4.7 Article

IR irradiation to remove a sub-aerial biofilm from granitic stones using two different laser systems: An Nd: YAG (1064 nm) and an Er:YAG (2940 nm)

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 688, 期 -, 页码 632-641

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.306

关键词

Granite; Sub-aerial biofilm; Laser cleaning; Nd:YAG; Er:YAG; Stone conservation

资金

  1. Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Government of Spain [IJCI2017-32771]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sub-aerial biofilm (SAB) developed on a granite commonly found in the built cultural heritage of the NW Iberian Peninsula was extracted with 2 different IR irradiations using an Nd:YAG laser at 1064 nm and an Er:YAG laser at 2940 nm. The methodology was based on the application of only one scan in order to evaluate the effect of the laser cleaning operated by applying different consecutive laser scanning and the suitability of these lasers as quick tools. The aim of this comparative study was twofold. The first goal was to find the most satisfactory level of extraction by comparing the results obtained by the different laser sources (IR wavelengths). The other aim was to investigate the by-effects induced by both lasers on each granite-forming mineral. Evaluations were made using stereomicroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. The results were interpreted in terms of SAB extraction and damage induced on the granite. The results showed that the Nd:YAG laser achieved the most successful level of cleaning, because it extracted the most SAB, while causing the least amount of damage to the surfaces. Regardless of the fluence applied, the Er:YAG laser did not completely extract the SAB in only one scan; in addition, a more intense melting of biotite grains was found, producing amorphous fusion crusts and losing the distinction of the cleavage planes. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据