days of aging, only the
papers treated with the Kneaded Rubber eraser continued to resist wetting.

Color
No color change was detected between unaged and aged, untreated samples.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper 9

Color changes did occur in treated samples, and these generally increased with post-
treatment aging time. The color changes, which were too subtle to be documented by
Munsell color chips, may be attributable to: 1) a loss of brightness resulting from the
disturbance of the erased surface, and 2) deposition of eraser material on the surface
and within the fibers of the paper. The erasers are discussed in the order of decreasing
color change on the treated papers. The papers erased with the Pink Pearl eraser lost
their brightness immediately. With increased aging, papers with no brushing ap-
peared warmer and brushed papers appeared grayer and dirtier. To a lesser extent
than Pink Pearl, the Kneaded Rubber eraser resulted in a dirty appearance on all
papers tested, which increased with longer aging. All papers treated with the Opaline
Pad became increasingly warmer in appearance with aging. Papers treated with the
Magic Rub eraser were unchanged except for pre- and post-aged and 16 days aged
papers with no brushing for crumb removal. The pre- and post-aged papers were
slightly warmer and grayer than unaged, untreated papers. The 16 days aged papers
were even grayer.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

Fluorescence
It was expected that there would be a correspondence between the fluorescence
of an eraser and of the papers treated with that eraser. However, no significant
differences in fluorescence as a result of eraser treatments were found. The intensity
of fluorescence depended upon the aging time of the paper, with all unaged papers
fluorescing the least. Previous experimenters found that paper decreases in
fluorescence after being heated at 105°C for one hour.13

Surface Abrasion
One week of pre-aging had no influence on the susceptibility of papers to
abrasion by erasers. Papers erased with the Pink Pearl eraser showed the most dra-
matic abrasion in th~atthe surface fibers of the Whatman paper were lifted up from the
plane of the paper. The Pink Pearl crumbs adhered most tenaciously and required
more brush strokes for removal from the paper than the other erasers.
The Kneaded Rubber eraser also caused abrasion in the treatment. It seemed to
pull on the fibers as it was pulled across the paper surface. Very few crumbs were
visible from the Kneaded Rubber eraser, and the least number of brush strokes was
required to remove visible crumbs.
Papers erased with the Magic Rub eraser exhibited a small amount of abrasion,
particularly along the edges of the papers. Fewer brush strokes than were used with
the Pink Pearl were necessary to remove visible Magic Rub crumbs.
The Opaline Pad was the least abrasive cleaner, such that no change in the
texture of the paper was visible to the naked eye. The greatest amount of brushing was
necessary to remove visible crumbs.

DISCUSSION
There are some interesting parallels between the results of McInnis' study and
the current study. McInnis used many materials in common with this experiment:
Whatman Chromatography #1 paper, Kneaded Rubber and Art Gum erasers, a dry
cleaning pad identical to Opaline, and a white Mars Plastic synthetic eraser, which,
like Magic Rub, is a vinyl. Preaging conditions were identical; eraser treatments were
gentler: four strokes compared with ten performed in this work. The crumbs from the
dry cleaning pad were manipulated with a brush and not with the pad itself as in this
lAIC 22(1982):1-12
 10 E,J. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, A. King, N. Indictor

study. In McInnis's report, examination of treated papers was exclusively optical, but
a scanning electron microscope was employed. The parallels in the findings are as
follows: 1) preaged and unaged papers respond identically to eraser abrasion; 2) the
Kneaded Rubber eraser was particularly damaging to paper fibers; 3) the dry cleaning
pad was unabrasive; 4) the Mars Plastic eraser could be used without abrasion; 5) all
of the erasers leave particulate matter among the paper fibers.
The earlier McCrone findings are more well known, since they are abstracted
in Carolyn Horton's Cleaning and Preserving Bindings and Related Materials, and the text
of this book recommends materials based on McCrone's work.14 The Opaline Pad,
Pink Pearl, and Magic Rub erasers were included in this report, and treatments were
applied to both rag and wood pulp paper samples. Aging was 100 ± 1°C for 27 days
in a circulating air oven. Tests performed were microscopic examination for fiber
damage, cold extraction pH, and fold and tensile strength.
No change in fold or tensile strengths or pH's was found; and there was no fiber
damage observed though there is no description of how the erasers were used. The
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

