N2 Report on - Eu-ARTECH

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT - DELIVERABLE N. 14
<strong>N2</strong> - Materials and methods in conservation
<strong>Report</strong> on “Discussion Panel on Review and assessment of
existing methods for investigating surface properties of different
objects to be proposed for treatment documentation and
evaluation of objects subject to conservation ”
Eu-ARTECH
Access, Research and Technology for the conservation of
the European Cultural Heritage
Integrating Activity
implemented as
Integrated Infrastructure Initiative
Contract number: RII3-CT-2004-506171
Project Co-ordinator: Prof. Brunetto Giovanni Brunetti
<strong>Report</strong>ing period: from June 1 st 2005 to May 31 st 2006
Project funded by the European Community
under the “Structuring the European Research Area”
Specific ProgrammeResearch Infrastructures action

DELIVERABLE n. 14
¢¡¤£¦¥¨§©£¦£¡
Review and assessment of existing methods for investigating surface properties of
different object typologies to be proposed for treatment documentation and evaluation of
objects subject to conservation
Opificio delle Pietre Dure
22 nd November, 2006
Via Alfani, 78 - Florence, Italy
CNR-ICVBC and OPD
O.P.D.

8.30–9.15 Registration
PROGRAMME
9.15–9.45 Eu-ARTECH, Networking 2: aim and objectives
Lucia Toniolo (PoliMI)
9.45–10.15 Illustration of the preliminary results of the Survey
Piero Tiano (ICVBC)
10.15–10.30 Coffe break
10.30–11.00 Conservation of metals. Bare eye assessment, common sense and measurement
in the field of metal restoration
Martin Mach and Jasmin Munir (BLFD)
11.00–12.00 Conservation of paintings
Sophia Sotiropoulou and Athina Doussi (OADC)
Ysbrand Hummelen (ICN)
12.00–13.00 Conservation of wall paintings. Scientific methods aimed to ascertain effect of
wall paintings’ treatments
Daniela Pinna (OPD)
Measuring instruments for the conservation of wall paintings: a useful guideline
for the maintenance of art works and the restorer’s judgment
Maria Rosa Lanfranchi (OPD)
13.00–14.30 Lunch break
14.30–15.00 Conservation of stones. Assessment of consolidation and water repellent
treatments on stone objects
Josè Delgado Rodriguez and Ana Ferreira Pinto (LNEC)
15.00–15.30 European standardization: CEN/TC346 - Conservation of Cultural Property
Anna Maria Mecchi (ICVBC)
15.30–17.00 General Discussion

INDEX
1. Eu-ARTECH, Networking 2: aim and objectives……………………….………
Lucia Toniolo (PoliMI)
2. Illustration of the preliminary results of the Survey Data Base……….……
Piero Tiano and Irina Sandu (CNR-ICVBC)
3. Conservation of metals. Bare eye assessment, common sense and
measurement in the field of metal restoration…………………………………….
Martin Mach and Jasmin Munir (BLFD)
4. Conservation of paintings………………………………………………….……..
Sophia Sotiropoulou and Athina Doussi (OADC)
Ysbrand Hummelen (ICN)
5. Conservation of wall paintings. Scientific methods aimed to ascertain
effect of wall paintings’ treatments .………………………………………………..
Daniela Pinna (OPD)
Measuring instruments for the conservation of wall paintings: a useful
guideline for the maintenance of art works and the restorer’s judgment ......
Maria Rosa Lanfranchi (OPD)
6. Conservation of stones. Assessment of consolidation and water repellent
treatments on stone objects……...........................................................................
Josè Delgado Rodriguez (LNEC) and Ana Ferreira Pinto (IST / ICIST)
7. European standardization: CEN/TC346 - Conservation of Cultural
Property…………………………………………………………………………………..
Anna Maria Mecchi (CNR-ICVBC)
8. General Discussion………………………………………………………………….
9. List of participants…………………………………………………………………...
4
8
11
14
18
21
28
30
36
41

1. EU-ARTECH, NETWORKING 2: AIM AND OBJECTIVES
Introduction: what is Eu-ARTECH?
Lucia Toniolo
CMIC Department - Polytechnic University of Milan,
Milan, Italy
Scientific research devoted to the study and conservation of artworks represents a very active field in Europe
due to the increasing attention given by each nation to the preservation and enhancement of its architectural,
artistic, and historical heritage.
Efforts are devoted to study execution techniques, the origin and mechanism of material decay, the
development and testing of new conservation treatments, the deployment of new analytical methodologies,
and design and testing of analytical and monitoring equipment. This research, due to the specific nature of
the object to deal with and its aesthetic, historical, and economic value, is carried out by organizations
belonging to national ministries of culture or to national research agencies and universities, in cooperative
and interdisciplinary programmes with conservators, restorers, archaeologists and curators.
The results have contributed in significantly increasing the knowledge on artworks, or in significantly
preventing or reducing damages to cultural properties in each country. However, great gains are expected
with the increase of cooperation among European institutions and laboratories, and by mutually share
expertise, know-how and resources.
It is in this context that the Eu-ARTECH (Access, Research and Technology for the conservation of the
European Cultural Heritage) Consortium has been founded among twelve European institutions operating in
the field of artwork studies and conservation. The objective is to create a permanent interoperability among
the participating infrastructures and those external to it, in order to create good premises for a common
European research area in the field.
Eu-ARTECH is an Integrated Infrastructures Initiative (I3) involving:
1 - University of Perugia, IT
2 – CNRS, Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, FR
3 - The National Gallery of London, UK
4 - CNR, Istituto per la Conservazione e Valorizzazione dei Beni Culturali, I and Istituto Nazionale di Ottica
Applicata, IT
5 - ”Ormylia” Art Diagnosis Centre, GR
6 – MBAC, Opificio delle Pietre Dure, IT
7 - Bayerische Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, DE
8 - Instituut Collectie Netherlands, NL
9 - Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, PT
10 - Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, BE
11 - University of Aachen, DE
12 - University of Bologna, IT
Each Integrated Infrastructures Initiative (I3) of the 6 th Framework Programme of the EU, combines within a
single contract several activities essential to strengthen the cooperation among infrastructures and to provide

integrated services to the European researchers. More specifically, each I3 covers: (a) networking activities;
(b) provision of access to transnational users; and (c) joint research activities.
The twelve research institutions of Eu-ARTECH are all operating in association with conservators,
archaeologists, and art-historians, and therefore represent, in their own countries, an important model for the
overall community concerned with cultural heritage.
The activity programs of Eu-ARTECH (Fig.1) can be summarized as follows:
1-networking, that is devoted to promote exchange of knowledge, to define common protocols in analytical
investigations, to diffuse good practices in conservation;
2-transnational access, that is offered by a single high-level infrastructure (AGLAE within CNRS-C2RMF) and
by a unified group of joint infrastructures (UNI-PG, CNR-ICVBC, OPD, INOA) open to users working in
Europe and associated countries (scientists, conservators, and curators);
3-joint research activities that are devoted to improve the performances of the participating infrastructures and
the quality of the access offered to the scientific community of the field.
N1
Transnational
access
Networking activities
A 1
AGLAE
JRA1
Developments
& testing
Management
WEB
Impacts
A2
MOLAB
JRA2 New
methods in
diagnostics
Joint
Research
activities
Fig.1. Flowchart describing the I3 Initiative Eu-ARTECH.
Eu-ARTECH started formally on June 1 st 2004 and the University of Perugia (UNI-PG - Prof. B.G. Brunetti)
is coordinating the whole initiative.
<strong>N2</strong>

Networking activities: N1 SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCES
Main objectives of N1 activity are: improve the interoperability among the consortium institutions and foster
the cooperation with those “external” to it; exchange knowledge and expertise on examination or
investigation methods; develop inventory of best analytical practices; promote use of common reference
materials; diffuse common analytical good practices; encourage the education and training through research,
and increase the opportunities of formation for young scientists.
The activity is composed of four main tasks:
Task 1 –Analytical resources, analytical procedures and investigation strategies.
Task 2 – Exchange knowledge and expertise.
Task3 – Common approaches in the examination and analysis of paintings.
Task 4 – Common analytical strategies.
Responsible for this activity is the French institution CNRS-C2RMF.
Networking activities: <strong>N2</strong> MATERIALS AND METHODS
The objectives of <strong>N2</strong> activity are: deepen the survey, carried out in a preceding network - LabS TECH, on
conservation practices in Europe; discuss new details of specific interventions recognized as relevant; diffuse
good practices in conservation; contribute to the elaboration and implementation of European standards.
The activity is composed of three main tasks:
Task1- Cleaning and consolidation methods and materials.
Task 2 - Good practices.
Task 3 - Agreement on standards.
Responsible for this activity is the Italian institution CNR-ICVBC.
In the first two years, <strong>N2</strong> activity made essential efforts to identify problems and needs of the community of
scientists and restorers for a correct planning and development of the conservation interventions, both for
outdoor and indoor cultural properties.
The idea of a survey action has been focused on important issues for the conservation of cultural heritage in
Europe: architecture and sculpture, panel and wall paintings, metal artifacts.
The set-up of the survey action to collect information on the effective interventions and conservation methods in
Europe has been the main activity of the first year.
Different forms were designed, according to the different materials and the conservation treatments: stones
(cleaning, consolidation, treatment of biodeterioration); paintings (cleaning, treatment of biodeterioration); mural
paintings (consolidation, treatment of biodeterioration); metals (cleaning).
The forms have been diffused in Europe during the second year of activity (spring 2006). They are available in
the Eu-ARTECH website and can be downloaded in six different versions, corresponding to different languages:
English, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch.
The partners’ institutions took care of the diffusion of the forms.
They were distributed in:
1. Belgium 180

2. France 162
3. Germany 200
4. Greece 22
5. Netherlands 9
6. Italy 626
7. Portugal 84
8. United Kingdom 7
9. Spain 269
10. Sweden 4
11.Romania 17
12. Malta 11
13. Denmark 22
An invitation letter to participate to the survey action has been sent from the <strong>N2</strong> Coordinator to 1619
conservators/restorers in Europe and other countries. The phase of collection of compiled forms is still in
progress.
The survey action has also been launched to conservators within the framework of the ICOM Triennial-Meeting
in The Hague in September 2005 (The International Council of Museum).
Finally, during the last six months, the forms have been further improved to be filled in directly on-line.
The participation to the survey is now possible through a link on the Eu-ARTECH website
http://www.icvbc.cnr.it/euartech/ with a first deadline on December 31 st , 2006.
The compiled forms will be elaborated to gain a possible overview of the state-of-the-art of conservation
treatments in Europe. The final aim of the task is to create a community of restorers, conservators, curators,
and scientists, who could share experience and agreements on conservation methods and on application of
traditional and new materials, developing the bases of a common knowledge for the diffusion of “good
practices”.

2. ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
DATA BASE
Piero Tiano and Irina Sandu
CNR-ICVBC (Istituto per la Conservazione e la Valorizzazione dei Beni Culturali)
Florence, Italy
Within the networking activity of Eu-ARTECH Project, CNR-ICVBC is responsible for the survey on
“Methods and Materials for conservation”, which has as main purpose to assess the present practice and
scientific methodologies applied to verify the treatments of cleaning and consolidation used for the
conservation of: stones and metal artifacts, easel and wall paintings.
The survey was undertaken through a simple questionnaire, to be filled-in on paper or on-line, by qualified
professionals working directly and continuously in the field of conservation.
Table 1. Number of compilers and compiled forms versus the requests of compilation
Country
No. of potential
compilers
No. of compilers Compiled forms
Belgium 180 0 0
Bulgaria 2 1 1
Canada 3 1 2
Cyprus 1 1 1
Denmark 22 0 0
France 162 0 0
Germany 200 1 1
Greece 22 2 2
Italy 626 53 83
Malta 11 0 0
Netherlands 9 0 0
Portugal 84 11 18
Romania 17 1 1
Spain 269 2 5
Sweden 4 1 1
United Kingdom 7 4 6
TOTAL
1619 78 121
Three types of restoration treatments were included in the questionnaire (Cleaning, Consolidation,
Treatment of Biodeteriogens) and the compilers were asked to fill-in one form for each treatment and for
each object or typology of artefact. In answering to the questionnaire, the restorers/conservators had to
consider their own usual experience in the restoration practice.
The preliminary results of this survey, inserted in an Access Database, were elaborated from a statistical
point of view, with the final perspective to use them as a support in the definition of recommendable
procedures in conservation.

From a total number of 1619 requests of compilation, only 78 conservators/restorers, from 11 countries in
and outside Europe, answered by sending 121 compiled forms (table 1 and fig.1).
No. of compiled forms, by country
(11 participating countries)
68% 14%
Bulgaria Canada Cyprus Germany
Greece Italy Portugal Romania
Spain Sweden United Kingdom
1%
4%
1%
5%
1% 2% 1%
2% 1%
Fig. 1. The 121 compiled forms divided by countries
Although the number of compiled forms was relatively low for an appropriate statistical analysis, few
conclusions can be drawn from the collected data:
• the female compilers/restorers are predominant and usually there is a certain specialization for a
specific category of artifact; only in few cases the same restorers compiled several forms for two or
more categories of the four taken into consideration (for examples, the stone restorers have
experience also in mural paintings treatments, because the analogy of the support).
• more than 60% of compilers are from Italy and the rest from the other countries, therefore a
comparison between the restoration practice and materials in use in various countries, European or
not, is at the moment meaningless.
• almost all the artifacts for which forms were compiled are located in an “indoor” environment,
except the case of stones, where the “outdoor” location is prevalent;
• as far as cleaning methods are concerned, “mechanical removal” and “use of solvents/other
chemical agents” are the most frequently reported;
• regarding the valuation of cleaning, the more common method to assess effectiveness is the “visual
observation” and usually the results of the treatment are considered satisfactory (“good””).
• the most reported treatments against biodeteriogens are the “use of biocides” and “mechanical
methods” for removal of biological growth.
• the treatments against biodeteriogens have received a good appreciation for their effects and the
common reported valuation method of effectiveness is the “in-situ observation” followed by
“microscopic analysis”.
• for consolidation of mural paintings or stone artifacts, the use of “synthetic resins” (applied by
brush, by injection etc.) is preferred to the “inorganic consolidant” materials (calcium or barium
hydroxide, mortars etc.);

• the valuation of consolidation in mural painting or stone treatments is usually carried out by “tactile
verification of cohesion” and the effectiveness of treatment is generally appreciated as “good”.
Both the paper forms and the on-line questionnaire available on the website (www.icvbc.cnr.it/euartech_sdb)
could be used as models for specialized documentation on restoration interventions. Furthermore, in spite of
their limitations, the results to date obtained partially describe the present state of conservation practice and
could help to improve the technical guidelines of the conservation treatments that the European Technical
Committee for Normalization in Cultural Heritage (CEN/TC 346) is discussing.

3. CONSERVATION OF METALS.
Bare eye assessment, common sense and measurement
in the field of metal restoration
Jasmin Munir and Martin Mach
BLFD ( Bayerishes Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege)
Munich, Germany
1. Range of materials and situations
In contrast to the other areas covered by the seminar, the scope of the term "metal restoration" tends to be
under-estimated. Even when concentrating on surface condition assessment only, we must be aware of the
tremendous variety of metal objects:
-with respect to size, metal objects can start with tiny earrings from archaeological excavations but
can as well include architectural constructions extending several hundred meters in width or height.
-with respect to material, "metal" includes commonly encountered materials like gold and silver,
bronze and ferrous systems. But there are many more exotic objects consisting of cast zinc,
aluminium, hammered and galvanically deposited copper, platinum leaf, cast lead, bismuth etc.
-with respect to finish: cast zinc e.g. was coated in order to mimic gold, bronze, marble and
sandstone. Electrotype copies have been offered by a German producer in 9 different patination
alternatives.
-with respect to public esteem: it is well known that the commercial value of cultural metal objects
varies between zero and virtually inestimable
Of course, there are many more variants like age, state of preservation, cultural and political background,
available conservation budget etc.
A few examples will help to understand that “metal conservation” is very complex and by no means
identical to “bronze conservation”.
2. Methods and criteria for the selection of methods
A list of wide spread used surface documentation and assessment techniques for metal will be given. It will
be made plausible that at present the choice of assessment methods is by no means primarily done on the
basis of the problems to be solved, but moreover dominated by social and economical restrictions and, last
but not least personal preferences.
3. Case studies
In order not to get lost among the many variations mentioned above, the case studies will be restricted to cast
bronze only.
3.1 Horse riding Amazon – documentation, mapping
The horse riding Amazon (Munich, 1935) is among the very few partially painted outdoor bronze
monuments in Germany. It will be presented in order to discuss the mapping of different surface typologies.
3.2 Bavaria Monument – 3D surface scan
The 18m bronze statue “Bavaria” has been scanned by means of laser and grey code scanners. The original
surface was mapped on the computer model.

A few thousand points of interest like patches are clickable. Additional text and image information can be
linked to those points of interest.
3.3 Mende Fountain, Leipzig – colour measurement
Changes of the visual appearance of the Mende Fountain in Leipzig, Germany,
due to restoration and conservation can be followed visually or quantitatively, by colour measurement.
3.4 Augsburg bronze doors – 3D roughness measurement
3D roughness measurements serve as a tool to distinguish and document the effects of alternative cleaning
methods for the 11 th century Augsburg bronze doors.
3 Case studies: a decision about alternative methods
4. Conclusion and suggested topics for discussion
Augsburg, bronze doors, 11th century
before and after the restoration of 2004
3D roughness measurement
in order to show the effects
of potential restoration
alternatives
K: tartrate (chemical stripping of sulphates only)
O: original
S: scalpel
In the field of metals, as a rule only very few objects will be over-assessed, whereas a considerable
percentage of the group will fail assessment completely or possibly experience an arbitrary assessment of the
wrong kind.
In a cultural world of shrinking economic resources and a constantly increasing variety of sophisticated
assessment methods, particular care must be spent on the wise selection of a few suited methods for a
dedicated problem. Scientific overkill must be avoided as well as neglect and cold routine.
It is assumed that the scientific literature provides an enormous amount of information. Only a small fraction
of this wealth of information can be directly used by the typical conservator-restorer who needs quick and
densely packed information about the potential output, the practical limitations, sampling size, prize etc.

Already now the LabS-TECH database is usable freely for everybody. It can serve well in order to find and
contact those institutions that possess the required equipment for a given problem - when the appropriate
method is known.
An internet based “positive examples list” will be suggested in order to illustrate problem based assessment
solutions, to help practitioners to find the best suited specialists and methods with the aim to perform the
optimum job on the monument under consideration.

4. CONSERVATION OF PAINTINGS
Ysbrand Hummelen - ICN ( Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage)
Amsterdam, NL
Sophia Sotiropoulou - OADC (“Ormylia” Art Diagnosis Centre) and Athina Doussi,
Greece
Topics for discussion
• Documentation of the “original” and the progressive steps and long term effects of any conservation
work. Guidelines and recommended procedures towards standardisation on how to integrate imaging
and analytical measurements’ results to textual documentation, into the existing digital systems for
archiving or in the actual condition reports formats.
• Methodologies to assist decision making, evaluation and monitoring of treatments (analytical
measurements of optical and chemical surface properties (colour, texture, absorbance), interaction
with the surface (risk of alteration)).
Introduction
A fundamental principle in any conservation work of artworks and cultural heritage objects is the
preservation of the original. An essential tool for this is the documentation of the “original”- in its current
preservation state- and of any intervention or treatment for the protection or restoration.
Documentation must be done in an accurate manner in order to:
• provide future art historians, curators, conservation scientists and conservators with a realistic image
of how an object "currently" looks (e.g. before any treatment),
• provide conservators with an accurate record of treatments to justify and facilitate their reversibility,
• assist conservators and conservation scientists by monitoring the effects of treatments in the long
term and thus upgrade the knowledge for selecting materials and techniques for restoring objects,
• allow museums to accurately identify, trace and authenticate their collections and also in some cases
display the image instead of the object itself by accurately rendering it (virtual museums or web, or
museums by protecting sensitive works which should not be exposed),
• facilitate the generation of knowledge and the exchange of information in networks.
What are the requirements for the application of integrated methodologies to record and evaluate the
appearance of paint surfaces and to investigate the possible changes (physical and chemical) occurring
during time after the conservation treatments e.g. due to environmental factors?
Ethics - Criteria for the application of conservation approaches
Following the methodological changes in science and humanities, at the moment we think that, parallel to the
quantitative approach, a qualitative approach has to be developed in conservation science.
A good analysis of the decision making process of several conservators working with paintings of different
periods and styles will give more insight in the real problems and challenges and could give much more
comprehensible input to researchers to focus their research towards feasible and practical aims.

