Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Spatial Distribution of Toponyms and Its Correlation with Landscape Characteristics: A Case Study in Wuhan, China
Previous Article in Journal
Preservation of Synagogues in Greece: Using Digital Tools to Represent Lost Heritage
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Preliminary Study on the Efficacy of Essential Oils Against Trichoderma longibrachiatum Isolated from an Archival Document in Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 8
Issue 6
10.3390/heritage8060212
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Materials in Painting Conservation: A Pilot Protocol for Evaluating Environmental Impact in Cultural Heritage

by
Benedetta Paolino
1,*,
Fernanda Prestileo
2,
Paola Carnazza
3,
Federica Sacco
4,
Alessia Strozzi
4,5,
Alberta Congeduti
6,7 and
Andrea Macchia
3,*
1
Italian Ministry of Culture, National Museums of Siena, Via di San Pietro 29, 53100 Siena, Italy
2
CNR-ISAC, Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133 Rome, Italy
3
YOCOCU APS, Youth in Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Via Tasso 108, 00185 Rome, Italy
4
ICOM—International Council of Museums Italy-PSE, Palazzo Lombardia 1, entrata n. 3, 20124 Milan, Italy
5
Italian Ministry of Culture, Soprintendenza ABAP AN PU, Piazza del Senato 15, 60121 Ancona, Italy
6
Fondazione Ecosistemi, Corso del Rinascimento 24, 00186 Rome, Italy
7
School of Architecture, Building and Environment, Technological University Dublin, Dublin D01 K822, Ireland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(6), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8060212
Submission received: 22 April 2025 / Revised: 2 June 2025 / Accepted: 3 June 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue YOCOCU2024 Ancient Traditions, Conservation Challenges and Future Scenarios for the Innovative and Green Protection, Enhancement and Fruition of Cultural Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study introduces a pilot protocol for evaluating the environmental impact of materials used in the conservation of canvas paintings, applying a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) approach. There are five common treatment phases: disinfection, consolidation (including paint layer softening and stabilization), varnish removal, and retouching. These interventions were assessed across three scenarios: Baseline Scenario; Scenario 1, involving material substitution; and Scenario 2, focusing on process optimization. The analysis reveals that solvent-intensive phases, particularly paint softening with Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) and varnish removal using White Spirit and ethanol, have the highest environmental impacts, including climate change, ecotoxicity, and human toxicity. Biocidal treatments, although used in small quantities, also show significant toxicity impacts. Scenario 1 demonstrates that targeted substitution with lower-impact solvents can reduce key impact categories, while Scenario 2 indicates that operational improvements lead to more moderate but widespread benefits. The results confirm that even in specialized fields such as cultural heritage conservation, measurable environmental improvements are achievable through informed material choices and more efficient application practices.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, research on sustainability in the field of cultural heritage conservation has grown significantly, as demonstrated by the increasing number of scientific publications addressing various aspects of the topic [1,2,3]. This quantitative research expansion—also confirmed by bibliometric analyses—reflects the influence of political and economic agendas in orienting research priorities toward the ecological transition in heritage management. At the international level, several initiatives underscore the sector’s growing commitment to climate action. Projects such as TECTONIC (https://www.tectonicproject.eu/), SCORE (https://score-project.net/), GoGreen (https://gogreenconservation.eu/), and GREENART (https://www.greenart-project.eu/) [4], funded under Horizon Europe, exemplify this alignment. Concurrently, policy frameworks such as the European Green Deal (Regulation EU 2021/1119) and the EU’s Sustainable Tourism Strategy (2020/2038(INI)) emphasize the integration of environmental responsibility into cultural heritage practices. Numerous studies have explored alternative methodologies and materials aimed at reducing the environmental impact of conservation interventions [5,6,7]. However, the rise of “green chemistry” principles has also introduced semantic and methodological ambiguities [8,9,10]. The so-called Unified Greenness Theory stresses that “green-labeled” or bio-based products are not necessarily low-impact or non-toxic; rather, sustainability depends on the impact categories assessed [11]. To achieve a robust environmental evaluation of conservation practices, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is considered the most reliable methodological framework [12,13,14]. LCIA identifies environmental hotspots within treatment processes and supports the selection of more sustainable alternatives [15]. While traditionally applied in industrial and manufacturing sectors [16,17], recent EU guidelines have begun to adapt LCIA to the heritage domain (European Commission, JRC, 2023). Existing heritage-related LCA studies often focus on tourism infrastructure [18,19,20,21], the redevelopment of monuments [22,23,24,25], or single-material categories such as biocides or consolidants [26,27,28]. Others narrow their focus to specific indicators, such as carbon footprint [29,30], limiting their ability to support comprehensive comparisons across interventions.
This study aims to contribute to this evolving field by introducing a pilot LCIA protocol for evaluating the environmental impact of materials used to conserve an oil painting on canvas, applying it to a representative case study. The analysis focuses specifically on five key conservation treatments according to UNI 11897:2023 [31]—disinfection, consolidation, varnish removal, and esthetic presentation—assessed across three different scenarios (Baseline Scenario, Scenario 1 for material substitution, and Scenario 2 for process optimization).
Importantly, the system boundaries are defined using a “cradle-to-gate” approach that focuses exclusively on the environmental impacts of materials. Energy consumption, laboratory infrastructure, and equipment are deliberately excluded, as these are highly context-dependent and difficult to standardize. This methodological choice, described in Section 2, is supported by previous studies highlighting the dominant contribution of materials—particularly solvents and biocides—to the environmental footprint of conservation practices [26,32]. A screening-level LCIA focused on material inputs was thus selected for its replicability, data availability, and ability to facilitate comparisons between conventional and alternative treatments. The approach is in line with ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 standards and the ISCA guidelines [33,34,35], and aligns with practices adopted in similar material-centered LCA studies [28,36,37]. However, as described in Section 3 and Section 4, it is essential to clarify that this is not a full LCIA; the study should be understood as a material-focused LCIA analysis, with limitations in scope that should be transparently recognized in future applications, as stated in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

