Proceedings e report - Firenze University Press

WOOD SCIENCE FOR CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
treatment about half intensity per mass unit of the untreated sample. Five months after treatment the
intensity per mass unit for treated samples was higher than that after three months but lied between
half and one third of the untreated samples. This shows that in addition to consolidation effect, the
impregnation with the styrene resin has also a protective effect against natural cellulose free radicals.
Table 3. Semnal RES
Sample
Three months after treatment Five months after treatment
Intensity (a.u.) Mass normated Intensity (a.u.) Mass normated
intesity
intesity
A untreated 54738 1766 104859 3383
A treated 78894 974 133497 1648
B untreated 85968 1719 198648 3973
B treated 58059 907 92979 1453
C untreated 39149 1223 112194 3506
C treated 97551 938 126054 1212
4. Conclusions
The delivered dose of 24 kGy was more than enough to disinfect the studied samples from insects and
moulds. In addition, this dose is very close to the usual dose used for sterilization. So, after treatment
the samples were almost sterile. Using this irradiation dose for disinfection, proper packaging of
samples and post-irradiation handling procedures of them, after the disinfection treatment the
conservator can seal first a totally clean object of biodeterioration factors, and after that proceed to its
restoration. Irradiation doses up to 10 kGy can be used for prevention from the action of different
biodeterioration factors or for first step of remediation treatment.
In case of consolidation by impregnation with styrene resin, the wooden object becomes heavier and
more resistant at penetration and bending. The treated object contains less free radicals than the
untreated one. Also, the object changes its colour, generally getting darker, and does not get better
impact resistance. When a conservator considers that disadvantages such application of a nonreversible
consolidation treatment, darker colour and less impact resistance are not of crucial
importance for a certain cultural heritage object then this treatment method can be a very good choice.
As a general conclusion, the irradiation treatment is considered proper to be applied to different
wooden cultural heritage objects only for their disinfection (as prevention treatment or as first step of
remediation treatment aiming at conservation) or both for their disinfection and consolidation (as
remediation treatment aiming at conservation).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank COST Action IE0601 for the opportunity for collaboration given to
them through the STSM of Dr. Mihalis Cutrubinis at ARC-Nucléart Grenoble, France and Romanian
National Authority for Scientific Research for the economic support of scientific work.
REFERENCES
1. IAEA, 2003. Report from a technical meeting; emerging applications of radiation processing for
21 st
century. Vienna, Austria.
2. Tiano P., 2002. Biodegradation of Cultural Heritage: Decay Mechanisms and Control Methods.
Proceedings of ARIADNE Workshop 9 – Historic materials and their diagnostics, February 4-10.
3. Diehl J. F., 1996. Biological efects of ionizing radiation in Safety of irradiated food. Ed. Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York, USA.
4. Ramiere R. and Tran K. Q., 1989. Nucleart: Nuclear Techniques Applied to Art. Nuclear Europe,
7:50.
87