For example: Most paintings consist of complex layers of a variety of mixtures of pigments, proteins, oils,
resins, in different concentrations and thickness etc. etc.
The straightforward correspondence of one type of layer (oil paint or tempera etc.) to one type of cleaning,
consolidation method or treatment is not realistic.
In practice, most conservators use more than one cleaning methods in one sole painting depending on the
(mostly visual) estimation of the composition of the paint layer(s) in relation to their knowledge of the
applied painting materials and techniques in their cultural context. Furthermore, the specificity of some types
of deterioration, the extension of damage and the (mostly visual – less often analytical) information given by
the well conserved neighboring areas can justify diverse solutions.
Feasible tools for conservators like magnifying glasses, binocular microscopes and technical imaging
information, can reveal supplementary information at macro level for example on underlayers and
deterioration phenomena. However, most conservators do not have easy access to methods of analysis at
molecular level and they cannot use these methods in a similar empirical way as they do at the
phenomenological or macro levels mentioned before.
To summarize, in the reality of paintings’ conservation, we have to take into account the rich diversity of the
different values, the materials, techniques, colors, surfaces, appearances, hypothetical intentions and
(art)historical meanings that paintings can have in different epochs, cultures, locations, and other domains.
And, therefore reformulate the aims of our research: instead of the question: ''What is the best method to
clean oil paintings?”, an interesting question for further qualitative investigations could be: ''Which
research could lead to the most effective and feasible improvement of the practice of conservation and
restoration of paintings within the current technical, theoretical and ethical state of the art?" This question
will probably lead to different answers depending on the values that conservators and curators experience as
most important during their work. (For example the value of the hypothetical construction of ‘’the original’’
or ‘’intention of the artist’’)
Exploring the documentation and the possibilities of interoperability and evaluation of these values could
open the so much needed discourse in painting conservation.
The conditions for this discourse are, of course, the existing possibilities for the documentation of these
values (colour, surface, techniques, appearances etc. in their context) and the possibilities for the exchange of
these values. With the documentation we will also be able to evaluate change of these parameters as a result
of ageing or treatments.
Criteria for the pertinence of proposed methods and protocols for documentation -
investigation
It seems to be a necessity to find simple methods that do not take time and do not need specialized personnel,
in order to have results that can be used in time, synchronized with the procedures of treatment dealing also
with the fact to complete a conservation project in a given time.
In order to evaluate the pertinence of existing methods, user requirements should be defined in a
comprehensible manner. We should define a set of reliable measuring parameters for investigating any
change of surface properties (physical and chemical) that affect the surface condition of cultural heritage
objects - thus the appearance, due to surface treatments (cleaning / consolidation) (risk of alteration of
composition or appearance over time). Furthermore, we should formulate the requirements for the
monitoring of ageing -due to environmental factors- after conservation treatments.

In the assessment of the methods several issues have to be taken into account:
- Questions of applicability of well-established imaging or analytical methods are raised:
accessibility - user friendliness and cost (in time and investment personnel –equipment –money).
Techniques have to be user friendly, applicable within the conservation procedures, taking also into
account implications that are met: in real working conditions (also outdoor), difficulty of
reach/accessibility (need of scaffolding), inapplicability of techniques requiring space, controlled
lighting, etc.
- What is the procedure to apply methods and tools for documentation or investigation of any
changes occurred before and after conservation treatments?
For existing, “widely used”, scientific methods there is a need for standardization of the protocols of
application, annotation and interpretation of results.
- For novel methods using state of the art technologies there is a need of cooperation for testing and
assessing the pertinence of the method and ease of interpretation of the results, according to the
conservator requirements.
Are there existing methods responding to these requirements?
• Provide conservators with information and guidelines for application
• Contribute to establish standards methodologies to be integrated in conservation work
• Foster research in the direction to provide in the future such tools well adapted according to the
conservators’ requirements
Examples of existing or under development methods, which could be integrated into the
conservation methodology (documentation and treatments)
Methods for:
-Documentation of the preservation state before any intervention
-Documentation of the different steps – levels of treatment
-Evaluation of the efficiency of the treatment straight after application
-Monitoring of the treatment effects
Methods for:
-Recording/measuring of the surface properties and rendering appearance (at macro or micro scale)
-Multispectral imaging for documenting the layer structure and tracing of damage per layer
-Graphic documentation
-Material characterization (chemical composition, physical properties) assisting the choice of materials and
techniques to be applied.

5. CONSERVATION OF WALL PAINTINGS
Scientific methods aimed to ascertain effect of wall paintings’
treatments
Daniela Pinna, OPD - Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, Italy
The evaluation of treatments effects as well as the monitoring of their performance on wall
paintings are important issues which are increasingly studied but not yet well explored. Though
some results are encouraging, they are not sufficient to produce agreed standard methodologies
and guidelines.
Materials used in restoration interventions can change in time, losing their original functions and
sometimes turning causes of physical, chemical or esthetical damage. Hence it is important the
evaluation of material properties, like their chemical stability and the identification of chemical
compounds produced by their alterations. The materials are: fixatives, consolidants, adhesives,
water repellents, biocides, grouts, etc. Monitoring their qualitative performances and their
possible degradation guide the decision whether and when retreating or removing them.
Thus a crucial point, being worth of in-depth researches, is the control of the functions of some
materials in time – water repellence, consolidation, persistence of biocide efficacy, etc. When
hasty conclusions are achieved from the scientific data, serious mistakes could occur ascribing to
a poor treatment performance what actually is an increasing degradation of original materials,
independently of treatments.
The methods useful to characterize the materials and their alteration products should be, as far as
possible, non invasive allowing a wide control, repeated in time, of the artefact. That does not
means we can completely avoid sampling, rather that we can limit the number of samples making
them really representative. Nowadays, some useful non invasive instruments are available. Their
capability in surface examination is an obvious advantage but also a limit because any
contaminant can cover and even hide a chemical alteration of a product, preventing its detection.
It is a problem unsolved by now.
Moreover, it must be underlined that “the performance of a conservation material cannot be
adequately assessed without first knowing that it has been properly applied” as George Wheeler
affirms (G. Wheeler “Alkoxysilanes and the Consolidation of Stone”, The Getty Conservation
Institute, 2005).
The information provided by the literature are related to laboratory testing and field evaluations.
While laboratory testing helps in defining the potential of various treatments, it is the on-site
evaluation and assessment of the materials on the longer term which better contributes to
delineate the success or failure and therefore the appropriateness of a treatment.

Laboratory testing are carried out on products themselves, on samples made up simulating the
original wall paintings, and on samples taken from the artefact.
An important step is the knowledge of the properties of materials used in conservation treatments
(ex. cleaning mixtures, consolidants, water repellents, biocides). The studies deal with physical
and chemical properties of the products independently of artwork substrate. Hence, chemical
stability of cleaning mixtures and biocides, as well as ageing and reversibility of consolidants and
water repellents, are themes under investigation.
Laboratory tests on samples simulating the original wall paintings are usually performed to make
connection between the field and the laboratory. They help in differentiating among competing or
simultaneous processes related to efficacy, performance, durability of products. Moreover, the
samples can be “sacrificed” using different destructive analyses.
These experiments aim to study the interaction of the artwork substrate with the restoration
materials (ex. the chemical stability of pigments toward the materials used for cleaning and
consolidation, the quality and durability of water repellents, consolidants, biocides). Another
interesting topic of laboratory studies is the re-treatability of the artworks.
Samples taken from the artefact are used, as it well known, to assess the results of some
treatments immediately after the intervention (ex. cleaning) or for evaluating their long term
effects (like durability of consolidants, water repellents, etc.).
Though non destructive methods for on-site evaluation of conservative interventions has been
increasingly applied, they are not “popular” because some of them are expensive and require
sophisticated equipment. Hence they are not suitable and feasible for a large number conservative
works.
In the following, some methods and instruments are reported - most of them non-destructive -
characterized by sustainability at managing and financial level, quite low-costing, user-friendly,
but reliable and effective.
- Video-microscopy is a portable technique which allow conservators to examine the surface
morphology at relatively low magnifications (5-50x). It can reveal early formation of scaling,
flaking, salt efflorescence, granular disintegration and the transformations of surfaces (ex.
yellowing, blackening) in time. Some of these alteration can be detected also through visual
observation and using raking light.
- The portable fluorescence system based on the fluorescence emission after UV excitation is a
well known and established non-destructive technique. It allows on-site identification of
distribution of organic substances, via images which are recorded by a digital Nikon camera or
CCD.
As different materials exhibit characteristic fluorescence colours when exposed to ultraviolet
light, this technique can be used to determine the efficacy of cleaning methods.

- The measurement of the surface colour of wall paintings, and its possible chromatic changes
due to any conservation treatment (cleaning, use of hydrophobic compounds, consolidants,
biocides) is a reliable non-invasive method. The instrument used for colour measurement can be
either a reflectance spectrophotometer or a tristimulus colorimeter. The area to be measured must
be representative of the different situations macroscopically detected. When the number of
readings has been determined, the measuring points for the subsequent colour measurement are
localized by reference coordinates in order to enable precise repeated measurements. A grid
delimiting the measurement field may be useful for this purpose.
- The degree of water repellence of a treated surface can be assessed by water absorption since it
provides a direct measure of a treatment ability to resist the ingress of liquid water into the mass
of the substrate. Water absorption can be measured on-site using the Karsten Tube. It consists in
sealing a plastic cylinder against the stone surface, using modelling clay and measuring the
volume of water absorbed as a function of time.
The water repellence of a surface can be detected on-site by another simple method, the “contact
sponge”. A round sponge (diameter 5 cm) containing a known amount of water is applied on a
surface at a specific pressure. The quantity of water absorbed by the stone (WA) is measured
before and after treatment. Many studies assessed the reliability of this method. The method gives
very useful results when monitoring the same areas over time.
- The determination of the strength-depth profile for treated areas can be carried out by a micro
destructive technique which measures the drill resistance of treated substrates. The Drilling
Resistance Measurement System is a portable system which allows to determine the cohesion
profile of a material based on data of its mechanical and abrasive properties.
The method measures the force (in relation to the depth) required to drill a stone with a constant
speed rotary drill bit.
The force is measured by a strain gauge load cell which converts the strain on the cell into an
electric signal linearly within the measurement range. Using a load cell allows infinitesimal
strains to be converted into electric signals that can be processed and interpreted in this case as
drilling resistance. Artworks are tested with only minor patching of holes (Ø 5 mm). With this
tool it is possible to examine the consolidating performance (efficiency and depth of penetration)
of applied conservative treatments.
Literature reported the application of other useful non-destructive techniques to assess the quality
of treatments. They have been recently developed and applied, providing good results.
Nevertheless they could not yet be proposed as user friendly tools. These techniques can provide
information relevant mainly in evaluating cleaning interventions.
- The non-destructive technique called Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging (FLIM) allows to examine
an area of about 25x25 cm 2 and to obtain a map of the fluorescence emission, as well as the
emission lifetime. It is characteristic of a given molecule or a set of molecules, so that it possible
to identify areas having similar composition, assuming that they show lifetime values close to
each other. In such a way FLIM can be used to assist the cleaning processes.
- The portable FT-IR spectrometer is a suitable instrument for on-site non-destructive
identification of organic polymeric substances and inorganic salts besides of pigments. The

device combines IR transparent fibre-optics with a compact portable interferometer. The fibres
totally absorb radiations below 900 cm -1 , but the region 2000-900 cm -1 is characterised by a
satisfactory signal/noise ratio. This is the “fingerprint” region for the identification of many
organic polymeric substances and inorganic salts.
- A portable method useful to measure humidity content inside wall paintings has been recently
designed. The instrument is a dielectrometric device based on microwaves which can detect the
spatial localization of humidity inside the painted walls. The instrument has been experimented
on laboratory samples and on some wall paintings in collaboration with Opificio delle Pietre
Dure.
- The portable instrument EUREKA-MOUSE ® , (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance mobile universal
surface explorer, registered trademark at the University of Aachen -Eureka project E!2214-
MOUSE.) is a unidirectional NMR relaxometer purposely created for the study of cultural
heritage and for NMR characterisation of unmovable objects. The present depth of observation is
7 mm. The instrument can be used to detect the presence of water in wall paintings and the
detachment of painted layers from a wall.

