Advertisement

Iranian Polymer Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Application of polymer coatings and nanoparticles in consolidation and hydrophobic treatment of stone monuments

  • Amir Ershad-LangroudiEmail author
  • Hamid Fadaei
  • Kamran Ahmadi
Review
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Consolidation and hydrophobic treatment of stone artworks are challenging tasks. These treatments are considered irreversible in many cases. However, in many cases, they are unavoidable, especially when the stone monuments are in risk of deterioration and collapse induced by aging and weathering. The consolidation and hydrophobic treatment of a monument have to be done within an appropriate time window; otherwise, it is in risk of being collapsed completely due to the deep erosion of layers and loss of cohesion. In this study, a variety of challenges associated with the consolidation, and hydrophobic treatments of stone monuments are addressed. Inorganic nanoparticles and polymeric materials are introduced for this aim. Acrylics, silanes and organic–inorganic nanocomposites play an important role in the preparation of hydrophobic coating compositions for application on the stone surface. In addition, the effect of fluorinated functional groups on the coating composition and the influence of hydrophobic properties of additives on the stability and weathering resistance under harsh conditions are discussed. It is shown that the use of inorganic nanoparticles in a coating composition is a useful way to improve consolidation, self-cleaning and anti-microorganism properties in the conservation and protection treatments. Scientific articles and recent developments emphasize the need for water-based resins which possess environmentally friendly features.

Keywords

Stone Consolidation Hydrophobic Organic polymers Inorganic nanoparticles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge, with gratitude, Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) which kindly supported this work financially (Grant no. 93043402) and Institute for Conservation and Restoration of Cultural and Historical Monuments, Iranian Research Institute for Cultural Heritage which kindly provided the historical samples, and cooperated with Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing financial interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sohrabi M, Favero-Longo SE, Pérez-Ortega S, Ascaso C, Haghighat Z, Talebian MH, Fadaei H, de los Ríos A (2017) Lichen colonization and associated deterioration processes in Pasargadae, UNESCO world heritage site, Iran. Int Biodet Biodeg 117:171–182Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinto APF, Rodrigues JD (2008) Stone consolidation: the role of treatment procedures. J Cult Herit 9:38–53Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergamonti L, Bondioli F, Alfieri I, Alinovi S, Lorenzi A, Predieri G, Lottici PP (2018) Weathering resistance of PMMA/SiO2/ZrO2 hybrid coatings for sandstone conservation. Polym Degrad Stabil 147:274–283Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sethi SK, Manik G (2018) Recent progress in super hydrophobic/hydrophilic self-cleaning surfaces for various industrial applications: a review. Polym Plast Technol Eng 57:1932–1952Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu J, Jiang Y, Qiu F, Dai Y, Yang D, Yu Z, Yang P (2018) Synthesis, mechanical properties and iron surface conservation behavior of uv-curable waterborne polyurethane-acrylate coating modified with inorganic carbonate. Polym Bull 75:4713–4734Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Afzal A, Kausar A, Siddiq M (2016) A review on polymer/cement composite with carbon nanofiller and inorganic filler. Polym Plast Technol Eng 55:1299–1323Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Fadaii H, Ahmadi K, Beheshtifar M (2016) Superhydrophobic siloxane based coating for enhanced protection of historical limestone surfaces. In: ISPST 2016, the 12th international seminar on polymer science and technology. Novambor, TehranGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Fadaii H, Ahmadi K, Beheshtifar M (2016) Consolidation of historical stone by silane/siloxane treatment. In: ISPST 2016, the 12th international seminar on polymer science and technology. Novambor, TehranGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodrigues JD (2001) Consolidation of decayed stones: a delicate problem with few practical solutions. Proc Int Sem Hist Const 3–14. http://www.csarmento.uminho.pt/docs/ncr/historical_constructions/page%2003-14_DDelgado.pdf
  10. 10.