This study is structured as a pilot protocol applied to a hypothetical case study involving the conservation of an oil painting on canvas (Figure 1). Five typical treatment phases of the intervention (UNI 11897:2023) were identified based on standard practice in conservation laboratories: disinfection, consolidation, varnish removal, and esthetic presentation. Each treatment was associated with materials and quantities considered to be realistic and compatible with a functional unit of 1 m2 of a treated surface, as derived from comparable case studies in the literature. This calculation aims to assess the environmental impact of materials used in each treatment phase, to identify potential hotspots across selected impact categories. This evaluation supports targeted improvements, such as substituting specific materials or modifying application techniques to reduce environmental burdens. The system boundaries are explicitly defined as “cradle-to-gate”, including raw material production, processing, distribution, and the disposal of materials used, while excluding energy consumption, laboratory infrastructure, and equipment. This exclusion is justified by the high variability and limited availability of primary data related to energy and infrastructure in conservation contexts, which would compromise the replicability and comparability of results. Unlike full LCIA studies, this research only adopts a screening-level LCIA focused on material inputs. This approach is well established in the field of sustainable building materials (e.g., [38]), and has been shown to offer clear insights into material-related hotspots while maintaining transparency and methodological consistency.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory Dataset

The Ecoinvent v3.8 database (Ecoinvent Association, 2021), accessed via OpenLCA (https://www.openlca.org/onlinelca/, accessed on 12 November 2024), was the main Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data source. Calculations complied with ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006, using the Environmental Footprint (EF) v3.0 impact assessment method. This methodology supports alignment with European Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) standards (https://www.environdec.com/support, accessed on 15 November 2024). Ecoinvent provides harmonized LCI datasets for a wide range of products and processes, representing average production conditions for a given geographical area. For this study, the European Region (RER) was prioritized; where unavailable, Global (GLO) datasets were used. Each selected material was modeled to include the production process and its associated market impact, accounting for transportation, transfer between life cycle stages, and disposal.
The following impact categories were selected as most relevant to the conservation of a cultural heritage context, based on frequency in prior studies and relevance to the materials involved:
  • Climate Change: Global Warming Potential (GWP100), expressed in kg CO2-equivalent.
  • Freshwater Ecotoxicity: Comparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems (CTUe), based on USEtox v2.0.
  • Human Toxicity (Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic): Comparative Toxic Unit for Humans (CTUh), also from USEtox.
  • Water Consumption: Deprivation-weighted consumption (m3 world), calculated using the AWARE method.
  • Hazardous Waste Generation (Landfilling): Measured in kg of waste, based on disposal and classification data.
Where direct Ecoinvent matches for conservation materials (e.g., Beva 371 or specialized biocides) were unavailable, proxy materials were selected based on chemical similarity and application function.

2.3. Case Study: A Treatment Hypothesis

The case study selected for the environmental impact assessment focuses on a representative intervention on an oil painting on canvas (see Table 1). The conservation process includes a structured sequence of six commonly adopted treatments: biocidal disinfection, softening and stabilization for consolidation of the support and pictorial layer, varnish removal, infilling and inpainting, and final protective varnishing. These interventions are widely documented in the conservation literature and represent established procedures in both public and private conservation laboratories. The functional unit adopted for this analysis is 1 m2 of treated canvas surface, enabling consistent quantification and comparison of material flows and associated environmental impacts. The treatment begins with a biocidal application to prevent biological deterioration, using a thio-carbamate-based formulation applied by brush to the back of the painting. These compounds are widely used in conservation due to their broad-spectrum efficacy and market availability [39]. Subsequently, the paint-softening phase is carried out using Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) vapor, which is applied in a sealed environment to facilitate the reactivation of brittle or oxidized paint layers. MEK is absorbed into cotton wool and enclosed in a PET container positioned near the painting, allowing controlled exposure without direct contact [40]. This phase is preparatory to the actual consolidation, intended to soften both the paint flakes and the support before applying the consolidant. The consolidation treatment involves the local application of an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer diluted at 10% in White Spirit, both on the front (for re-adhesion of flakes) and the back (to stabilize the support). The reference adhesive used is Beva 371, a well-known product in professional conservation practice [41,42]. The varnish removal phase is based on a 6:4 v/v mixture of White Spirit and Ethanol, following the method proposed by Cremonesi (“Cremonesi system”) [43,44]. Cleaning is performed using cotton swabs after solubility tests. Esthetic presentation involves infilling with calcium sulfate-based stucco and inpainting using acrylic resins diluted in isopropyl alcohol, pigmented with dry powders. The final protective layer is applied using acrylic varnish diluted at 20% (v/v) in White Spirit, ensuring the long-term stability of the surface coating. This methodological framework allows for a complete life cycle evaluation of the materials involved in each treatment phase, offering a detailed picture of the environmental impacts associated with individual interventions. The standardized protocol adopted ensures comparability with future studies and supports the development of more sustainable alternatives within the field of cultural heritage conservation.

2.4. LCIA Calculation

The Life Cycle Impact Assessment was conducted by converting the volumes of each material listed in Table 1 into mass values (kg), using density data derived from technical data sheets and supplier information. For commonly used solvents such as isopropyl alcohol, White Spirit, and MEK, densities were sourced directly from manufacturer specifications. When modeling the biocide used in the disinfection phase, the product Sinoctan PS—a representative thio-carbamate-based formulation—was used as a reference. For the consolidation phase, Beva 371 was modeled as an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer, while the final varnish was represented by a commercial acrylic resin (Lefranc & Bourgeois). As some materials typical of conservation practice are not directly available in the Ecoinvent v3.8 database, proxies were selected following a structured approach. The choice was based on the chemical composition, functional role, and use context, with preference given to datasets reflecting similar polymer structures, solvent types, or biocidal actions. This also applies to the cleaning mixture, for which the Cremonesi method recommends using Ligroin or Iso-octane, both of which are not included in the dataset. They have been substituted by White Spirit which offer similar apolar behavior. When multiple candidates were available, proxies were selected according to their compatibility with European production averages (RER or GLO) and their prior use in published LCAs. All proxy datasets included upstream production, market distribution, and end-of-life processes, ensuring consistency with the cradle-to-gate system boundaries defined for this study. The environmental impacts were calculated by multiplying the mass of each material used in each treatment phase by the corresponding characterization factors associated with the selected impact categories. These factors were sourced from the Environmental Footprint (EF) v3.0 method, with toxicity indicators were derived from USEtox v2.0 (https://usetox.org/), and climate change was modeled using GWP100 values from the IPCC (https://www.ipcc.ch/). Given the use of proxies and the generalization of input data, the results should be interpreted as indicative rather than absolute. While the approach ensures replicability and internal consistency, it inevitably introduces a degree of uncertainty, linked to differences in manufacturing conditions, geographical origin, or disposal scenarios. These limitations are consistent with the screening-level nature of the study, and future applications of the protocol may benefit from dedicated uncertainty analyses to further enhance robustness. To provide a comprehensive analysis, the percentage contribution of each treatment phase to the overall environmental impact was then calculated for each category, allowing the identification of environmental hotspots across the conservation workflow.
The selected indicators and their methodological sources are as follows:
(a)
Climate Change was quantified using GWP100, expressed in kg CO2-equivalent, according to IPCC guidelines and implemented in EF v3.0 for compatibility with standard environmental assessments [45].
(b)
Freshwater Ecotoxicity was calculated using the Comparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems (CTUe), based on USEtox v2.0, which incorporates pollutant fate, exposure, and ecological sensitivity [46,47].
(c)
Human Toxicity (Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic) was measured using CTUh indicators from USEtox v2.0, estimating long-term human health effects from toxic exposure via air, water, and soil. [48,49]
(d)
Water Consumption was evaluated using the AWARE method, which considers water scarcity and regional availability, expressed in m3 of water deprived (user deprivation potential) [50].
(e)
Hazardous Waste Generation was measured in kg of hazardous waste generated, as defined in the LCI models, which include both direct emissions and treatment processes [51].

