Impact of Herbicide Treatments on the Construction Materials in the Roman Wall of Lugo, Spain (UNESCO World Heritage Site)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study
2.2. Characterization of the Construction Materials
2.3. Experimental Field and Laboratory Trials with Herbicide Treatments
2.3.1. Herbicidal Application and Sampling
2.3.2. Trials Performed in 1998 and 1999
2.3.3. Trials Performed in 2016
2.3.4. Trials Performed in 2018
2.3.5. Analysis of Interactions between the Herbicidal Treatments and the Substrate
3. Results
3.1. Characterization of Construction Materials
3.2. Impact of Herbicide Treatment on the Construction Materials
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Faraci, G. Ensuring the Conservative Process: The Roman Walls of Lugo Maintenance Plan. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2016, 18, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, B.; Sanmartín, P.; Pereira-Pardo, L.; Silva, B. Recovery of the traditional colours of painted woodwork in the Historical Centre of Lugo (NW Spain). J. Cult. Herit. 2011, 12, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres García, L. Flora vascular de la muralla de Lugo: Control del crecimiento y germinación de la dominante Parietaria judaica L. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Motti, R.; Bonanomi, G.; Stinca, A. Deteriogenic Flora of the Phlegraean Fields Archaeological Park: Ecological Analysis and Management Guidelines. Nord. J. Bot. 2020, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Favero-Longo, S.E.; Viles, H.A. A review of the nature, role and control of lithobionts on stone cultural heritage: Weighing-up and managing biodeterioration and bioprotection. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaylarde, C. Influence of Environment on Microbial Colonization of Historic Stone Buildings with Emphasis on Cyanobacteria. Heritage 2020, 3, 1469–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motti, R.; Bonanomi, G. Vascular plant colonisation of four castles in southern Italy: Effects of substrate bioreceptivity, local environment factors and current management. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 133, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanmartín, P.; Miller, A.Z.; Prieto, B.; Viles, H.A. Revisiting and reanalysing the concept of bioreceptivity 25 years on. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 145314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, R.A. Wall ecology: A frontier for urban biodiversity and ecological engineering. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, G.G. Weed damage to materials and structures. Int. Biodeterior. Bullettin 1972, 8, 101–103. [Google Scholar]
- Motti, R.; Bonanomi, G.; Stinca, A. Biodeteriogens at a southern Italian heritage site: Analysis and management of vascular flora on the walls of Villa Rufolo. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2021, 162, 105252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caneva, G.; Ceschin, S.; De Marco, G. Mapping the risk of damage from tree roots for the conservation of archaeological sites: The case of the Domus Aurea, Rome. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2006, 7, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caneva, G.; Galotta, G.; Cancellieri, L.; Savo, V. Tree roots and damages in the Jewish catacombs of Villa Torlonia (Roma). J. Cult. Herit. 2009, 10, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanellou, E.; Economou, G.; Papafotiou, M.; Ntoulas, N.; Lyra, D.; Kartsonas, E.; Knezevic, S. Flame weeding at archaeological sites of the Mediterranean region. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotta, G.; Savo, V.; Cicinelli, E.; Carboni, M.; Caneva, G. Colonization and damages of Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle on archaeological structures: Evidence from the Aurelian Walls in Rome (Italy). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2020, 153, 105054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouga, T.; Almeida, M. Neutralisation of herbicides: Effects on wall vegetation. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1997, 40, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caneva, G.; Nugari, M.P.; Salvadori, O. Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation; The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Introduction to Weeds and Herbicides. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/introduction-to-weeds-and-herbicides (accessed on 29 May 2021).
