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

substrate. The "GPM" maintained volume and adhesion. At this scale it is also possible to observe that the epoxy resin had penetrated about 1.5 mm under the "handmade" poultice and 3 mm under the "GPM" poultice. Using optical microscopy it was visible (fig 2B) In the area immediately above the substrate, the “GPM” already had the homogeneous characteristics and micropores of the same order as the size of the fibers; conversely, “handmade” poultice presented a section of 1.5 mm with high macroporosity (holes of 10 to 30 times the size of the fibers). 2) In the upper sections away from contact with the substrate, the "GPM", as in the initial section, had a fiber orientation of 45 to 90º with respect to the ones in contact with the substrate and it presented an homogeneous porosity. On the other hand, the “handmade” did still contain macropores although in a smaller proportion than in the initial section, and as we moved away from the substrate we could see a greater orientation of the fibers, with angles similar to those of the "GPM" ones. Electronic microscopy (fig 3) has allowed to elaborate a detailed scheme (fig 3 results) of the porosities and of the penetration of the epoxy resin, the results were: a. The “handmade” had more macropores with a larger size (10.7% of 200-300 microns) and with an irregular distribution. In some cases the macropores drew the limits of the cellulose pellets that were formed in the kneading of the plaster. In the underlying substrate the penetration of epoxy resin was 16.7%. b. The “GPM” had less number of macropores that were smaller, and presented a more regular distribution (3.1% of 30-50 microns). In the underlying substrate, the penetration of epoxy resin was 25%. Regarding the differences in the amount of resin penetrated, it could not be ruled out that the difference had occurred because the substrate under the "GPM" was 8% more porous than the one under the “handmade”, as it was deduced from the calculations made with digital image processing. The quantitative data of the porosity of each type of poultice are presented in fig 4 andseem very reliable since they are very close to those obtained by a different method (water absorption, table 3). The value in the “GPM” was almost the same (87,5 versus 86,11), proof of thegreater homogeneity of this type of poultice, and in the “handmade”, the difference was somewhat higher (85.7 versus 79.17), which indicates a greater variability in this case. Fig. 2A: Macroscopic appearance of the two types of poultices. Fig. 2 B: Texture of the poultices in the optical microscope © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 6 ( ) 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 1) 3)