Study of the cleaning effectiveness of limestone and lime-based mortar substrates protected with anti-graffiti products

Abstract Graffiti are a current happening that affects many monuments and buildings in urban areas. Additionally, graffiti removal involves high costs. To protect the surface of materials, anti- graffiti products have been developed to prevent the penetration of graffiti paint into the pore system of the substrates, facilitating its subsequent cleaning. This paper presents a comparative study of four commercial anti- graffiti products (two sacrificial and two permanent) applied on three types of substrates (limestone and lime-based mortar with or without a finishing paint layer), in order to evaluate the effectiveness of anti- graffiti protected surfaces cleaning with various graffiti paints (two alkyl resin spray paints and one felt-tip marker). To evaluate the facility of graffiti removal, various cleaning techniques were used, such as high-pressure water washing and commercial chemical graffiti removers. Then, the cleaning effectiveness of substrates protected with anti- graffiti products was investigated by visual inspection (with a scale of evaluation), colorimetric tests and by FTIR analysis. The results showed that, indeed, the anti- graffiti products facilitate cleaning the graffiti , especially those on the more porous substrate (mortar). However, the cleaning effectiveness protected with anti- graffiti products greatly depends on the type of graffiti paint applied (its colour and application by spray or marker). In general, grey paint was easier to remove than blue paints. However, it was found that the grey paint left yellowish stains.

[1]  M. J. Whitford,et al.  Getting Rid of Graffiti : A practical guide to graffiti removal and anti-graffiti protection , 2017 .

[2]  J. S. Pozo-Antonio,et al.  Effectiveness and harmfulness evaluation of graffiti cleaning by mechanical, chemical and laser procedures on granite , 2016 .

[3]  Paula María Carmona Quiroga,et al.  Estudio del comportamiento de dos tratamientos antigraffiti como protectores de materiales de construcción : interacción antigraffiti-substrato, propiedades y durabilidad , 2011 .

[4]  M. T. Blanco-Varela,et al.  Protección de piedras naturales con un antigraffiti fluorado , 2008 .

[5]  V. Kartik Ganesh,et al.  NANOTECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING , 2012 .

[6]  M. Mohseni,et al.  Surface analysis and anti-graffiti behavior of a weathered polyurethane-based coating embedded with hydrophobic nano silica , 2012 .

[7]  Francesca Cappitelli,et al.  Evaluation of Cleaning Methods for Graffiti Removal , 2016 .

[8]  Maurizio Licchelli,et al.  Crosslinked fluorinated polyurethanes for the protection of stone surfaces from graffiti , 2011 .

[9]  John Ashurst,et al.  Conservation of building and decorative stone , 1991 .

[10]  Lucia Toniolo,et al.  Effects of wax-based anti-graffiti on copper patina composition and dissolution during four years of outdoor urban exposure , 2010 .

[11]  O. García,et al.  Estudio comparativo de la variación de las propiedades hídricas y el aspecto de la piedra natural y el ladrillo tras la aplicación de 4 tipos de anti-grafiti , 2010 .

[12]  Francesca Cappitelli,et al.  Current methods of graffiti removal: A review , 2014 .

[13]  Katarina Malaga,et al.  Definition of the procedure to determine the suitability and durability of an anti-graffiti product for application on cultural heritage porous materials , 2011 .

[14]  Sagrario Martínez-Ramírez,et al.  Effect of concentration, particle size and the presence of protective coatings in DRIFT spectra of building materials , 2009 .

[15]  Mariateresa Lettieri,et al.  Surface characterization and effectiveness evaluation of anti-graffiti coatings on highly porous stone materials , 2014 .