    Price CA, Doehne E (2011) Stone conservation: an overview of current research, 2nd edn. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McMillan AJ, Swindells N, Archer E, McIlhagger A, Sung A, Leong K, Jones R (2017) A review of composite product data interoperability and product life-cycle management challenges in the composites industry. Adv Manuf Polym Compos Sci 3:130–147Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ershad-Langroudi A (2009) Photo evolution of siloxane based coatings on artificial weathering, 9th conference on protection and restoration of historical and cultural objects and decoration related to architecture. Iranian Research Institute for cultural Heritage, Tehran, p 339–334Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Sadat-Shojai M (2009) Siloxane-based coatings as potential materials for protection of brick-made monuments. J Color Sci Technol 3:177–187Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sadat-Shojai M, Ershad-Langroudi A (2009) Polymeric coatings for protection of historic monuments: opportunities and challenges. J Appl Polym Sci 112:2535–2551Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pia G, Corcione CE, Striani R, Casnedi L, Sanna U (2016) Thermal conductivity of porous stones treated with UV light-cured hybrid organic–inorganic methacrylic-based coating: experimental and fractal modeling procedure. Prog Org Coat 94:105–115Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Striani R, Esposito Corcione C, Dell’Anna Muia G, Frigione M (2016) Durability of a sunlight-curable organic–inorganic hybrid protective coating for porous stones in natural and artificial weathering conditions. Prog Org Coat 101:1–14Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isebaert A, Van Parys L, Cnudde V (2014) Composition and compatibility requirements of mineral repair mortars for stone—a review. Constr Build Mater 59:39–50Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carretti E, Bonini M, Dei L, Berrie BH, Angelova LV, Baglioni P, Weiss RG (2010) New frontiers in materials science for art conservation: responsive gels and beyond. Acc Chem Res 43:751–760Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young R (2017) Minimal intervention and regular repair. ICOMOS J German Nat Committee 32:63–70Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ward PR (1990) The nature of conservation: a race against time. Getty Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Appelbaum B (2012) Conservation treatment methodology. Routledge, AbingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cardell C, Delalieux F, Roumpopoulos K, Moropoulou A, Auger F, Van Grieken R (2003) Salt-induced decay in calcareous stone monuments and buildings in a marine environment in SW France. Constr Build Mater 17:165–179Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moropoulou A, Labropoulos KC, Delegou ET, Karoglou M (2013) A Bakolas non-destructive techniques as a tool for the protection of built cultural heritage. Constr Build Mater 48:1222–1239Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kottke J (2009) An investigation of quantifying and monitoring stone surface deterioration using three dimensional laser scanning. MSc Thesis, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Gohary M (2015) Effective roles of some deterioration agents affecting edfu royal birth house “MAMMISI”. Int J Conserv Sci 6:349–368Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scherer GW, Flatt R, Wheeler G (2001) Materials science research for the conservation of sculpture and monuments. MRS Bull 26:44–50Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baglioni P, Chelazzi D, Giorgi R, Poggi G (2013) Colloid and materials science for the conservation of cultural heritage: cleaning, consolidation, and deacidification. Langmuir 29:5110–5122Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cardiano P, Sergi S, Lazzari M, P Piraino (2002) Epoxy–silica polymers as restoration materials. Polymer 43:6635–6640Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Orazio L, Gentile G, Mancarella C, Martuscelli E, Massa V (2001) Water-dispersed polymers for the conservation and restoration of cultural heritage: a molecular, thermal, structural and mechanical characterisation. Polym Test 20:227–240Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ma X, Balonis M, Pasco H, Toumazou M, Counts D, Kakoulli I (2017) Evaluation of hydroxyapatite effects for the consolidation of a Hellenistic-Roman rock-cut chamber tomb at Athienou-Malloura in Cyprus. Constr Build Mater 150:333–344Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Biernacki JJ, Bullard JW, Sant G, Brown K, Glasser FP, Jones S, Ley T, Livingston R, Nicoleau L, Olek J, Sanchez F (2017) Cements in the 21st century: challenges, perspectives, and opportunities. J Am Ceram Soc 100:2746–2773Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Rahimi A (2009) Synthesis and characterization of nano silica-based coatings for protection of antique articles. Int J Nanotechnol 6:915–925Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ershad–Langroudi A, Mai C, Vigier G, Vassoille R (1997) Hydrophobic hybrid inorganic–organic thin film prepared by sol–gel process for glass protection and strengthening applications. J Appl Polym Sci 65:2387–2393Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Princi E, Vicini S, Pedemonte E, Arrighi V, McEwen I (2005) New polymeric materials for paper and textile conservation. I. synthesis and characterization of acrylic copolymers. J Appl Polym Sci 98:157–164Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Constâncio C, Franco L, Russo A, Anjinho C, Pires J, Vaz MF, Carvalho AP (2010) Studies on polymeric conservation treatments of ceramic tiles with Paraloid B-72 and two alkoxysilanes. J Appl Polym Sci 116:2833–2839Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    El-Gohary MA (2015) Methodological evaluation of some consolidants interference with ancient Egyptian sandstone “Edfu Mammisi as a case study”. Prog Org Coat 80:87–97Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Franzoni E, Pigino B, Pistolesi C (2013) Ethyl silicate for surface protection of concrete: performance in comparison with other inorganic surface treatments. Cement Concret Comp 44:69–76Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    da Fonseca BS, Piçarra S, Ferreira Pinto AP, Montemor MF (2016) Development of formulations based on TEOS-dicarboxylic acids for consolidation of carbonate stones. New J Chem 40:7493–7503Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fassina V (1995) New findings on past treatments carried out on stone and marble monuments’ surfaces. Sci Total Environ 167:185–203Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kopecká I, Nejedlý V, Kopecký L, Novotný J (2017) Fluorosilicates (“fluats”) used in the past in the conservation of stone in Central Europe, proceedings of 7th European commission conference safeguarded cultural heritage. Understanding & Viability for the Enlarged Europe, Prague, Czech Republic, 31 May–3 June 2006, publ. ITAM 2007, vol 2, pp 827–830. ISBN 978–80-86246-29-1Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lech T (2011) Fatal cases of acute suicidal sodium and accidental zinc fluorosilicate poisoning. Review of acute intoxications due to fluoride compounds. Forensic Sci Int 206:e20–e24Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Giorgi R, Ambrosi M, Toccafondi N, Baglioni P (2010) Nanoparticles for cultural heritage conservation: calcium and barium hydroxide nanoparticles for wall painting consolidation. Chem Eur J 16:9374–9382Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karatasios I, Kilikoglou V, Colston B, Theoulakis P, Watt D (2007) Setting process of lime-based conservation mortars with barium hydroxide. Cem Concr Res 37:886–893Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rodriguez-Navarro C, Vettori I, Ruiz-Agudo E (2016) Kinetics and mechanism of calcium hydroxide conversion into calcium alkoxides: implications in heritage conservation using nanolimes. Langmuir 32:5183–5194Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arizzi A, Gomez-Villalba LS, Lopez-Arce P, Cultrone G, Fort R (2015) Lime mortar consolidation with nanostructured calcium hydroxide dispersions: the efficacy of different consolidating products for heritage conservation. Eur J Mineral 27:311–323Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ventolà L, Vendrell M, Giraldez P, Merino L (2011) Traditional organic additives improve lime mortars: New old materials for restoration and building natural stone fabrics. Constr Build Mater 25:3313–3318Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bracci S, Melo MJ (2003) Correlating natural ageing and Xenon irradiation of Paraloid® B72 applied on stone. Polym Degrad Stabil 80:533–541Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cardiano P, Ponterio RC, Sergi S, Schiavo SL, Piraino P (2005) Epoxy-silica polymers as stone conservation materials. Polymer 46:1857–1864Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Melo MJ, Bracci S, Camaiti M, Chiantore O, Piacenti F (1999) Photodegradation of acrylic resins used in the conservation of stone. Polym Degrad Stabil 66:23–30Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stefanidou M, Karozou A (2016) Testing the effectiveness of protective coatings on traditional bricks. Constr Build Mater 111:482–487Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zanini A, Trafeli V, Bartoli L (2018) The laser as a tool for the cleaning of Cultural Heritage. IOP Confer Ser Mater Sci Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012078 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Allington-Jones L (2015) The Clacton spear: the last one hundred years. Archeol J 172:273–296Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barreca S, Bruno M, Oddo L, Orecchio S (2015) Preliminary study on analysis and removal of wax from a Carrara marble statue. Nat Prod Res 27:1–9Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Howie FMP (1984) Materials used for conserving fossil specimens since 1930: a review. Stud Conserv 29:92–97Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bomford D, Staniforth S (1981) Wax–resin lining and colour change: an evaluation. Natl Gallery Technol Bull 5:58–65Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cather S, Howard H (1986) The use of wax and wax-resin preservatives on English mediaeval wall paintings: rationale and consequences. Stud Conserv 31:48–53Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    da Guia LP, da Motta ALTS (2015) Criteria of waxes’ performance in the consolidation of steatites (soapstone) in heritage buildings. WIT Trans Built Env 168:637–648Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ciccola A, Guiso M, Domenici F, Sciubba F, Bianco A (2017) Azo-pigments effect on UV degradation of contemporary art pictorial film: a FTIR-NMR combination study. Polym Degrad Stabil 140:74–83Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lettieri M, Frigione M (2011) Natural and artificial weathering effects on cold-cured epoxy resins. J Appl Polym Sci 119:1635–1645Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Rabiee A (2012) A novel acrylamide-anatase hybrid nanocomposite. J Polym Res 19:9970Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Baglioni P, Dei L, Carretti E, Giorgi R (2009) Gels for the conservation of cultural heritage. Langmuir 25:8373–8374Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rabiee A, Ershad-Langroudi A, Zeynali ME (2015) A survey on cationic polyelectrolytes and their applications: acrylamide derivatives. Rev Chem Eng 31:239–261Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vicini S, Castellano M, Faria Soares Lima MC, Licinio P, Goulart Silva G (2017) Polyacrylamide hydrogels for stone restoration: effect of salt solutions on swelling/deswelling degree and dynamic correlation length. J Appl Polym Sci 134:44726Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vergès-Belmin V, Siedel H (2005) Desalination of masonries and monumental sculptures by poulticing: a review. Restor Build Monum 11:391–408Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vergès-Belmin V, Heritage A, Bourgès A (2011) Powdered cellulose poultices in stone and wall painting conservation-myths and realities. Stud Conserv 56:281–297Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Torraca G (2009) Lectures on materials science for architectural conservation. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Abdollahi H, Ershad-Langroudi A, Salimi A, Rahimi A (2013) Photocatalyst nanocomposite hybrid coatings based on TiO2-SiO2 core/shell nanoparticles: preparation and investigation of weathering and corrosion resistance. J Color Sci Technol 3:151–164Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Favaro M, Mendichi R, Ossola F, Russo U, Simon S, Tomasin P, Vigato PA (2006) Evaluation of polymers for conservation treatments of outdoor exposed stone monuments: part I: photo-oxidative weathering. Polym Degrad Stabil 91:3083–3096Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Favaro M, Mendichi R, Ossola F, Russo U, Simon S, Tomasin P, Vigato PA (2007) Evaluation of polymers for conservation treatments of outdoor exposed stone monuments: part II: photo-oxidative and salt-induced weathering of acrylic–silicone mixtures. Polym Degrad Stabil 92:335–351Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vicini S, Gaggero L, Princi E (2013) Characterization, weathering, and protection of sandstones: the case of ‘Agro d’Ardesia’. Stud Conserv 58:50–57Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Liu F, Liu G (2017) TiO2–SiO2 composite nanoparticles containing hindered amine light stabilizers encapsulated by MMA–PMPM copolymers. Iran Polym J 26:785–795Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Andreotti S, Franzoni E, Degli Esposti M, Fabbri P (2018) Poly(hydroxyalkanoate)s-based hydrophobic coatings for the protection of stone in cultural heritage. Materials 11:165Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Eroğlu G, Gündüz G, Çolak Ü, Mavis B (2018) Use of functionalized boehmite nanoparticles to improve the hardness and tribological properties of polyurethane films. J Polym Res 25:42Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Petronella F, Truppi A, Ingrosso C, Placido T, Striccoli M, Curri ML, Agostiano A, Comparelli R (2017) Nanocomposite materials for photocatalytic degradation of pollutants. Catal Today 281:85–100Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zarzuela R, Carbú M, Gil MA, Cantoral JM, Mosquera MJ (2017) CuO/SiO2 nanocomposites: a multifunctional coating for application on building stone. Mater Des 114:364–372Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Corcione CE, Simone DN, Santarelli ML, Frigione M (2017) Protective properties and durability characteristics of experimental and commercial organic coatings for the preservation of porous stone. Prog Org Coat 103:193–203Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sierra-Fernandez A, Gomez-Villalba LS, Rabanal ME, Fort R (2017) New nanomaterials for applications in conservation and restoration of stony materials: a review. Mater Construcc 67:107–125Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mosquera MJ, Santos DMdL, Rivas T (2010) Surfactant-synthesized ormosils with application to stone restoration. Langmuir 26:6737–6745Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kapridaki C, Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki P (2013) TiO2–SiO2–PDMS nano-composite hydrophobic coating with self-cleaning properties for marble protection. Prog Org Coat 76:400–410Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    D’Arienzo L, Scarfato P, Incarnato L (2008) New polymeric nanocomposites for improving the protective and consolidating efficiency of tuff stone. J Cult Herit 9:253–260Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Luo Y, Xiao L, Zhang X (2015) Characterization of TEOS/PDMS/HA nanocomposites for application as consolidant/hydrophobic products on sandstones. J Cult Herit 16:470–478Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hansen E, Doehne E, Fidler J, Larson J, Martin B, Matteini M, Rodriguez-Navarro C, Pardo ES, Price C, Tagle AD, Teutonico JM, Weiss N (2003) A review of selected inorganic consolidants and protective treatments for porous calcareous materials. Stud Conserv 48:13–25Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rodriguez-Navarro C, Suzuki A, Ruiz-Agudo E (2013) Alcohol dispersions of calcium hydroxide nanoparticles for stone conservation. Langmuir 29:11457–11470Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Borsoi G, Lubelli B, Hees RV, Veiga R, Santos A (2016) Understanding the transport of nanolime consolidants within Maastricht limestone. J Cult Herit 18:242–249Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dei L, Salvadori B (2006) Nanotechnology in cultural heritage conservation: nanometric slaked lime saves architectonic and artistic surfaces from decay. J Cult Herit 7:110–115Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Allali F, Joussein E, Kandri NI, Rossignol S (2016) The influence of calcium content on the performance of metakaolin-based geomaterials applied in mortars restoration. Mater Des 103:1–9Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nayak B, Mishra BK, Behera S, Kumar V (2012) Composition for building material and a process for the preparation thereof. US Patent 8:257,486Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chelazzi D, Poggi G, Jaidar Y, Toccafondi N, Giorgi R, Baglioni P (2013) Hydroxide nanoparticles for cultural heritage: consolidation and protection of wall paintings and carbonate materials. J Colloid Interface Sci 392:42–49Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Borsoi G, Lubelli B, Van Hees R, Veiga R, Silva AS, Colla L, Fedele L, Tomasin P (2016) Effect of solvent on nanolime transport within limestone: how to improve in-depth deposition. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 497:171–181Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Benedetti E, D’Alessio A, Zini MF, Bramanti E, Tirelli N, Vergamini P, Moggi G (2000) Characterization of acrylic resins and fluoroelastomer blends as potential materials in stone protection. Polym Int 49:888–892Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mazzola M, Frediani P, Bracci S, Salvini A (2003) New strategies for the synthesis of partially fluorinated acrylic polymers as possible materials for the protection of stone monuments. Eur Polym J 39:1995–2003Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zhang XY, Wen WY, Yu HQ, Chen Q, Xu JC, Yang DY, Qiu FX (2016) Preparation and artificial ageing tests in stone conservation of fluorosilicone vinyl acetate/acrylic/epoxy polymers. Chem Pap 70:1621–1631Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Franzoni E, Graziani G, Sassoni E, Bacilieri G, Griffa M, Lura P (2015) Solvent-based ethyl silicate for stone consolidation: influence of the application technique on penetration depth, efficacy and pore occlusion. Mater Struct 48:3503–3515Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lettieri M, Masieri M (2016) Performances and coating morphology of a siloxane-based hydrophobic product applied in different concentrations on a highly porous stone. Coatings 6–60Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Corcione CE, Manno R, Frigione M (2016) Sunlight-curable boehmite/siloxane-modified methacrylic based nanocomposites as insulating coatings for stone substrates. Prog Org Coat 95:107–119Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Xu J, Qiu F, Rong X, Dai Y, Yang D (2014) Preparation and surface pigment protection application of stone substrate on UV-curable waterborne polyurethane-acrylate coating. J Polym Mater 31:287–303Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Choi YS, Lee JH, Jeong YS, Kang YS, Won J, Kim JJ, Kim SD (2012) Performance improvement of hydrogenated bisphenol-A epoxy resin/inorganic additives composites for stone conservation by controlling their composition. J Conserv Sci 28:265–276Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sablier M, Chapoulie R (2017) Art and cultural heritage—where analytical sciences contribute to preserve our heritage. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:2135–2137Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Baglioni M, Montis C, Brandi F, Guaragnone T, Meazzini I, Baglioni P, Berti D (2017) Dewetting acrylic polymer films with water/propylene carbonate/surfactant mixtures—implications for cultural heritage conservation. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19:23723–23732Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Calvo AMDC, Docters A, Miranda MV, Saparrat MCN (2017) The use of gamma radiation for the treatment of cultural heritage in the argentine national atomic energy commission: past, present, and future. Top Curr Chem (Z) 375:227–235Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    D’Amato R, Spizzichino V, Caneve L, Bonfigli F, Giancristofaro C, Persia F (2017) Nanomaterials for conservation of artistic stones: performance and removal tests by laser cleaning. J Nano Res 46:225–233Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Al-Dosari MA, Darwish SS, Adam MA, Elmarzugi NA, Al-Mouallimi N, Ahmed SM (2017) Ca(OH)2 Nanoparticles based on acrylic copolymers for the consolidation and protection of ancient Egypt calcareous stone monuments. J Phys Conf Ser 829:012009Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Goins ES, Wheeler GS, Griffiths D, Price CA (1996) The effect of sandstone, limestone, marble and sodium chloride on the polymerisation of MTMOS solutions. In: Proceedings of 8th congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, Berlin, pp 1243–1254. http://iscs.icomos.org/pdf-files/Berlin1996/goinetal1.pdf
  104. 104.