- Caneva, G.; De Marco, G. Il Controllo Della Vegetazione Nelle Zone Archeologiche e Monumentali, Atti del Convegno ‘Manutenzione e Conservazione del Costruito, fra Tradizione e Innovazione’; Libreria Progetto: Bressanone, Italy, 1986; pp. 553–570. [Google Scholar]
- Ceschin, S.; Bartoli, F.; Salerno, G.; Zuccarello, V.; Caneva, G. Natural habitats of typical plants growing on ruins of Roman archaeological sites (Rome, Italy). Plant Biosyst. 2016, 150, 866–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honeyborne, D.B. Weathering and decay of masonry. In Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone; Ashurst, J., Dimes, F.G., Eds.; Butteworth: Guildford, UK, 1990; Volume 1, pp. 153–184. [Google Scholar]
- Dewey, C.C. An Investigation into the Effects of an Herbicide on Historic Masonry Materials. Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Altieri, A.; Coladonato, M.; Lonati, G.; Malagodi, M.; Nugari, M.P.; Salvadori, O. Effects of biocidal treatments on some Italian lithotypes samples. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Conservation of Monument in the Mediterraneum, Rhodes, Greece, 6–11 May 1997; Moropoulou, A., Zezza, F., Kollias, E., Papachristodoulou, Eds.; Technical Chamber of Greece: Athens, Greece, 1997; Volume 3, pp. 31–40. [Google Scholar]
- Tretiach, M.; Crisafulli, P.; Imai, N.; Kashiwadani, H.; Moon, K.; Wada, H.; Salvadori, O. Efficacy of a biocide tested on selected lichens and its effects on their substrata. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2007, 59, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, E.F. The Effects of Herbicides on Masonry; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, L. The Effects of Herbicides on Masonry: Products, Choices and Testing. Master’s Thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Tiano, P.; Caneva, G. Procedures for the elimination of vegetal biodeteriogens from stone monuments. In Proceedings of the ICOM 8th Triennial Meeting, Sydney, Australia, 6–11 September 1987; pp. 1201–1205. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, A.K.; Jain, K.K.; Garg, K.L. Role of higher plants in the deterioration of historic buildings. Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 167, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, B.; Sanmartín, P.; Silva, B.; Martinez-Verdú, F. Measuring the color of granite rocks. A proposed procedure. Color Res. Appl. 2010, 35, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CIE S014-4/E; Colorimetry Part 4: CIE 1976 L*a*b* Colour Space; Commission Internationale de L’eclairage, CIE Central: Bureau, Vienna, 2007.
- UNE-EN 15886; Conservation of Cultural Property—Test Methods—Colour Measurement of Surfaces; Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
- Berns, R.S. Billmeyer and Saltzman’s Principles of Color Technology, 3rd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Völz, H.G. Industrial Color Testing; Wiley–VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Sanmartín, P.; Chorro, E.; Vázquez-Nion, D.; Martínez-Verdú, F.M.; Prieto, B. Conversion of a digital camera into a non-contact colorimeter for use in stone cultural heritage: The application case to Spanish granites. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 2014, 56, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capdevila, R. Le Métamorphisme Régional Progressif et les Granites Dans le Segment Hercynien de Galice Nord Orientale (NW de l’Espagne). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Fidanza, M.R.; Caneva, G. Natural biocides for the conservation of stone cultural heritage: A review. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 38, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raveau, R.; Fontaine, J.; Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A. Essential Oils as Potential Alternative Biocontrol Products against Plant Pathogens and Weeds: A Review. Foods 2020, 9, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Davoren, M.J.; Schiestl, R.H. Glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer risk: A post-IARC decision review of potential mechanisms, policy and avenues of research. Carcinogenesis 2018, 39, 1207–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prieto, B.; Rivas, T.; Silva, B. The effect of selected biocides on granites colonized by lichens. In Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 1st ed.; Bousher, A., Chandra, M., Edyvean, I.R., Eds.; Inst. Chemistry: Rugby, UK, 1995; Volume 9, pp. 204–209. [Google Scholar]
- Pinna, D. Coping with Biological Growth on Stone Heritage Objects: Methods, Products, Applications, and Perspectives; Apple Academic Press: Waretown, NJ, USA; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Trial Date | Treatment | Preparation | Application in the Field | Application in the Laboratory |
---|---|---|---|---|
Summer 1998 and summer 1999 | Infrared treatment (I) (1) Burn treatment (B) (1) | Not applicable | At 2.5–3.5 bar pressure Application time: 10 min (I) and 1–2 min (B) | Not applicable |
Glyphosate (G) Sulphosate (S) Glufosinate–ammonium (G-a) | For each chemical, an aqueous solution at 2.5% v/v plus the wetting agent nonylphenyl polyethylene glycol at 0.15% v/v | 20 mL/m2 (G and S) and 30 mL/m2 (G-a) with a low volume hand-held sprayer | 1-h immersion (2) | |
Spring 2016 | Oxyfluorfen | Aqueous solution at 0.5% v/v, 1.25% v/v, 100% v/v | 20 mL/m2 of solution at 1.25% v/v with an ultra-low volume sprayer (3) | Solutions at 0.5% v/v, 1.25% v/v (3) and 100% v/v applied by brush |
Winter 2018 | Origanum vulgare L. Thymus zygis Loefl. ex L. Thymus vulgaris L. | Aqueous solution at 2% v/v plus the herbicide adjuvant Oil Oro at 2% v/v | 250 mL/m2 with an ultra-low volume sprayer (3) | By brush (3) |
Compound (1) | Origanum vulgare L. | Thymus zygis Loefl. ex L. | Thymus vulgaris L. |
---|---|---|---|
α-pinene | 0.91 (2) | 1.26 (2) | - |
α-thuyene | 1.05 | 0.73 | - |
β-myrcene | 1.50 | 1.62 | 3.50 (3) |
α-terpinene | 1.12 | 1,45 | 8.14 |
p-cymene | 6.34 | 19.23 | 2.68 |
limonene | - | - | 3.01 |
1–8-cineole | - | - | 1.30 |
γ-terpinene | 4.66 | 8.06 | - |
linalool | 1.30 | 4,71 | 81.37 |
camphor | - | 0.79 | - |
borneol | - | 1.30 | - |
4-terpineol | 0.78 | 1.04 | - |
thymol | 3.80 | 49.39 | - |
carvacrol | 70.24 | 2.76 | - |
β-caryophyllene | 2.23 | 1.48 | - |
Mineral | Degree of Weathering of Schist | ||
---|---|---|---|
Weak | Moderate | Strong | |
Quartz | 31.6 ± 4.1 | 37.0 ± 2.8 | 30.3 ± 5.0 |
Biotite | 19.7 ± 2.8 | 26.1 ± 2.4 | 37.9 ± 3.6 |
Muscovite | 28.9 ± 2.2 | 17.4 ± 1.8 | 18.2 ± 1.5 |
Chlorite | 14.5 ± 1.1 | 13.0 ±1.0 | 10.6 ± 0.9 |
Accessory minerals | 5.3 ± 0.3 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.7 |
Sample (1) | M (2) | Aggregate (3) | Binder (3) | Aggregate/Binder Ratio | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
>4 mm | 4–2 mm | 2–1 mm | 1–0.5 mm | 0.5–0.25 mm | 0.25–0.10 mm | ||||
1O | 1.40 | 0.00 | 15.50 | 31.60 | 26.90 | 15.58 | 10.42 | 11.47 | 7.72 |
2O | 0.70 | 8.39 | 23.35 | 37.66 | 18.94 | 6.39 | 5.27 | 8.75 | 10.42 |
3O | 1.68 | 5.06 | 16.06 | 32.68 | 31.74 | 9.35 | 5.12 | 8.34 | 10.99 |
4O | 1.63 | 3.47 | 20.85 | 34.26 | 30.13 | 7.36 | 3.93 | 6.36 | 14.72 |
5O | 1.66 | 7.25 | 19.72 | 31.94 | 28.21 | 7.88 | 4.99 | 8.18 | 11.22 |
6I | 1.90 | 0.88 | 14.93 | 26.95 | 25.91 | 18.52 | 12.81 | 21.24 | 3.70 |