2.5. Methodology Validation

The environmental impact of each conservation treatment phase was calculated by multiplying the amount of each material used by its corresponding characterization factor for the selected impact categories. This approach allowed for the quantification of absolute environmental loads across five categories: climate change, freshwater ecotoxicity, human toxicity (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), water use, and hazardous waste generation.
To enable comparison across treatments and scenarios, the results were normalized in two ways: first, at the material level, all data was referenced to 1 kg of substance, consistent with Ecoinvent modeling standards; second, at the treatment level, total impacts were recalculated per 1 m2 of treated surface, aligning with the functional unit of the study.
Alongside the Baseline Scenario, two alternative configurations were modeled to evaluate the potential benefits of more sustainable conservation strategies. Scenario 1 focused on the partial or complete substitution of solvents with a lower environmental impact. In particular, Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), used in the paint-softening phase, was reduced by 30% and replaced with ethanol derived from fermentation, selected for its substantially lower ecotoxicity potential. Additionally, the White Spirit/ethanol (6:4) mixture traditionally used in the varnish removal phase was entirely replaced with isopropyl alcohol. This substitution was not only based on environmental criteria, but also on chemical compatibility, assessed through Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSPs) [8]. Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSPs) were preferred over the Teas diagram due to their three-dimensional representation of solvent–solute interactions, which more accurately reflect dispersion (δD), polarity (δP), and hydrogen bonding (δH) components. This method has gained increasing relevance in conservation science, offering a more predictive and quantitative framework for evaluating solvent compatibility.
To validate functional equivalence, the Relative Energy Difference (RED) was calculated. The RED is a dimensionless value that measures the distance between the solubility parameters of a solvent and a solute or system. It is calculated using the dispersion (δD), polarity (δP), and hydrogen bonding (δH) components of the HSP model. A RED value below 1 generally indicates good solubility or functional equivalence. The RED for isopropyl alcohol, calculated relative to the original White Spirit/ethanol blend, confirmed that the substitution falls within the acceptable solubility sphere (see Table 2 and Figure 2), ensuring that cleaning efficacy would not be compromised.
In Scenario 2, a different strategy was adopted, focusing on process optimization rather than material substitution. This included a 25% reduction in solvent use, a 15% reduction in hazardous waste due to improved disposal procedures, and a 10% decrease in water consumption through more efficient application techniques. These measures reflect feasible improvements in operational practices within conservation laboratories.
To clearly compare the impact reduction potential of both strategies, the results for each Scenario were normalized to 100% of the Baseline Scenario impact per treatment and category. This relative visualization facilitates an intuitive understanding of how each Scenario performs in reducing environmental burdens without requiring direct comparison of absolute values. The normalized data are presented in the results section through comparative bar graphs.