    Tiano P, Cantisani E, Sutherland I, Paget JM (2006) Biomediated reinforcement of weathered calcareous stones. J Cult Herit 7:49–55Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Danehey C, Wheeler GS, Su SCH (1992) The influence of quartz and calcite on the polymerization of methyltrimethoxysilane. In: Proceedings of the 7th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, 15–18 June, Lisbon, pp 1043–1052Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hamdani-Devarennes S, Longuet C, Sonnier R, Ganachaud F, Lopez-Cuesta JM (2013) Calcium and aluminum-based fillers as flame-retardant additives in silicone matrices. III. investigations on fire reaction. Polym Degrad Stabil 98:2021–2032Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Weiss N, Slavid I, Wheeler G (2000) Development and assessment of a conversion treatment for calcareous stone. In: Fassina V (ed) Proceedings of 9th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 533–540Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    de los Santos DM, Montes A, Sánchez-Coronilla A, Navas J (2014) Sol–gel application for consolidating stone: an example of project-based learning in a physical chemistry lab. J Chem Edu 91:1481–1485Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Verganelaki A, Maravelaki N, Kilikoglou V, Karatasios I, Arampatzis I, Siamos K (2015) Characterization of a newly synthesized calcium oxalate-silica nanocomposite and evaluation of its consolidation effect on limestones. In: Toniolo L, Boriani M, Guidi G (eds) Built heritage: monitoring conservation management. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Van Hees R, Veiga R, Slížková Z (2017) Consolidation of renders and plasters. Mater Struct 50:65Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Shakhmenko G, Juhnevica I, Korjakins A (2013) Influence of sol-gel nanosilica on hardening processes and physically-mechanical properties of cement paste. Procedia Eng 57:1013–1021Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Remzova M, Sasek P, Frankeova D, Slizkova Z, Rathousky J (2016) Effect of modified ethylsilicate consolidants on the mechanical properties of sandstone. Constr Build Mater 112:674–681Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Snethlage R (2011) Stone conservation. In: Siegesmund S, Snethlage R (eds) Stone in architecture: properties, durability. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Fang XN, Chen WT, Feng GL, Liu LM, Yi XG (2015) Syntheses of series of organosilicon-acrylate composite emulsions for the consolidation and conservation of historical earthen sites. Asian J Chem 27:3523–3524Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Wan T, Lin JH (2014) A new inorganic-organic hybrid material as consolidation material for Jinsha archaeological site of Chengdu. J Central South Univ 21:487–492Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Carretti E, Chelazzi D, Rocchigiani G, Baglioni P, Poggi G, Dei L (2013) Interactions between nanostructured calcium hydroxide and acrylate copolymers: implications in cultural heritage conservation. Langmuir 29:9881–9890Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Zhang W, Zhang Y, Fang S, Luo X, Jin H, Xu Z, Xia W (2016) Preparation of acrylate copolymer modified by TiO2 nanoparticles with excellent photo-oxidative stability for application in ancient ivory conservation. J Appl Polym Sci 133:43291Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mohammadi F, Ershad-Langroudi A (2014) Structural characterization and corrosion performance of acrylic/silica nanocomposite coatings. Adv Mater Nov Coat 9:643–652Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Corcione CE, Manno R, Frigione M (2016) Sunlight curable boehmite/siloxane-modified methacrylic nano-composites: an innovative solution for the protection of carbonate stones. Prog Org Coat 97:222–232Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Tanaka T (2002) Aging of polymeric and composite insulating materials: aspects of interfacial performance in aging. IEEE Trans Dielectr Electr Insul 9:704–716Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Xu F, Li D (2017) Modification of HBA/D230 polymer for stone protection. J Polym Environ 25:1304–1312Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Amiri S, Rahimi A (2016) Hybrid nanocomposite coating by sol–gel method: a review. Iran Polym J 25:559–577Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Gharazi S, Ershad-Langroudi A, Rahimi A (2011) The influence of silica synthesis on the morphology of hydrophilic nanocomposite coating. Sci Iran 18:785–789Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Abdollahi H, Rahimi A (2017) Mechanical properties of sol–gel prepared nanocomposite coatings in the presence of titania and alumina-derived nanoparticles. Plas Rubb Comp 46:25–34Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Abdollahi H, Ershad-Langroudi A, Salimi A, Rahimi A (2014) Anticorrosive coatings prepared using epoxy–silica hybrid nanocomposite materials. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:10858–10869Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Jafari M, Rahimi A, Shokrolahi P, Ershad-Langroudi A (2014) Synthesis of antistatic hybrid nanocomposite coatings using surface modified indium tin oxide (ITO) nanoparticles. J Coat Technol Res 11:587–593Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Palma-Ramírez D, Domínguez-Crespo MA, Torres-Huerta AM, Escobar-Barrios VA, Dorantes-Rosales H, Willcock H (2018) Dispersion of upconverting nanostructures of CePO4 using rod and semi-spherical morphologies into transparent PMMA/PU IPNs by the sequential route. Polymer 1425:356–374Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Zare D, Rahimi A (2017) Effect of ceria and zirconia nanoparticles on mechanical behavior of nanocomposite hybrid coatings. Polym Sci Ser A 59:425–436Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    de Ferri L, Lottici PP, Lorenzi A, Montenero A, Salvioli-Mariani E (2011) Study of silica nanoparticles—polysiloxane hydrophobic treatments for stone-based monument protection. J Cult Herit 12:356–363Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Son S, Won J, Kim JJ, Jang YD, Kang YS, Kim SD (2009) Organic-inorganic hybrid compounds containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane for conservation of stone heritage. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 1:393–401Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Brinker CJ (1988) Hydrolysis and condensation of silicates: effects on structure. J Non-Cryst Solids 100:31–50Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Akkaf MH (2017) Improvement in the mechanical properties of polyester nanocomposite with nano-silica prepared by sol-gel method. J Sci Technol Compos 4:419–428Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Chruściel JJ, Leśniak E (2015) Modification of epoxy resins with functional silanes, polysiloxanes, silsesquioxanes, silica and silicates. Prog Polym Sci 41:67–121Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Muromachi T, Tsujino T, Kamitani K, Maeda K (2006) Application of functional coatings by sol-gel method. J Sol–Gel Sci Techn 40:267–272Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Vitale A, Bongiovanni R, Ameduri B (2015) Fluorinated oligomers and polymers in photopolymerization. Chem Rev 115:8835–8866Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Alessandrini G, Toniolo L, Colombo C (2000) Partially fluorinated acrylic copolymers as coating for calcareous stone materials. Stud Conserv 45:1–6Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Toniolo L, Della Volpe C, Brugnara M, Poli T (2002) Partially fluorinated acrylic copolymers as coatings for stone protection: characterization and surface properties. MRS Online Proc Library Arch.  https://doi.org/10.1557/PROC-712-II3.3 Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Zhang X, Wen W, Yu H, Qiu F, Chen Q, Yang D (2016) Preparation, characterization of nano-silica/fluoroacrylate material and the application in stone surface conservation. J Polym Res 23:75Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Ugur I (2014) Surface characterization of some porous natural stones modified with a waterborne fluorinated polysiloxane agent under physical weathering conditions. J Coat Technol Res 11:639–649Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Walker RA, Wilson K, Lee AF, Woodford J, Grassian VH, Baltrusaitis J, Rubasinghege G, Cibin G, Dent A (2012) Preservation of York Minster historic limestone by hydrophobic surface coatings. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00880 Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Ingrosso C, Corcione CE, Striani R, Comparelli R, Striccoli M, Agostiano A, Curri ML, Frigione M (2015) UV-curable nanocomposite based on methacrylic-siloxane resin and surface-modified TiO2 nanocrystals. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:15494–15505Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Corcione CE, Striani R, Frigione M (2015) Sunlight curable hybrid organic–inorganic methacrylic-based coatings: analysis of the cure mechanism and functional properties. Polym Adv Technol 26:167–175Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Alves C, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J (2018) Nanotechnology for the treatment of stony materials’ surface against biocoatings. In: Hosseini M, Karapanagiotis I (eds) Advanced materials for the conservation of stone. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Azadi N, Ershad-Langroudi A (2017) Synthesis and characterization of a hydrophobic coating on the inorganic material surfaces and compared with commercial products. MSc Thesis, Islamic Azad UniversityGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Xu F, Xiang N, Li D, Yu J, Wu D, Zhang Q (2014) Use of coupling agents for increasing passivants and cohesion ability of consolidant on limestone. Prog Org Coat 77:1613–1618Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Ershad-Langroudi A (2017) The use of nanoparticles for consolidation and strengthening the stone artworks materials along with the evaluation of three types of commercial polymer resins. Final report. Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute, TehranGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Ershad-Langroudi A, Fadaii H, Ahmadi K (2017) Silane/siloxane surface treatment for cohesion ability and strengthening agent of historical stone. Cons Sci J 1:23–31Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Column of Persepolis falls? The beginning of the cold season for the historical area of Pasargad gamers has always been tense. http://www.bartarinha.ir/fa/news/37798/. Accessed 1 Aug 2017
  149. 149.
    Cappelletti G, Fermo P, Camiloni M (2015) Smart hybrid coatings for natural stones conservation. Prog Org Coat 78:511–516Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Zare-Hossein-abadi D, Ershad-Langroudi A, Rahimi A, Afsar S (2010) Photo-generated activities of nanocrystalline TiO2 thin films. J Inorg Organomet Polym Mater 20:250–257Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Zare-Hossein-abadi D, Ershad-Langroudi A, Rahimi A (2009) Preparation of anatase nanoparticles thin film coatings by sol-gel method at low temperature and investigation of their photocatalytic activities. J Color Sci Technol 3:121–129Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Allen NS, Edge M, Verran J, Stratton J, Maltby J, Bygott C (2008) Photocatalytic titania based surfaces: environmental benefits. Polym Degrad Stabil 93:1632–1646Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Bergamonti L, Bondioli F, Alfieri I, Lorenzi A, Mattarozzi M, Predieri G, Lottici PP (2016) Photocatalytic self-cleaning TiO2 coatings on carbonatic stones. Appl Phys A 122:124Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Garlisi C, Scandura G, Alabi A, Aderemi O, Palmisano G (2015) Self-cleaning coatings activated by solar and visible radiation. J Adv Chem Eng 5:e103Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Hatami M, Djafarzadeh N, Hasanabadi H (2017) Application of poly(methyl methacrylate-co-γ-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane)/silica modified TiO2 nanocomposites for anti-pollutant properties. Adv Polym Technol 37:1837–1849Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Haldorai Y, Shim JJ (2014) Novel chitosan-TiO2 nanohybrid: preparation, characterization, antibacterial, and photocatalytic properties. Polym Compos 35:327–333Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Thirupathi B, Smirniotis PG (2011) Co-doping a metal (Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ce, and Zr) on Mn/TiO2 catalyst and its effect on the selective reduction of NO with NH3 at low temperatures. Appl Catal Part B Environ 110:195–206Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Veres Á, Ménesi J, Juhász Á, Berkesi O, Ábrahám N, Bohus G, Oszkó A, Pótári G, Buzás N, Janovák L, Dékány I (2014) Photocatalytic performance of silver-modified TiO2 embedded in poly(ethyl-acrylate-co-methyl metacrylate) matrix. Colloid Polym Sci 292:207–217Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Liu S, Yao K, Wang B, Ma MG (2017) Microwave-assisted hydrothermal synthesis of cellulose/ZnO composites and its thermal transformation to ZnO/carbon composites. Iran Polym J 26:681–691Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Chen X, Burda C (2008) The electronic origin of the visible light absorption properties of C-, N- and S-doped TiO2 nanomaterials. J Am Chem Soc 130:5018–5019Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Schneider J, Matsuoka M, Takeuchi M, Zhang J, Horiuchi Y, Anpo M, Bahnemann DW (2014) Understanding TiO2 photocatalysis: mechanisms and materials. Chem Rev 114:9919–9986Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Mungondori HH, Tichagwa L, Katwire DM, Aoyi O (2016) Preparation of photo-catalytic copolymer grafted asymmetric membranes (N–TiO2–PMAA–g–PVDF/PAN) and their application on the degradation of bentazon in water. Iran Polym J 25:135–144Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Liu H, Chen Y, Tian G, Ren Z, Tian C, Fu H (2015) Visible-light-induced self-cleaning property of Bi2Ti2O7–TiO2 composite nanowire arrays. Langmuir 31:5962–5969Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Bergamonti L, Predieri G, Paz Y, Fornasini L, Lottici PP, Bondioli F (2017) Enhanced self-cleaning properties of N-doped TiO2 coating for cultural heritage. Microchem J 133:1–12Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    La Russa MF, Rovella N, de Buergo MA, Belfiore CM, Pezzino A, Crisci GM, Ruffolo SA (2016) Nano-TiO2 coatings for cultural heritage protection: the role of the binder on hydrophobic and self-cleaning efficacy. Prog Org Coat 91:1–8Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Abdollahi H, Ershad-Langroudi A, Salimi A, Rahimi A, Pournamdari E (2013) Photocatalytic coating using Titania-Silica core/shell nanoparticles. Int J Bio-Inorg Hybd Nanomater 2:407–422Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Kango S, Kalia S, Celli A, Njuguna J, Habibi Y, Kumar R (2013) Surface modification of inorganic nanoparticles for development of organic–inorganic nanocomposites-a review. Prog Polym Sci 38:1232–1261Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Chen ZM, Pan SJ, Yin HJ, Zhang LL, Ou EC, Xiong YQ, Xu WJ (2011) Facile synthesis of super hydrophobic TiO2/polystyrene core-shell microspheres. Express Polym Lett 5:38–46Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Troiano F, Vicini S, Gioventù E, Lorenzi PF, Improta CM, Cappitelli F (2014) A methodology to select bacteria able to remove synthetic polymers. Polym Degrad Stabil 107:321–327Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Cocca M, D’arienzo L, D’orazio L, Gentile G, Martuscelli E (2004) Polyacrylates for conservation: chemico-physical properties and durability of different commercial products. Polym Test 23:333–342Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Akala EO (2010) Strategies for transmembrane passage of polymer-based nanostructures. In: Broz P (ed) Polymer-based nanostructures: medical applications. Royal Society of Chemistry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Pedna A, Rosi L, Frediani M, Frediani P (2015) High glass transition temperature polyester coatings for the protection of stones. J Appl Polym Sci 132:42323Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Scheerer S, Ortega-Morales O, Gaylarde C (2009) Microbial deterioration of stone monuments-an updated overview. Adv Appl Microbial 66:97–139Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Bhatnagar P, Khan AA, Jain SK, Rai MK (2016) Biodeterioration of archaeological monuments and approach for restoration. In: Khan A, Jain SK, Rai MK (eds) Geomicrobiology. CRC press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Wilson P(2005) Building with Scotia’s stone. http://docshare01.docshare.tipsfiles/21023/210239038.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2018
  176. 176.
