Relevance of Hydrophobic and Oleophobic Properties of Antigraffiti Systems on Their Cleaning Efficiency on Concrete and Stone Surfaces
Publication: Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
Volume 25, Issue 6
Abstract
The problem of graffiti is not entirely restricted to urban areas, but also appears frequently in rural communities and along traffic infrastructure. Besides its aesthetic and societal effects, graffiti cause considerable removal costs and subsequent costs for repairing damages caused by improper graffiti removal. Over the last two decades, strategies have been developed to combat graffiti in the built environment, including the development of protective measures in the form of antigraffiti systems (AGSs). Antigraffiti systems promise to be affordable and easily applicable for a wide range of substrates, and many products have already been on the market for many years. In practice, however, successful application of AGS and removal of graffiti depend on many factors in which the type of coating and condition of the substrate play critical roles. The optimal environmental goal is to use AGS without any cleaning chemicals except for pure water. Available studies on the behavior of the same AGS on various substrates can show completely different results concerning the cleaning efficacy and the durability of the AGS under different climatic conditions. The question of which properties of an AGS are most essential for its efficiency has still not been fully investigated. The goal of this study was to investigate cleaning efficacy in conjunction with hydrophobic and oleophobic properties of the AGS on different substrates. The results showed that hydrophobicity and oleophobicity are important for dense substrates but have a low influence on porous substrates. In this case, cleaning efficiency is majorly determined by the physical properties of the substrates.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
VINNOVA, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, is highly acknowledged for the VINNMER grant. The authors are also grateful for the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), which funded this research study; and the help of our colleagues, André Gardei and Johannes Hoppe.
References
ASTM. (2006). “Standard practice for determination of the effectiveness of anti-graffiti coating for use on concrete, masonry and natural stone surfaces by pressure washing.”, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard practice for determination of graffiti resistance.”, West Conshohocken, PA.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (2007). “Natural stone test method: Determination of real density and apparent density, and of total and open porosity.”, London.
Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen [Federal Highway Research Institute] (BASt). (2009). “Technische Prüfvorschriften für Anti-Graffiti-Systeme [Technical testing regulations for anti-graffiti systems].” TP-AGS, Technische Lieferbedingungen und Technische Prüfvorschriften für Ingenieurbauten [Technical delivery specifications and technical testing regulations for engineering structures], Bergisch Gladbach, Germany (in German).
Chapman, S. (2000). “Laser technology for graffiti removal.” J. Cult. Heritage, 1, 75–78.
Garcia, O., and Malaga, K. (2012). “Definition of the procedure to determine the suitability and durability of an anti-graffiti product for application on cultural heritage porous materials.” J. Cult. Heritage, 13(1), 77–82.
Gardei, G., et al. (2008). “Performance and durability of a new antigraffiti system for cultural heritage: The EC project GRAFFITAGE.” Proc., 11th Int. Congress on Conservation and Deterioration of Stone, Elsevier, Munich, Germany.
Goretzki, L. (1998). “Graffiti-Schutzsysteme für Fassadenbaustoffe.” Baupraxis und Dokumentation 10, Expert, Renningen, Germany (in German).
Gütegemeinschaft Anti-Graffiti (GA-G). (2000). “Regelwerk für die Bewertung von Verfahren, Technologien und Materialien zur Graffitientfemung und Graffitiprophylaxe [Rulebook for the evaluation of methods, technologies and materials for graffiti removal and graffiti prevention].” ReGG, Berlin.
Hilgers, H. A. (2005). “Graffiti.” Wiss. Dienste Dtsch. Bundestages Aktuel. Begriff, 5(18), 2 (in German).
Malaga, K., and Bengtsson, T. (2008). “The Nordic method: Performance tests for protective sacrificial coatings on mineral surfaces.” Proc., Hydrophobe V, H. DeClercq and A. E. Charola, eds., Aedificatio, Brussels, Belgium, 169–179.
Malaga, K., and Mueller, U. (2010). “Validation of improvement of procedures for performance testing of anti-graffiti agents on concrete surfaces.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Concrete under Severe Conditions: Environment and Loading (CONSEC10), CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Mueller, U., von Weschpfennig, D., and Malaga, K. (2011). “Anti-Graffiti-Systeme auf Mauerwerk im Bereich der Bundesfernstraßen [Anti-graffiti systems on masonry in the scope of the Federal Highway System].” Bautechnik, 88, 443–450 (in German).
Scheerder, J., Visscher, N., Nabuurs, T., and Overbeek, A. (2005). “Novel, water-based fluorinated polymers with excellent antigraffiti properties.” JCT Res., 2(8), 617–625.
Wissenschaftlich-Technische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Bauwerkserhaltung und Denkmalpflege (WTA). (2004). “Bewertung der Wirksamkeit von Anti-Graffiti Systemen (AGS) [Evaluation of efficacy of anti-graffiti systems (AGS)].” Merkblatt 2-8-04/D, Munich, Germany.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
Volume 25 • Issue 6 • June 2013
Pages: 755 - 762
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 27, 2012
Accepted: Jul 16, 2012
Published online: Aug 28, 2012
Published in print: Jun 1, 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.