Journal of Coatings Technology and Research

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 81–92 | Cite as

Testing organic and organic–inorganic fluorinated hybrid coatings as protective materials for clay bricks

  • Simonetta Lucia PagliolicoEmail author
  • Elena Daniela Ozzello
  • Guido Sassi
  • Roberta Bongiovanni


The durability of brickworks, used as facing bricks, parapets, or chimneys, is a crucial aspect of the maintenance of buildings. Water absorption and penetration due to wind-driven rain, water rundown, and capillary rising can cause serious damages and a premature deterioration of porous clay bricks, and a significant increase in their thermal conductivity. Protective coatings for brickwork must provide enhanced hydrophobic properties without affecting moisture regulation and breathability of masonry. In the present work, a standardized type of facing clay brick was treated with two types of hydrophobic coatings based on a commercial perfluoropolyether oligomer containing alkoxysilane terminal groups, respectively, with or without an inorganic precursor, tetraethoxysilane, to generate in situ silica nanoparticles. The performance of the coating was assessed by multiple indicators, such as wetting delay, water absorption coefficient, protection degree by capillarity, contact angle, roughness and gloss, as a function of the amount of coating. Uncertainties analysis of indicators was carried out. Coating performance was assessed at different exposure times comparable to in situ real ones. Optimal amounts of coating were established to maximize the protection with the minimum quantity of polymer. As a result, a square meter of brick surface exposed to water for 2–4 h can absorb about 7–8 L of water. Very small amounts of PFPE coatings change the brick surface/water interactions, more than halving the absorbed water (0.5–2 l) and increasing the protection degree up to 80–100%. After longer exposure times, the reduction in absorbed water is basically higher when brick specimens are treated with organic/inorganic nanostructured hybrid PFPE coatings.


Brickworks Fluoropolymers-based coatings Capillary water absorption Protection degree Porous materials 



The authors would like to thank Laterizi San Grato S.r. l. (Pralormo, Torino, Italy) for providing bricks and ARPA VDA—Regional Agency for the Environmental Protection of Aosta Valley (Saint-Christophe—Aosta, Italy) for providing meteorological data.


