Abstract
Calcareous materials such as limestone and lime-based mortars, widely used in the Built Heritage, are often subjected to degradation processes that can lead to loss of cohesion and material loss. Consolidation of these materials with liquid products via the surface is a common practice; however, the most used consolidation products (e. g. TEOS-based) show a poor physical-chemical compatibility with calcareous substrates. For application on calcareous materials, the so-called nanolimes, i. e. dispersions of lime nanoparticles in alcohols, are an alternative to TEOS-based products, thanks to their chemical compatibility with lime-based substrates. Nanolimes can help to recover a superficial loss of cohesion. However, their in-depth consolidation effect is not always satisfactory. Previous work has shown that a better deposition of lime nanoparticles in depth can be achieved by adapting the properties of the nanolime dispersion (kinetic stability and evaporation rate) to the moisture transport properties of the substrate, through optimization of the solvent. In this paper, freshly synthetized nanolimes were dispersed in pure ethanol and/or in binary mixture of ethanol (95 %) and water (5 %). These nanolimes were applied on Maastricht limestone and on a lime-based mortar by capillary absorption (method commonly used for laboratory tests) and by nebulization (method widely used in situ). The aim of this research is to fill the gap between laboratory tests and on site application, providing an application protocol for restorers and professionals in the field. The research shows that results obtained by application by capillary absorption do not always correspond to those obtained by nebulization. This fact should be considered when deciding on the use of a consolidation surface treatment in practice.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Delft University of Technology (Delft, The Netherlands) and TNO (Delft, The Netherlands) for the financial support.
References
1. Ferreira Pinto AP, Delgado Rodrigues J. Consolidation of carbonate stones: Influence of treatment procedures on the strengthening action of consolidants. J Cult Heritage 2012;13(2):154–66.10.1016/j.culher.2011.07.003Search in Google Scholar
2. Slížková Z, Frankeová D. Consolidation of porous limestone with nanolime: laboratory study, in 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, Columbia University, New York, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
3. Delgado Rodrigues J. Consolidation of decayed stones. A delicate problem with few practical solutions, Invited Lecture. In: Lourenço PB, Roca P, editors. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Historical Constructions. Guimarães, Portugal, pp. 3–14, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
4. Delgado Rodrigues J. Stone consolidation: research and practice, in International Symposium on Works of Art and Conservation Science Today. Thessaloniki, Greece, November, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
5. Borsoi G, Tavares M, Veiga R, Santos Silva A. Microstructural characterization of consolidant products for historical renders: an innovative nanostructured lime dispersion and a more traditional ethyl silicate limewater solution. Microsc Microanal 2012;18:1181–9.10.1017/S1431927612001341Search in Google Scholar
6. Baglioni P, Chelazzi D, Giorgi R, Poggi G. Colloid and materials science for the conservation of cultural heritage: Cleaning, consolidation, and deacidification. Langmuir 2013;29:5110–22.10.1021/la304456nSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Baglioni P, Giorgi R, Chelazzi D. Nano-materials for the conservation and preservation of movable and immovable artworks, in proceedings of Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation – 4th International Conference, EuroMed 2012, Lemessos, Cyprus, October 29–November 3.Search in Google Scholar
8. van Hees R, Lubelli B, Nijland T, Bernardi A. Compatibility and performance criteria for nano-lime consolidants, in Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on the Conservation of Monuments in the Mediterranean Basin – Monubasin 2014, Ankara, 3–5 June, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
9. Dei L, Salvadori B. Nanotechnology in cultural heritage conservation: nanometric slaked lime saves architectonic and artistic surface from decay. J Cult Heritage 2006;7:110–15.10.1016/j.culher.2006.02.001Search in Google Scholar
10. Giorgi R, Dei L, Baglioni P. A new method for consolidating wall paintings based on dispersions of lime in alcohol. Stud Conserv 2000;45:154–61.Search in Google Scholar
11. Chelazzi D, Poggi G, Jaidar Y, Toccafondi N, Giorgi R, Baglioni P. Hydroxide nanoparticles for cultural heritage: consolidation and protection of wall paintings and carbonate materials. J Colloid Interface Sci 2013;392:42–9.10.1016/j.jcis.2012.09.069Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Ziegenbalg G, Brummer K, Pianski J. Nano-Lime −a new material for the consolidation and conservation of historic mortars. In: Válek J, Groot C, Hughes JJ, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd Historic Mortars Conference and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop − HMC10, Prague, September 11–14, RILEM Publications, 2010, pp. 1301–1309.Search in Google Scholar
13. Ambrosi M, Dei L, Giorgi R, Neto C, Baglioni P. Colloidal particles of Ca(OH)2 : properties and applications to restoration of frescoes. Langmuir 2001;17–14:4251–5.10.1021/la010269bSearch in Google Scholar
14. Rodriguez-Navarro C, Suzuki A, Ruiz-Agudo E. Alcohol dispersions of calcium hydroxide nanoparticles for stone conservation. Langmuir 2013;29(36):11457–70.10.1021/la4017728Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Poggi G, Toccafondi N, Melita LN, Knowles JC, Bozec L, Giorgi R, et al. Calcium hydroxide nanoparticles for the conservation of cultural heritage: new formulations for the de-acidification of cellulose-based artefacts. Appl Phys A 2014;114:685–93.10.1007/s00339-013-8172-7Search in Google Scholar
16. Doehne E, Price CA. Stone conservation. An overview of current research, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: The Getty Institute, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
