Díaz, I;
Alvarez-Martin, A;
Grau-Bové, J;
Norrehed, S;
Salvadori, B;
Kraševec, I;
Duran-Romero, D;
(2024)
Review and interlaboratory comparison of the Oddy test methodology.
Heritage Science
, 12
(1)
, Article 95. 10.1186/s40494-024-01174-9.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
s40494-024-01174-9.pdf - Published Version Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Since the introduction of the Oddy test in 1973, many museums and cultural institutions have put the method in use, developing their own versions and protocols. Currently the 3-in-1 version, temperature at 60 ºC and 2 g of tested material are set as common practice; however, other variables of the test are not standardized. The purpose of this study is to examine current versions of the Oddy test, to identify differences in the results derived from variations in the procedures, and ultimately raising awareness within the conservation community to work together towards a standardized protocol. In this article, we review the available information on the methodological differences in Oddy test protocols published in the literature related to glassware cleaning, coupon preparation, reaction vessel setup and rating of materials. Based on the review, and to highlight the many variables that could affect the results of the test, seven European cultural institutions working under the H2020 IPERION HS project performed a comparative 3-in-1 Oddy test by blindly evaluating the same ten materials. Each institution used its own test methodology but some guidelines were advised: (1) Detergents as a cleaning procedure for glassware, (2) P600 sandpaper or micromesh pad close to 1500 to prepare metal coupons and (3) 1:100 as water–air ratio. Despite this, differences between institutions’ results were still observed. Some of them are due to the differences in the coupons preparation, either in the sanding pattern or in the edge area. In order to separate the contribution of the experimental setup and the subjectivity of the evaluation in the discrepancies, coupons from all institutions have been rated by a single team of judges with experience in the Oddy Test. Results show that differences in the evaluation criteria play a relevant role in the discrepancies of the results, especially for institutions with less experience in the test. These results highlight the need to further standardize the methodology and criteria for visual assessment. Nevertheless, the Oddy test has been found to be reliable for the identification of materials that produce emissions hazardous for the conservation of cultural assets.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Review and interlaboratory comparison of the Oddy test methodology |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s40494-024-01174-9 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01174-9 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativeco mmons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
| Keywords: | Oddy test, Methodology review, Standardized protocol, Interlaboratory test, Reproducibility, Preventive conservation |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS > Faculty of the Built Environment UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS > Faculty of the Built Environment > Bartlett School Env, Energy and Resources |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10190307 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
