Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131 www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Maintenance and repair issues for stone cleaned sandstone and granite building facades
Maureen E. Younga; , D.C.M. Urquhartb , R.A. Lainga
b Urquhart a Scott

Sutherland School, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen AB10 7QB, Scotland, UK Consultancy Services, 19 Lairds Park, Hatton of Fintray, Aberdeen AB21 0XY, UK

Abstract Widespread stone cleaning of Scottish buildings began in the 1960s. In the earlier years, abrasive cleaning caused signicant damage, especially to sandstone buildings, abrading the stone surface and blurring detail. Chemical cleaning systems avoided these problems, but could cause staining or bleaching; inevitable chemical retention within porous stone resulted in the formation of potentially damaging salts. Recent years have seen the development of considerably less damaging cleaning systems, however, the legacy of previous cleaning interventions remains with us. All too often stone cleaning has resulted in increased rates of decay on stone facades, with considerable long-term repair costs. ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stone cleaning; Building facades; Sandstone; Granite; Decay; Maintenance; Cost

1. Introduction In the past 30 40 years the appearance of many of Scotlands stone buildings has been transformed by cleaning. Widespread stone cleaning in the UK began in the 1960s, with the buildings of London, where black-soiled limestone buildings were transformed into clean, light-coloured structures, revealing the true magnicence of previously obscured architectural features. Scotlands stone buildings are mainly sandstone; granite is used locally in Grampian and Dumfriesshire. To remove the soiling from sandstone or granite facades required the use of more aggressive cleaning systems than were appropriate on limestone. Consequently, techniques used in the early days of cleaning in Scotland included harsh methods ranging from carborundum discs to strong acids and alkalis. In the 1970s and 1980s, following the realisation that some abrasive systems were excessively aggressive, chemical-based cleaning systems predominated. With little or no local authority control, much cleaning was carried out by poorly trained operatives, with the result that numerous facades were irreversibly altered

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1224-263710; fax: +44-1224263777. E-mail address: m.young@rgu.ac.uk (M.E. Young).

by abrasion, colour change, salt decay and other forms of damage subsequent to stone cleaning. Since 1992, stone cleaning of listed buildings and unlisted buildings within conservation areas has not been deemed to be permitted development, and planning permission for such cleaning has been required from the relevant planning authority. In the case of listed structures, listed building consent is also required. Unfortunately, this legislation was introduced too late to exercise control over the cleaning of the stonework of a large number of Scotlands buildings. There is a growing awareness that past stone cleaning activities have resulted in an increase in the rate of decay of sandstone facades [14]. The action of natural weathering agents and environmental pollution on the stone heritage has been compounded by the e ects of stone cleaning and this has a ected many historic and listed buildings. It is on sandstone buildings that the acceleration of decay has been most marked. On granite, the other common building stone in Scotland, the e ects of stone cleaning with respect to stone decay are less signicant [2]. The accelerating rate of decay on some sandstone buildings is a cause for concern because there is a temptation to initiate repairs based on short-term expediency. Essentially, cost, rather than recognition of good conservation practice, dictates the quality of many repairs to damaged facades. Poorly executed repairs have the potential to exacerbate the initial damage.