17. Ferreira Pinto AP, Delgado Rodrigues J. Impacts of consolidation procedures on colour and absorption kinetics of carbonate stones. Stud Conserv 2012;59(2):79–90.10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000075Search in Google Scholar
18. Hansen E, Doehne E, Fidler J, Larson J, Martin B, Matteini M, et al. A review of selected inorganic consolidants and protective treatment for porous calcareous materials. Rev Conserv 2003;4:13–25.10.1179/sic.2003.48.Supplement-1.13Search in Google Scholar
19. Toniolo L, Paradisi A, Goidanich S, Pennati G. Mechanical behavior of lime based mortars after surface consolidation. Constr Build Mater 2010;25–4:1553–9.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.08.010Search in Google Scholar
20. Campbell A, Hamilton A, Stratford T, Modestou S, Ioannou I. Calcium hydroxide nanoparticles for limestone conservation: imbibition and adhesion, in Proceedings of Symposium Adhesive and Consolidants for Conservation: Research and Applications, ICC, Ottawa, October 17–21, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
21. Costa D, Delgado Rodrigues J. Consolidation of a porous limestone with nanolime, in Proceeding of 12th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, Columbia University, New York, October 22–26, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
22. Borsoi G, Lubelli B, van Hees R, Veiga R, Santos Silva A. Understanding the transport of nanolime consolidants within Maastricht limestone. J Cult Heritage 2016;18:242–9.10.1016/j.culher.2015.07.014Search in Google Scholar
23. Ruffolo SA, Russa MF, Aloise P, Belfiore CM, Macchia A, Pezzino A, et al. Efficacy of nanolime in restoration procedures of salt weathered limestone rock. Appl Phys A 2013;114(3):753–8.10.1007/s00339-013-7982-ySearch in Google Scholar
24. Ghaffari E, Koberle T, Weber J. Methods of polarising microscopy and SEM to assess the performance of nano-lime consolidants in porous solids, in Proceedings of 12th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, Columbia University New York, October, 2011, pp. 17–21.Search in Google Scholar
25. Borsoi G, Lubelli B, van Hees R, Veiga R, Santos Silva A, Colla L, et al. Effect of solvent on nanolime transport within limestone: How to improve in-depth deposition. Colloids Surf A 2016;497:171–81.10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.03.007Search in Google Scholar
26. Borsoi G, Lubelli B, van Hees R, Veiga R, Santos Silva A. Optimization of nanolime solvent for the consolidation of coarse porous limestone. Appl Phys A 2016;122:846.10.1007/s00339-016-0382-3Search in Google Scholar
27. Ferreira Pinto AP, Delgado Rodrigues J. Stone consolidation: The role of treatment procedures. J Cult Heritage 2008;9:38–53.10.1016/j.culher.2007.06.004Search in Google Scholar
28. Dreesen R, Dusar M. Historical building stones in the province of Limburg (NE Belgium): role of petrography in provenance and durability assessment. Mater Charact 2004;53:273–87.10.1016/j.matchar.2004.07.001Search in Google Scholar
29. Nijland TG, Dubelaar CW, Tolboom HJ, van Hees RPJ. Building stones from a muddy delta: native natural stone from the Netherlands, in: CRC Press, Proceedings of Heritage, Weathering and Conservation Conference – HWC 2006, Madrid, June 21–24, Taylor & Francis group, London, 2006, pp. 15–21.Search in Google Scholar
30. Dubelaar CW, Dusar M, Dreesen R, Felder WM, Nijland TG. Maastricht lime-stone: a regional significant building stone in Belgium and the Netherlands. Extremely weak, yet time-resistant, in: CRC Press, Proceedings of Heritage, Weathering and Conservation Conference HWC 2006, Madrid, June 21–24, Taylor & Francis group, London, 2006, pp. 9–14.Search in Google Scholar
31. van Hees RPJ, Nijland T. Assessment of the state of conservation of a Middle Neolithic flint mine in Maastricht limestone. Heron 2009;54(4):227–50.Search in Google Scholar
32. Pascoal P, Borsoi G, Veiga R, Faria P, Santos Silva A. Consolidation and chromatic reintegration of historical renders with lime-based pozzolanic products. Stud Conserv 2015;60(5):321–32.10.1179/2047058414Y.0000000151Search in Google Scholar
33. EN 1015–3, European Standard. Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 3: Determination of consistence of fresh mortar (by flow table). European Committee for Standardization (CEN); February 1999.Search in Google Scholar
34. Lubelli B, van Hees R, Nijland T, Bolhius J. A new method for making artificially weathered stone specimens for testing of conservation treatments. J Cult Heritage 2015;16(5):698–704.10.1016/j.culher.2015.01.002Search in Google Scholar
35. EN 15801, European Standard. Conservation of Cultural Heritage – Test Methods – Determination of water absorption by capillarity. European Committee for Standardization (CEN); November 2009.Search in Google Scholar
36. EN 16322, European Standard. Conservation of Cultural Heritage – Test Methods – Determination of drying properties. European Committee for Standardization (CEN); October 2013.Search in Google Scholar
37. van Hees R, Veiga R, Slížková Z. Consolidation of renders and plasters. Mater Struct 2017;50:65.10.1617/s11527-016-0894-5Search in Google Scholar
38. Peruzzi R, Poli T, Toniolo L. The experimental test for the evaluation of protective treatments: a critical survey of the ‘capillary absorption index’. J Cult Heritage 2003;4:251–4.10.1016/S1296-2074(03)00050-5Search in Google Scholar
39. Lahdensivu J. Evaluation of a carbonation model for existing concrete facades and balconies by consecutive field measurements. Cem Concr Compos 2016;65:29–40.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.10.013Search in Google Scholar
40. Thomson ML, Lindqvist JE, Elsen J, Groot CJWP. Porosity of historic mortars, in Proceeding of 13th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam, July 4–7, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
41. Hunt A, Ewing R. Percolation theory for flow in porous media, 2nd ed. Lecture Notes in Physics 771. Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.10.1007/978-3-540-89790-3Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel. Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
