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

physical aspects were consistent with the fact that in all cases of stone substrates, cleaning was easier in the “GPM” ones; this result is consistent with the greatest incoherence of the cellulose particles in the "GPM" poultices. Wood test tubes worked the opposite (although the difference was small), which is quite peculiar. This may be due to the fact that this substrate is composed of cellulose and the projection system favors a certain tangle between the cellulose particles of the substrate and the poultice. VII. C onclusions Gun Point Mix poultice (GPM), produced automatically with compressed air, has an apparent density of 0.2 g/cm 3 , an application speed between 420 and 3300 cm 2 /s (depending on the projection equipment) and a great homogeneity and adhesiveness (it allows to generate poultices in upside-down vaults), without this last property being translated into greater soiling. The porosity is homogeneous, of the order of 86%, mostly (82.9%) with a size of the same order as the fiber used (10x 200 μ m) and to a lesser extent (3.1%) with larger pores (30-50 μ m). Its hydraulic conductivity is 1 l/m 2 s -2 . The system allows to regulate the amount of water at operator's will and needs a gun and compressed air equipment specially designed for the projection. The “handmade” poultice has an apparent density of 0,3 g/cm 3 , an application speed between 120 and 150 cm 2 /s (depending on the operator skills), a low homogeneity and adhesiveness and a soiling capacity similar to that of the “GPM” poultice. The porosity, of the order of 86%, is bimodal; mostly (75%) with a size of the same order as the fiber used (10x 200 μ m) and another (10.7%) of larger size (300-500 μ m) derived from the handmade kneading process. Its hydraulic conductivity is 0.6 l/m 2 s -2 . The system allows to regulate the amount of water at operator's will , whose skills can partially modify the characteristics that have been described. During drying, in the first phase (dragging by suction of liquid water to the surface) “handmade” poultices dry faster, and in the second phase (water vapor diffusion) the “GPM” ones are more efficient. The “handmade” poultice allows the products to more efficiently infiltrate in substrates with an average pore size greater than 15 μ m, while the “GPM” is more efficient in rocks with smaller poresizes. When drying, the “GPM” is less coherent and more prone to being sprayed than the manual. The ease of cleaning is good in all cases, but in stone substrates the “GPM” is significantly better. In the case of wood, the opposite happens, “handmade” poultice is slightly better. © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 15 ( ) 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 A cknowledgments The evaluation of the poultices has not been possible without the creation of the projection machines. A first thank you to those who made possible the creation of the prototypes and more specifically to Manuel Blanco and Manel Iglesias. B ibliography 1. ISAKSSON, C.(2017) Solvent gel versus solvent poultice: evaluating two techniques for the removal of pressure- sensitive tape stains from paper in Gels. in the Conservation of Art Lora Angelova, Bronwyn Ormsby, Joyce H. Townsend, Richard Wolbers (eds) pp 126-129 Archetype Publications London. 2. MATTEINI, M., MOLES, A. (2007) La chimica nel restauro. I materiali dell'arte pittorica. Nardini Editore pp.170. (enesta página se habla de impacco). 3. STAHR, M.(2016) Sanierung vonNatursteinen 2016. Springer 107 pp 4. IPCE (2013) Proyecto COREMANS "Criterios de intervención en materiales pétreos/Coremans Project "Criteria forworking in stone materials". 89pp. Secretaría general técnica. MEC Madrid 2013. 5. MADRONA ORTEGA, Javier. (2015) Vademécum del conservador. 433pp Technos Madrid 2015. 6. https://youtu.be/4uXC_OoP7EM [7] NAUD C., MARTELLI-CASTALDI M. (1990) Utilisatión des absorbants por le nettoyage des fresques 9th Trienial Meeting. Comite de l' ICCROM por la conservation. Dresden 26-31 August 1990 7. REDMAN CH (1999) Cellulose sorbents: an evaluation of their working properties for use in wall painting conservation The Conservator nº 23 pp68-76 8. GISBERT J., FRANCO B., MATEOS I., NAVARRO P Congreso GEiic. Valencia November 2002. Deterioration of stonematerials by salts: Kinetics of the process, cartography and extraction methods Abstrac Book pp 287-294. 9. Vergès-Belmin V. and Siedel H.(2005) Desalination of Masonries and Monumental Sculptures by Poulticing: A Review Restoration of Buildings and Monuments Bauinstandsetzen und Baudenkmalpflege Vol. 11, No 6, 391–408 (2005) 10. SAWDY A., HERITAGE A. and PEL L.(2008)A review of salt transport in porous media, assessment methods and salt reduction treatements Salt weathering on Buildings and Stone Sculptures. 22- 24 October Copenhagen. Denmark Abstrac Book pp 1-28 11. BOURGUIGNON, E. BERTRAND, F. BOURGES, A. COUSSOT, P. SHAHIDZADEH-BONN, N. (2008) Poultice characterization and MRI study of desalation of model stones. Salt Weathering on