Melding the Old with the New: Trends in Methods Used to Identify, Monitor, and Control Microorganisms on Cultural Heritage Materials

Abstract

Microbial activity has an important impact on the maintenance of cultural heritage materials, owing to the key role of microorganisms in many deterioration processes. In order to minimize such deleterious effects, there is a need to fine-tune methods that detect and characterize microorganisms. Trends in microbiology indicate that this need can be met by incorporating modern techniques. All of the methods considered in this review paper are employed in the identification, surveillance, and control of microorganisms, and they have two points in common: They are currently used in microbial ecology (only literature from 2009 to 2015 is included), and they are often applied in the cultural heritage sector. More than 75 peer-reviewed journal articles addressing three different approaches were considered: molecular, sensory and morphological, and biocontrol methods. The goal of this review is to highlight the usefulness of the traditional as well as the modern methods. The general theme in the literature cited suggests using an integrated approach.

Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor Cultural Heritage Environments: Microbial-related Risks for Artworks and Human Health

“…Although less frequent than fungal, bacterial species isolated from both the surface of artefacts and the aerosol in cultural heritage environments are enough numerous showing different pigmentation and metabolic activity producing a complex secondary metabolisms pathways [44]. Moreover, spore-forming bacteria able to produce toxins such as Bacillus spp., B. thuringiensis, B. weihenstephanensis were identified in the Saints Cave environment.…”

Phytochemical Compounds as Cleaning Agents on Granite Colonized by Phototrophic Subaerial Biofilms

“…), and biological (viable bacterial cells, enzymes, etc.) have been employed to eliminate SABs-forming colonizing microorganisms from stone surfaces [3]. Cleaning of SABs is a necessary operation for conserving historical stone buildings, which generally is a very complicated procedure and involves a significant financial outlay.…”

“…In the context of this article, these treatments denote the cleaning effectiveness, i.e., removal of biofouling from granite surface, only removal not considering the microbial abatement related to biocide effect of treatment, intended to destroy, deter, or exert a controlling effect on organisms by chemical or biological means. In this sense, color spectrophotometry, the technique used in the study, allows to reliably evaluate the cleaning effectiveness in granite [3,8].…”

Protecting books from mould damage by decreasing paper bioreceptivity to fungal attack using decoloured cell‐free supernatant ofLysobacter enzymogenesC3

“…; Sanmartin et al . ). However, little attention has been paid to increasing the resistance of paper to adverse fungal growth prior to printing.…”

“…Many studies have focused on treatments for contaminated objects of cultural heritage, and thus far a broad spectrum of chemical and nonchemical components has been developed for the conservation of paper, including treatment through ethylene oxide fumigation, freeze-drying and gamma ionizing radiation (Magaudda 2004;Rakotonirainy and Lavedrine 2005;Gisela et al 2007;Sanmartin et al 2018). However, little attention has been paid to increasing the resistance of paper to adverse fungal growth prior to printing.…”