0360-1323/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(03)00084-2

1126

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

Table 1 Summary of a variety of stone cleaning methods. Listing does not constitute a recommendation of the technique as some of these methods are highly damaging when used inappropriately Method Abrasive methods Grit blasting Low pressure abrasive Abrasive sponge Frozen CO2 Water jetting Steam cleaning Mechanical cleaning Chemical methods Acid Alkali and acid Acid gel Pastes & poultices 70 200 kPa. Grits are aluminiumsilicate or other non-silica types of various sizes used wet or dry 35 kPa, carborundum or other non-silica grits in powder form (grain size 0:2 mm) Sponge particles containing mineral grains of varying hardness at 100 200 kPa Particles of frozen carbon dioxide used at pressures of 100 200 kPa (15 30 psi) High pressure water jets at up to 14; 000 kPa High pressure jets of steam soften and remove soiling layer Grinding disks, needle guns and other mechanical techniques HF acid (conc. usually 5%). Some formulations contain phosphoric and other acid types Two stage processalkali (e.g. NaOH) then acid (e.g. HF) Ammonium bi uoride gel (releases hydro uoric acid on contact with water) Variable composition. Some have no additives, others may contain surfactants, complexing agents or alkalis Non-ionic detergents can increase cleaning action during water washing Facilitate cleaning by binding with soiling. Used to break down sulphate crusts and in some stain removal (e.g. EDTA) Includes solutions and poultices containing phosphoric and oxalic acids, EDTA, Na-citrate, Na-hydrosulphite & ammonia salts High intensity lasers used to ablate dark soiling from lighter coloured surfaces Latex coating applied to surface. Soiling adheres to coating and is removed when it is peeled o Abrasive damage to surfaces, increased water uptake, loss of detail Abrasive damage to fragile surfaces, increased water uptake, loss of detail Abrasive damage to fragile surfaces, increased water uptake, loss of detail Abrasive damage to surfaces, increased water uptake, loss of detail Abrasive damage to fragile surfaces. Ine ective cleaning of granites or sandstone Damage due to abrupt heating and cooling Severe abrasive damage to surface, total loss of detail Chemical residues, salt formation, increased decay, bleaching, staining Chemical residues, salt formation, increased decay, bleaching, staining Chemical residues, salt formation, increased decay, bleaching, staining Chemical residues, salt formation, increased decay, bleaching, staining Damage may be caused by water jetting There is a risk of surface etching of calcareous stone and of deleterious colour changes Surface etching may occur with some treatments. Chemical residues may occur Siliceous grit banned. Technical improvements and reduced pressures have lessened damage Lower abrasion makes this less damaging than traditional grit blasting Developed to minimise abrasion of substrate and reduce noise and dust levels Leaves no cleaning residue. Mainly used to remove chewing gum Higher pressures do not signicantly improve cleaning action or residue removal and are discouraged Developments include better control of steam and temp. (150 C) and lower water volumes Banned or strongly discouraged due to extreme damage Often not permitted on porous stone. Where used, concentrations and dwell times should be minimised Often not permitted on porous stone. Where used, concentrations and dwell times should be minimised Often not permitted on porous stone. Where used, concentrations and dwell times should be minimised Those containing no damaging chemicals are e ective. Those containing acids, alkalis and salts should be treated as above Non-ionic detergents leave no damaging residues in stone. Some treatments may not be appropriate on porous stone Some treatments may not be appropriate on porous stone Brief description Potential harmful consequences Notes

Detergents Chelating agents Stain removers

Other methods Laser cleaning Peelable coatings

High risk to user & public. Bleaching and unintended colour changes may occur, especially on coloured stone Loss of fragile elements

Developed for marble & limestone. Soiling removal problematic on coloured stone Mainly for indoor surfaces. Avoids use of water and production of dust

2. Stone cleaning methods and their e ects Cleaning methods (Table 1) have developed, as those involved have become aware of deciencies in older methods. During the early years of stone cleaning, the techniques used

tended to be overly aggressive, having been developed for worst-case scenarios. This often resulted in over-treatment of less soiled stone. High grit blasting pressures and concentrated acids caused abrasive and chemical damage to many building facades [2].

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

1127

Fig. 1. Detail from two identical, adjacent sandstone buildings in Glasgow. The left image is from a facade that has not been cleaned. The right image shows the same detail from a facade that was abrasively cleaned in 1985 (photographed in 1999). Substantial abrasive damage has been done to the stone at the time of cleaning, leading to severe loss of detail.

Fig. 2. The Locharbriggs sandstone facade on the left has been subjected to a range of treatments including chemical cleaning, stream cleaning and application of chemical consolidant. Although this stone type is normally very durable, the net result has been to cause rapid decay of the sandstone surface. The Locharbriggs sandstone shown on the right image is from an adjacent facade of the same age that was abrasively cleaned in the 1990s. This facade has since exhibited very little stone decay.