Measuring instruments for the conservation of wall paintings: a useful
guideline for the maintenance of art works and the restorer’s
judgment
Mariarosa Lanfranchi, OPD – Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, Italy
Working methods used today by restorers are being constantly influenced by the evolution and
improvement of scientific research. The restorer of today is in fact facing a new approach towards his
work, which involves the empirical re-evaluation of the criteria used until now. Criteria which were
essentially based on the restorer’s experience and personal evaluations, which obviously lead to a
subjective understanding of the art work at hand. The advent of modern day research is now equipping
the restorer with a series of tools that will allow him to gain a deeper and more objective understanding,
not only of the art work per se, but also, and more to the point, regarding the short and long term effects
of products typically applied onto a wall painting during a restoration campaign.
Restorers can only benefit from the arrival of new scientific instruments designed to monitor the state of a
wall painting before, during, and after restoration. As we all know, the main reason why restorers
intervene on an art work is because conservation-wise that art work is considered endangered by a series
of chemical and physical unbalances.
In some cases the resolution to these problems requires the use of materials which can be foreign to the
materials that constitute a specific art work, or the use of large amounts water, or actions that can modify
the chemical and physical equilibrium of the wall painting.
Needless to say, the main intention of the restorer is that of prolonging the existence of the art work at
hand. With this in mind we must remember that an art work is not only a conglomerate of materials which
degrade in time and which need to be taken care of in order to guarantee the existence of that art work,
but it is also, and more to the point, the supreme testimony of an artistic heritage.
Until recently, worksites supervised by the Opificio delle Pietre Dure used the following recognizance
methods before establishing a working schedule: first of all an analysis of the wall painting was
undertaken, with the aim of establishing what causes the damage and what are the consequences of that
damage, followed by the identification of the technical execution. Before choosing a specific working
approach, our products were tested by our scientific body and a literary research related to their
characteristics would follow. This approach, combined with our professional experiences, were the
leading guidelines towards a final result. In many occasions, a general debate undertaken together with
other restorers and scientists, would ensue. In hindsight, we can now state that until recently none of these
approaches were backed-up in terms of solid objective confirmation, a confirmation that modern day
science can know offer us.
Restorers today have to come to terms with the fact that they must understand the short term and long
term effects certain products have on art works. This understanding can no longer be sustained on the
grounds of a personal subject point of view, because it has become imperative that such understanding
must now derive from an objective, scientific basis.

In order to achieve the sort of scientific objectivity described above, the Opificio has invested on the
refurbishing of the Photographic Department as well as that of the Scientific Lab. New equipment has
been bought and a working team, which involves the University, Private Foundations and public research
Institutes, all known for their experience in technological research, has been constituted. The Opificio
together with this new team are currently undertaking a series of tests, both in their labs and on worksites.
Our aim is the development of an apparatus that shall be capable of translating into numbers, codes, and
measurements the progress, evolution and limitations of products commonly used on wall paintings.
The use of such apparatus needs to be verified on site, in other words, on the scaffolding. A fact which in
itself leads to a series of practical problems, such as the size of the scaffolding - which has to be large
enough to house sophisticated machinery, as well as issues related with vibrations and movements,
common to most scaffoldings, but which in this specific case, could easily compromise the accuracy of
our results.
Essential is also a strict coordination and precise recording of the various tests undertaken on the
scaffolding. Of all the different working phases of a restoration procedure, some phases are more
monitored than others – below we shall discuss some of the phases taken into consideration.
The CLEANING of a wall painting is indeed the phase which can produce some of the most impressive
effects on the artistic expression of an art work. This is due to the radical change that can take place
regarding the brilliancy and the hue of the original colors. The definition of the cleaning phase is the
removal of incongruous substances from the wall, namely, dust, black lamp, fixatives, and in some cases,
calcium sulphates, known for being one of the most damaging salts encountered on wall paintings 1 .
Until now, documenting a cleaning phase was generally undertaken with a series of photographs.
However, the difficulty of establishing a reliable light source and the lack of accuracy during the
development of the film, undermined any effort to achieve objectivity. The advent of digital technology
has now afforded us the possibility of guarantying a higher image resolution, as well as a reliable and
homogenous color spectrum 2 . Thanks to the collaboration undertaken between the Opificio and the
Istituto di Fisica Applicata Nello Carrara del CNR di Firenze 2 - we have established a measuring system
and a monitoring programme to use on worksites, which will guarantee the reliability of reproduced
images, specifically we are talking about spectroscopic reflectance combined with the use of a
colorimeter that provides the three coordinates.
Our aim is to translate into a code of numbers the spectrum of the original pigments of a wall painting so
that we can monitor the effects our cleaning procedures have on those specific pigments. In order to
create a measure of comparison, we have undertaken prior the cleaning phase, a monitoring campaign
using the spectroscopic machine and the colorimeter.
Precision is vital in order to produce solid evidence, which means that the areas chosen to undertake the
spectroscopic analysis were documented on large sheets of acetate, on which a tracing in situ of the
specific monitored point was undertaken and noted down to use as reference for the successive
monitoring campaigns. An important aspect to take into consideration is the issue of storing such
information, not only until the conclusion of a specific restoration, but as useful information for future
campaigns and interventions 4 .

Apart from monitoring the variations of color and hue during the cleaning phase we also plan to monitor
the nature of the substances that are removed from the wall. Before doing this we must have a clear
understanding of what and where these substances are. What these substances are, still requires the need
of chemical analysis, whilst where they are can be identified creating a map using digital photographs
taken with a UV light source to reveal organic substances. There are two main reasons why organic
substances can be found on a wall, one is related to the use of organic products used during past
restorations, such as fixatives and color binders, the other is related to the original execution of sections,
and in some cases entire paintings a secco. Monitoring a wall painting with UV light before, during, and
after a cleaning phase can help identify areas where organic substances are partially, if not totally,
removed. Slightly more complicated, however, is identifying the existence and removal of an organic
fixative, hypothetically applied during some past restoration, when it overlays a secco painting.
Some elements can lead to an ambiguous UV reading, such as the nature of certain pigments and the
presence, even in minimum amounts, of daylight mixing with a UV source, an element which is very
difficult to resolve when attempting a monitoring campaign from scaffoldings.
Currently we are working with a perfected UV light source 5 as well as inserting in every shot a reference
grey scale 6 that allows us to correct via computer imperfections produced by the filtered daylight.
In view of these problems we are working together with the Getty Conservation Institute on a programme
based on the identification of organic substances 7 . These aspects are now forcing us to analyze and
interpret the results of UV readings from a different point of view, a point of view, which due to its
novelty can in many cases lead us to doubt certain results which in the past we erroneously taken for
granted.
The removal of incongruous substances from a wall painting composed of materials that are generally
hydrophobic automatically implies a change in the wall’s porosity and thus a change in its capability of
absorbing water. With this in mind, we have scheduled a series of tests to undertake on wall paintings
before and after cleaning. These tests involve the use of a round sponge, with a diameter of approx cm 5,
impregnated with water. The sponge will be weighed, placed against the wall for 10 minutes, and
weighed again. A second sponge is placed on a dish next to the wall to give us the evaporate rate. The
comparison between the results achieved before and after cleaning will establish how the porosity of the
wall changes.
Another aspect taken into consideration, in terms of monitoring and measuring, is that which involves the
use of barium hydroxide. Barium hydroxide is the final phase which effectively concludes the well known
process of de-sulphation as well as the increased carbonization which takes place thanks to the presence
of barium carbonate 8 . The effects of barium in a wall painting after treatment are recorded using the same
sponge method described above. Finally, to understand the chromatic changes of the original pigments, a
second series of measurements taken with the spectroscopic analysis and the color meter are recorded and
the results compared with those done prior barium.
Regarding this point, a useful analysis for the future would be one that allows us to evaluate the
morphology of the wall before and after barium treatment. A possibility lies in the use of macrophotography
combined with a raking light, or a method known as the cupola illuminante proposed by

CNR-ICVBC 9 together with IFAC, which has the advantage of been very easy to use on worksites. Other
possibilities are sophisticated solutions such as scanning laser microprofilometer which has the
potentiality of offering an extremely objective valuation of the wall’s morphology.
What we still lack is a test which can allow us to verify just how much more resistant a painted surface
becomes after the use of barium. Most restorers verify this by simply wiping a cotton wad moisten with
water across the painted surface before and after barium – according to the amount of paint particles
present on the cotton wad, the functionality of the treatment is judged. However, this again is a practice
which basis its evidence on a subjective conclusion and lacks any form of effective measurements.
Tests such as the Scotch Tape Test, which has been used with good results on samples test in laboratory,
cannot be proposed in situ due to its alarming invasiveness 10
Another useful test could be a test known as Drilling Force Measurement System 11 currently used to
analyze the resistance of masonry. Interesting would be to discoverer whether this instrument is sensitive
enough to decipher and measure the physical cohesion gained by a mortar treated with barium. Having
said this, a measuring system of mortars would in itself be a helpful tool.
Another project currently undertaken together with the Department of Chemistry of the University of
Florence 12 , regards the use of nano-lime dispersions, a mineral product produced and tested by the same
University and generally used to improve the cohesion of color prior to cleaning. Our intention is to test
the effect that nano-lime dispersions have when applied onto a wall painting. The testing system we are
working with is similar to the sponge method described in the chapter related to barium hydroxide, with
the added use of the colorimeter Unfortunately, as discussed above, it is only during cleaning that we can
verify the effects of noontime dispersions.
To conclude, we would like to make a final point regarding measuring systems related to the extraction of
soluble salts 13 from wall paintings. Known is the fact that a high concentration of soluble salts is not only
dangerous for the conservation of the art work, but it can hinder the optimal results of certain restoration
phases. A solution commonly used for the extraction of soluble salts, is that of working with water based
absorbing poultices 14 . These sorts of poultices solubilize salts present in the mortar, dragging them into
the poultice where they eventually crystallize. Although considered an efficient method, this technique
has a few handicaps, namely the difficulty of establishing the effective migration of salts in the mortar, as
well as the possibility that not all the salts will be captured by the poultice, as some tend to migrate
outside the contours of the poultice.
The only testing method we have today to verify whether salts have been removed from a wall painting, is
by analyzing the poultice for traces of soluble salts or by analyzing a sample of the treated mortar before
and after applying the poultice. The most effective results are achieved when both measurements are
compared and contrasted, although analyzing wall samples is a limited practice due to its invasiveness.
In relation to this point the Opificio is currently collaborating with the IFAC-CNR of Florence 16 who has
elaborated a non invasive system which measures the amount of water and electrolytes present in the
structure of a wall painting. This measuring system is known as SUSI (Sistema Umidità e Salinità
Integrato). It has now been a few years since we have begun this collaboration 17 , experimenting SUSI in