report states that Pink Pearl and Magic Rub erasers, which contain CaC03, are "ideal
abrasives for book materials, especially if they remain in the book material" due to
their alkalinity.! The report says that the effect of CaC03 on the cold extraction pH
performed was invisible because CaC03 is not wat~r soluble. 1 However, in discussing
dry cleaners used on vellum in another section of the same report, the Pink Pearl and
Art Gum erasers are recommended over the Magic Rub eraser because the pH of the
vellum treated with Magic Rub was .1 of a pH unit lower than vellum treated with the
other two erasers. 1
The difference between McCrone's uniform cold extraction pH findings for all
of his aged, treated papers and the variation in pH obtained in the current study may
be due to the great dilution of eraser residue in McCrone's cold extraction solution.
How much eraser material was deposited on McCrone's paper samples is not stated.
Cold extraction and surface pH measurements often produce different values. IS
Among the questions generated by the current study is whether a more effec-
tive means for eraser crumb removal can be developed. A consequence of eraser
particulate in paper may be that solvents used for tape and mount removal may swell
eraser particulate while it is enmeshed in the paper fibers. Art Gum, Opaline, and
Pink Pearl erasers, soluble in warmed acetone-hexane mixtures, may swell in either
solvent used alone. Brushing is clearly not effective for removal of the particulate
material, and it may even enmesh the particulate deeper into the paper fibers.
A potential major drawback of the Magic Rub eraser which requires further
investigation is the thermal degradation of its constituent plasticized poly(vinyl chlo-
ride). The eraser immediately became soft at 100°C, and Paul Banks noted the dis-
solution of the yellow paint on pencils stored in a drawer in direct contact with a vinyl
eraser.3 Dioctyl phthalate is a paint solvent. At 370°C heating for 30 minutes, plas-
ticized poly(vinyl chloride) may be more hazardous than the scope of our tests has
shown.
It should be noted here that erasers have been used in the conservation of
materials other than paper, such as in the cleaning of stone statuary or of metallic
threads, and in the use of absorbent crumbs to remove surface dirt from a variety of
media. The results of the study conducted here cannot be generalized to evaluate
erasers for these other uses, but these results demonstrate the necessity for evaluating
these products in all of their conservation applications.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 Effects of Eraser Treatment on Paper 11

CONCLUSIONS
1. All products tested using several dry cleaning procedures altered surface
characteristics but not mechanical properties of Whatman Chromatography paper.
2. All the erasers tested showed marked alterations upon dry oven aging.
Dimension change was greatest for the Pink Pearl eraser, and least for the Magic Rub
eraser. Weight change was greatest for the Art Gum eraser, and least for the Magic
Rub eraser. The surface pH of the aged erasers changed by about one unit except for
the Art Gum eraser, which exhibited negligible surface pH change upon aging. All
erasers exhibited color change, and became more odorous.
3. The eraser treatments regardless of aging or brushing produced no mea-
surable alterations on the folding endurance or tensile strength of the paper. The
Opaline Pad and Pink Pearl eraser treatments caused increases in the surface pH of the
paper; treatment with the Magic Rub and Kneaded Rubber erasers left the surface pH
unaffected. Subtle color changes were detectable as a result of treatment with each of
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

the erasers. The wettability of the paper was decreased by all eraser treatments except
those using the Magic Rub eraser.
4. Treatments using all eraser samples left detectable amounts of eraser mate-
rial in the paper. Photomicrographs showed that attempts at complete removal of
eraser crumbs by brushing were unsuccessful.
5. The Magic Rub eraser was the least altering to the paper, and the eraser itself
was t~e most stable to aging. Papers treated with the Magic Rub eraser suffered
negligible abrasion and color change, and had no change in either surface pH or
wetting ability.
6. The Opaline Pad was even less abrasive to treated paper samples than the
Magic Rub eraser. Slight warming of the color of the paper surface after treatment and
aging was noted and is probably due to the color change in the eraser crumbs. The
surface pH of the paper increased after treatment.
7. The Kneaded Rubber eraser was judged abrasive as used. It adversely de-
creased the wettability of the paper after treatment. The eraser changed dimension
upon aging. The crumbs were particularly difficult to remove, as they were small-,not
visible to the naked eye, and clung to the paper fibers.
8. The Pink Pearl eraser was judged the worst eraser because it readily abraded
the paper surface and required working over the paper excessively to remove visible
crumbs. The abrasion and pink particulate matter altered surface color and texture of
the paper. Paper wettability decreased after treatment.

REFERENCES
1 Walter C. McCrone Associates, "The Report on Testing Book Cleaning Materials,"
Report to the Library Technology Project No. 50, July, 1966, unpublished
mss.
2 Walter C. McCrone Associates, Appendix 4 in Horton, Carolyn, Cleaning and
Preserving Bindings and Related Materials, 2nd Ed., American Library Associ-
ation, Chicago, 1969, p. 64.
3 Banks, Paul, "Paper Cleaning," Restaurator I, 1969, pp. 52-53.
4 McInnis, Kerry, "Two Studies in Paper Conservation Practice," I.C.C.M. Bulletin,
6, June, 1980.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12
 12 E.]. Pearlstein, D. Cabelli, N. Indictor

5 Elizabeth Moffatt, Conservation Scientist, Canadian Conservation Institute, has

also been conducting research on the composition and behavior of eraser
products used in paper conservation (private communication, September,
1981).
6 Munsell Color Company, Munsell Book of Color, Baltimore, Md., 1929-1970.
7 Mr. Walter Israel, Chemist at Durasol Drug and Chemical Company, reports that
two of the other dry cleaning pads manufactured by Durasol Drug and
Chemical Company but distributed by other companies are Draft Clean Pads
by Archival Aids, and ABC Draftsman's Dry Clean Pad by Keuffel and Esser
Co. (private communication, Fall, 1980).
8 Paper Chromatography Laboratory Guide, Bulletin No. 201, 1977, Whatman, Inc.,
Clifton, N.J., p. 14. Whatman Chromatography #1 lacks uniform aging char-
acteristics from roll to roll. Nelson, J.R. "Effects of Wash Water Quality on the
Physical Properties of Three Papers," Publication of the Art Conservation Train-
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 20:51 25 April 2016

ing Programs Conference, N. Y., 1981.

9 This was determined according to ASTM methods, described in Paper and Paper-
board: Characteristics, Nomenclature, and the Significance of Tests, 1963, as fol-
lows: The paper strip was dampened, allowed to dry, and then observed
under low magnification. The wire pattern became evident.
10 Kohler Illumination is used for high resolution, and is described in McCrone, W.,
McCrone, L., DeIly, J., Polarized Light Microscopy, Ann Arbor Science, Michi-
gan,1979, pp. 30, 32. The intensity on the rheostat was adjusted such that the
camera's meter was balanced when the shutter speed was 1/4 second.
11 The film for both sets of slides was Kodak Ektachrome Tungsten, ASA 160.
12 Procedures for folding endurance, tensile strength, surface pH, etc. have been
described previously. N.S. Baer, N. Indictor, W.H. Phelan, "An Evaluation
of Adhesives for Use in Paper Conservation," Guild of Book Workers Journal X,
No.1, 1971, pp. 17-35;N.S. Baer, N. Indictor, T.1. Schwartzman, I.L. Rosen-
berg, "Chemical and Physical Properties of Poly (vinyl acetate) Copolymer
Emulsions," ICOM Paper, Venice, Italy, 75/22/5, 1975, Paris.
13 Radley, J.A., and Grant, J., Fluorescence Analysis in Ultra-Violet Light, Chapman
and Hall, London, 1954, p. 455.
14 Horton, Carolyn, Cleaning and Preserving Bindings and Related Materials, 2nd ed.,
American Library Association, Chicago, 1969, pp. 32-34.
15 A. Joel, N. Indictor, J.F. Hanlan, and N.S. Baer, "The Measurement and
Significance of pH in Paper Conservation," IIC-AG Bulletin 12 (2), 1972, pp.
119-125.
16 Paciorek, K.L., Kratzer, R.H., Kaufman, J., Nakahara, J., Hartstein, A.M.,
"Oxidative Thermal Decomposition of Poly (vinyl chloride) Compositions,"
The Journal of Applied Polymer Science 18, 1974, pp. 3723-3729.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I WOULD LIKE to gratefully acknowledge Professors Norbert Baer and Lawrence
Majewski of the Conservation Center at New York University for their support of this
project. Warm thanks are extended to the members of the paper research class for their
feedback and advice. I am also extremely grateful to James Frantz of Objects Conser-
vation, Metropolitan Museum of Art, for use of the Infra-Red Spectrophotometer.

JAIC 22(1982):1-12