The amount of cleaning has declined since the introduction of legislation requiring listed building consent and planning controls in conservation areas [5]. Improvements in stone cleaning methods and controls imposed by planning regulations have signicantly reduced the amount of damage done at the time of cleaning. However, the legacy of previous cleaning interventions on the stone heritage of Scotland remains with us, both as damage done at the time of cleaning (Fig. 1) and as increased rates of decay in the years following cleaning (Fig. 2). Forms of damage caused at the time of cleaning are mainly aesthetic e ects that do not, in general, a ect the function of a facade or its structural stability (Table 2). Aesthetic damage (e.g. colour changes, roughening, biological growths) can be serious from the point

Table 2 Damage and deterioration of building facades covers a range of e ects E ect on facade Description of e ect Structural Functional Aesthetic The degree of stone decay presents an immediate or imminent threat to the structural stability of the facade Stone decay has impaired functional elements of the building facade (e.g. preventing adequate water shedding) Stone decay and/or soiling has negatively a ected the visual appearance of a facade

of view of building owners as it damages the facades appearance and may reduce its nancial value, however, they do not constitute a physical threat to the building fabric

1128

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

Table 3 Potential side e ects of stone cleaning observed immediately or within weeks of cleaning, their causes, potential longer-term e ects and treatments. Ab: abrasive, Ch: chemical Observation Erosion, loss of detail or sharpness Pitting Crusts of rock dust or grit Irregular soiling patches of Cause Ab: Excessive pressure during cleaning or water jetting Ab/Ch: Erosion or dissolution of weaker spots in stone Ab: Debris not washed o after abrasive cleaning Ab/Ch: Lack of care in cleaning or inadequate method Ch: Residues of cleaning chemicals or mobilisation of pre-existing salts Ch: Mobilisation and re-deposition of iron or manganese compounds Ch: Dissolution of coloured minerals Potential long-term e ects Increased moisture penetration, biological growth and stone decay Mainly aesthetic e ect, severe cases similar to erosion e ects Aesthetic e ect. Will increase rate of resoiling Aesthetic e ect Increased rate of stone decay due to sub-surface crystallisation Aesthetic e ect, though it may be very intense Aesthetic e ect Treatment None. Only stone replacement or re-dressing (not advised) will re-establish lost detail None. Only stone replacement or re-dressing (not advised) will re-establish lost detail Surface should be thoroughly washed and brushed down with water Careful re-cleaning may be possible immediately after initial cleaning, where this will not damage the stone Dry brushing or poulticing may reduce salt loading Stain removing chemicals may be appropriate. These may not be suitable on porous stone None. Re-soiling will not re-establish a natural patina. No articial coloration can re-establish a natural appearance None. Once a di erence is established, properties will not re-soil to a uniform colour Removal by water washing and brushing. Biocide treatments may be useful in some circumstances

Salt e orescences Orange or yellowish staining Excessive lightening or bleaching Variable coloration of terraced properties Excessive biological growth

Cleaning of properties at di erent times and/or using di erent methods Ab/Ch: Roughened surfaces, increased moisture retention or residues of chemicals that provide nutrients (e.g. phosphate) for organisms

Substantial aesthetic e ect Aesthetic e ect. However, some organisms can cause stone decay. Algae increase the rate of re-soiling

(Table 3). In the longer-term, stone decay a ecting important elements of a facade may negatively a ect its functional performance. This includes loss of pointing, damage to string courses, sills, drips and other elements of the facade that are designed to deal with water shedding. Deterioration of functional elements leads to increased rates of decay through increased moisture levels in stone and associated deterioration. Decay exacerbated by failure of functional elements is often located on predictable parts of the facade, including stonework below cornices, string courses and other areas affected by, or adjacent to, rainwater run-o zones. Structural failure of stone is rare due to the slow progress of deterioration. Action to repair a ected stones is normally taken before decay has progressed to a su cient extent to a ect the structural stability of a facade. Although the damage caused at the time of cleaning is likely to be only supercially, aesthetically damaging, it can develop into a signicant long-term problem with substantial nancial implications [68]. Stone cleaning has the potential to cause accelerated stone decay through a variety of mechanisms: chemical residues cause salt related decay (e.g. spalling, granular disintegration, etc.);

abrasion opens up porosity at the surface, increasing the intensity of wetting and drying cycles and moisture loading; new or enlarged micro-cracking increases the vulnerability of stone to penetration by agents of decay; increased surface area caused by abrasion or chemical dissolution, and nutrients from chemical residues can increase susceptibility to biological growths; disruption of a stable patina on a stone surface results in chemical and micro-structural changes during its re-establishment; mobilisation of components of mortar by cleaning chemicals or intense water washing can cause deposition of calcium or other potentially damaging salts in adjacent stone. Stone cleaning can be followed by a period when stone decay rates are reduced. However, studies of cleaned facades indicated that those displaying slower rates of decay following cleaning are in the minority [2]. Mechanisms resulting in reduced rates of stone decay after cleaning include: removal of damaging salts from the soiling layer and from near the stone surface (e.g. gypsum);

