4.7 Article

Imaging and Assessment of the Microstructure of Conserved Archaeological Pine

期刊

FORESTS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f14020211

关键词

conservation; waterlogged wood; archaeology; optical microscopy; computed tomography; scanning electron microscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested various methods for the conservation of waterlogged archaeological wooden finds, and analyzed the effects of conservation agents on the wood structure through microscopy and imaging techniques. The composition and mode of action of the conservation processes could be identified through the analysis of wood anatomy and the incorporation of conservation agents.
Impressive wooden objects from past cultures can last for centuries or millennia in waterlogged soil. The aim of conservation is to bring the more or less degraded waterlogged archaeological wooden (WAW) finds to a stable state without altering the wood structure through shrinkage, collapse, and deformation. In this study, the most used methods in the conservation practice, such as the alcohol-ether resin method, conservation with the melamine formaldehyde resin Kauramin 800, a mixture of lactitol and trehalose, saccharose, silicone oil, and three different conservation methods with polyethylene glycol followed by freeze-drying were tested. The effects of the conservation agents on the structure of archaeological pine were investigated using optical light microscopy (reflected light microscopy, RLM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray computed tomography (XCT). Through the examinations, most conservation agents could be identified in the structure and their impact on conservation could be analyzed. In particular, it was possible to trace the incorporation of the conservation agents in the lumen, which was influenced by factors, such as wood anatomy, degree of degradation, and drying process. Differences in the mode of action of the conservation processes could also be identified in the composition of the cell wall tracheids.

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