our labs and on site, constantly gauging its accuracy and potentiality. Judging by the results so far
achieved, we are all truly confident that SUSI will be soon providing new and exciting avenues for the
future.
References:
1. The calcium sulphates were eliminated by using solution of ammonium salts and then barium, according the
“barium method” almost commonly applied, and finally the sulphate is passivated and can’t create damage
anymore to the painting layer.
2. With the introduction of scale-color for each shot.
3. In the persons of Marcello Picollo, Bruno Radicati and Donata Magrini.
4. Probably making use of a digital camera of high resolution for signing the points in a precise way that anyway
wouldn’t avoid the difficulty of finding in a proper moment the position for the probe.
5. New UV lamps that are not emitting in visible, built at FAC, CNR from Firenze.
6. Spectralon ®99-2%, Labsphere.
7. Organic Materials in Wall Paintings (OMWP) for creating guidelines for the study and characterization of
organic substances from wall paintings. It is foreseen the use and confrontation of various technologies, non
invasive and invasive, through the intervention of different institutions and scientific laboratories: coordinator
of the project - F. Pique. Concerning the correction of UV images, see G. Verri in Organic Materials in Wall
Paintings: Assessment of Methods of Investigation, Torino, 2006.
8. See the work of M. Matteini, Consolidanti e protettivi di natura minerale in uso sui manufatti di interesse
artistico e archeologico costituiti da materiale poroso, Workshop of Incontri di Restauro 3, Trento 1999, pp.
49-83.
9. P.Tiano, Monitoraggio delle facciate dipinte dopo il restauro, il progetto Momorex, in Monitoraggio e
Conservazione programmata, Workshop, Torino, 2005, pp.88-97.
10. Remember an old experiment of G. Torraca and P. Mora on fixing agents for mural paintings where the glued
tape with strappo method was used– as mechanical test of effectiveness - for valuating on samples, before and
after ageing, the effects on various materials, G. Torraca , P. Mora, Fissativi per pitture murali, in Bollettino
dell’ICR, 1965, pp. 109-132.
11. P. Tiano, Nuova metodologia di valutazione in situ, in Arkos, Scienza e restauro, 3 2/2001, pp.42- 49
¢ ¡
In the person of prof. L. Dei, together with B. Salvatori and A. Macherelli; according. R. Giorgi, L. Dei and P.
Baglioni, A new method for consolidating wall paintings based on dispersion of lime in alcohol, in Studies in
Conservation, 45, 2000, pp. 154-161.
13. Generally nitrates and more sulphates or chlorides are concerned.
14. There are several materials applied for this purpose, among which the most used are: cellulose paste, Sepiolite,
sand.
15. An evolution of the sampling system but only for the valuation of the water content in the walls was recently
proposed in the workshop in Turin on monitorino mural paintings; according. M. Valentini, Una metodologia
poco invasiva per la misura del contenuto d’acqua delle murature, in Monitoraggio e conservazione
programmata, atti del workshop, Torino, 2005, pp. 168.173.
16. In the persons of R. Olmi, C. Riminesi and S. Priori.
17. M. Bini, A. Felici, MR. Lanfranchi, P. I. Mariotti, R. Olmi, S. Priori, C. Riminesi, Diagnostica in situ di dipinti
murali mediante spettroscopia dielettrica a microonde non invasiva, in Sulle pitture murali, atti del convegno,
Bressanone 2005, pp. 897-906; B. Ciccone, R. Boddi , A. Felici, R. Olmi, S. Priori, C. Riminesi, A. Vigna,
Rilevamenti termoigrometrici in situ mediante spettroscopia dielettrica a microonde sui dipinti murali di due
chiostri fiorentini: il chiostro di Sant’Antonino di San Marco e il chiostro Verde di Santa Maria Novella, in
Monitoraggio e conservazione programmata, atti del workshop, Torino, 2005, pp. 128-134.

6. CONSERVATION OF STONES.
Assessment of consolidation and water repellent treatments on stone
objects
Topics to be discussed
Josè Delgado Rodriguez - LNEC
Ana P. Ferreira Pinto - IST / ICIST, Lisbon, Portugal
Presentation of the assessment goals:
Efficacy – is the treatment capacity to reach the objectives that justify its application
Harmfulness – undesired changes induced by the treatment
Durability – treatment stability in time
These goals will be discussed specifically when applied to water repellents and to consolidants.
1. WATER REPELLENT TREATMENTS
Objectives of the treatment
• To change the surface characteristics in the presence of water
• To reduce the presence of water inside the stone and slow down the degradation processes.
An effective water repellent treatment:
• Should change the affinity of the surface to water
• Should reduce the water absorption
Potential harmful effects of water repellent come from:
• The possibility of inducing significant changes on other physical characteristics
• The possibility to reduce the water vapour permeability
• The possibility to induce significant colour changes
Efficacy
Assessment of water repellent characteristics
Superficial changes in the presence of water
• Water absorption reduction
Harmfulness
Assessment of colour variation
Assessment of potential harmfulness with salt crystallisation
Assessment of potential durability
Behaviour on site under natural exposure conditions
2. CONSOLIDATION TREATMENTS
Objective of the treatment:
To increase the interparticle cohesion of decayed parts.

Consolidation is the most controversial operation in stone conservation, in particular due to:
• its harmful potential,
• the doubtful stability in time,
• the high dependence on the intrinsic characteristics of the stone material.
An efficient consolidation treatment:
• Should be absorbed in appropriate amounts and reach an adequate depth,
• Should increase the stone strength up to an acceptable value.
The harmful potential may come from:
• Excessive contrast of mechanical properties - formation of sharp interfaces between the outer
consolidated layer and the loose underlying substrate
• Excessive colour changes
• Excessive reduction in the water vapour permeability
Assessment of efficacy
Assessment of strength parameters should follow different ways according to the stone characteristics. The
following groups may be considered:
• Carbonate stones
• Soft, fine-grained siliceous stones
• Granites and other siliceous coarse-grained stones
Examples on the use of DRMS with carbonate stones:
• presentation of examples taken from laboratory and in situ tests
• The equipment allows the detection and characterisation of the:
• consolidation action
• alteration profiles
• past consolidation interventions
• durability of consolidation treatments.
With this system it is also possible to:
• discriminate the consolidation performance of different consolidants,
• differentiate the role of different stones.
The assessment of efficacy for siliceous rocks will also be tackled.
Assessment of potential harmfulness
Assessment of colour variations of consolidation treatments
Assessment of potential harmfulness with salt crystallisation
Assessment of potential durability
Assessment with salt crystallisation tests
Assessment in natural exposure conditions.

7. EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION:
CEN/TC346 – CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY
Anna Maria Mecchi
CNR – ICVBC, Rome, Italy
Why standardized regulations are necessary?
A scientific approach is nowadays essential for the conservation of the Cultural Heritage as preliminary basis
to guarantee a proper planning of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance works, and to assure their efficacy
and durability. Only thanks to a sound scientific knowledge of the materials constituting the artefact, of its
environmental and conservation conditions, these conservation/restoration works can be successfully carried
out.
Unfortunately, the great experience developed in this field by the different European countries, for the time
being, can not constitute a common background because there are too many differences, not only in the
methods of analysis but also in the terminology used.
A specific European standardisation activity in the field of conservation of Cultural Heritage is essential to
acquire a common unified scientific approach to the problems relevant to the preservation/conservation.
Moreover, this common approach and the use of standardised methodologies and procedures would promote
the exchange of information, would avoid the risk of duplication and foster synergy between the European
experts and specialists involved in the preservation activity.
Also, the development of standardised test and analysis methods will provide the cultural institutions,
enterprises and laboratories with correct instruments for carrying out their work, improving, at the same time
their proficiency/competencies.
What should be standardized in the field of Cultural Heritage?
In particular, the standardisation activity on the conservation of Cultural Heritage deals with:
1) terminology relevant to movable and immovable artefacts, and to the conservation of the artefacts and of
the material constituting the artefacts themselves, so that a common European terminology can be created;
2) guidelines for a methodological approach to the knowledge of the artefacts and of the materials
constituting the artefacts, of the deterioration processes, and of conditions of optimum long term
conservation (preservative conservation) preservation work;
3) test and analysis methods for the diagnosis and for the characterisation of the artefacts and of their state of
conservation with regards to outdoor and indoor environmental parameters;
4) test and analysis methods (in laboratory and in-situ) for the evaluation of the performance of the products
and methodologies to be used in the conservation work (ordinary and/or extraordinary maintenance);
5) test and analysis methods for the evaluation of conservation conditions of indoor Cultural Heritage.
6) standardisation on transportation and packaging methods, shall take in due accounts the needs and
problems related to itinerant exhibitions and exchanges of works of art, in the permanent presentation,
conditions in museums, galleries, libraries and archives, in temporary exhibit galleries, in stores and in
transport packaging.
Such a standardisation will concern the major part of materials (natural and artificial stones, metals,
paintings, wood, paper etc.).

How CEN/TC346 was founded
In 2003 a proposal for the foundation of a Technical Committee “Conservation of Cultural property” was
proposed by the UNI-NORMAL Italian Commission. This proposal was approved on 12/02/2003 when
CEN/TC 346 was founded and begun the work after the first International Meeting del 21-06-2004, Roma.
Who are the members ?
All the 29 countries members of CEN take part to the standardizing activity: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Island, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Holland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Structure of CEN
CEN/TC 346 "Conservation of cultural property" is formed by:
President: dr. Vasco Fassina (Italy, Ministry for Cultural and Natural Heritage)
Secretary: dr. Elena Mocchio (Italy, UNI)
TC (Technical Committee) formed by national delegates (not more than 3: the head and 2 delegates) with a
strategical/political function and of coordination of the various Working Groups.
5 WG (Working Groups) operational on 5 specific themes (illustrated below) with the task of drawing up
technical a documents and regulations. The WG are guided by a Coordinator and are formed of various
experts from the members countries of CEN.
How can be part of CEN
Each country that adheres to CEN has a referee, belonging to the Organism for National Regulations,
informed about the activities of CEN/TC 346. The Organism for National Regulations will appoint the
export in its own country for being part of TC and participates to the works of each WG.
Themes of WG
Working Group 1 " General guidelines and terminology”
Convenor: dr. Apollonia (Italy, Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, Val d’Aosta).
Participating countries: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta,
Holland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic.
Proposed Scope: WG 1 has the responsibility for the drafting of guidelines on conservation planning,
including monitoring; standards on terminology dealing with moveable and immovable components, with
degradation processes and its graphic and symbolic documentation; guidelines on security and safety
conditions relating to the use of cultural heritage by the public.
Working Group 2 "Materials constituting cultural property"
Convenor: dr. Vasilike Argyropoulos (Greece, Associate Professor of Conservation of Metal Antiquities &
Works of Art, Athens).
Participating countries: Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium,
Czech Republic.
Proposed Scope: WG 2 has the responsibility for the drafting of standards on examination, characterisation,
and analysis, including eventual sampling of the materials constituting the artefacts, and on the evaluation of
the state of conservation of the artefacts.
Working Group 3 "Evaluation of methods and products for conservation works"
Convenor: dr. Vasco Fassina (Italy, Ministry for Cultural and Natural Heritage).
Participating countries: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland,
Malta, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Norway, Croatia (observer).

