Performance of a new anti-graffiti agent used for immovable cultural heritage objects

Birgit Meng, Urs Mueller, Oihana Garcia, Katarina Malaga

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cultural Heritage objects are in many cases invaluable and irrecoverable, therefore their protection is a major goal. One threat arises by intentionally defacing such objects with graffiti. One possibility to face the imminent threat is the application of a surface protection in form of anti-graffiti systems (AGS). However, the knowledge about the performance and durability of AGS on substrates used for historical buildings is still fragmented. The goal of the present study was to investigate the performance of a newly developed anti-graffiti agent in comparison to a selection of commercial anti-graffiti agents on different substrates that were used for historical buildings. Four commercial anti-graffiti agents with different chemical formulations were selected and tested with the new agent on different stone and brick substrates. The results showed clearly that AGS based on dense, water-vapor impermeable coatings are not suitable to porous substrates such as sandstone, brick, or porous limestone due to their impairment of the hygric properties and the visual appearance of a substrate. The new agent could not completely reach the cleaning efficacy of the dense coatings but exhibited a much lower impact on the properties of the substrate and was therefore better compatible to historical surfaces.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)820-834
Number of pages15
JournalInternational Journal of Architectural Heritage
Volume8
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Nov 2014

Keywords

  • anti-graffiti agent
  • brick
  • cleaning efficacy
  • compatibility
  • cultural heritage
  • graffiti
  • performance
  • stone

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Performance of a new anti-graffiti agent used for immovable cultural heritage objects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this