3. Results

Table 3 reports the calculated environmental impact values for the selected materials used in the five conservation treatment phases. Each material was evaluated across five environmental categories—climate change, freshwater ecotoxicity, human toxicity (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), water consumption, and hazardous waste generation—based on characterization factors from EF v3.0 and USEtox v2.0. The analysis reveals substantial variability in the environmental performance of materials, even when used in small quantities. Solvents, in particular, exhibit consistently high impact values across multiple categories. Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), employed in the paint-softening phase, displays the highest values in the climate change category, with a significant contribution also to human toxicity. Its impact profile reflects both the intensive energy required for production and its classification as a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC). Similarly, the White Spirit and ethanol mixture used in varnish removal emerges as one of the main contributors to freshwater ecotoxicity and carcinogenic human toxicity due to the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons and the persistence of ethanol-derived degradation products in aquatic environments. The contribution of these cleaning agents is further amplified by the high quantities absorbed into cotton swabs during application. Among adhesives, Beva 371—used in consolidation for stabilization—is associated with moderate climate change potential and hazardous waste generation, but relatively low ecotoxicity, which aligns with its formulation based on ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers and inert fillers. Although diluted, the final protective acrylic varnish contributes non-negligibly to climate and toxicity impacts, mainly due to its solvent content and polymer base. In contrast, biocidal treatments—despite their low dosage—register elevated impacts in the freshwater ecotoxicity and non-carcinogenic human toxicity categories. This reflects the high impact intensity of thio-carbamate-based compounds, which are known to pose risks to aquatic organisms and human health even at low concentrations [52,53]. The absolute impact values, expressed in functional units (e.g., kg CO2-eq, CTUe, CTUh, m3 water deprived, kg hazardous waste), provide a quantitative baseline for comparing alternative scenarios. These values also reveal how specific material choices disproportionately affect certain environmental categories, highlighting the need for targeted mitigation strategies at the material level.
The biocidal treatment phase, involving a thio-carbamate-based compound, results in a significant freshwater ecotoxicity impact (130.53 CTUe per 0.23 kg), despite the limited amount of material used. This treatment also contributes notably to climate change (2.4 kg CO2-Eq) and water consumption (2.73 m3), confirming the high environmental intensity of biocides per unit of mass. The consolidation phase comprises materials with distinct impact profiles and has been subdivided into two stages: paint softening and structural stabilization. Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), used during paint softening, exhibits the highest climate change impact across all treatments (14.52 kg CO2-Eq per 8 kg), alongside a substantial freshwater ecotoxicity value (120.41 CTUe), reflecting the intensive resource demand and toxicity of this solvent. For the stabilization step, the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (Beva 371) shows limited contributions to all impact categories, with a climate impact of 0.16 kg CO2-Eq per 0.07 kg. White Spirit, used as a solvent in this phase, maintains a relatively low carbon footprint (0.31 kg CO2-Eq per 0.58 kg) but shows a more relevant freshwater ecotoxicity impact (17.11 CTUe), underscoring its environmental burden beyond climate considerations. The cleaning phase, centered on varnish removal, employs Ethanol (from fermentation) and White Spirit. Ethanol presents a negative net climate change value (−0.49 kg CO2-Eq per 0.125 kg), likely due to biogenic carbon uptake, yet its ecotoxicity remains high (79.55 CTUe per 0.32 kg). White Spirit, in this context, continues to contribute significantly to ecotoxicity (14.15 CTUe per 0.48 kg), despite a modest climate impact (0.25 kg CO2-Eq). Notably, the use of cotton—both in seed and fiber form—yields very high impacts in terms of water consumption (328.87 m3) and ecotoxicity (286.88 CTUe per 0.5 kg), making it one of the most resource-intensive inputs in the workflow. In the esthetic presentation phase, the acrylic varnish (87.5% solution) produces moderate impacts (0.51 kg CO2-Eq and 15.36 CTUe per 0.19 kg), while isopropyl alcohol adds a minor contribution to all categories (0.08 kg CO2-Eq per 0.04 kg). However, White Spirit remains a relevant source of ecotoxicity (15.04 CTUe per 0.51 kg), consistent with its behavior across other phases. As shown in Figure 3, the disinfection, paint softening and varnish removal stages represent the highest contributions across most impact categories. Paint softening and stabilization in the consolidation phase together account for over 70% of total climate change impacts, with additional relevance in ecotoxicity and hazardous waste. Varnish removal, heavily influenced by cotton usage, dominates water consumption (over 96%) and is also the primary contributor to both carcinogenic (over 74%) and non-carcinogenic (about 41%) human toxicity. Biocidal application further reinforces the toxicological burden, particularly in the non-carcinogenic category. Conversely, the retouching and varnishing steps in the esthetic presentation phase exhibit minimal environmental impact. Figure 3 clearly highlights that the varnish removal phase is among the most environmentally concerning steps in the conservation workflow. This phase not only shows the highest values in terms of water consumption and ecotoxicity, but also contributes significantly to both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic human toxicity indicators. These findings underline the dual criticality of this phase—both in terms of environmental sustainability and user health and safety.