7I | 0.96 | 7.24 | 36.14 | 23.47 | 16.11 | 9.49 | 7.55 | 10.13 | 8.87 |
8I | 1.05 | 8.10 | 25.44 | 24.14 | 19.96 | 12.71 | 9.66 | 11.73 | 7.52 |
9I | 1.65 | 1.30 | 21.82 | 26.87 | 22.78 | 17.11 | 10.11 | 14.65 | 5.82 |
10I | 1.37 | 0.00 | 17.17 | 28.47 | 23.51 | 17.87 | 12.98 | 16.45 | 5.08 |
I | B | G | S | G-a | O | O. v. | T. z. | T. v. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cl− | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
NO3− | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
SO4−2 | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
HCO3− | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | n.c | − | − | − |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | n.c | − | − | − | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
PO4−3 | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | - | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | - | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | - | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | |
NH4+ | Schist | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | |
Mortar | n.c. | n.c. | − | − | − | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. | |
Minerals | Schist | +(d.k.;d.v.) | +(d.k.;d.v.) | +(d.v.) | − | − | − | − | − | − |
Granite | n.c. | n.c. | - | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
Mortar | − | − | - | − | − | − | n.c. | n.c. | n.c. |
G | S | G-a | O (0.5%) | O (1.25%) | O (100%) | O. v. | T. z. | T. v. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ΔL* | Schist | −1.13 ± 0.58 | −4.03 ± 0.81 | −2.11 ± 0.35 | −0.60 ± 0.87 | +0.17 ± 1.00 | −17.20 ± 5.28 | −0.96 ± 0.88 | −0.67 ± 0.34 | −0.70 ± 0.06 |
Granite | −1.52 ± 0.34 | −3.55 ± 0.93 | −3.68 ± 0.74 | n.c. | −2.86 ± 0.19 | n.c. | +1.16 ± 0.58 | +4.75 ± 1.13 | +1.50 ± 0.49 | |
Δa* | Schist | +4.26 ± 0.63 | +4.53 ± 0.82 | +4.02 ± 0.82 | −0.02 ± 0.13 | +0.10 ± 0.17 | +7.68 ± 2.42 | +0.02 ± 0.08 | −0.02 ± 0.07 | +0.00 ± 0.12 |
Granite | −0.94 ± 0.29 | −0.91 ± 0.45 | −0.71 ± 0.25 | n.c. | −0.32 ± 0.87 | n.c. | −0.63 ± 0.84 | −1.21 ± 0.43 | −0.43 ± 0.24 | |
Δb* | Schist | −5.54 ± 0.91 | −4.90 ± 0.93 | −4.34 ± 0.86 | −0.10 ± 0.61 | +0.52 ± 0.88 | +12.09 ± 5.57 | +0.12 ± 0.04 | −0.26 ± 0.18 | −0.48 ± 0.65 |
Granite | −3.22 ± 0.67 | −1.40 ± 0.33 | −1.80 ± 0.51 | n.c. | −0.67 ± 1.70 | n.c. | +0.97 ± 0.23 | −3.56 ± 0.91 | −1.24 ± 0.76 | |
ΔE*ab | Schist | 7.01 ± 0.45 | 7.76 ± 0.79 | 6.24 ± 0.81 | 0.61 ± 0.48 | 0.56 ± 0.65 | 22.53 ± 7.48 | 0.97 ± 0.87 | 0.72 ± 0.38 | 0.85 ± 0.28 |
Granite | 3.64 ± 0.51 | 3.87 ± 0.60 | 4.08 ± 0.35 | n.c. | 3.14 ± 0.32 | n.c. | 1.70 ± 0.84 | 6.06 ± 1.51 | 1.92 ± 0.75 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Prieto, B.; Sanmartín, P.; Cancelo-González, J.; Torres, L.; Silva, B. Impact of Herbicide Treatments on the Construction Materials in the Roman Wall of Lugo, Spain (UNESCO World Heritage Site). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5276. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115276
Prieto B, Sanmartín P, Cancelo-González J, Torres L, Silva B. Impact of Herbicide Treatments on the Construction Materials in the Roman Wall of Lugo, Spain (UNESCO World Heritage Site). Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(11):5276. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115276
Chicago/Turabian StylePrieto, Beatriz, Patricia Sanmartín, Javier Cancelo-González, Lucía Torres, and Benita Silva. 2021. "Impact of Herbicide Treatments on the Construction Materials in the Roman Wall of Lugo, Spain (UNESCO World Heritage Site)" Applied Sciences 11, no. 11: 5276. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115276