The mechanism, the effectiveness, and the potential damage during limewash removal from wall painting models were evaluated for agar gels and water-based pads constituted by ArbocelTM BWW 40 cellulosic fibre. Cleaning materials in different formulations were compared: pure and with additives (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, EDTA, and ammonium citrate tribasic, TAC) in different percentages (2% and 3%). The cleaning action was evaluated on laboratory model samples, prepared with hematite a fresco and an egg-based tempera with limewash overlayers. Calcium and iron extracted by cleaning materials were quantified by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The potential damage to the hematite painting layers was also studied by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. A visual observation of the limewash detachment induced by the overall cleaning was also performed. Results suggest that limewash removal mainly occurs by aqueous solution release from the cleaning system, with subsequent layer wetting, probable layer swelling, weakening and complete or partial detachment. A stronger limewash adhesion on the hydrophilic fresco surface than on tempera, was observed. None of the used cleaning materials resulted harmful to the integrity of the hematite layer underneath the limewash. A small damage in terms of extracted iron was detected in the cleaning systems after direct contact with fresco and tempera hematite layers; a “protective” effect by the tempera layer was observed for the pigment, due to the organic binder and triggered by the hydrophobic content of the egg-based medium. Cleaning materials with additives are more harmful than pure materials, with a greater coordinating ability for EDTA than for TAC, which increases with chelator percentage. Data suggest a more efficient backward transportation of aqueous solutions containing calcium and iron ions towards gels with respect to cellulose, due to their smallest pore size. All these results lead to operative suggestions: for fresco painting layers, pure gel allows both a good limewash removal and a lack of damage on the hematite layers. Instead, for tempera layers a good limewash removal and a negligible damage on the pigment was shown by gel, both pure and additivated with TAC, and pure cellulose. Therefore, the present study allows to identify proper characterization methods for evaluating effectiveness and damage in limewash removal and to give useful suggestions for the planning of repeated cleaning operations on a real polychrome object.
Canevali, C., Lanfranchi, M., Tanday, H., Corti, C., Monticelli, D., Rampazzi, L., et al. (2021). An insight into effectiveness and potential damage in removing limewash from wall paintings. An approach based on model samples. JOURNAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, 51(September–October 2021), 166-173 [10.1016/j.culher.2021.08.007].
|Citazione:||Canevali, C., Lanfranchi, M., Tanday, H., Corti, C., Monticelli, D., Rampazzi, L., et al. (2021). An insight into effectiveness and potential damage in removing limewash from wall paintings. An approach based on model samples. JOURNAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, 51(September–October 2021), 166-173 [10.1016/j.culher.2021.08.007].|
|Tipo:||Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico|
|Carattere della pubblicazione:||Scientifica|
|Presenza di un coautore afferente ad Istituzioni straniere:||Si|
|Titolo:||An insight into effectiveness and potential damage in removing limewash from wall paintings. An approach based on model samples|
|Autori:||Canevali, C; Lanfranchi, M; Tanday, H; Corti, C; Monticelli, D; Rampazzi, L; Bertasa, M; Sansonetti, A|
CANEVALI, CARMEN (Corresponding)
SANSONETTI, ANTONIO (Corresponding)
|Data di pubblicazione:||2021|
|Rivista:||JOURNAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI):||http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.08.007|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01 - Articolo su rivista|