Synthetic resins vs. natural amber

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mgt3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the comparison between synthetic resins and natural amber, particularly focusing on their longevity, preservation properties, and the implications of using synthetic materials for artifacts. Participants explore the differences in degradation processes, the potential for synthetic resins to last as long as amber, and the environmental impact of plastics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that amber is a natural resin that can last for millions of years, while synthetic resins like acrylic and fiberglass typically break down within decades.
  • It is suggested that synthetic resins may survive in cool, dark conditions similar to those that preserve amber, but they are prone to degradation under UV light.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of low molecular weight components in amber and synthetic resins, with some participants proposing that these components behave differently during solidification.
  • Questions are raised regarding the longevity of synthetic artifacts in museums if protected with anti-UV coatings, with some arguing that temperature and UV exposure significantly affect polymer stability.
  • Concerns are expressed about the environmental impact of plastics, particularly in oceans, with some participants noting that plastics can break down into microplastics and affect marine life.
  • Some participants clarify that amber is fossilized resin, which undergoes a transformation into a highly polymerized substance, while synthetic resins do not possess the same natural antibacterial properties.
  • There is speculation about the potential for synthetic resins combined with fiberglass to last for centuries in ideal conditions, but uncertainty remains about their actual longevity.
  • Participants discuss the implications of encapsulating materials in resin, questioning whether this would effectively preserve them and how the breakdown of resin bonds might affect longevity.
  • Some express curiosity about the fossilization process of amber and whether it could be replicated with synthetic materials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the longevity of synthetic resins compared to amber, with multiple competing views on their preservation capabilities and environmental impacts remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about environmental conditions, the definitions of longevity, and the lack of empirical evidence for the long-term behavior of synthetic materials.

Mgt3
Messages
83
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Are there any synthetic resins that can last as long as natural amber?
I'm completely in the dark when it comes to resins. I hope someone can help me out here.

Amber is a natural resin that can last for hundreds of thousands - or millions - of years. Synthetic resins like acrylic and fiberglass impregnated resins break down within decades. What is the difference between these two is there any synthetic resin that could last as long as amber can last?

Thanks for your help.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Mgt3 said:
Synthetic resins like acrylic and fiberglass impregnated resins break down within decades
Amber is preserved underground in cool conditions where there is no sunlight or UV. Many synthetic resins would survive under similar conditions, but break down on the surface under UV light.

Low MW components such as turpentine evaporates from amber during the solidification process. The low MW monomers in the synthetic resins are designed to polymerise and so are not mobile under cool dark conditions.

Plastic particles entering sediments on the sea floor can be expected to have very long lifetimes. The presence of water tends to extend the life of plastics.
 
Baluncore said:
Amber is preserved underground in cool conditions where there is no sunlight or UV. Many synthetic resins would survive under similar conditions, but break down on the surface under UV light.
Thanks for replying!

Theoretically, if some acrylic or resin artifact were kept in a museum for hundredshof years, if an anti-uv coating were applied would the object be expected to stay in its same form? Low MW components such as turpentine evaporates from amber during the solidification process.
Baluncore said:
Plastic particles entering sediments on the sea floor can be expected to have very long lifetimes. The presence of water tends to extend the life of plastics.

Is this why we’re hearing a lot of news coverage about plastic in the pacific ocean? How long is that expected to last?
 
Mgt3 said:
Theoretically, if some acrylic or resin artifact were kept in a museum for hundredshof years, if an anti-uv coating were applied would the object be expected to stay in its same form?
The temperature needs to be low to preserve polymers, or the chains will break and the material will then fracture easily. The presence of any UV would damage the chemical bonds of the polymer, and so greatly reduce the time before it crumbles.

Mgt3 said:
Is this why we’re hearing a lot of news coverage about plastic in the pacific ocean? How long is that expected to last?
In many places the plastic will last for forever. Some plastic will break down into microplastics and then get incorporated in sediment or eaten by organisms. The organisms will extract some chemicals from the plastic. Those chemicals can disrupt normal biological functions. Many organisms die as a result of eating too much indigestible material.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
 
Mgt3 said:
Amber is a natural resin that can last for hundreds of thousands - or millions - of years.
That's not exactly true. Amber is fossilized resin. The process turns the original resin into some highly polymerised plastic- or glass-like substance.

Mgt3 said:
Theoretically, if some acrylic or resin artifact were kept in a museum for hundredshof years, if an anti-uv coating were applied would the object be expected to stay in its same form?
There is also the matter of biodegradation. Resin has natural antibacterial properties: not many bacteria can survive it. Common plastics does not has this property, while there are some (natural) bacteria which can break up their polymers for energy.
This may be especially true if you encase something into the plastic. Resin (amber) prevents decomposing (well: by breaking up cells and killing bacteria - so it's just decomposition of a different kind, actually). Plastic alone is not good for this.

Mgt3 said:
Is this why we’re hearing a lot of news coverage about plastic in the pacific ocean? How long is that expected to last?
The plastic in the oceans degrades surprisingly fast. The problem comes from some substances released during the decomposition and also: plastic can cause mechanical problems during digestion (attempt). And due the plastic is there in all sizes, all sizes of animal life is affected.
 
Rive said:
That's not exactly true. Amber is fossilized resin. The process turns the original resin into some highly polymerised plastic- or glass-like substance.

There is also the matter of biodegradation. Resin has natural antibacterial properties: not many bacteria can survive it. Common plastics does not has this property, while there are some (natural) bacteria which can break up their polymers for energy.
Where can I learn more about how amber fossilizes? Can synthetic resins fossilize?
Rive said:
This may be especially true if you encase something into the plastic. Resin (amber) prevents decomposing (well: by breaking up cells and killing bacteria - so it's just decomposition of a different kind, actually). Plastic alone is not good for this.
What if fiberglass is encased in the resin? (Sorry if that sounds like a dumb question)

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies everyone!
 
Mgt3 said:
What if fiberglass is encased in the resin?
Sorry, I've been assuming you want to encase something biological.
That does not work well.
Fiberglass is for eternity (sort of).
 
Ah, I understand. I was wondering how long you could make some little resin nonbiological artifact last - a casting, a pen, whatever.
 
Hard to say. There is not enough experience.
Way back plexiglas was expected to last long, and then... It didn't.
As we know right now I would say synthetic resin + fiberglass would likely last for at least some centuries in 'ideal' environment. But where could you complain if it didn't?

May last long and will last long are two very different concepts.

If you want to shoot for the eternity then you better go for proven solutions and pick some rocks instead.
But even among those you have to pick (and place!) carefully.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Rive said:
Hard to say. There is not enough experience.
Way back plexiglas was expected to last long, and then... It didn't.
As we know right now I would say synthetic resin + fiberglass would likely last for at least some centuries in 'ideal' environment. But where could you complain if it didn't?

May last long and will last long are two very different concepts.

If you want to shoot for the eternity then you better go for proven solutions and pick some rocks instead.
But even among those you have to pick (and place!) carefully.
Ha! I bet the Iron Pillar of Dehli makes it another 10,000 years! Eternity is a long time. :) I expect the Earth to swallow everything whole long before that happens. All joking aside, I'm just really curious about fossilized amber and how the process works, if we could replicate it in principle, etc. I've come across ideas like putting glass or fiberglass in resin makes the object last indefinitely but I can't figure out how that would work if the resin bonds break down between the glass particles. This is something I have no experience with whatsoever and I'm just trying to learn.
 
  • #11
Mgt3 said:
ideas like putting glass or fiberglass in resin makes the object last indefinitely
Huh? Glass will last longer than resin.

Are you interested only in preservation or do you also need transparency?

Encapsulating radioactive waste in glass isolates it for a very long time. But the glass is not transparent.
 
  • #12
I was referring to resins impregnated with fiberglass or glass beads. I did not understand.
 
  • #13
Mgt3 said:
I was referring to resins impregnated with fiberglass or glass beads. I did not understand.
Oh, I thought you meant that the object was glass.

What about transparency? Do you need to see the object clearly without removing it? That's different than preserving something in a container, then removing it in the future to look at it.
 
  • #14
anorlunda said:
Oh, I thought you meant that the object was glass.

What about transparency? Do you need to see the object clearly without removing it? That's different than preserving something in a container, then removing it in the future to look at it.
I meant some of these resins are cast with glass beads or fiberglass inside them.
 
  • #15
I think you should avoid glass fibre.
It provides tensile strength in one dimension only, and a path for moisture to enter the volume of the glass and the resin.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
700
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Replies
17
Views
4K