## 3 Results
### Test of Repainting Remotion  
The results obtained from the application of the selected treatments (Figure 9) are shown in Table 7. These results make it possible to establish the most effective tests to remove both overpaintings (Figure 10):  
* Test 1: agar gel 5% DI water medium with heptane and acetone (50:50) applied at 20 min and 30 min. * Test 5%: agar gels in PAAGLY, 20 and 30 min of application. For the specific case of removing oil paint with ultramarine blue and titanium white, in addition to the results outlined above, test 4 can also be highlighted: agar gel 5% + 150 \(\mu\)L of NaOH (0.1 M) applied at 30 min and agar gel 5% + 100 \(\mu\)L of NaOH (0.1 M) applied for 20 min (Figure 11). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Medium Cleaning—Agar 5\% DI Water**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Test 5**} \\ \cline{2-11}
**Test** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test 4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PAAGLY**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Heptane +**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T Triton- X 100\({}^{\circledR}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Heptane + Triton**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NaOH 0.1 M**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Agar 5\%**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Method**} & **b** & **a** & **b** & **a** & **b** & **a** & **b** & **a** & **b** & **a** \\ \cline{2-11}  & **100 \(\mu\)L** & **150 \(\mu\)L** & **100 \(\mu\)L** & **150 \(\mu\)L** & **100 \(\mu\)L** & **150 \(\mu\)L** & **100 \(\mu\)L** & **150 \(\mu\)L** & **-** & **-** \\ \cline{2-11}  & **20\({}^{\prime}\)** & **30\({}^{\prime}\)** & **20\({}^{\prime}\)** & **30\({}^{\prime}\)** & **20\({}^{\prime}\)** & **30\({}^{\prime}\)** & **20\({}^{\prime}\)** & **30\({}^{\prime}\)** & **20\({}^{\prime}\)** & **30\({}^{\prime}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Samples} & P1 aCa(B) & R & ✓ & ✓ & & R & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \cline{2-11}  & P2 vCa(B) & R & ✓ & ✓ & & X & ✓ & ✓ & R & ✓ & R & ✓ \\ \cline{2-11}  & P1 aGa(B) & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & X & R & ✓ & X & R & R & ✓ \\ \cline{2-11}  & P2 vGa(B) & X & ✓ & & R & R & R & X & X & R & X & X \\ \cline{2-11}  & P1 aCa(C) & ✓ & ✓ & & X & & ✓ & X & ✓ & ✓ & R \\ \cline{2-11}  & P2 vCa(C) & ✓ & ✓ & & R & R & X & R & ✓ & R & ✓ & ✓ \\ \cline{2-11}  & P1 aGa(C) & ✓ & & X & R & X & X & X & X & R & X \\ \cline{2-11}  & P2 vGa(C) & ✓ & & ✓ & R & R & X & R & ✓ & R & ✓ & ✓ \\ \cline{2-11}  & & ✓ & ✓ & & R & X & X & X & R & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results and comparison of the best cleanings to remove the repainting. Figure 10: (**a**) Results of cleaning treatment in sample 1-P1, which corresponds to the sample that reproduces the original layer of azurite pigment mixed with animal glue (P1 aCa) and Arabic gum (P1 aGa). (**b**) Results of cleaning treatment in sample 2-P1, which corresponds to the sample that reproduces the original layer of vermilion pigment mixed with animal glue (P2 vCa) and Arabic gum (P2 vGa). Once the cleaning was completed, the mechanically removed remains of the repaint, collected by swabbing, were studied by Gas Chromatography coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) to quantitatively assess the efficacy and selectivity of the treatments. This analysis focused on determining the relative amounts of fatty acids, constituents of the linseed oil-based repaint, and compounds originating from the original polychromy, specifically amino acids characteristic of animal glue and polysaccharides indicative of Arabic gum. By quantifying these molecular markers, this study was able to differentiate between the removal of the overpaint and any unintended loss of the original binder materials. The data presented in Table 8 report the percentage of removal for both repaint and original components, providing critical insight into the cleaning performance.