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

1129

dispersal of salts present below the stone surface and involved in salt instigated decay; removal of soiling that formed a hydrophobic barrier at the stone surface (thereby reducing levels of moisture within the stone); other interventions/maintenance carried out at the same time, including repointing or repairs to rainwater goods and functional detailing. The time lag between cleaning and associated decay may obscure the link from observers of a single building facade. Stone decay takes several years to become apparent and the separation in time between cause and e ect makes it di cult to perceive stone cleaning several years earlier as the cause of subsequent decay problems. Although the causal link between cleaning and long-term stone decay may not be obvious to building owners, comparison of a large number of cleaned and uncleaned facades has demonstrated statistically signicant increases in the rate of decay of cleaned facades [13,9]. In most instances, the extent of decay was primarily controlled by the response of the stone to cleaning (Table 4) and only secondarily by the cleaning method.
Table 4 Mean coverage of stone decay on cleaned and uncleaned building facades calculated at ten years after stone cleaning [2] Surface coverage of decay in 10 years (%) No stone cleaning Sandstone Locharbriggs Craigleith Binny Leoch Bishopbriggs After chemical stone cleaning 0.1 0.5 2.4 4.8 16.3 0.4 After abrasive stone cleaning 3.4 3.4 0.8 10.8 17.3 0.4

0.05 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.0

Granite Rubislaw/Kemnay 0.4

There were, however, some instances in which the damage done by cleaning and other treatments was the dominant effect (Fig. 2). Using data gathered during a survey of the state of repair of some 150 cleaned and uncleaned sandstone buildings [2], we can predict the likely progression of stone decay following cleaning (Table 5). This includes damage done at the time of cleaning and additional decay in the years following cleaning. Low durability stone types can be severely a ected. Characteristics that contribute to low durability following cleaning include relatively high amounts of clay minerals (e.g. 10%) and sandstones with calcareous cements. Sandstones with siliceous cements (usually durable stones) are not normally severely a ected by increased rates of decay unless the damage done by inappropriate cleaning is severe (Fig. 2). Under natural weathering conditions, the rate of decay of individual sandstone types can vary by at least an order of magnitude. Di erences in rates of decay can be clearly observed on uncleaned facades. In terms of surface coverage, the rate of spread of stone decay over uncleaned facades varies from close to zero up to about 2.5% decay of surface area per decade [2]. These underlying natural rates of decay can be a useful indicator of the likely response of a facade to stone cleaning as sandstones with a higher natural rate of decay tended to be those most badly a ected cleaning. The long-term e ects of stone cleaning on the rate of decay of granite are unclear. The natural rate of decay of unweathered granite on building facades is extremely low (approximately 0.4% surface area per decade [2]) and, as cleaning of most granite properties occurred later than was common on sandstone buildings, there has been insu cient time for any signicant e ects of stone cleaning on the rate of decay to be detected [2]. Although granite is not immune from decay there is little evidence to suggest that carefully controlled, appropriate cleaning methods cause damage or signicantly accelerate decay; however, it should not be inferred that stone cleaning does not damage granite. Inappropriate cleaning has been observed to cause bleaching,

Table 5 Prediction of the amount of stone decay (% surface cover) that may be expected to occur on sandstone facades before and after stone cleaning. NB The care taken in choice and application of cleaning method will have a signicant e ect on the outcome of cleaning Predicted range in surface area (%) a ected by stone decay Time after cleaning (years) 5 Mean Low durability sandstone No cleaning Abrasive cleaning Chemical cleaning High durability sandstone No cleaning Abrasive cleaning Chemical cleaning 0.5 10 5 0 1 1 Range 0 1 118 115 0 0.5 13 13 10 Mean 1 13 8 0.5 2 5 Range 0 2 127 1 46 0 1 17 117 20 Mean 1.5 20 9 0.5 4 6 Range 0 5 232 1 47 0 2 114 117

