Evaluates the protective performance of AMC compared to traditional consolidants in fragile bone artifacts, suggesting AMC's superior efficacy.
Archaeological bone artifacts frequently exhibit diminished mechanical integrity as a result of organic matrix degradation. Under adverse environmental conditions, such artifacts are particularly susceptible to surface cracking and disintegration into powder. It is urgently necessary to develop protective materials that possess high permeability, strong reinforcing power and good compatibility. This study evaluated the protective performance of a novel Acrylate Metal Complex (AMC) and two conventional commercial consolidants (acrylic resin Paraloid B72 and ethyl silicate-based material Remmers 300) on fragile bone artifacts. Using simulated samples resembling bone artefacts, a systematic evaluation was conducted to assess the penetration, mechanical reinforcement efficacy, microstructural modifications, chromatic impact, and aging resistance of three consolidants. The results indicate that AMC demonstrates optimal permeation capability and can significantly enhance the surface hardness of bone specimens, achieving an increase of 7.7%. The colorimetric changes observed in all three reinforced materials following treatment remained within acceptable limits (ΔE* < 1.5). Accelerated aging tests—including 300 h of UV irradiation and 30 cycles of alternating dry-wet conditions—demonstrated that bone-mimetic composites reinforced with AMC exhibited significantly superior aging resistance relative to those treated with B72 and Remmers 300. In the actual application verification of the archaeological bone relics, the surface hardness of the reinforced AMC increased by 10%, the wave velocity increased by 14.8%, and there was no glare or crust on the surface. Comprehensive comparison shows that AMC outperforms traditional commercial materials in key performance indicators, demonstrating great potential as a next-generation bone relic conservation material.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: