Differences in protection and consolidation effect of two types of biodeposition treatments
Authors
De Muynck, Willem
De Clercq, Hilde
Fontaine, Laurent
Boon, Nico
De Belie, Nele
Discipline
Chemical sciences
Subject
limestone
surface treatment
consolidant
biomineralization
Audience
Scientific
Date
2012-10Metadata
Show full item recordDescription
Evidence of microbial involvement in mineral precipitation has led to the exploration of this process in the conservation sector. One of the first patented applications concerned the use of microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) for the protection of ornamental stone, a process known as biodeposition. The promising results of the patented Calcite Bioconcept (CB) treatment have stimulated different research groups to develop similar approaches. While many authors commented on its limitations, to date, the CB treatment remains the only biodeposition technique that is commercially available. So far, however, its consolidation effect has never been reported, neither has it been compared to other biodeposition treatments. The aim of this study was to bridge this gap and to justify comments on the CB treatment stated by other research groups. 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, Columbia University, New York, 2012.
Citation
Willem De Muynck, Hilde De Clercq, Laurent Fontaine, Nico Boon, Nele De Belie, "Differences in protection and consolidation effect of two types of biodeposition treatments", in : Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, 12th International congress, Papers (New York, 2012): 20-28
Identifiers
publisherlink: https://www.hpef.us/new-page-3
Type
Lecture
Peer-Review
No
Language
eng