A Multi-Instrument Analysis of the Late 16th Canvas Painting, “Coronation of the Virgin with the Saints Ambrose and Jerome”, Attributed to the Tuscany-Umbria Area to Support the Possibility of Bio-Cleaning Using a Bacteria-Based System
, Luca Lanteri 4, Angela Marseglia 2, Claudia Pelosi 4,* and Sabrina Sottile 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper entitled Imaging and punctual analysis to support the bio-cleaning, through bacteria-based system, of the late 16th canvas painting “Coronation of the Virgin with the Saints Ambrose and Jerome”, attributed to the Tuscany-Umbria area is an interesting study about introduction of new materials in painting conservation. The article is interesting, very sistematic and wel documented. For the introduction of cleaning bio agents proposed by the authors for using in the field of painting conservation and restoration are well studied the compositions of various materials: binders, pigments and resins by combining new and traditional investigatios techniques. An inovative mutispectral imaging was aded, used for establish the diagnostic necesarly for adequate restoration treatment, especially for bio-cleaning operations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks a lot for the positive comments about the paper. I appreciated so much your comments to the paper and to the methodological approach of the work.
On behalf of all authors
Claudia Pelosi (corresponding)
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Meaning “punctual” is unclear.
I suggest the following:
A multi-instrument analysis of the late 16th canvas painting, “Coronation of the Virgin with the Saints Ambrose and Jerome”, attributed to the Tuscany-Umbria area” supporting the possibility of bio-cleaning using a bacteria-based system.
Figure 1 shows the canvas before and after cleaning, but no details of the cleaning process are supplied.
Figure 2 shows UVF images before and during the first cleaning process, once more clear details of the cleaning process would help.
The results of UVF photography (wee?) also useful to address the preliminary cleaning tests Line 220
that demonstrated their effectiveness in removing the altered surface materials that clearly line 221 prevented the legibility of the painting, as visible in the details in the Figure 2. 222
Suggest: “clearly reduced the clarity of the painting?
Next:
Figure 4. IRFC images obtained through HMI software before (A) and after (B) cleaning. The removal of the superimposed layers increased the legibility of the painting surface …….line257
“legibility” is used often in the manuscript. The usage is incorrect, I suggest replacing it with either “clarity” and/or “quality”
Next:
The above presented analyses were highly useful to address the choice of the cleaning systems to remove the altered surface layers that prevented the legibility of the art-438 work. The preliminary cleaning tests used a solution of tribasic ammonium citrate (TAC)
Suggest: replacing “prevented the legibility” with “reduced the clarity of”
Next: Line 265 replace “interests” with “interest”.
The combined use of traditional solvent systems and innovative bio-cleaning 462 through bacteria has proved successful in restoring complete legibility to the painting, as 463 shown in the Fig. 1B.
“complete? may be an over statement. How about “in significantly improving the painting”?
Line 51: The author is ignored, but it is possible to trace the area of origin: it. Replace “the artist is ignored” with “the artist is unknown” ,
Conclusions:
(In this paper the methodological approach of the diagnostic campaign to support the restoration of a canvas painting dated back to the end of the 16th century and representing the Coronation of the Virgin with the Saints Ambrose and Jerome has been presented and discussed.) This sentence belongs in the abstract.
Shortened conclusions:
The great potentiality of multispectral imaging, performed through the innovative HMI system, combined with UVF photography, has been demonstrated, especially of the processing software that allowed to gather several information about hidden details, pigment composition, superimposed materials, preparatory drawing, etc.
The imaging analysis was also particularly useful to address the sampling points in order to obtain significant samples and to limit their number to a minimum.
XRF spectroscopy performed on site during the restoration gave information about 478 the chemical elements allowing to hypothesize the pictorial palette.
Analysis on micro-samples (FTIR, micro-stratigraphy and GC-MS) completed the information about materials: organic binders, superimposed layers, adhesive, giving the data useful for preparing the mocks-up to test bacteria and above all for choosing the strains effectiveness in removing the protein glue and the mastic resin.
The synergy between restoration and diagnostics proved once again to be successful in completing the intervention successfully, thus restoring the clarity of the painting.
Author Response
As corresponding authors, on behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and precise revision work, for the corrections and for the comments that were useful for improving the quality of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read the manuscript of Annarilli et. al. The manuscript deals with an interesting topic regarding the employment of imaging methods to support the identification of the materials of a canvas painting and the other conservation materials. They relied on this imaging technique in the proper choice of sampling spots for the invasive analytical methods (i.e. FTIR spectroscopy, GC-MS, and OM). In addition, this imaging method allowed guiding the cleaning procedures of the painting. In this regard, I have some comments on the manuscript and they are as follows:
According to the title, the authors used the HMI to help with the cleaning of the painting, however, the majority of the data presented in the manuscript deals with the identification of the original and the conservation materials of the painting in addition to choosing the sampling spots for the invasive analyses methods, in addition to the presence of pentimento, etc... The cleaning procedures are briefly presented in the last section of the paper. I think the title in this form is misleading to some extent.
Using optical microscopy was not mentioned in the abstract as in the case of FTIR, GC-MS, UVF, et…
Page 4, lines 163-165: The sentence needs to be rewritten to refer to the samples’ names (i.e. P1, P2, P3, P4) and their corresponding positions because, in this form, it is not clear which samples were collected from the paint surface and the one collected from the back of the painting.
Page 4, lines 171-174: This sentence refers to the collected varnish sample by a cotton swab that is embedded in “the” solvent mixture. It is not clear what is the solvent mixture. According to section 3.3., I think the solvent mixture could be ligroin/acetone. So, please mention the solvent mixture clearly in this sentence.
Page 5, lines 181-182: It is better to mention the name of the analyzed sample which I think is P2.
Page 5: The title of section 3.1. includes (HMI processing) although it is not mentioned in this section and mentioned in the following section (3.2. HMI data). Please correct the title by possibly removing (HMI processing).
Page 6, line 220: There is a spelling mistake; the word ‘wee’ is supposed to be ‘were’.
Page 6, line 237: Please write the full name of the abbreviation CCD.
Page 7, line 257: In the caption of figure 4, there is a spelling mistake. The word ‘ad’ should be ‘and’.
Page 7, lines 262-263: What do PC1 and PC2 stand for? Or they should be IR1 and IR2? Please comment on this.
Page 7, lines 260-264: Figure 5C is not mentioned in the text; only Figure 5A-B.
Page 7, line 273: The word ‘thought’ should be ‘through’.
Page 10, lines 327-328: The authors suggest that the presence of copper in the dark areas can be related to copper resinate. Please provide evidence of this from your investigations or add a reference to support this suggestion.
Page 10, Table 1: In sample P7, is it possible that this sample contains lead oxide or lead carbonate combined with the yellow ochre? Also, the authors, in some blue samples, suggest that the pigment is azurite and in others, they suggest it as a copper-based pigment. Could you comment on this?
Pages 10-11: In the FTIR interpretation section, the authors suggested that the blue pigment is azurite. I think it is difficult to confirm this by using FTIR analysis, especially since the samples are very complex and contain multiple organic and inorganic compounds. This can be confirmed using XRD analysis. My opinion is just to refer to it as a copper-based pigment.
Page 12: Figure 9. Since the cross-section of the paint sample contains several layers, it is better to add numbers or dotted lines to show these layers and to separate them for clarity. Also, possibly there is a spelling mistake in line 380. The word ‘oultie’ should be ‘outline’
Page 14, line 453: Table 1 should be Table 2.
Page 15, lines 476-477: The authors mentioned that the imaging analysis was useful in addressing the sampling points. This was not clear in the entire paper; they did not mention based on which criteria they chose the spots of the samples P1-P4. I think the sampling points choice should be addressed clearly somewhere in the paper to emphasize the help of the HMI in this respect since it is one of the goals of this technique.
Author Response
As corresponding authors, on behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and precise revision work, for the corrections and for the comments that were useful for improving the quality of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
See the Word document for my comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
My comments have been addressed.