    Misra V, Pandey SD (2005) Hazardous waste, impact on health and environment for development of better waste management strategies in future in India. Environ Int 31:417–431Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Staniszewska M, Boniecka H (2017) Managing dredged material in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. Environ Monit Assess 189:46Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D, Moritz RF, Niemelä J, Rebane M, Wascher D (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—a review. Agr Ecosyst Environ 124:60–71Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Urzí C, de Leo F (2007) Evaluation of the efficiency of water repellent and biocide compounds against microbial colonization of mortars. Int Biodeter Biodegr 60:25–34Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Colonna M, Gentilini C, Praticò F, Ubertini F (2015) Surface treatments for historical constructions using nanotechnology. Key Eng Mater 624:313–321Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Zhang Z, MacMullen J, Dhakal HN, Radulovic J, Herodotou C, Totomis M, Bennett N (2013) Biofouling resistance of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticulate silane/siloxane exterior facade treatments. Build Environ 59:47–55Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Moreau C, Vergès-Belmin V, Leroux L, Orial G, Fronteau G, Barbin V (2008) Water-repellent and biocide treatments: assessment of the potential combinations. J Cult Herit 9:394–400Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Favaro M, Chiurato M, Tomasin P, Ossola F, El Habra N, Brianese N, Svensson I, Beckers E, Pérez V, Sánchez MR, Bernardi A (2015) Calcium and magnesium alkoxides for conservation treatment of stone and wood in built heritage. In: Toniolo L, Boriani M, Guidi G (eds) Built heritage: monitoring conservation management. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Natali I, Tomasin P, Becherini F, Bernardi A, Ciantelli C, Favaro M, Favoni O, Pérez VJF, Olteanu ID, Sanchez MDR, Vivarelli A (2015) Innovative consolidating products for stone materials: field exposure tests as a valid approach for assessing durability. Herit Sci 3:6Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Wang J, Ersan YC, Boon N, De Belie N (2016) Application of microorganisms in concrete: a promising sustainable strategy to improve concrete durability. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:2993–3007Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Micallef R, Vella D, Sinagra E, Zammit G (2016) Biocalcifying bacillus subtilis cells effectively consolidate deteriorated globigerina limestone. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 43:941–952Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Richardson A, Coventry KA, Forster AM, Jamison C (2014) Surface consolidation of natural stone materials using microbial induced calcite precipitation. Struct Surv 32:265–278Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Corcione CE, Frigione M (2012) UV-cured polymer-boehmite nanocomposite as protective coating for wood elements. Prog Org Coat 74:781–787Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Corcione CE, Frigione M (2013) Surface characterization of novel hydrophobic UV-vurable siloxane-modified methacrylate/boehmite nanocomposites. Polym Compos 34:1546–1552Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Alfieri I, Lorenzi A, Ranzenigo L, Lazzarini L, Predieri G, Lottici PP (2017) Synthesis and characterization of photocatalytic hydrophobic hybrid TiO2-SiO2 coatings for building applications. Build Environ 111:72–79Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Corcione CE, Striani R, Frigione M (2013) UV-cured siloxane-modified methacrylic system containing hydroxyapatite as potential protective coating for carbonate stones. Prog Org Coat 76:1236–1242Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Chatzigrigoriou A, Manoudis PN, Karapanagiotis I (2013) Fabrication of water repellent coatings using waterborne resins for the protection of the cultural heritage. Macromol Symp 331:158–165Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Guo X, Ge S, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang T, Lin J, Zhao CX, Wang B, Zhu G, Guo Z (2018) Waterborne acrylic resin modified with glycidyl methacrylate (GMA): formula optimization and property analysis. Polymer 143:155–163Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Panda SS, Panda BP, Nayak SK, Mohanty S (2018) A review on waterborne thermosetting polyurethane coatings based on castor oil: synthesis, characterization, and application. Polym Plast Technol Eng 57:500–522Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Liu Z, Wu B, Jiang Y, Lei J, Zhou C, Zhang J, Wang J (2018) Solvent-free and self-catalysis synthesis and properties of waterborne polyurethane. Polymer 143:129–136Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Nosrati R, Olad A, Maryami F (2018) Visible-light induced anti-bacterial and self-cleaning waterborne polyacrylic coating modified with TiO2/polypyrrole nanocomposite; preparation and characterization. J Mol Struct 1163:174–184Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Yesudass SA, Mohanty S, Nayak SK (2018) Facile synthesis of bio-sourced polyurethane-fluorosilane modified TiO2 hybrid coatings for high-performance self cleaning application. J Polym Res 25:1–10Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Karapanagiotis I, Hosseini M (2018) Superhydrophobic coatings for the protection of natural stone. In: Advanced materials for the conservation of stone. Springer, BaselGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Aslanidou D, Karapanagiotis I, Lampakis D (2018) Waterborne superhydrophobic and superoleophobic coatings for the protection of marble and sandstone. Materials 11:585Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amir Ershad-Langroudi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hamid Fadaei
    • 2
  • Kamran Ahmadi
    • 2
  1. 1.Color and Surface Coating Group, Polymer Processing DepartmentIran Polymer and Petrochemical InstituteTehranIran
  2. 2.Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and TourismTehranIran

Personalised recommendations