当前位置: X-MOL 学术X-Ray Spectrom. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparison of four mobile, non‐invasive diagnostic techniques for differentiating glass types in historical leaded windows: MA‐XRF , UV–Vis–NIR, Raman spectroscopy and IRT
X-Ray Spectrometry ( IF 1.5 ) Pub Date : 2020-08-24 , DOI: 10.1002/xrs.3185
Simone Cagno 1 , Geert Van der Snickt 1, 2 , Stijn Legrand 1 , Joost Caen 2 , Mathilde Patin 3 , Wendy Meulebroeck 3 , Yarince Dirkx 4 , Michaël Hillen 4 , Gunther Steenackers 4 , Anastasia Rousaki 5 , Peter Vandenabeele 5, 6 , Koen Janssens 1
Affiliation  

This paper critically compares the performance of four non-invasive techniques that match the accuracy, flexibility, time-efficiency, and transportability required for in situ characterization of leaded glass windows: macroscopic X-ray fluorescence imaging (MA-XRF), UV-Vis-NIR, Raman spectroscopy, and infrared thermography (IRT). In order to compare the techniques on equal grounds, all techniques were tested independently of each other by separate research groups on the same historical leaded window tentatively dated to the 17th century, without prior knowledge. The aim was to assess the ability of these techniques to document the conservation history of the window by classifying and grouping the colorless glass panes, based on differences in composition. IRT, MA-XRF and UV-Vis-NIR spectroscopy positively distinguished at least two glass groups, with MA-XRF providing the most detailed chemical information. In particular, based on the ratio between the network modifier (K) and network stabilizer (Ca) and on the level of colorants and decolorizers (Fe, Mn, As), the number of plausible glass families could be strongly reduced. In addition, UV-Vis-NIR detected cobalt at ppm level and gave more specific information on the chromophore Fe2+/Fe(3+)ratio. Raman spectroscopy was hampered by fluorescence caused by the metal ions of the decolorizer in most of the panes, but nevertheless identified one group as HLLA.

中文翻译:

用于区分历史铅窗玻璃类型的四种移动、非侵入性诊断技术的比较:MA-XRF、UV-Vis-NIR、拉曼光谱和 IRT

本文批判性地比较了四种非侵入性技术的性能,这些技术与含铅玻璃窗的原位表征所需的准确性、灵活性、时间效率和可运输性相匹配:宏观 X 射线荧光成像 (MA-XRF)、UV-Vis -NIR、拉曼光谱和红外热成像 (IRT)。为了在同等基础上比较这些技术,所有技术都由不同的研究小组在暂定于 17 世纪的同一历史铅窗上相互独立地进行测试,没有先验知识。目的是评估这些技术通过根据成分差异对无色玻璃板进行分类和分组来记录窗户保护历史的能力。IRT、MA-XRF 和 UV-Vis-NIR 光谱确定至少两个玻璃组,MA-XRF 可提供最详细的化学信息。特别是,基于网络改性剂 (K) 和网络稳定剂 (Ca) 之间的比例以及着色剂和脱色剂 (Fe、Mn、As) 的水平,可能会大大减少似真玻璃家族的数量。此外,UV-Vis-NIR 检测到 ppm 级别的钴,并提供有关发色团 Fe2+/Fe(3+) 比率的更具体信息。拉曼光谱受到大多数窗格中脱色剂的金属离子引起的荧光的阻碍,但仍将其中一组确定为 HLLA。此外,UV-Vis-NIR 检测到 ppm 级别的钴,并提供有关发色团 Fe2+/Fe(3+) 比率的更具体信息。拉曼光谱受到大多数窗格中脱色剂的金属离子引起的荧光的阻碍,但仍将其中一组确定为 HLLA。此外,UV-Vis-NIR 检测到 ppm 级别的钴,并提供有关发色团 Fe2+/Fe(3+) 比率的更具体信息。拉曼光谱受到大多数窗格中脱色剂的金属离子引起的荧光的阻碍,但仍将其中一组确定为 HLLA。
更新日期:2020-08-24
down
wechat
bug