  1. 1.
    Pagliolico, SL, Ronchetti, S, Turcato, EA, Bottino, G, Gallo, LM, DePaoli, R, “Physicochemical and Mineralogical Characterization of Earth for Building in North West Italy.” Appl. Clay Sci., 50 (4) 439–454 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pagliolico, SL, Doglione, R, Tulliani, JM, “Diagnosis of the Surface Layer Damage in a 1960s Reinforced Concrete Building.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 1 77–82 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacMullen, J, Zhanga, Z, Rirsch, E, Dhakala, HN, Bennetta, N, “Brick and Mortar Treatment by Cream Emulsion for Improved Water Repellence and Thermal Insulation.” Energ. Build., 43 1560–1565 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pheng, LS, Wee, D, “Improving Maintenance and Reducing Building Defects Through ISO 9000.” J. Qual. Maint. Eng., 7 (1) 6–24 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mudarri, D, Fisk, WJ, “Public Health and Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold.” Indoor Air, 17 (3) 226–235 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delucchi, M, Barbucci, A, Cerisola, G, “Crack-Bridging Ability and Liquid Water Permeability of Protective Coating for Concrete.” Prog. Org. Coat., 33 76–82 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Clercq, H, “Performance of Single Materials Treated with a Water Repellent and Contaminated with a Salt Mix.” In: Silfwerbrand J (ed.) Proceedings of Hydrophobe IV- the 4th International Conference on Water Repellent Treatment of Building Materials. Aedificatio Publishers. 171–184, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsakalof, A, Manoudis, P, Karapanagiotis, I, Chryssoulakis, I, Panayiotou, C, “Assessment of Synthetic Polymeric Coatings for the Protection and Preservation of Stone Monuments.” J. Cult. Herit., 8 69–72 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vicini, S, Margutti, S, Moggi, G, Pedemonte, E, “In Situ Copolymerisation of Ethylmethacrylate and Methylacrylate for the Restoration of Stone Artefacts.” J. Cult. Herit., 2 143–147 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poli, T, Toniolo, L, Chiantore, O, “The Protection of Different Italian Marbles with Two Partially Fluorinated Acrylic Copolymers.” Appl. Phys. A, 79 347–351 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ugor, I, “Surface Characterization of Some Porous Natural Stones Modified with a Waterborne Fluorinated Polysiloxane Agent Under Physical Weathering Conditions.” J. Coat. Technol. Res., 11 (4) 639–649 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Navarrini, W, Diamanti, MV, Sansotera, M, Persico, F, Menghua, W, Magagnin, L, Radice, S, “UV-Resistant Amorphous Fluorinated Coating for Anodized Titanium Surfaces.” Prog. Org. Coat., 74 794–800 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piacenti, F, Camaiti, M, “Synthesis and Characterization of Fluorinated Polyetheric Amides.” J. Fluorine Chem., 68 227–235 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piacenti, F, Camaiti, M, Strepparola, E, Moggi, G, “Recent Developments with Fluoropolymers for Stone Conservation.” J. Fluorine Chem., 58 220 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bongiovanni, R, Nelson, ARJ, Vitale, A, Bernardi, E, “Ultra-Thin Films Based on Random Copolymers Containing Perfluoropolyether Side Chains.” Thin Solid Films, 520 5627–5632 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Ferri, L, Lottici, PP, Lorenzi, A, Montenero, A, Salvioli-Marianid, E, “Study of Silica Nanoparticles–Polysiloxane Hydrophobic Treatments for Stone-Based Monument Protection.” J. Cult. Herit., 12 (4) 356–363 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Constancio, C, Franco, L, Russo, A, Anjinho, C, Pires, J, Vaz, MF, Carvalho, AP, “Studies on Polymeric Conservation Treatments of Ceramic Tiles with Paraloid B-72 and Two Alkoxysilanes.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 116 2833–2839 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manoudis, P, Papadopoulou, S, Karapanagiotis, I, Tsakalof, A, Zuburtikudis, I, Panayiotou, C, “Polymer-Silica Nanoparticles Composite Films as Protective Coatings for Stone-Based Monuments.” J. Phys.: Conf. Series, 61 1361–1365 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esposito Coircione, C, Striani, R, Frigione, M, “Novel Hydrophobic Free-Solvent UV-Cured Hybrid Organic–inorganic Methacrylic-Based Coatings for Porous Stones.” Prog. Org. Coat., 77 (4) 803–812 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pagliolico, SL, Ozzello, ED, Sassi, G, Bongiovanni, R, “Characterization of a Hybrid Nano-Silica Waterborne Polyurethane Coating for Clay Bricks.” J. Coat. Technol. Res., 13 (2) 267–276 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fabbri, P, Messori, M, Montecchi, M, Pilati, F, Taurino, R, Tonelli, C, Toselli, M, “Surface Properties of Fluorinated Hybrid Coatings.