4.6 Article

Artificial Ageing of Photocatalytic Nanocomposites for the Protection of Natural Stones

期刊

COATINGS
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/coatings10080729

关键词

natural stones; protective coatings; titania nanoparticles; photocatalysis; silane; durability; artificial ageing; solar irradiation; thermal ageing; rain wash-out

资金

  1. EU [646178]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the last ten years, photocatalytic nanocomposites combining titania nanoparticles with silicon-based matrices have received increasing attention in the stone conservation research field, because they offer an effective multifunctional approach to the issue of stone protection. However, much work still has to be done in studying the behaviour of these nanocomposites in real environmental conditions and understanding to what extent they are able to retain their effectiveness and compatibility once applied on outdoor surfaces. The latter is a key information that should lie at the basis of any successful conservation and maintenance campaign. The present study provides insight into this relevant topic trough laboratory testing by assessing the artificial ageing of two silane-based photocatalytic nanocomposites, previously selected through an accurate testing on different natural stones. Three accelerated ageing procedures, based on artificial solar irradiation, heating and rain wash-out, allowed simulating about two years of outdoor exposure to some of the weathering factors to which stones are normally subjected. The results provided quite accurate information about the long-term behaviour of the products and on the role that the stone properties play therein. It was shown that, when the products are able to penetrate deeply enough inside the stone pores, they retain much of their hydrophobising and photocatalytic properties and maintain a good compatibility with the stone substrates, even after partial chemical degradation of the alkyl-silica matrices has occurred on the very stone surface.

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

4.6
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