Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

c) Production of the poultices Methodology: In both cases we used the same cellulose pulp mixed with demineralized water. In the case of handmade poultices, 38.4 grams of dry cellulose were mixed with 100 ml of water. Inthe case of GPM poultices the proportion was 52 gr of dry cellulose with 100 ml of demineralized water. Projection method (Fig 1.): In order to generate the "GPM macro" poultice, an industrial equipment was used ; it was a prototype of our own manufacture which needed a compressed air compressor of at least 7 atmospheres of pressure and a flow rate of 2 m 3 / min. The laboratory equipment used for the generation of “GPM micro ” poultices consisted in a CTS 6microabrasimeter. Cellulose was placed in an abrasive tank that has been modified by introducing a stirrer to prevent the cellulose from caking . “GPM micro” method allowed to generate a poultice at constant speed; 420 cm 2 per minute (5 mm thick); On the other hand, using “GPM macro” method, 3300 cm2 per minute were achieved (in Spain it has been used for the cleaning/desalination of entire buildings, see [6] [21 a, b, c]). The system generated a poultice with a very good adhesion and it even allowed to place the poultice in vaults (upside down) without detachments and with a minimum pressure (that of the compressed air jet). Handmade method allowed to produce between 120-150 cm 2 per minute depending on the skill ofthe operator and provided that the mixture of cellulose and water was previously prepared. d) Substrates, types and characteristics (Tables 1 and 2) The description of the behavior involved the use of stone supports that present known physical characteristics. In this sense, rocks described in previous works of the research team were used (Table 1). These rocks covered a wide range of possible porosities in stone substrates. Test tubes of pine wood were used as well, but given wood was not one of the main objectives; its group is unique (pine wood). Test tubes were cut two by two from the same block so that one individual of each pair supported a "GPM" poultice and the other individual a "handmade" poultice; in this way we guaranteed that the comparative analysis is strict with regard to the support. Forty test tubes of 10x10x5 cm were used (table 2), except for the color measurements, which used 5x5x5 test tubes. The sides of all test tubes were waterproofed with plastic film in order to concentrate the absorption / evaporation processes on the face covered by the poultice. The upper face of the test tubes was covered with a “handmade” poultice on 4 specimens and with a “GPM” poultice on the other 4. V. R esults a) Characterization of the materials used as a substrate In rocky substrates, the water properties of each test tube ([22] RILEM) (water absorption and suction) were measured to determine the apparent density and open porosity (Table 2). These same parameters were established for the poultices using a similar slightly modified methodology (Table 3). The same flow of water was always used in the “GPM” method. Therefore, the absolute values of water consumption could not be considered characteristic of the method. Theflow allowed regulation and could be greater or lower than the values (water flow) used in these experiments. In addition, the excess of water that did not penetrate the substrate was not taken into consideration. Consequently, the measured water values depended on the porosity of the substrate and the time of application. In "handmade" poultices ( ), whose application was much slower, the penetration -in the same substrate- was always greater. The efficiency and the water and cellulose consumption of the placement / projection systems were measured. Other measures regarding the behavior of the poultice consisted in the absorption of water (using an infiltrometer), water desorption, absorption / penetration of two different consolidants (epoxy resin and Syton®) and color change between the two cleaning phases(chance of cleaning 100% of the fibers) after the removal of the poultice with a standard cleaning. The consolidant was applied by pouring 10 g of the product (consolidant + solvent) onto the upper surface of the poultice; the liquid was not spilled because the lateral waterproofing was made to stand out in order to avoid this possibility. The test pieces were weighed after two months of hardening and drying and the amount of consolidant infiltrated (without solvent) was determined in milligrams per cm 2 . In order to evaluate the difficulty of cleaning, the color was measured two times, before starting the process and after a standard cleaning. As a “standard cleaning”, the test pieces were washed with slightly soapy water (1 g of detergent per liter), wiping them with 10 soft brush strokes. Finally they were rinsed with distilled water using the same amount of water. b) Microscopic characterization of the poultices (Fig 2 and 3) After the application of the two poultices (one “handmade” and another "GPM macro") over the sandstone from Uncastillo, they were dried completely before the epoxy resin was applied. Macroscopically (fig 2A), it could be seen that the "handmade" had lost volume during drying, which resulted in loss of thickness and detachment of the © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 5 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Poultices Generated Mechanically with Compressed Air: “Gunpoint Mix System” Characterization and Properties. Comparison with “Handmade” Poultices