粘土膏作为中世纪灰泥吸附剂的潜力：使用压板法和染料的比较研究

IF 0.8 4区化学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY

Studies in Conservation Pub Date : 2024-03-09 DOI:10.1080/00393630.2024.2326754

Mette Midtgaard

引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了建筑遗产、石材和壁画保护中使用的五种粘土膏药，以了解它们从中世纪富含石灰的壁画灰泥中提取杂质的潜力。由于中世纪的石灰...

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Potential of Clay Poultices as Sorbents for Medieval Plaster: A Comparative Study Using the Pressure Plate Method and Dye

Five clay poultices used in built heritage, stone, and wall painting conservation were examined for their potential to extract impurities from medieval lime-rich wall painting plaster. Since the mo...

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Studies in Conservation 化学-分析化学

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

12.50%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Studies in Conservation is the premier international peer-reviewed journal for the conservation of historic and artistic works. The intended readership includes the conservation professional in the broadest sense of the term: practising conservators of all types of object, conservation, heritage and museum scientists, collection or conservation managers, teachers and students of conservation, and academic researchers in the subject areas of arts, archaeology, the built heritage, materials history, art technological research and material culture. Studies in Conservation publishes original work on a range of subjects including, but not limited to, examination methods for works of art, new research in the analysis of artistic materials, mechanisms of deterioration, advances in conservation practice, novel methods of treatment, conservation issues in display and storage, preventive conservation, issues of collection care, conservation history and ethics, and the history of materials and technological processes. Scientific content is not necessary, and the editors encourage the submission of practical articles, review papers, position papers on best practice and the philosophy and ethics of collecting and preservation, to help maintain the traditional balance of the journal. Whatever the subject matter, accounts of routine procedures are not accepted, except where these lead to results that are sufficiently novel and/or significant to be of general interest.