TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Performance of Earth Plasters
AU - Santos, Tânia
AU - Faria, Paulina
AU - Sotomayor, João
AU - Silvestre, José Dinis
AU - Santos Silva, António
N1 - Funding Information:
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/OE/SFRH%2FBD%2F147428%2F2019/PT#
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB%2F04625%2F2020/PT#
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/Concurso de avaliação no âmbito do Programa Plurianual de Financiamento de Unidades de I&D (2017%2F2018) - Financiamento Base/UIDB%2F50006%2F2020/PT#
Finally, this work received support and help from the Contract-Financing Program for the Universidade NOVA de Lisboa\u2019s \u2018Global and Civic\u2019 project, approved and funded by the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR) for 2021\u20132026.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors.
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - Earth plasters have several advantages. Nevertheless, they are vulnerable when in contact with liquid water. For that reason, they have low durability when applied as an outdoor coating or in indoor areas with potential contact with water. In this study, the influence of six different surface treatments (traditional and innovative, based on raw materials and on waste) applied on a pre-mixed earth plaster, applied by a roller (r) or as a spray (s), was assessed. The treatments were: limewash (L), beeswax (BW), linseed oil (LO), graphene oxide dispersion (GO), water from paper immersion (WP) and water from gypsum plasterboard paper immersion (WPG). The application of L, BW and LO, despite the color change, improved the water resistance and the surface performance of the earth plaster (less than 80%–86%, 93%–98% and 97%–99% of mass loss from surface cohesion, from water erosion by dripping action and from dry abrasion, respectively, compared to the reference untreated plaster). However, the application of BW and LO had a negative effect on the hygroscopic capacity of the plaster (less than 28%–38% of water vapor adsorbed after 24 h and the MBV decreased 29%–50% compared to the reference plaster). Finally, the application of the remaining surface treatments did not significantly improve the characteristics of the plaster, having even worsened it in certain cases (more than 42%–149% of mass loss from water erosion, compared to the reference plaster). These results demonstrated that, among the treatments analyzed, the L, BW and LO treatments are the best options to apply on an earth plaster. In particular, the application of BW and LO are recommended in situations where it is necessary to improve water resistance and surface performance, and the hygroscopic capacity is not a conditioning characteristic, such as outdoor applications.
AB - Earth plasters have several advantages. Nevertheless, they are vulnerable when in contact with liquid water. For that reason, they have low durability when applied as an outdoor coating or in indoor areas with potential contact with water. In this study, the influence of six different surface treatments (traditional and innovative, based on raw materials and on waste) applied on a pre-mixed earth plaster, applied by a roller (r) or as a spray (s), was assessed. The treatments were: limewash (L), beeswax (BW), linseed oil (LO), graphene oxide dispersion (GO), water from paper immersion (WP) and water from gypsum plasterboard paper immersion (WPG). The application of L, BW and LO, despite the color change, improved the water resistance and the surface performance of the earth plaster (less than 80%–86%, 93%–98% and 97%–99% of mass loss from surface cohesion, from water erosion by dripping action and from dry abrasion, respectively, compared to the reference untreated plaster). However, the application of BW and LO had a negative effect on the hygroscopic capacity of the plaster (less than 28%–38% of water vapor adsorbed after 24 h and the MBV decreased 29%–50% compared to the reference plaster). Finally, the application of the remaining surface treatments did not significantly improve the characteristics of the plaster, having even worsened it in certain cases (more than 42%–149% of mass loss from water erosion, compared to the reference plaster). These results demonstrated that, among the treatments analyzed, the L, BW and LO treatments are the best options to apply on an earth plaster. In particular, the application of BW and LO are recommended in situations where it is necessary to improve water resistance and surface performance, and the hygroscopic capacity is not a conditioning characteristic, such as outdoor applications.
KW - clay binder
KW - durability
KW - hygroscopicity
KW - paint system
KW - plastering mortars
KW - resistance to water
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85213276658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/coatings14121537
DO - 10.3390/coatings14121537
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85213276658
SN - 2079-6412
VL - 14
JO - COATINGS
JF - COATINGS
IS - 12
M1 - 1537
ER -