Proposed Scope: WG 3 has the responsibility of drafting documents on criteria to select methods and/or
products and operating/working conditions in relation to the conservation/ restoration, repair, maintenance
and preventive conservation work; and of drafting documents on the methodologies to be used.
Working Group 4 "Environment"
Convenor: Dr. Johnsen (Denmark, National Museum of Denmark, Department of Conservation).
Participating countries: Denmark, Italy, France, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Holland, Poland, Greece,
Czech Republic, Belgium.
Proposed Scope: WG 4 has the responsibility for the drafting of guidelines for the control of
environmental variables, and of standards on the measurement of indoor, including exhibition and storage
conditions, and outdoor environmental conditions, and on artefacts/environment interaction.
Working Group 5 "Transportation and packaging methods"
Convenor: Dr. Anne de Wallens (France, Département des Peintures Musée du Louvre)
Participating countries: Italy, France, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Sweden,
Switzerland, Austria, Germany.
Proposed Scope: WG5 has the responsibility for the drafting of standards on showcases
requirements and on packaging and transportation methods.
Themes considered as prioritary targets in the various WG.
Working Group 1 "General guidelines and terminology"
Terminology
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of creating a common terminology as regards to movable and
immovable artefacts, and the conservation of the artefacts and of the material constituting the artefacts
themselves.
Guide to the principles of conservation
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing the different steps necessary to the knowledge of
the artefacts, the deterioration processes, and the preservation work.
Condition report of the artefacts
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing a standard methodology to visually describe the
state of conservation of the artefacts.
Security of artefacts and safety of the public
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing the condition of security for the public visiting
the cultural heritage in historical buildings.
Working Group 2 "Materials constituting cultural property"
Diagnosis on buildings surfaces and structures
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing analytical procedures for the characterisation of
the artefacts and of their state of conservation with regards to outdoor and indoor environmental parameters.
Classification and characterisation of pigments, dyes and colours used in artefacts
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing analytical procedures for the characterisation of
pigments and binding media on wall paintings and polychrome sculpture.
Characterisation of the state of conservation
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing analytical procedures for the chemical-physicalpetrographical
characterisation of the state of conservation of artefacts.

Characterisation of historical mortars
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing the analytical procedure for the identification of
lime mortars, hydraulic mortars traditionally used in historical buildings.
Working Group 3 "Evaluation of methods and products for conservation works"
Surface protective products – Testing and guidelines for application of products
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of giving guidelines on test method and methods of analysis (in
laboratory and in-situ) for the evaluation of the performance of the products and of the methodologies to be
used in protection of artefacts.
Consolidation products – Testing and guidelines for application of products
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of giving guidelines on test method and methods of analysis (in
laboratory and in-situ) for the evaluation of the performance of the products and of the methodologies to be
used in consolidation of artefacts.
Cleaning products – Testing and guidelines for application of products
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of giving guidelines on test method and methods of analysis (in
laboratory and in-situ) for the evaluation of the performance of the products and of the methodologies to be
used in cleaning of artefacts.
Guidelines for archaeological remains conservation procedures when discovered
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of establishing the different steps necessary to the knowledge of
the artefacts, the deterioration processes, and the conservation procedures of archaeological remains.
Working Group 4 "Environment"
Specifications on environmental conditions
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of furnishing a guideline for the choice and the control of the
microclimate finalised to the conservation of indoor Cultural Heritage e.g. museums, galleries, archives,
libraries, churches and historical buildings.
Guidelines on the measurement of environmental parameters
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of furnishing a guideline for the measurements of
environmental parameters finalised to the conservation of indoor and outdoor Cultural Heritage environment.
Working Group 5 "Transportation and packaging methods"
Principles of transportation and packaging of artefacts
Proposed scope: This standard has the scope of giving a guideline for the choice and the control of the
microclimate finalised to the transportation and packaging of artefacts.
Details of the activity of Working Group 3 “Valuation of methods and products for conservation
treatments”
The Italian Standard Document UNI 10921 “Water repellents – Application on samples and determination
of their properties in laboratory was presented as possible starting point to develop an European document.
After a long discussion the experts agreed to take into consideration the Italian document as main frame of
the different test methods.
It was agreed to divide the document into two separate sections one relevant to the experience in laboratory
and the other one in situ.
The document has been partially read and modified. Particular attention was dedicated to the identification of
the single test methods to be developed and/or used (if already existing), at the present the following tests are
discussed:
1) Measurement of water absorption by capillarity (WAC)
2) Measurement of water absorption by total immersion (WATI);

3) Measurement of water absorption at low pressure (WALP)
4) Measurement of drying index (DI)
5) Measurement of contact angle (CA)
6) Measurement of water vapour permeability (WVP)
7) Measurement of colour on matt surface
8) Measurement of the gloss
The valuation methodology of the products remains a discussion topic, mainly because of the variety of
opinions about the choice of the product’s quantity to use for experiments in the laboratory and ways of their
application.
Users
Users of the standards developed are:
- Public and government bodies (e.g. Ministry of Culture and Education, Government Agencies);
- Public national and international non-government bodies (e.g. ICCROM, ICOMOS, IIC, ICOM, Regional
administrations, Provincial administrations or local governments);
- Restoration schools;
- Ecclesiastical bodies/organisations;
- Public and private analysis laboratories;
- Restoration companies;
- Professionals in the field of conservation and exhibitions planning;
- Distributors and manufacturers of materials used in restoration;
- Companies specialising in the preparation and organisation of exhibitions;
- Transportation and packaging companies;
- Lighting installation companies, air conditioning and heating installation companies, informatics and
advanced technology companies;
- Cultural institutions: museums, galleries, libraries, archives;
- Architecture and surveyors;
- Archaeological excavations companies or institutions.
Feed-back on the market
Standardisation in the field of conservation of cultural Heritage will:
- improve the efficiency and pertinence of the diagnosis, reduce their costs, with a subsequent better
management of funding for the conservation/restoration works and therefore increasing the number of
conservation projects and spin-off economic benefits/opportunities for new investment, and consequent
job creation;
- give precise and appropriate indication on the kind of diagnostics studies to be performed, avoiding
expensive researches, promoting in this way conservation works on an increasing number of artefacts;
- help to develop and improve products, materials, equipment and technologies to be specifically used for
the conservation of Cultural Heritage
- increase the durability of conservation works therefore reducing costs on a long-term range because
conservation operations will be spaced out.

8 - GENERAL DISCUSSION
P. Tiano opens the discussion at the end of the presentations, proposing to create a debate on the main
arguments of the day and invite the speakers to the table and the public to ask questions about that. He is also
introducing the main aspects to be discussed:
- the documentation of the effectiveness of the treatments to be done at the moment of application and
after the restoration intervention;
- the utility and use of standardization of the methodologies of treatment and control;
- the necessity to standardize at an European level these methodologies and if the proposed survey
forms can be useful for this purpose.
He underlines that nobody wants to standardize the restoration practice, but the valuation procedures. The
treatments undertook in the past (consolidations, cleanings, protection) were not documented enough and
nowadays there is a lack of information as the scientific data for evaluating restoration intervention is
concerned.
The restorer of OPD, E. Buzzegoli, takes the floor speaking about the terminological differences that were
underlined by the last intervention of dr. Mecchi from ICVBC of Rome: the division between pigments,
colors and dyes. Pigments are usually intended as powders that added with a medium or binder become
colors to be applied by brush, while the dyes are usually synthetic (such acrylic ones) and can be transformed
in pigments.
The moderator, G. Bonsanti, professor at the University of Florence and former Superintendent of Opificio
delle Pietre Dure, thanks to Ezio Buzzegoli and reminds the questionnaire and the results analyzed by Dr.
Tiano together with Irina Sandu: the data are significant and reclaims a deep reflection on the argument. The
moderator apologizes for not being present at the morning session and lists the interventions that were done
during the day. Then, advertises the conference “La citta del Restauro/City of Restoration” that would begin
Friday, 24 th of November 2006, at Palazzo Vecchio in Florence and where a recognition of the restorers and
conservators active in Florence and Tuscany will be presented. He recommends the participation because one
can understand the difference between craftsmanship and art in the restoration field and also which could be
the criteria for choosing the targets/destinataries for a potential survey on methods and materials for
conservation. He also remarks the interesting interventions of Dr. Mach and Hummelen, the last one in
particular because of the pointing out of the difficult distinction between original and “with intervention”.
Another restorer (of metals) who collaborates with OPD also, Ludovica Nicolai, speaks from the point of
view of private restorer, that not always can be scientific and methodological in his/her approach, by
adopting valuation and diagnostic methods during the various step of the intervention. She says that not
always is possible to control after much time the effects of the treatments and that maintenance is only
seldom done. She asks dr. Mecchi if in the Working Group of CEN there are also restorers and conservators.
Regarding the restoration of the bronze doors presented by the BLFD’s participants to the Discussion Panel
(Mach and Munir) she wants to know why the chemical cleaning was privileged and if the aesthetical effects
was considered.
G. Bonsanti answers saying that to the first point the sentence from the intervention of Mariarosa Lanfranchi
should be appropriate: “The restorers must understand the short and long term effects of a restoration
treatments” while for the second question, dr. Mecchi is invited to answer.
A.M. Mecchi replies speaking about the normative activity in Italy, that includes also restorers from various
sectors and with recognized experience and professional background in the specific field. She also underlines
that in the field of monuments conservation there is a lack of documentation about the interventions carried
out in the past and therefore the control or verification of the effects in time is more difficult. Until this
problem will not be identified and recognized to an international level, the impact will never be the expected
one also in usual practice.
G. Bonsanti says that a standardization of the restoration forms would be useful and underlines the role of
the public commissioner (the State) that should understand the importance of such a documentation during
and after the treatments and gather all the required information about it. Usually the director of works in a
workshop for restoration don’t know which materials should be used and in which quantity.

