New insights reveal the role of relative humidity and oxidation in bronze disease affecting copper alloys, highlighting effective management strategies.
A key goal when managing copper alloy heritage is preventing “bronze disease,” which damages surface detail and may disintegrate objects by oxidation and hydrolysis of nantokite (CuCl), forming voluminous copper trihydroxychlorides (Cu2(OH)3Cl). The success of mitigation strategies is difficult to evaluate due to the complexity of copper alloy corrosion profiles, limitations in non-destructive analytical methods and incomplete understanding of the corrosion mechanisms and reactions involved in bronze disease. Without better understanding, it is impossible to design truly effective solutions for the safe storage and display of archaeological copper alloys. Advancing current understanding, this paper examines oxidation and hydrolysis of CuCl using oxygen consumption, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy, recognised as the basis of bronze disease. Variables potentially affecting bronze disease processes are evaluated, including relative humidity (RH) (15–80%RH at 20 °C) and the presence of metallic copper with CuCl and their respective ratios. Results confirm that these variables influence the reaction mechanisms and kinetics of bronze disease. The rate of oxidation and hydrolysis of CuCl accelerates with RH, and its effect is quantified. The presence of copper is shown to be important for producing bronze disease; it facilitates a cyclic reaction forming Cu2(OH)3Cl, increases its formation rate at lower RH than by hydrolysis of CuCl alone and prevents formation of soluble chloride compounds. The formation of Cu2(OH)3Cl without counteracting copper ions is shown to promote formation of CuCl2 and CuCl2·2H2O, accelerating bronze disease. This new understanding is used to better quantify risk of bronze disease as a function of RH, providing a more quantitative tool for managing preservation of archaeological copper alloy collections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thunberg et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: