ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION OF MODERN MATERIALS:

A CASE STUDY OF WATERLOGGED RUBBER GASKETS FROM THE USS

MONITOR (1862)

SUSANNE GRIEVE
THE MARINERS’ MUSEUM
USS MONITOR PROJECT

ABSTRACT

The increasing problem of polymer deterioration in museum collections is challenging conser-

vators to research suitable treatment and storage options for objects made of plastic and rubber. Conserva-
tors at The Mariners’ Museum have researched and performed treatment experiments on a collection of
24 waterlogged rubber gaskets from the steam engine of the USS Monitor, an American Civil War iron-
clad. Several analytical methods were used to determine the chemical characteristics of the rubber and to
identify corrosion products, including Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and X-Ray Dif-
fraction (XRD). In addition to contributing to the overall study of polymer degradation, the primary goal
of the research was to remove corrosion products and mineralization that had formed on the surface.
Chemical analysis was performed to extract corrosion products and determine the composition of the
rubber. An investigational technique, electrophoresis, was tested for removal of corrosion products and
mineralization on the surface with varied results.

INTRODUCTION

The most efficient techniques to conserve rubber are currently being investigated as conservators
are more often faced with preserving objects containing plastics. The rise in the worldwide influence of
plastics in the 1950s and 1960s in combination with contemporary modern art collections and the acquisi-
tion of archaeological objects made of rubber has presented a challenge to conservators who have realized
the importance of researching plastic deterioration (Baker 2001). Experimentation concerning the treat-
ment and storage of the rubber gaskets recovered from the steam engine of the USS Monitor will contrib-
ute to the overall materials research into the preservation of rubber excavated from an archaeological
environment.
After sinking in 1862, the Monitor has rested on the seabed in about 250 feet of water for over 140
years in an upside down position. The engine and condenser were raised in 2001 during a recovery
operation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in conjunction with the US
Navy and brought to The Mariners’ Museum (TMM) for documentation, treatment and display where the
main collection will be housed upon the completion of conservation.
Experiments were conducted on five rubber gaskets using a variety of chemical and mechanical
conservation methods. The removal of iron and copper mineralization that has formed on the surface, the
extraction of glycerol from the rubber and retreatment is necessary to ensure long-term stability of these
objects. Solvent testing with acetone, ethanol, ammonium citrate, and water were used in an attempt to
remove the glycerol and corrosion products, as well as, experimentation with the electrophoresis process.
Based on physical examination, the glycerol used to treat the rubber gaskets has created an oily
residue on the surface of the rubber that has reduced the surface tension and attracts particulate matter in
the air. Removal of the glycerol and subsequent retreatment is necessary to prevent future problems that

79
80 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

may occur. The iron and copper mineralization occurring on the surface of the gaskets has contributed to
the deterioration of the rubber. These active corrosion products must be removed or pacified in order to
prevent further weakening of the structure of the rubber.

HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY OF RUBBER IN THE UNITED STATES

The first commercial production of rubber in the United States was by the Roxbury India Rubber
Company circa 1832 in Massachusetts who produced rubber shoes. Unfortunately, the company encoun-
tered problems with the melting of the uncured rubber in the summer and the extreme hardening in the
winter (Goodyear 1855). Charles Goodyear, an inventor, became intensely interested in this unusual
material and took it upon himself to discover a method of “curing” the rubber (Loadman 1993).
During the mid-1800s, the process of vulcanization was powered using steam and pressure applied
by machinery that was in early inventive stages (Goodyear 1855). By 1862, vulcanized rubber was used
in most applications due to its resistance to heat. Vulcanized rubber is latex that has had sulfur added
during the manufacturing phase to increase strength, unlike unvulcanized rubber, which is not cross
linked with sulfur.
According to Goodyear (1855), a cutting and washing machine was used to clean and manipulate
the latex. During the compounding stage, the rubber was mixed with additives such as gums, oils, coal-tar
carbon, earths and oxides, pulverized metal and ores, fibrous substances, lampblack and ground cork
depending on the use of the finished product. The sulfur was usually added during the compounding stage
in a ratio of half an ounce of sulfur to one pound of gum. The sulfur could also have been dusted on
before being placed into the heater or by producing sulfurous gas in the oven during the heating stage.
While Goodyear (1855) makes no specific references to gaskets or washers, Thomas Hancock
(1857), a British inventor, describes rubber products specifically made for mechanical purposes and refers
to similar objects as buffer rings, flange washers and rubber valves. While it may never be known which
company manufactured this material, it is possible that Goodyear supplied the rubber gaskets used on the
Monitor. According to Korman (2002), during the Civil War, Lincoln provided the federal Army with “an
unprecedented $27 million worth of rubber boots, raincoats, ponchos, tents and pontoon boats, virtually
all of it from Goodyear patent licensees and their subsidiaries.” Babcock (1966) also suggests that
Goodyear held most of the licenses for manufacture of rubber goods during this time period in the
following excerpt: “By 1851, according to Charles Goodyear’s record, some twenty manufacturing
establishments were operating under licenses granted by him.”

RUBBER GASKETS FROM THE USS MONITOR

A small but essential component of the steam engine and condenser were the rubber gaskets used
on the copper and iron pipes connecting these machinery parts. These indispensable everyday items pre-
vented leakage of the passing liquids; therefore, assisting in the efficiency of the engine. The brackish
seawater in combination with high temperature steam would have likely contributed to rapid deterioration
of the rubber.
The rubber gaskets recovered from the Monitor were made of vulcanized rubber. This conclusion is
based on chemical testing for the presence of sulfur and physical characteristics. All of the gaskets have
distinct layers of rubber and plain weave textile, which occurs in alternating layers (Figure 1). The
amount of layers varies from gasket to gasket and the extent of deterioration. The majority of degradation
can be seen in cracking on the surface and delamination of the rubber and textile.
While the exact method of manufacture is unknown, it appears that they were made in the following
manner: a layer of rubber was placed down, then a layer of textile placed on top of the moist rubber and
this layering was continued until the desired thickness was made. Neither Goodyear nor Hancock made
reference to a bonding agent being used for any application of rubber to textile. The textile was added to
possibly increase the strength of the rubber. This process is still used in modern times.
 Rubber Gaskets From the USS Monitor 81

The majority of the gaskets are fragmented and all exhibit iron and copper corrosion products on
their surface due to their attachment to the metal pipes from the engine. All gaskets appear to have been
in use due to the large amount of wear and deterioration that appears on the edges and surfaces.
Over 30 rubber gaskets were recovered from the pipes of the USS Monitor steam engine and
condenser, and 24 were treated previously. Upon initial examination, all twenty-four gaskets had been
previously conserved with an unknown oily substance. Analysis of the substance by Dr. Desmond Cook
of Old Dominion University (ODU) Physics department discovered the oil to be glycerol using FTIR.
Upon initial microscopic examination of the gaskets, the glycerol has transformed the surface of the
rubber into a soft gelatinous form. The oil from the glycerol has pooled in some areas on the surface of
the gaskets and has left an oily residue on any surface that the gasket comes into contact with (Figure 2).
In some cases, the rubber has adhered itself to the rigid Coroplast support which damages the object upon
removal. The adhesive nature of the glycerol attracts airborne particulate matter and is hygroscopic. All of
the above characteristics are undesirable and could potentially have a negative effect on the long-term
condition of the rubber.

Figure 1: Cross section of a rubber gasket fragment Figure 2: pH testing of the surface of the rubber
showing a rubber and plain weave textile gaskets. Notice the reflective areas
layering. where glycerol has pooled.

INVESTIGATIVE CONSERVATION: ANALYSIS OF THE RUBBER

The composition of the rubber was studied in order to identify the most appropriate conservation
treatment. Additional testing and interpretation of the following investigative conservation techniques is
necessary to better understand the chemical constituents of this historical material.

pH
The surface pH of the 24 gaskets was measured using colorpHast® pH 0-14 indicators (Figure 2).
Deionized water was applied to the pH test strips and pressed onto the surface of the rubber. A concen-
trated area of rubber was tested on the obverse and reverse of the gaskets. The lowest pH reading was 4
and the highest was 7, with most gaskets having a pH of 5. Although the rubber appears to be stable at
this level, additional research is necessary to determine an appropriate pH for historical waterlogged
rubber.
82 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

Vulcanization Test
One of the most important determinations that needed to be made was if the gaskets were latex or
vulcanized rubber. A 1 mm x 1 mm sample from a fragment of a gasket was tested for vulcanization
based on the application of heat. In the case of polysulphide rubber (rubber containing more than one sul-
fur bond), the cross-linked polymers are infusible by the effects of heat and would not react to decompo-
sition. The rubber sample did not soften or melt when warmed by an open flame signifying that the rubber
has been vulcanized (Saunders 1966). Also, the sample initially became enflamed and continued to burn
when removed from the heat source. According to Saunders (1966), the blue color of the flame also repre-
sents a polysulphide rubber. A second test for vulcanized rubber was performed using concentrated nitric
acid. The development of a brown smoke from the rubber sample denoted the presence of sulfur in the
rubber.
A final experiment was performed using toluene as a solvent. When unvulcanized rubber is placed
into toluene it will dissolve, with vulcanized rubber, the object will swell and distort (Dr. Alan Gent,
University of Akron, Polymer Institute, personal communication 2005). A small sample of rubber was
placed into a glass beaker and the rubber was covered with toluene and allowed to soak for 24 hours.
General swelling and dimensional changes occurred to the sample but it did not dissolve, indicating it was
vulcanized. Several locations on a fragment of rubber gasket were examined using FTIR, but the C-S
(Carbon-Sulfur) bond occurs between 590cm-1 to 700cm-1 in the fingerprint region that contains a
cluster of peaks and no conclusion could be drawn concerning vulcanization from the spectra.

FTIR Analysis
FTIR analysis was used to identify materials associated with the rubber gaskets. Dr. Kathleen
Brunke, Professor of Chemistry at Christopher Newport University Environmental Sciences Department,
provided a Perkin-Elmer 1600 Series FTIR unit for analysis of the acetone from the solvent extraction
solution. The remaining samples were analyzed by Dr. Desmond Cook at ODU. The first sample
analyzed was a small-delaminated rubber fragment with no remains of textile. Several unique areas were
visible on the surface of the fragment ranging from dry areas to corrosion stained areas. The rubber gasket
spectra resembled the IR spectra shown in Loadman (1993), but further interpretation should be
conducted (Figure 3). The second sample analyzed was a large rubber fragment that contained textile and
a small amount of visible copper corrosion products. The glycerol peaks overshadowed most peaks
associated with this sample. Further analysis is being performed on the spectra to interpret the compounds
present in the rubber.

X-Radiograph Determination
All 24 of the gaskets were spot tested for the presence of lead using a Plumbtesmo® Lead test.
Three gaskets were positive for the occurrence of lead. It is possible that during the Civil War, a lead
paste may have been spread on the rubber for additional protection against leaks. A series of x-rays were
taken of two rubber gaskets to determine characteristics that were not immediately evident. Two gaskets
were x-rayed at the Colonial Williamsburg Laboratory by the Lead Objects Conservator, Emily Williams
(Figure 4).
The first gasket to be x-rayed was MNMS.2001.003.0021C. This gasket has a unique ring pattern
on one surface. The first x-ray was taken at 15 kilovolts (kV), 10 milliamps (mA), 1 minute (min.). This
x-ray was unsatisfactory and a second x-ray was taken at 30 kV, 10 mA, 1 min; more detail was visible at
30 kV. The ring pattern and deterioration are clearly seen, as is the deterioration around the center hole of
the gasket. The second gasket x-rayed was MNMS.2001.003.049F. This gasket contained a large amount
of lead that is visible on the surface. The first x-ray was taken at 30 kV, 10 mA, 1 min. Details that were
visible include the textile pattern between the layers of rubber and areas of lead. A second x-ray was
taken at 40 kV, 10 mA, 1 min. and revealed several white areas again indicating the presence of lead.
 Rubber Gaskets From the USS Monitor 83

Figure 3: FTIR spectrum of an exposed area of rubber.

Figure 4: X-ray of MNMS.2001.003.021C (top) and

MNMS.2001.003.049F (bottom). Top
left: 15kV, 10mA, 1 min. Top right:
30kV, 10mA, 1min. Bottom left: 30kV,
10mA, 1min. Bottom right: 40kV,
10mA, 1min.

XRD Analysis
Two small separate fragments from MNMS.2001.003.069C were examined and interpreted with X-
Ray Diffraction (XRD) by Dr. Cook at ODU to determine the type of corrosion products present on the
rubber. The XRD patterns were recorded using a Philips Automated Power Diffractometer 3720 over the
range of 10 - 80 degrees 2-Theta, using a copper tube emitting X-rays of wavelength 1.54056 Angstroms.
The tube was operated at a voltage of 40 kV and a current of 40 mA, with a goniometer step size of 0.05
84 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

degrees. Patterns were recorded for 20 hours each. Diffractions peaks were compared to the XRD patterns
of standard minerals and iron oxides.
The first area analyzed was the black surface of the rubber that appeared to be free of corrosion
products. Black areas that were reflective indicating glycerol on the surface also gave similar XRD
spectrum. This spectrum contains a large amount of calcite and possibly quartz.
The second sample analyzed was an area of exposed textile where the rubber layer had delaminated.
This spectrum reveals less calcite but contains several other unidentified compounds.
The third sample analyzed was an area that appeared to be covered in iron corrosion products. The
types of iron oxides present are goethite, lepidocrocite and magnetite. Goethite [alpha-FeO(OH)] likely
formed at the bottom of ocean and is a stable compound. Lepidocrocite [gamma-FeO(OH)] signifies
active corrosion upon exposure to air producing fresh rust. The magnetite (Fe3O4) signature on the XRD
spectrum is most likely due to the rubber being in direct contact with iron. Magnetite is found in
numerous metal samples from the Monitor. It is an anaerobic compound and was likely formed at the
bottom of ocean. Hematite is also possibly present, but is difficult to distinguish from the remaining iron
oxide peaks (Cook, personal communication 2005).

PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO THE CONSERVATION

In order to prevent further deterioration of the rubber gaskets, it was necessary to perform
experiments on the removal of corrosion products and extraction of the glycerol. Several practical
techniques were attempted using alcohols, ammonium citrate, water and the electrophoresis process.

Water Extraction Experiment

The most efficient solvent for glycerol is water; therefore, an experiment was conducted to deter-
mine if water would sufficiently extract the glycerol from the rubber. A small sample was taken from an
unprovenanced collection of rubber gasket fragments. The fragment was documented, placed into a glass
beaker and covered with tap water. Upon contact, the textile fibers that were exposed swelled and the
rubber delaminated slightly. The surface of the rubber turned light grey, similar to the solvent extraction
experiment. After exposure for 24 hours, the top layer had delaminated severely and the solution was
slightly yellow. The fragment remained in solution for 48 hours in which it lost a small amount of weight
and delaminated severely. It was decided that the delamination was worsening after two days and the
fragment was removed and allowed to air dry. The cracking on the surface of the rubber was enhanced
and remains of glycerol were still visible on the surface of the object. The fragment returned to its original
shape, but had lost weight after it was dried. This may have been due to the removal of glycerol. This
method appeared to be somewhat successful in removing glycerol, but did not remove mineralization or
corrosion products.

Solvent Extraction Experiment

The interaction of the rubber with alcohols was unknown. Since the purpose of the study was to
remove the glycerol and mineralization from the rubber gaskets, a solvent extraction experiment was
performed. Two small samples were removed from a collection of disassociated fragments and
documented. One fragment was placed into concentrated acetone and the other was placed into
concentrated ethanol. Upon initial contact with the solvents, the surface of both of the fragments turned a
light grey and the textile fibers began to swell. Over the course of nine days the fragments became
delaminated, the solutions turned yellow, and small gray particulate matter could be seen in the bottom of
the container. The rubber fragments were removed on the tenth day and allowed to air dry. Close
monitoring revealed that the fragments slowly returned to their original size and weight, but the glycerol
remained visible on the exterior of the fragments (Figure 5). From this experiment, it was concluded that
acetone and ethanol were not adequate in removing the glycerol.
 Rubber Gaskets From the USS Monitor 85

Figure 5: Fragment of a rubber gasket after solvent extraction. Notice cracking on surface and light grey
color. Size: 1 cm x 1 cm.

Ammonium Citrate Experiment

One method attempted for the removal of iron mineralization from rubber is to use a chelating
agent such as dibasic ammonium citrate [(NH4)2HC6H5O7]. A rubber gasket fragment was used due to the
high amount of corrosion products present on the surface and the small size of the sample. The fragment
was placed into a glass beaker with a 2% solution (w/v) of aqueous ammonium citrate and monitored for
several weeks. Over the course of the experiment, the solution became progressively more yellow. A
sample was taken of the solution at certain intervals during the experiment to measure the rate of iron
extraction. The changes in the rubber were also measured and observed for after treatment comparison.
The pH remained at 6 throughout the entire experiment. The gasket fragment appeared to improve
considerably and the iron corrosion products on the surface brushed off easily with a soft bristle brush.
The long term effects of ammonium citrate on rubber are unknown, but initial observations suggest that
this method is satisfactory for removing iron corrosion products on waterlogged rubber.

Electrophoresis Experiment
The process of electrophoresis is similar to that of electrolysis, but can be used on organic materials
in place of metal artifacts. Three major uses for electrophoresis have been applied towards the cleaning of
archaeological materials such as leather, cloth money, and wood (Bergeron 2005; Pennec et al. 1989; La
Baume 1989 respectively). The electrophoresis process involves the use of an anode and cathode
separated by the suspended object. Previous electrolytes that have been experimented with include
purified water, 5% (w/w) aqueous Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), ammonium citrate, potassium nitrate
(KNO3) and a combination of ammonium citrate and PEG (Eric Nordgren, Queen Anne’s Revenge
Project, personal communication 2005).

Electrophoresis Experiment A
After the completion of the water extraction experiment, it was decided that a more suitable method
to efficiently extract the glycerol and remove the adhering mineralization was needed. The first
electrophoresis experiment was performed with a fragmented rubber gasket that had visible iron and
copper mineralization and was representative of the collection of gaskets. For the purposes of this
experiment, the electrolyte used was 0.25% (w/w) aqueous potassium nitrate. The pH fluctuated
86 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

frequently to 9 throughout the experiment and was adjusted with concentrated nitric acid to neutralize the
solution to 7 to prevent exposure of the rubber to an overly basic solution. The electrode material used for
anodes and cathodes was a total of six niobium plated copper wires. The three cathode wires were placed
along the bottom of the container. The rubber gasket was suspended over these wires with fine mesh inert
nylon netting attached to the container by inert nylon monofilament. The gasket fragment rested in the
netting for the duration of the experiment. The electrolyte flowed freely through the mesh and there did
not appear to be any interference. Above the suspended object was a set of three anodes. The anodes and
cathodes were connected to a BK Precision 1692 DC regulated power source. The initial power source
settings were 9.3 volts and 0.7 amps.
The rubber surface turned light grey upon initial contact with the solution. The pH rose from 5 to
9.5 and stabilized at 9 after a two-hour period. The rubber appeared to warp slightly on the edges after a
period of a few hours. At this point a few drops of nitric acid were added to neutralize the solution. The
settings were reduced to 5 volts 0.2 amps in preparation to be left overnight. The following day, the
voltage was increased to 9.2 volts 0.7 amps and was maintained at this power throughout the rest of the
experiment. The rubber gasket was in the electrophoresis process for nine days. The fragment was
periodically weighed and turned over. Over time, small fragments of mineralization became visible in the
nylon mesh and the bottom of the container. The gasket was extremely soft and flexible and began
delaminating severely during the course of electrophoresis. Two large cracks developed on the surface
and previously occurring minute surface cracks became more visible. Loose mineralization was brushed
lightly with a soft bristle brush to remove debris. The gasket was placed into deionized (DI) water at the
completion of nine days and monitored. The DI water was changed three times over a ten day period to
flush the electrolyte out. The gasket was then allowed to air dry. The first electrophoresis experiment
produced mixed results. The glycerol and corrosion products were removed from the rubber, but the
rubber became delaminated.

Figure 6: Electrophoresis set up for experiment B.

 Rubber Gaskets From the USS Monitor 87

Electrophoresis Experiment B
Due to the varied results of electrophoresis experiment A, a second experiment was run to gather
more data. The second experiment with the electrophoresis process was based on the same arrangement
used for experiment number one, except it was used on a larger scale. A total of four rubber gaskets of
varying size, shape and deterioration were documented and weighed. A large glass 20L aquarium was
used to contain the experiment. The gaskets were sandwiched and sewn into fiberglass screen using nylon
monofilament. These packages were then attached to sections of egg crate louver on each side again using
nylon monofilament. The purpose of the egg crate was to prevent the anodes and cathodes from coming
into contact with the object. Small fragments of niobium-plated copper were woven in between the egg
crate. A total of three wires were placed on each section; two on one side of the egg crate, one on the
other side. The setup alternated anode screen, object screen, cathode (Figure 6).
A solution of 0.25% aqueous potassium nitrate (w/v) was again used for an electrolyte. Initially the
current was set to 9.2 V and 2.5 amps but was reduced to 5.0V and 0.7 amps after a few hours and
remained at this current for the duration of the experiment. After a few days, small flakes of light green
matter began floating and settling in the solution. The pH remained at approximately 9 throughout the
experiment and was adjusted when needed with concentrated nitric acid. The method of protecting the
gaskets during electrophoresis prevented observation and weighing of the gaskets. When the rubber was
removed from the electrophoresis process, severe delamination and curling had occurred. The gaskets
were soaked in DI water to remove any chemicals. During this period, the surface of the rubber was
noticed to be curling and became extremely soft and flexible. Over the period of two days, three of the
gaskets appeared to improve slightly. Although some corrosion product staining remained, the fourth
gasket remained in tact extremely well and appeared to delaminate only slightly. Further research is being
conducted into the appropriateness of electrophoresis as a treatment for rubber. The variation in results is
insufficient to base a determination of success on. Preliminary conclusions suggest that electrophoresis
may be suitable for more stable objects.

STORAGE

Long term storage under tightly controlled conditions will aid in preserving the rubber until further
studies are conducted. While all rubber artifacts are different, the general storage guidelines for all types
of rubber are (Ciesielski 2000; Singley 1988; Ward and Shashoua 1999; Young 2005):

● Storage temperatures below 25°C (77°F)

● Relative humidity (RH) at 50%
● Avoid direct sunlight
● Avoid ozone
● Prevent mechanical stress, such as stacking objects

The most appropriate storage for rubber items is an oxygen free environment to prevent oxidation of the
rubber, which leads to degradation. Products such as Ageless and the RP System are useful for this type
of application. The RP-K System is currently being used to store the rubber gaskets from the Monitor. For
suppliers see Appendix I. Insect infestation can also be of concern as well as mold, fungi, and bacteria.
Harmful off gassing of sulfur in the rubber can occur, possibly damaging surrounding materials; there-
fore, care must be taken in containing rubber and monitoring corrosive gases. Acid-free packaging mater-
ials should be used as well as a non-adhesive backing such as silicone release paper to prevent adhesion
of the rubber to the supporting surface.
A dark environment, preferably completely black, is most efficient to slow the deterioration from
harmful UV rays of polymers. While this method is not the most appropriate for display conditions, it will
prolong the preservation of rubber objects.
88 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

CONCLUSION

Initial analysis of the rubber gaskets excavated from the Monitor has included the use of X-
radiographs, FTIR and XRD along with more traditional methods. Advanced testing needs to be
performed to determine the type of rubber used on the Monitor steam engine and condenser in order to
more efficiently treat waterlogged archaeological rubber. The most efficient method for removing
glycerol from degraded rubber recovered from a waterlogged archaeological environment has been
researched using a variety of chemical and physical extraction methods. It was determined that the water
extraction only removed the glycerol and the solvent extraction was insufficient in removing neither the
corrosion products nor glycerol. The ammonium citrate treatment provided the most positive results in
removing the glycerol and iron and copper corrosion products. The experimentation with the
electrophoresis process has produced mixed results. In all cases the rubber has delaminated but appears to
return to its original shape upon drying. Further experimentation of the electrophoresis process as well as
solvent extraction should occur on a variety of degraded rubber artifacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks go to the faculty at University College London (Dr. Clifford Price, Liz Pye, and Dean
Sully). Without the staff at The Mariners’ Museum, I would not have had this opportunity. Numerous
analytical tools would not have been possible if it were not for Dr. Desmond Cook at Old Dominion
University, Physics Department. Thank you to Dr. Alan Gent at the University of Akron, Polymer Center.
The following people shared their experiences and recommended sources: Claire Peachey at the Naval
Historical Center, Eric Nordgren at the Queen Anne’s Revenge, Howard Wellman at Maryland Archae-
ological Conservation Laboratory, Scott Williams at the Canadian Conservation Institute, and André
Bergeron at Centre de conservation du Quebec. X-radiographs would not have been possible without the
assistance of Emily Williams at Colonial Williamsburg.

REFERENCES CITED

Babcock, G. D.
1966 History of the United States Rubber Company. Bureau of Business Research, Bloomington,
IN.
Baker, M. T.
2001 Polymers in Museums. In Historic Textiles, Papers, and Polymers in Museums, edited by
J. Cardamone, pp. 128-135. American Chemical Society, Washington DC.
Bergeron, A.
2005 Conservation Treatments of the Organic Artifacts Recovered from the Elizabeth and Mary.
Proceedings of the ICOM Conservation Working Groups on Wet Organic Archaeological
Materials and Metals, edited by Per Hoffmann, Kristiane Strætkvern, James A. Spriggs,
David Gregory, pp. 153-162. International Council of Museums, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ciesielski, A.
2000 An Introduction to Rubber Technology. Rapra Technology Limited, Shropshire, England.
Goodyear, C.
1855 Gum-Elastic and its Varieties, With a Detailed Account of its Application and Uses, and of
the Discovery of Vulcanization. In A Centennial Volume of the Writings of Charles
Goodyear and Thomas Hancock Comprising “Gum-Elastic and It’s Varieties, With A
Detailed Account of It’s Application and Uses, and of the Discovery of Vulcanization” by
Charles Goodyear and the “Personal Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the
Caoutchouc or India-Rubber Manufacture in England” by Thomas Hancock, 1939.
American Chemical Society, Boston, MA.
 Rubber Gaskets From the USS Monitor 89

Hancock, T.
1857 Personal Narrative of the Origin and Process of the Caoutchouc or India-Rubber
Manufacture in England. In A Centennial Volume of the Writings of Charles Goodyear and
Thomas Hancock Comprising “Gum-Elastic and It’s Varieties, With A Detailed Account of
It’s Application and Uses, and of the Discovery of Vulcanization” by Charles Goodyear
and the “Personal Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Caoutchouc or India-
Rubber Manufacture in England” by Thomas Hancock 1939. . American Chemical
Society, Boston, MA.
Korman, R.
2002 The Goodyear Story: An Inventor’s Obsession and the Struggle for a Rubber Monopoly.
Encounter Books, San Francisco, CA.
La Baume, S. D.
1989 Archaeological Wood Desalinating by Electrophoresis. In Conservation of Wet Wood and
Metal, Proceedings of the ICOM Conservation Working Groups on Wet Organic
Archaeological Materials and Metals, edited by I. D. MacLeod, pp. 153-162. Western
Australian Museum, Perth.
Loadman, M. J. R.
1993 Rubber: Its History, Composition and Prospects for Conservation. Saving the Twentieth
Century: The Conservation of Modern Materials, Proceedings of a Conference
Symposium, edited by David W. Grattan, pp. 59-80 Canadian Conservation Institute,
Ottawa.
Pennec, S., Lacoudre, N., and J. Montluçon
1989 The Conservation of Titanic Artefacts. Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology 13(2):23-26.
Saunders, K. J.
1966 The Identification of Plastics and Rubbers. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London.
Singley, K.
1988 The Conservation of Archaeological Artifacts From Freshwater Environments. Lake
Michigan Maritime Museum, South Haven, Michigan.
Ward, C. and Y. Shashoua.
1999 Interventive Conservation Treatments for Plastics and Rubber Artefacts in the British
Museum. In: 12th Triennial Meeting, 29 August-3 September 1999 Lyon, Volume 2
Preprints, pp. 888-893, James & James, London.
Young, L.
2005 The Conservation of Early Plastics: The Identification, Deterioration, and Curation of
Gutta-Percha. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology 38th Annual
Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology.
90 Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, Volume 22, 2006

APPENDIX I
Suppliers

ColorpHast pH Test Strips Potassium Nitrate

Product # 9590-3 Product # BP368-500
Fisher Scientific Inc. Fisher Scientific Inc.
2000 Park Lane 2000 Park Lane
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275
(412) 490-8300 (412) 490-8300
www.fishersci.com www.fishersci.com

Coroplast Support Niobium Plated Copper Wire

Talas Anomet Products, Inc.
20 West 20th Street 830 Boston Turnpike
New York, New York 10011 Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
(212) 219-0770 (508) 842-3069
www.talasonline.com www.anometproducts.com

Plumbtesmo Lead Test Paper Silicone Release Paper

Macherey-Nagel Inc. Talas
6, South Third St. 20 West 20th Street
Suite 402 New York, New York 10011
Easton, Pennsylvania 18042 (212) 219-0770
(610) 559-9848 www.talasonline.com
www.macherey-nagel.com
Egg Crate Louvre
Ammonium Citrate, Dibasic Plaskolite, Inc.
Jost Chemical 1770 Joyce Ave
8150 Lackland Road Columbus, Ohio 43219
St. Loius, Missouri 63114 (800) 848-9124
(314) 428-4300 www.plaskolite.com
www.jostchemical.com
Ageless and the RP System
Mitsubishi Gas and Chemical
655 Third Avenue
24th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 687-9030 x. 106
www.MGC-A.com