The other advantage of radiation polymerization is that the excess resin from an impregnation can bereused, due to the absence of chemical catalysts in the resin storage. The disadvantage of thisconsolidation treatment in comparison to other consolidation methods of cultural heritage objects isthat the process is not reversible. However, it can save from destruction artifacts which present a veryhigh degree of deterioration (4).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
There were studied wooden samples from three Romanian churches:A. piece from wooden ceiling of an evangelical church in Sibiu county,B. piece of sycamore maple from resistance structure of an orthodox wooden church,C. piece of fir from resistance structure of an orthodox wooden church in Dretea, Cluj county, whichwas build in 1690, painted in 1770 and now is rebuild at “Astra” Traditional Civilization Museum inSibiu.
The consolidation of the studied samples was carried out using a standard resin of styrene-unsaturated polyester type tetrahydrophtalic. The samples were treated at the irradiation facility of Regional Conservation Workshop Nucléart (ARC-Nucléart), using a gamma source of Co-60. Theirradiation was done at room temperature in open air. The delivered mean irradiation dose was about24 kGy, enough to disinfect the samples from insects and moulds, and consolidate them throughpolymerization of the resin. The irradiation dose rate was set up as to not exceed a polymerizationtemperature of 50-60 °C. After treatment, different properties of the impregnated samples wereassessed in order to prove that the gamma irradiation process brings a real improvement in woodcondition, in terms of disinfection and structure consolidation.
Characterization and testing.
First were assessed the biodeterioration factors (insects and moulds) andtheir effects. Using a photo camera and a stereomicroscope, were taken pictures before and aftertreatment and assessed the biodeterioration factors (insects and moulds) and their effects on woodensamples. Samples were also weighed before and after consolidation treatment.A HunterLab Miniscan XE Plus portable spectrophotometer has been used for colour measurements.The geometry of measurement is d/8° with a view area of 6 mm in diameter, specular component isincluded, combination illuminant - standard observer is D
/10°. All values are reported in CIELABand CIELCh colour spaces. Every value is obtained averaging 30 measurements.Mechanical testing has been carried out using Zwick / Roell equipments. For dynamical test (impacttest) has been used a Zwick / Roell Pendulum model 5113. The test parameters were: pendulum of 25J, Charpy impact test, distance between sample holders 35 mm, impact speed 3.85 m/s and angle of pendulum launching 160°. Through Charpy impact test has been measured the impact energy E (J).For statically tests (penetration and bending) it has been used a Zwick / Roell Universal TestingDevice model Z005. The penetration test has measured the force F (N) necessary to push 1 mm in thesample a metallic ball of 6 mm diameter. The bending test has measured the bending tensile strength
(MPa) necessary to bend 2 mm a sample. The distance between sample holders was 60 mm.For electron spin resonance (ESR) testing was used a Magnettech Miniscan MS200 X bandspectrometer. The measurement parameters were: Microwave radiation – 9,3-9,6 GHz, Power – 0.8mW, Centre field – 335 mT, Sweep width – 15 mT, Modulation amplitude – 0.5 mT, Sweep time – 60s, Steps – 4096, Pass number – 5, Temperature – room temperature. Gain varied according to thesignal intensity of the measured sample. A single signal (g
=2,004) is observed in the ESR spectraof all samples containing cellulose, including unirradiated samples. In the case of irradiated samples,the intensity of this signal is usually much greater. The intensity of signal is proportional with thequantity of cellulose free radicals present in the sample.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
At examination of samples with a stereomicroscope there were established the biodeterioration factorstaking relevant pictures of samples. After impregnation treatment there were taken pictures of treatedsamples in order to evaluate the consolidation treatment. In Figure 1 there are presented differentpictures taken from samples before and after consolidation treatment.