Advertisement

Microbial Biocleaning Technologies for Cultural Heritage: Current Status and Future Challenges

  • Biswajit Batabyal
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Biocleaning technologies applied to cultural heritage sites have evolved to function in a wide range of environments, from laboratory conditions to cultural heritage monuments, stoneworks, frescoes and easel paintings. The accurate study of the microbial and fungal communities dwelling on artworks, and involved in their deterioration, is essential for the adoption of optimal prevention and conservation strategies. Biotechnologies have been able to resolve a range of problems on various artistic materials and to combat diverse artistic pathologies by using different cultures of viable bacteria. Microbial agents are among the major causes of deterioration of cultural heritage, strongly affecting our global cultural legacy, the stone, glass, wood and other sources used to fabricate millions of artworks and monuments around the world. Microbial action has been harnessed to clean the surfaces of stone sculptures and buildings and frescoes.

Keywords

Microbial agents Biocleaning Cultural heritage 

References

  1. Alfano G, Lustrato G, Belli C (2011) The bioremoval of nitrate and sulfate alterations on artistic stonework: the case-study of Matera cathedral after six years from the treatment. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 65:1004–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avvisati C, McGivern H (2015) Pompeian Frescoes cured with antibiotics. The Art NewspaperGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch-Roig P, Regidor-Ros JL, Montes-Estelles R (2013) Biocleaning of nitrate alterations on wall paintings by Pseudomonas stutzeri. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 84:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosch-Roig P, Lustrato G, Zanardini E, Ranalli G (2015) Biocleaning of cultural heritage stone surfaces and frescoes: which delivery system can be the most appropriate? Ann Microbiol 65:1227–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazil R (2015) Conservative innovations, Chemistry world. Royal Society of ChemistryGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacci, ed Leonardo, La Fenice (eds) (2003) A building site. Marsilio, Venezia, p 118Google Scholar
  7. Cappitelli F, Toniolo L, Sansonetti A, Gulotta D, Ranalli G, Zanardini E, Sorlini C (2007) Advantages of using microbial technology over traditional chemical technology in removal of black crusts from stone surfaces of historical monuments. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:5671–5675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappitelli F, Abbruscato P, Foladori P, Zanardini E, Ranalli G, Principi P, Villa F, Polo A, Sorlini C (2009) Detection and elimination of cyanobacteria from frescoes: the case of the St. Brizio Chapel (Orvieto Cathedral, Italy). Microb Ecol 57:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cappitelli F, Salvadori O, Albanese D, Villa F, Sorlini C (2012) Cyanobacteria cause black staining of the National Museum of the American Indian building, Washington, DC, USA. Biofouling 28:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciferri O (1999) Microbial degradation of paintings. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:879–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardinali PR (2015) Chemistry and Fresco painting. F I UGoogle Scholar
  12. Garg KL, Kamal J, Mishra AK (1995) Role of fungi in the deterioration of wall paintings. Sci Total Environ 167:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gioventù E, Lorenzi PF, Villa F (2011) Comparing the bioremoval of black crusts on colored artistic lithotypes of the Cathedral of Florence with chemical and laser treatment. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 65:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lobell JA (2015) Saving the villa of the mysteries. Archaeology Magazine. Archaeology Institute of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  15. Merello P, Garcia-Diego F, Zarzo M (2012) Microclimate monitoring of Aridane’s house (Pompeii, Italy) for preventive conservation of Fresco painting. Chem Cent J 6:145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mukhopadhyay R (2005) Bacteria rescue fresco. Anal Chem 77:457A–458AGoogle Scholar
  17. Nocentini S (2015) ‘Strappo’ Detachment. Museo Benozzo GozzoliGoogle Scholar
  18. Pedrazzani R, Alessandri I, Bontempi E (2006) Study of sulphatation of Candoglia marble by means of micro X-ray diffraction experiments. Appl Phys A Mater 83:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Polo A, Cappitelli F, Brusetti L, Principi P, Villa F, Giacomucci L, Ranalli G, Sorlini C (2010) Feasibility of removing surface deposits on stone using biological and chemical remediation methods. Microb Ecol 60:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranalli G, Alfano G, Belli C, Lustrato G, Colombini MP, Bonaduce I, Zanardini E, Abbruscato P, Cappitelli F, Sorlini C (2005) Biotechnology applied to cultural heritage: biorestoration of frescoes using viable bacterial cells and enzymes. J Appl Microbiol 98:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanmartín P, Cappitelli F, Mitchell R (2014) Current methods of graffiti removal: a review. Constr Build Mater 71:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Troiano F, Vicini S, Gioventù E (2014) A methodology to select bacteria able to remove synthetic polymers. Polym Degrad Stab 107:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vergès-Belmin V (1996) Towards a definition of common evaluation criteria for the cleaning of porous building materials: a review. Sci Technol Cult Herit 5:69–83Google Scholar
  24. Webster A, May E (2006) Bioremediation of weathered-building stone surfaces. Trends Biotechnol 24:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Biswajit Batabyal
    • 1
  1. 1.Serum Analysis Centre Pvt. Ltd.KolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations