4.6 Article

Removal of iron crusts from sandstone sculptures in a fountain

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 81, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-022-10302-2

关键词

Iron corrosion; Crust removal; Baroque garden; Sandstone damage; Restoration; Heritage conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three historic sculptures from a park in Neschwitz, Germany needed restoration due to the surface being covered in iron rust caused by iron-rich water being pumped to the fountains and oxidizing upon contact with air. The restoration process involved the reduction and removal of the rust using oxalic acid.
Three historic figures from fountains in a park in Neschwitz, Germany Upper Lusatia (Ober Lausitz) had to be dismounted for workshop restoration. The sculptures from G. Knoffler, an important saxonian sculptor, dated about 1740 and show mythical scenes: putti sitting on fish like creatures. Although the sculptures originally were worked out of Cotta Sandstone, their visual appearance prior to restoration was much more like an iron casting than weathered sandstone material. The surface colour showed the typical red brown of rust, the corrosion products of iron. Further inspection by microscopy and SEM verified a considerable 50 mu m crust of iron rust deposited all over the surface. In the second part of the twentieth century, the fountains of the park were feeded with water from a small well put down on the castle ground. In that eastern region of Germany, the village of Neschwitz is situated not far away from a lignite mining area. The lowering of the groundwater table, necessary for work in the open coal pits, resulted into dissolution of iron in the groundwater. Such iron rich water was then pumped to the fountains. With contact to air oxidation, the iron precipitated and deposited on the stone surface. The sophisticated stone restoration of the historical monument figures required chemical reduction of the iron by oxalic acid, its dissolution and removal via poulticing.

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