1130

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

often be substantially in excess of the amount spent on cleaning and signicantly greater than any nancial benets of cleaning, such as increased property value [12]. 3. Conclusions Stone cleaning can be to the advantage of a building by displaying the true colour of previously obscured stone and by revealing the quality of carved detail. Consequently, properly executed cleaning can help to preserve the commercial viability of a building by maintaining its attractiveness to clients. However, the wholesale cleaning of stone facades over the past 30 years or more has left a legacy of damage to a signicant proportion of the stone heritage of our towns and cities, to the extent that there may be a long-term risk to the value of this heritage. A very great number of sandstone and granite buildings in Scotland have already been cleaned, and the argument is no longer whether that should have happened, but what provision is being made to cope with the likely emergence of stone decay as a result. Where damage is observed within a short time following cleaning (i.e. within a few months), remedial treatment may be viable, although for many forms of damage no remedial treatment is possible or practical. There are no e ective treatments for abrasive loss of stone surface or detail. Bleaching, caused by washing out of coloured minerals following chemical cleaning, cannot be reversed although the degree of bleaching may become less obvious as the facade re-soils. Even where remedial treatment is possible, complete reversal of damage is seldom achievable. Nevertheless, prompt action can sometimes reduce the longer-term e ects and nancial consequences of inappropriate cleaning. In the case of granite buildings, the consequences of stone cleaning have been much less severe than is the case with sandstone buildings. Generally, the risk to the granite heritage as a result of stone cleaning appears to be minimal and, in some cases cleaning may have been benecial to long-term durability. Sandstone is particularly vulnerable to decay by both natural and induced processes, especially those associated with stone cleaning. However, not all sandstone types are equally at risk; those which are classied as siliceous, being generally strong and durable and less prone to large-scale surface damage from stone cleaning intervention. Craigleith sandstone and some of the Moray sandstones fall into this category, although even these strong and durable stones have been observed to su er reduced surface sharpness from poorly executed abrasive cleaning. The most vulnerable sandstone types are those classied as argillaceous (clay cements) and calcareous (calcium carbonate cements). Unfortunately, many buildings in Scotland are built with these sandstones and the generally poor weathering performance of such stones means that surface decay is ubiquitous. To this natural process of decay must be added the e ects of stone cleaning which have greatly increased the extent

Fig. 3. (a) Mean predicted costs of indenting repairs to a 200 m2 ashlar sandstone facade 10 years after stone cleaning. Data show the predicted behaviour of ve di erent sandstones from the most durable (e.g. Locharbriggs) to the least durable (e.g. Bishopbriggs). Excludes sca olding and repointing costs. Initial stone cleaning costs were estimated at approximately $1200. (b) Mean predicted costs of plastic repairs to a 200 m2 ashlar sandstone facade 10 years after stone cleaning. Data show the predicted behaviour of ve di erent sandstones from the most durable (e.g. Locharbriggs) to the least durable (e.g. Bishopbriggs). Excludes sca olding and repointing costs. Initial stone cleaning costs were estimated at approximately $1200.

staining and roughening [10,11]. The degree of decay on granites is normally more supercial than that on sandstones and a granite surface a ected by, for instance, granular disintegration does not necessarily require any intervention in terms of repair or replacement. However, the absence of denitive evidence does not exclude the possibility that increased rates of decay are one of the potential side-e ects of cleaning of granite facades. Poorer quality, more porous granites (porosity 5%) are especially vulnerable. Such granites behave similarly to sandstone with respect to their vulnerability to abrasion and ability to retain chemical residues. Stone decay eventually leads to a desire to repair a building facadeeither by indenting new stone or using a plastic repair (i.e. a mortar patch). This is likely to occur on a shorter time scale when a facade shows signs of rapid deterioration following cleaning. Clearly this has important cost implications for building owners and bodies who will be approached for repair grants. In the past, cost implications have not been considered at the time of cleaning, due mainly to lack of knowledge about the long-term e ects. When long-term costs associated with repairing damage and stone decay are estimated (Fig. 3), it is clear that these may

M.E. Young et al. / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 1125 1131