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 102 1483–1488 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Messori, M, Toselli, M, Pilati, F, Fabbri, P, Montecchi, L, Nannarone, M, Tonelli, C, “Perfluoropolyether-Based Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Coatings: Preparation and Surface Characterization.” Surf. Coat. Int. B: Coat. Trans., 88 (B4) 231–316 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bongiovanni, R, Sangermano, M, Medici, A, Tonelli, C, Rizza, G, “Nanostructured Hybrid Networks Based on Highly Fluorinated Acrylates.” J. Sol-Gel Sci. Tecn., 52 291–298 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rovnaníková, P, “Environmental Deterioration of Materials.” In: Moncmanova, A (ed.) WIT Transactions on State-of-the-Art in Science and Engineering 28. WIT Press, Ashurst (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Künzel, HM, “Regendaten für Berechnung des Feuchtetransports,” Fraunhofer Institut für auphysik, Mitteilung 265, (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall, C, Kam Ming Tse, T, “Water Movement in Porous Building Materials–VII. The Sorptivity of Mortars.” Build. Envir., 21 101–108 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Straube, JF, Burnett, EFP, “Simplified Prediction of Driving Rain on Buildings.” Proc. of the International Building Physics Conf., 375–382 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanders, C, “Comparison of the ‘British Standard’ and ‘French’ methods for estimating driving rain impacts on walls.” IEA Annex 41 meeting Glasgow, Report A41-T3-UK-04-2 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ontario Association of Architects. Technical Practice Bulletin E.1. Exterior Wall Design: OAA Rain Penetration Control Practice Guide, June (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blocken, B, Carmeliet, J, “Overview of Three State-of-the-Art Wind-Driven Rain Assessment Models and Comparison Based on Model Theory.” Build. Environ., 45 (3) 691–703 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    UNI EN 771-1. “Specification for Masonry Units–Part 1: Clay Masonry Units” (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    UNI EN 15801:2010. “Conservation of Cultural Property–Test Methods–Determination of Water Absorption by Capillarity.” (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solvay Solexis Inc. Product data sheet. Fluorolink Surface Treatment Agents (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    EN16581:2014, ‘‘Conservation of Cultural Property—Surface Protection for Porous Inorganic Materials—Laboratory Test Methods for the Evaluation of the Performance of Water Repellent Products.’’ (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ISO JCGM 100:2008 “Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.” (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sassi, G, Bernocco, M, Sassi, M, “Uncertainty of the Diffusion Measurements on Scaffolds for Cell Growth.” In: Diffusion and Defect Data, Solid State Data. Part A, Defect and Diffusion Forum Vol. 312–315, pp. 770–775 (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ARPA (Regional Agency for the Environmental Protection) VALLE D’AOSTA. Data from the measuring station of Donnas (Aosta, Italy) of the Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network, Italy, (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    UNI EN 15802:2010. “Conservation of Cultural Property–Test Methods–Determination of Static Contact Angle.” (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ISO 2813:1994. “Paints and Varnishes–Determination of Specular Gloss of Non-Metallic Paint Films at 20 Degrees, 60 Degrees and 85 Degrees.” (1994)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    UNI EN 623-4:2005. “Advanced Technical Ceramics–Monolithic Ceramics–General and Textural Properties–Part 4: Determination of Surface Roughness.” (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Matziaris, K, Stefanidou, M, Karagiannis, G, “Impregnation and Superhydrophobicity of Coated Porous Low-Fired Clay Building Materials.” Prog. Org. Coat., 72 181–192 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mukhopadhyaya, P, Kumaran, K, Normandin, N, Goudreau, P, “Effect of Surface Temperature on Water Absorption Coefficient of Building Materials.” J. Therm. Envel. Build. Sci., 26 (2) 179–195 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cultrone, G, Sebastia, E, Ortega Huertas, M, “Durability of Masonry Systems: A Laboratory Study.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21 40–51 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Groot, CJWP, Gunneweg, JTM, “The Influence of Materials Characteristics and Workmanship on Rain Penetration in Historic Fired Clay Brick Masonry.” HERON, 44 (2) 63–78 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Hees, RPJ, Brocken, HJP, “Damage Development to Treated Brick Masonry in a Long-Term Salt Crystallisation Test.” Constr. Build. Mater., 18 331–338 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stefanidou, M, Karozou, A, “Testing the Effectiveness of Protective Coatings on Traditional Bricks.” Constr. Build. Mater., 111 482–487 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gummerson, RJ, Hall, C, Hoff, WD, “The Suction Rate and the Sorptivity of Bricks.” Brit. Ceram. Trans. J., 80 150–152 (1981)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raimondo, M, Dondi, M, Gardini, D, Guarini, G, Mazzanti, F, “Predicting the Initial Rate of Water Absorption in Clay Bricks.” Constr. Build. Mater., 23 2623–2630 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Siegesmund, S, Snethlage, R, Stone in Architecture: Properties, Durability, 5th ed. SpringerVerlag, Berlin (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marmur, A, “Penetration and Displacement in Capillary Systems.” In: Schrader, ME, Loeb, GI (eds.) Modern Approaches to Wettability. Springer, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Della Volpe, C, Penati, A, Peruzzi, R, Siboni, S, Toniolo, L, Colombo, C, “The Combined Effect of Roughness and Heterogeneity on Contact Angles: The Case of Polymer Coating for Stone Protection.” Adhes. Sci. Technol., 14 (2) 273–299 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Coatings Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politecnico di Torino, Dept of Applied Science and TechnologyTurinItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM)TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations