Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T15:03:33.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Damage to Limestone Exposed to Atmospheric Pollutants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

S.D. Leith ,
M.M. Reddy  and
W.F. Ramirez
S.D. Leith
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Department of Chemical Engineering, Box 424, Boulder, CO 80309, fred.ramirez@colorado.edu
M.M. Reddy
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Department of Chemical Engineering, Box 424, Boulder, CO 80309, fred.ramirez@colorado.edu
W.F. Ramirez
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Department of Chemical Engineering, Box 424, Boulder, CO 80309, fred.ramirez@colorado.edu
Get access

Abstract

Preservation of building and monument stone exposed to acidic environments relies on the understanding of acidic precipitation deposition processes and damage mechanisms. Presented here is a model which predicts sulfur accumulation in porous limestone subjected to dry deposition of SO2. The model assumes deposition and reaction of SO2 to form a thin gypsum crust on the moist surface of the stone, and subsequent sulfur (as aqueous sulfate) transport and accumulation in the stone interior driven by diurnal wetting and drying of the stone surface. Characterization of the limestone pore structure contributes significantly to the evaluation and interpretation of modeled sulfate transport and accumulation in porous building materials. Predicted sulfur accumulation in the stone interior is dependent on the surface boundary conditions, the stone pore geometry and structure, and the rates and mechanisms of aqueous/solid sulfur partitioning (i.e. adsorption, precipitation and dissolution). Model results are compared to moisture content and sulfur accumulation measured in limestone briquettes exposed to a natural dry deposition environment. The model successfully predicts moisture transport in field-exposed limestone, but overestimates the rate of sulfur accumulation. The model may be improved by quantification of the time dependence of the surface sulfate concentration and better understanding of the sulfate partitioning mechanisms.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 462: Symposium DD – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology V , 1996 , 337
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Baedecker, P.A., Edney, E.O., Moran, P.J., Simpson, T.C., and Williams, R.S. in NAP AP report 19, Acidic Deposition : State of Science and Technology, (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program: Washington, DC, 1990), p. 19–1–19–280.Google Scholar
2. Reddy, M.M., Earth Surf. Proc. and Land., 13, p. 335–354, (1988).Google Scholar
3. Baedecker, P.A. and Reddy, M.M., J. Chem. Ed., 70, p. 104–108, (1993).Google Scholar
4. Schuster, P.F., Reddy, M.M. and Sherwood, S.I., Mater. Perf., 33, p. 76–80, (1994).Google Scholar
5. Passaglia, E. in Materials Degradation Caused by Acid Rain, edited by Baboian, R., (ACS Symposium Series 318: Washington, DC, 1986), p. 384–396.Google Scholar
6. McGee, E.S. and Mossotti, V.G., Atmos. Environ., 26B, p. 249–253, (1992).Google Scholar
7. Skoulikidis, T., Charalambous, D., and Papakonstantinou-Ziotis, P., Br. Corros. J., 18, p. 200–202, (1983).Google Scholar
8. Lipfert, F.W., Atmos. Environ., 23, p. 415–429, (1989).Google Scholar
9. Kulshreshtha, N.P., Punuru, A.R. and Gauri, K.L., J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1, p. 60–72, (1989).Google Scholar
10. Tambe, S., Gauri, K.L., Suhan, L., and Cobourn, W.G., Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, p. 2071–2075, (1991).Google Scholar
11. Bear, J. and Vermijt, A., Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pollution. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.Google Scholar
12. Leith, S.D., M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, (1993).Google Scholar
13. Lappala, E.G., Healy, R.W. and Weeks, E.P., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83–4099, (1987).Google Scholar
14. Healy, R.W., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90–4025, (1990).Google Scholar
15. van Genuchten, M.T., Soil Sci. Amer. Proc, 44, p. 892–898, (1980).Google Scholar
16. Haverkamp, R., and Parlange, J., Soil Sci., 142, p. 325–339, (1983).Google Scholar
17. Lenhard, R.J., and Parker, J.C., Water Resour. Res., 23, p. 2197–2206, (1987).Google Scholar
18. Parker, J.C., Rev. Geophys., 27, p. 311–328, (1989).Google Scholar
19. Leith, S.D., Reddy, M.M., Ramirez, W.F. and Heymans, M.J., Environ. Sci. Technol., 30, p. 2202–2210, (1996).Google Scholar
20. See, R.B., Reddy, M.M., and Martin, R.G., Rev. Sci. Instrum., 59, p. 2279–2284, (1988).Google Scholar
21. Reimann, K.J., Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL-89/34, (1991).Google Scholar