1131

of surface damage and long-term decay rates. Sandstones known to be at particular risk are those from the Bishopbriggs and Gi nock quarries (used on many buildings in the Glasgow area), Kingoodie (Fife) and Leoch (Dundee). Sandstone type is therefore an important factor in the assessment of risk. The ready availability of funding, skilled labour and materials to deal with the emerging need for repair must be addressed. Any large-scale programme of stone repairs will require the availability of matching stone if an unsatisfactory appearance is to be avoided. While there is no real shortage of stone for new build, there may be di culty in obtaining suitable matching stone due to the closure and loss of the original quarries. Temporary re-opening of quarries can be a possible solution, but often the sites of old quarries will have been used for landll or will have been built over. Stone from building demolitions may be suitable for use. If identical stone is not available then the closest matching stone from another quarry source may be the only feasible alternative. In addition, given the likely volume of stone repairs that will be required over the coming decades, the shortage of properly trained and skilled stone masons will prove to be an inhibitory factor unless this is addressed as an issue of strategic importance. Where the e ects of soiling and decay are purely aesthetic, this is insu cient reason for signicant intervention such as stone replacement. Stone elements, such as drips and mouldings, which have a functional role in shedding water from a facade or in controlling water ow over a facade should be given a high priority for repair. Loss of function can lead to stonework at lower levels being subjected to increased amounts of water ow and moisture retention leading to accelerated rates of decay. Maintenance and repair should be informed by an understanding of the likely progression of the existing facade condition and the consequences of intervention. This requires an understanding of the behaviour of building materials and their interactions with each other and the environment. Only when the causes of deterioration have been established can a decision be made about the appropriateness of intervention. The nancial, historical or cultural value of a building or its components will clearly in uence this decision. The deleterious e ects of previous stone cleaning methods and practices are clear. The consequences of contemporary stone cleaning methods will take some years to become apparent.

Acknowledgements This research was commissioned and funded by Historic Scotland. References
[1] Young ME, Ball J, Laing RA. Quantication of the long-term e ects of stonecleaning on decay of building sandstones. In: Fassina V, editor. Nineth International Conference on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, vol. 2, Venice, 19 24 June 2000. Amsterdam: Elsevier, ISBN 0-444-50517-2. p. 179 86. [2] Young ME, Ball J, Laing RA, Cordiner P, Scott J. An investigation of the consequences of past stonecleaning intervention on future policy and resources. Draft report to Historic Scotland, 2002 (in press). [3] Young ME, Ball J, Laing RA. Quantication of the decay rates of cleaned and soiled building sandstones. In: Weathering 2000 (Swapnet), Belfast, 26 30 June 2000, in press, 2002. [4] Maxwell, I. Emerging conservation issues in consequence of cleaning Scottish historic buildings. In: Riederer J, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, vol. 3. Berlin, Germany, 30 September 4 October 1996, ISBN 3-00-000779-2. p. 1405 14. [5] HMSO. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. London: HMSO, ISBN 0 10 540997 9. [6] Ball J, Laing RA, Young ME. Stonecleaning: comparing perceptions with physical and nancial implications. Journal of Architectural Conservation 2000;6(2):4762. [7] Laing RA, Al-Hajj A, Ball J, Scott J, Young ME. Stone cleaning: a life cycle cost model. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ, editors. Durability of building materials and components 8. Vancouver, Canada, 30 May3 June 1999. Ottowa: NRC Research Press, p. 1739 45. [8] Laing RA, Ball J, Scott J, Young ME. The implications of stone cleaning for planned building maintenance. In: Fassina V, editor. Nineth International Conference on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, vol. 2, Venice, 19 24 June 2000. Amsterdam: Elsevier, ISBN 0-444-50517-2. p. 8137. [9] Ball J, Young ME. Mapping the decay and weathering of stone: a technique for the assessment of large numbers of buildings. In: Choi S, Suh M, editors. Proceedings of the New Millennium International Forum on Conservation of Cultural Property, 5 8 December 2000, Deajeon, South Korea. p. 134 47. [10] Urquhart DCM, Jones MS, MacDonald J, Nicholson KA, Young ME. E ects of stonecleaning on granite buildings and monuments. Report to Historic Scotland. Scottish Enterprise and Grampian Enterprise, 1996, ISBN 0 9517989 8 7. [11] Urquhart DCM, Young ME, Cameron S. Stonecleaning of granite buildings. Historic Scotland Technical Advice Note 9. Edinburgh: The Stationery O ce, 1997, ISBN 1 900168 39 1. [12] Laing RA, Urquhart DCM. Stone cleaning and its e ect on property market selling price. Journal of Property Research 1997;14:32936.