A restorer of OPD, I. Castello discusses about the possibility of doing a survey of the monuments in
Florence every 5-10 years in order to understand the modifications and the behavior of the materials used for
consolidation and protection. Because usually laboratory tests are carried out for analyzing protective and
consolidant effectiveness (such as Ca- oxalates, silicone resins), but no “in situ” control after several years is
being done. The situation of the artifact placed outdoor is different from the ones in an indoor environments
or from laboratory samples.
G. Bonsanti answers that the “culture of assessing” the treatment’s effect in the conservation field is a
“today” concern, introduced in the last few years and that the infinity of variables encountered during the
valuation of effectiveness of restoration treatments make difficult the introduction of objective parameters
aimed to this purpose. For example, for mural paintings, one can know the concentration for a certain
adhesive or consolidant product, but the ways of application are various and depend on the experience and
method of each restorer.
P. Tiano asks Castello if he knows whether such a documentation about monuments treated 10 years ago is
being kept and Castello answers affirmative. Bonsanti reassess the fact that I. Castello, as a restorer of OPD,
illustrates an ideal situation, but in practice the situation is a bit different.
D. Pinna, the director of Scientific Laboratory of OPD, answers to Isidoro, saying that the literature is full of
evidences about the works carried out in the past on important monuments and in particular on the valuation
of treatments done on stone artifacts 10-20 years ago. But the real problem is to valuate which are the
methods that can be used for the control of restoration treatments.
Y. Hummelen, conservator of ICN (The Netherlands), reminds the results of the survey’s questionnaire -
the major part were Italian. In The Netherlans he tried to convince colleagues to fill in the questionnaire
proposed by ICVBC, but although many conservators seemed interested, no positive answer arrived. They
considered it too simply built up and not reflecting the real and complex practical situation. So, there is a
question of rethoric: our network, the Italian network also, is built up by Conservators. In The Netherlands
they use the WIKIPEDIA for discussing terminology and for agreeing on that argument, using Internet. This
could be a good idea for the Italian survey initiative too. It is important for conservators to get a feed-back
from their colleagues.
G. Bonsanti reminds the numbers of the survey, the small number of compilers referred to the potential
compilers and that’s why should be important understand where to find these restorers that could help in
increasing the answers to our survey.
M. Mach answers to the restorer of metals, Nicolai, speaking about the work done on the bronze doors
reported in the abstract and presented during his intervention. This is an assessment topic and should be
discussed. The doors were restored in 1973 based on environmental problematic – a little cleaning treatment
was done. A PhD work was also related to this intervention and after the doors were put back to the original
place three art historians found that they resembled to cheap electrotype copies in metal and therefore several
alternatives were discussed in order to remove sulphates. The chemical cleaning seemed the more
appropriate alternative and the treatments assured the removal of historical layers of sulphates from the
bronze doors. For more than 900 years the doors stood in outside without major problems and the bronze
surface was in a good condition. But the restoration request raised up so many controversial aspects.
G. Bonsanti underlines that in the usual practice of the OPD restorers the mechanical cleaning was
privileged and not the chemical one, the corrosion inhibitors being applied for artifact in closed
environments.
J. Munir explains the intervention undertook on the bronze doors and the role of roughness measurements in
establishing the level of cleaning and the most proper method.
G. Lanterna, chemist of Scientific Laboratory of OPD, clarifies the intervention done by Dr. Mecchi, saying
that many countries haven’t been in agreement about the common terminology to be adopted for the
conservation field and especially when about the characterization of colors in mural paintings, each pigment
can determine a different color, beyond the technique that was applied. The color of the polychrome surface

is an important parameter to be considered. Dr. Mecchi underlines the importance of a common terminology,
thanking to dr. Lanterna.
J. Delgado, referring to the Stone argument, advises to identify topics where a recommendation can be
produced from a scientific point of view and speaks about the necessity to create an interdisciplinary team
for discussing and producing available guidelines. And if the restorers have ideas or questions about these
arguments, they should send it to the participant members in the Eu-artech network.
M. Mach says that before doing any standardization or recommendation procedure, other aspects should be
discussed, such as the change of chemical composition of products for restoration treatments on which we
still don’t have previous information. There is an obvious difference between practice and theory. That might
be a need for standards and recommendations but not always they are corresponding to the practical
situations. He gives the example of his own diploma work of chemical synthesis, where standardized
experiments didn’t work in real conditions. Practical problems should be pointed and collected for drafting
recommendations and regulations.
He speaks also about implementing a database of monuments in Germany, that didn’t work so well, because
each region has its own peculiarity and it is not recommended by art historian to compare between the
different architectures and other characteristic of the monuments taken into study.
P. Tiano tries to clarify the two aspects: the way in which a restorer deals the problem of practical work and
the responsible of the maintenance and keeping of the artefacts that should do also the control and
assessment of the restoration interventions. The intervention is subject to the manual skill of the
restorer/operator and to his or her way of interacting with the artworks, while the scientific bases are
necessary and should be translated in written normative. When standardizing the result, the reproducibility of
the measure can’t be assured at 100%, but this doesn’t mean that standardizing a procedure is not necessary.
L. Toniolo turns to the argument of the survey’s questionnaire and on the methods of valuating the
conservation treatments. She participated to the drafting of the questionnaire that was inspired by a previous
similar experience in the Labs- TECH project. She underlines the fact that the initiative was to a certain
extent quite difficult and limited because the survey should have been done on a great number of targets in
order to have a significant answer and result. The objective was to have an overview on the restoration
practice and a feed-back from the restoration world in Europe, but in Italy there is still a long way to do and
therefore a true dialogue should be performed between conservation scientists and restorers on the potential
research arguments. Other countries are having a more open dialogue on these points between the scientists
and restorers. From the obtained data it is obvious that the participants to the survey answered on a voluntary
base and the database of compilers was built up on it. A general valuation can be done and this concerns the
target of compilers on which only few data has been collected. Few indications can be drawn up: only few
compilers reported data about the treatment’s valuation, but this number is only 10% from the questioned
persons.
G. Bonsanti, referring to the choice of targets for such a survey, reminds the initiative that will be presented
in occasion of the two day conference in Florence (City of Restoration). He doesn’t think that in Italy there is
a minor dialogue between restorers and scientists, but the restoration framework in Italy is rather
complicated.
G. Lanterna speaks about the general “Prescriptions for the Interventions” (Capitolato di Appalto) that
unofficially many restoration studios and enterprises use and ratifies the necessity to produce guidelines for
“Prescriptions for Diagnosis” (Capitolato di Progetto Diagnostico) in which the introduction of a small area
of comparison or samples to measure the parameters for controlling the artwork in the future should be
requested. An idea should be the sponsorship of monitoring campaigns for measuring the changes and
modifications of the artifacts after the restoration treatments.
D. Pinna answers to dr. Mach to not be so pessimistic. The standardization is one of the great problems of
these days because of the terminology and of the difficulty in finding a common language. In several cases
the non-invasive analyses proposed by the scientists were required by the restorers. Dr. Y. Hummelen agrees
with dr. Pinna about this argument. At ICN in Amsterdam there are already two year that the conservators
are discussing about this topic. It should be found a balance between the two extremes points.

The restorer of mural paintings, M.R. Lanfranchi speaks of her experience with the Italian restorers and
about the need to change the methodological approach (mental form) to the conservation practice, because of
the lack of interaction with the scientific world. The instruments and method for valuating the treatments are
useful but the essential thing to do is to spread/diffuse this new approach in all the sectors of the restoration
field. It should be better if can have simple instruments for valuating restoration treatments (as the sponge
method for evaluating absorption of water by mural paintings).
G. Bonsanti assess the necessity to friendly transfer the knowledge and this approach to the restoration
practice to all the restorers and the conservators active in the field. Cases in which the scientific information
is not required at 100% should be individuated.
L. Nicolai confirms what the Lanfranchi said, considering also her 10 year experience of collaboration with
OPD – the mental approach changed a lot after her experience and contact with the scientific world, but in
the private restoration field the requirements and the practical limits (economical or time based) not always
allow the interaction or the support of the scientists. A proposal for a subject to which more researches
should be dedicated is the one of cleaning and protection of bronzes in open air. Various methodologies and
studies should be compared for these bronze artifacts.
C. Fiori takes the floor and says that the quality control in the restoration field should not be the
responsibility of private restorers. In this respect, an independent system for certifying the quality of the
restoration treatments is required for completing the whole picture. This system could also include private
studios and workshops of restoration, with proven and qualified experience in the field.
G. Bonsanti replies that maybe this proposal concerns more the institutional side and not the scientific basis
of such an assessment activity.
I. Castello reminds the intervention of L. Nicolai and suggests as topic of discussion and better
experimentation the screening on solvents used in the restoration and their action/interactions in time.
G. Bonsanti replies that the scientific studies published on the restoration materials are frequently reported
and that it is not the product which leads to differences in the obtained results but the its concentration and
the way of application.
P. Tiano closes the discussion, reminding the problem of comprehension of the terminology and creation of
an European forms for collecting data about treatments. It should be required the creation of an European
working group and network of experts that should focus on the standardization of the evaluation
methodologies for restoration. A detailed form for reporting the steps of restoration treatments is a good
model to objectively structure and documents the interventions in order to confront the various practices. He
thanks all the present for their warm participation and contribution.

N. Name and
Surname
1 Lucia
TONIOLO
2 Piero
TIANO
9. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Affiliation Address Country Email
Politecnico di
Milano
CNR –
ICVBC -
Firenze
3 Annamaria MECCHI CNR –
ICVBC -
Roma
- Italy l.toniolo@polimi.it
Via Madonna del
Piano, Edif. C,
50019 Sesto
Fiorentino
Via Salaria Km
29,300
00016
Monterotondo S.
(Roma), C.P. 10
4 Daniela PINNA OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
5 Mariarosa
LANFRANCHI
OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
6 Martin MACH BLFD Hofgraben 4, 80539
Munchen
7 Jasmin MUNIR BLFD Hofgraben 4, 80539
Munchen
8 Sophia
SOTIROPOULOU
9 Ysbrand
HUMMELEN
10 Josè DELGADO
RODRIGUEZ
OADC Sacred Convent of
the Annunciation,
63071 Ormylia
Chalkidiki
ICN Gabriel Metsustraat
8, Postbus 76709,
1070 KA
Amsterdam
LNEC Avenida Brasil 101,
1700-066 Lisbon
11 Ana Ferreira PINTO LNEC Avenida Brasil 101,
1700-066 Lisbon
12 Cristiana NUNES LNEC Avenida Brasil 101,
1700-066 Lisbon
13 Stefania
AGNOLETTI
14 Demetrios ANGLOS IESL-
FORTH
OPD Via Alfani, 78
Firenze
P.O.Box 1385
Heraklion, 71110
15 Olimpia BARBU 15 Intrarea
Crainicului, Bl. Z14,
Sc.1, Ap.12,
Bucharest, 6
16 Roberto BELLUCCI OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1 50129 Firenze
Italy p.tiano@icvbc.cnr.it
Italy a.mecchi@icvbc.cnr.it
Italy daniela.pinna@unibo.it
Italy mariarosa.lanfranchi@ti
n.it
Germany martin.mach@blfd.bayer
n.de
Germany jasmin.munir@blfd.baye
rn.de
Greece s.sotiropoulou@artdiagn
osis.gr
Holland ysbrand.hummelen@icn
.nl
Portugal delgado@lnec.pt
Portugal anapinto@ist.utl.pt
Portugal -
Italy Stefania.Agnoletti@tetin
et.com
Greece anglos@iesl.forth.gr
Romania olimpia_h_ionescu@yah
oo.com
Italy roberto.bellucci@benicul
turali.it

17 Silvia BENSI Private
restorer
Via S. Maria
14/R, Firenze
18 Francesca TOSO OPD Via Marconi 48
50131 Firenze
19 Francesca BETTINI OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
20 Nicholas BOUILLON CICRP 21, rue Guibal
13003, Marseille
21 Vittorio BRESCIANI Bresciani srl Via Breda, 142,
20216 Milano
22 Paola Ilaria
MARIOTTI
23 Ezio
BUZZEGOLI
OPD Via Cavour 133
52100 Arezzo
OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
24 Andrea CAGNINI OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
25 Isidoro CASTELLO OPD Via Alfani, 78
Firenze
26 Emilia CESTINO Private
restorer
27 Rita Chiara DE
FELICE
Private
restorer
28 Roberta DI BIASE University of
L'Aquila
29 Fr. Maximous EL
ANTONY
St. Anthony
Monastery,
Red Sea High
Institute
30 Cesare FIORI University of
Bologna,
Dipartimento
di Storie e
Metodi per la
Conservazion
e
S.S. 73 Levante, 19,
53100 Siena
Via Monteloro,45/b,
50065 Pontassieve
(FI)
DIMEG Loc.
Monteluco di Roio,
Roio Poggio, 670
26 Marcoseia
st.Klot-Bek,
St.Anthony
Monastery, 11111
Cairo
Via degli Ariani 1,
48100 Ravenna
31 Monica GALEOTTI OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
32 Isabella GAMBINA Socia
Associazione
Bastioni
33 Alessandra GRIPPO Private
restorer
34 Pamela
HATCHFIELD
35 Giancarlo
LANTERNA
Boston
Museum of
Fine Arts
Via dei Barbadori 7
Firenze
Via Miliscola 133
Pozzuoli (Napoli)
Via Angelo Masina,
5,
Roma, 00153
OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
Italy silvia.bensi@libero.it
Italy francescatoso@hotmail.
com
Italy francesca.bettini@benic
ulturali.it
France nicolas.bouillon@cicrp.fr
Italy vittorio@brescianisrl.it
Italy paolailaria.mariotti@ben
iculturali.it
Italy ezio.buzzegoli@gmail.c
om
Italy andrea.cagnini@benicul
turali.it
Italy isidoro.castello@benicul
turali.it
Italy camminarello@libero.it
Italy chiaradefelice@tiscaline
t.it
Italy giotto82@hotmail.it
Egypt elantony_maxi@yahoo.c
om
Italy cesare.fiori@unibo.it
Italy monica.galeotti@benicul
turali.it
Italy isagam@hotmail.it
Italy alessandragrippo@hotm
ail.com
Italy phatchfield@mfa.org
Italy giancarlo.lanterna@beni
culturali.it

36 Paola LORENZI OPD Via Alfani, 78
Firenze
37 Maria Perla
COLOMBINI
38 Azzurra
MACHERELLI
39 Cristina
MONTAGNER
40 Daniela
MURPHY
41 Cristina
NAPOLITANO
University of
Pisa, Dip. di
Chimica e
Chimica
Industriale
CSGI & Dip.
di Chimica,
Università
degli Studi di
Firenze
Universita
Ca'Foscari
Venezia
Associazione
Bastioni
R.O.A -
(Restauro
Opere d'Arte)
42 Austin NEVIN Courtauld
Institute of
Art IESL-
43 Maria Ludovica
NICOLAI
FORTH
Private
restorer
44 Jacopo OSTICIOLI Universita’di
Firenze
45 Francesca PIQUE’ The Getty
Conservation
Institute
46 Patrizia RIVA Private
restorer
47 Dominique ROBCIS C2RMF
Restauration
department
48 Barbara
SALVADORI
49 Andrea
SANTACESAREA
50 Stefano SFARRA Private
restorer
Italy paola.lorenzi@benicultu
rali.it
Pisa Italy perla@dcci.unipi.it
Via della Lastruccia,
3
Sesto Fiorentino
50019
Via Donizetti 24
30016 Jesolo
Via san Niccolò 91R
50125 Firenze
Via Fangarielli 1
84100 Salerno
PO Box 1527
Heraklion, 71110
Via dei Pilastri, 34
50121 Firenze
Via della l
Lastruccia 3, 50132
Sesto F.no
Via di Canneto 16
59100 Prato
Via G. D’Annunzio
24, Firenze
2 avenue
Rockefeller,
Versailles, 78000
Paris
OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
Roio Poggio –
L’Aquila, 67040
Abruzzo
51 Paolo SIMONETTI Universitary DIMEG - Loc.
Monteluco di Roio,
67100
52 Franca SORELLA OPD Via Alfani, 78
Firenze
53 Jana STRIOVA European
Laboratory of
non-linear
spectroscopy
Via Nello Carrara 1,
50019Sesto
Fiorentino
Italy macherelli@csgi.unifi.it
Italy cri09@libero.it
Italy daniela@ritratto.com
Italy cristinanapolitano@yaho
o.it
Greece austin@iesl.forth.gr
Italy lnicolai@tin.it
Italy iacopo.osticioli@unifi.it
Italy fpique@yahoo.it
Italy mariapatrizia.riva@tin.it
France dominique.robcis@cultu
re.gouv.fr
Italy barsalv@libero.it
Italy andrea.santacesaria@b
eniculturali.it
Italy ss6398@supereva.it
Italy simonetti_paolo@hotma
il.com
Italy franca.sorella@benicult
urali.it
Italy jana@lens.unifi.it

54 Isetta TOSINI OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
55 Caterina TOSO OPD Viale Filippo Strozzi,
1, 50129 Firenze
56 Mari YANAGISHITA Private
restorer
57 Irina SANDU Eu-artech
project
assistant
Borgo S. Jacopo,11
Firenze
Via Madonna del
Piano, Edif. C,
50019 Sesto
Fiorentino
58 Silva RESCIC Dottoranda Via Madonna del
Piano, Edif. C,
50019 Sesto
Fiorentino
59 Simone BUGANI Dottorando Via Madonna del
Piano, Edif. C,
50019 Sesto
Fiorentino
60 Francesca CIANI
PASSERI
OPD Via Donatello 76,
Sesto Fiorentino (FI)
Italy isetta.tosini@benicultura
li.it
Italy caterina.toso@benicultu
rali.it
Italy mari.yanagishita@virgili
o.it
Italy sandu@icvbc.cnr.it,
lilly75flower@yahoo.co
m
Italy s.rescic@icvbc.cnr.it
Italy s.bugani@icvbc.cnr.it
Italy cianipasseri.francesca@
gmail.com
61 Ilaria BARBETTI OPD Via Doni 43, Firenze Italy ilaria_barbetti@poste.it
62 Irene BIADAIOLI OPD Via Bonifacio Lupi
23, Firenze
63 Leonardo BIGAZZI Università di
Firenze
Via del Corso 1,
Firenze
64 Paola BRACCO OPD Via Erbosa 123,
Firenze
65 Annalena BRINI OPD Via degli Alfani 78,
Firenze
66 Ottaviano CARUSO OPD Via Mariano
d’Amelio 26,
Palermo
67 Ciro
CASTELLI
68 Emilio Mario
CASTELLUCCI
69 Alessia DAVERI
OPD Via Bellini 2, Signa
(FI)
Università di
Firenze
Dip.to di
Chimica
Università di
Perugia
70 Adele DE CRUZ Duke
University
71 Elena
DELLA SCHIAVA
72 Isabel Rute
FONTINHA
Via della Lastruccia,
Sesto Fiorentino
Via Elce di Sotto 8,
Perugia
Via delle Mura
Etrusche 17, Fiesole
(FI)
OPD Viale delle Arti 28,
Bagno a Ripoli (FI)
LNEC Avenida do Brasil
101, Lisbona
Italy irene.bi@email.it
Italy Leo.bigazzi@hotmail.co
m
Italy paolabracco1@virgilio.it
Italy annalena.brini@benicult
urali.it
Italy ottaca@tin.it
Italy ciro.castelli@benicultura
li.it
Italy -
Italy alessiadaveri@libero.it
Italy adecruz@duke.edu
Italy eleninads@inwind.it
Portugal r.fontinha@lnec.pt

73 Sveta GENNAI Private
restorer
74 Anna Marie
HILLING
Via Mulini 26,
Guardistallo (PI)
OPD Piazza Piattelina 11,
Firenze
75 Diane KUNZELMAN OPD Viale F. Strozzi, 1
50129 Firenze
76 Annette Theresia
KELLER
OPD Via degli Alfani 78,
Firenze
77 Mathias KOCHER BLFD Postfach 100203,
Munich
78 LindaLUCARELLI OPD Via degli Alfani 78,
Firenze
79 Luisa LANDI OPD Via Maffei 73,
Firenze
80 Anna MEDORI OPD Viale Toscana 11,
Firenze
81 Antonio MIGNEMI OPD Via di San Vito,
Firenze
82 Mers NESI OPD Via Purgatorio 6,
Firenze
83 Eugenia OLIVARI OPD Via Orti Orticellari 3,
Firenze
84 Roberto OLMI IFAC CNR Via Madonna del
Piano 10, Sesto
Fiorentino (FI)
85 Cinzia ORTOLANI OPD Via Reginaldo
Giuliani 285, Firenze
86 Simone PORCINAI OPD Via degli Alfani 78,
Firenze
87 ElisaP UCCI OPD Via Bertelli 6,
Pontedera (PI)
88 Manuela VAGNINI Università di
Perugia
89 Chiara VALCEPINA Private
restorer
90 Giorgio BONSANTI University of
Florence
91 Roberto PARENTI University of
Siena
Via Elce di Sotto 8,
Perugia
Via di Terzano 34,
Bagno a Ripoli (FI)
Italy sveta.rest-art@libero.it
Italy annamariehilling@yaho
o.it
Italy -
Italy keller.annette@gmail.co
m
Germany Mathias-
Kocher@blfd.Bayern.de
Italy lindajosephine8@yahoo.
it
Italy luisa.landi@gmail.com
Italy annamedori@libero.it
Italy antoniom@virgilio.it
Italy mery76@libero.it
Italy eugingi@hotmail.com
Italy r.olmi@ifac.cnr.it
Italy cinzia.ortolani@benicult
urali.it
Italy s.porcinai@ifac.cnr.it
Italy elisa.pucci1@tin.it
Italy manuelavg@hotmail.co
m
Italy restaurarte_chiara@libe
ro.it
Firenze Italy gbonsanti@dada.it
Via Roma 56
53100 Siena
92 Stefano PASOLINI OPD school Via Alfani 78
Firenze
93 Giuseppe ONESTI OPD school Via L.Pirandello 4
65010 Spoltore (PE)
Italy parenti@unisi.it
Italy stefano.pasolini@libero.i
t
Italy -