The comparative analysis of environmental impacts across the three evaluated scenarios highlights the robustness of the results and clarifies how material composition and process efficiency influence the overall impact distribution. Although the relative ranking of treatment phases remains essentially unchanged, the magnitude of impacts varies considerably depending on the scenario, confirming that material substitution and procedural optimization can meaningfully reduce environmental burdens. Among the five treatment phases—disinfection, paint softening and stabilization, varnish removal, and esthetic presentation—paint softening (in the consolidation phase) and biocidal treatment consistently emerge as the most impactful across all categories. This pattern underscores their critical role in shaping the overall footprint of the intervention and suggests that they should be prioritized in future sustainability efforts. The scenario-based comparison—of the Baseline Scenario, Scenario 1 (material substitution), and Scenario 2 (process optimization)—reveals clear variations in impact distribution (Figure 4). In the climate change category, paint softening remains the dominant contributor in all configurations, exceeding 65% of the total impact in the Baseline Scenario. Notable reductions are observed in both Scenario 1 and 2, while the relative contribution of the remaining phases remains largely stable. Disinfection ranks second (~11% in the baseline), with varnish removal, esthetic presentation, and consolidation each contributing less than 15% individually.
In the freshwater ecotoxicity category (Figure 5), the varnish removal phase represents the most significant contributor, accounting for over 48% of the total impact in the Baseline Scenario. This is primarily due to the combined effects of solvent use and the high ecotoxic footprint of absorbent materials such as cotton. This contribution is markedly reduced in Scenario 1, which involves the substitution of solvents with lower-impact alternatives. Scenario 2, focused on process efficiency, yields only marginal improvements, reflecting the persistent environmental burden of the materials involved. Disinfection and paint softening also exhibit relevant contributions—approximately 20% each—while consolidation and esthetic presentation are minor across all configurations.
In the human toxicity—carcinogenic category, varnish removal emerges as the dominant contributor in the Baseline Scenario, accounting for over 74% of the total impact (Figure 6). This is largely attributable to the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons and persistent degradation products associated with the solvents used. Both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 result in a substantial reduction in this impact, with Scenario 1 showing the greatest improvement due to complete substitution with isopropyl alcohol. Paint softening consistently ranks as the second-highest contributor across all scenarios, reflecting the toxicological profile of Methyl Ethyl Ketone. The remaining phases—disinfection, consolidation, and esthetic presentation—contribute minimally, each remaining below the 15% threshold.
In the human toxicity—non-carcinogenic category, impacts are more evenly distributed across the treatment phases (Figure 7). Varnish removal again registers the highest contribution in the Baseline Scenario, reflecting the combined effects of solvent volatility and absorbent material usage. Both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 result in measurable reductions, particularly due to solvent substitution and improved application efficiency. Disinfection also represents a substantial share of the impact, contributing approximately 37% in the Baseline Scenario, due to the toxicity profile of the thio-carbamate biocide. Paint softening and esthetic presentation show moderate contributions, while consolidation remains consistently marginal across all scenarios.
In the water use category, varnish removal overwhelmingly dominates the overall impact in the Baseline Scenario, accounting for more than 96% of total consumption (Figure 8). This is primarily driven by the high water footprint associated with the production of absorbent materials, particularly cotton. Scenario 2 incorporates improved material efficiency and application methods, leading to a significant reduction in this impact. In contrast, Scenario 1 yields minimal change, as material substitution does not address the underlying cause. All other treatment phases individually contribute less than 3%, with negligible variation across scenarios. Beyond the intrinsic properties of the materials used, the application methods also play a pivotal role in shaping the environmental impact of conservation treatments. For instance, the use of cotton swabs for varnish removal, while standard in many protocols, significantly contributes to water consumption and toxicity due to the high environmental footprint of cotton production and disposal. The adoption of gel-based cleaning systems could substantially mitigate these impacts by reducing both the quantity of absorbent material required and solvent evaporation.
In the landfilling category, paint softening is the leading contributor in the Baseline Scenario, accounting for over 37% of total hazardous waste generation (Figure 9). This is primarily linked to the use of large volumes of solvent-based materials. Varnish removal, esthetic presentation, and consolidation follow, each contributing between 14% and 23%, reflecting the cumulative impact of polymeric materials and solvent residues. Scenario 2 shows consistent reductions across all phases, attributed to improved waste handling and disposal practices. In contrast, Scenario 1 leads to only marginal improvements, indicating that material substitution alone is less effective in mitigating waste generation without parallel process adjustments.

4. Discussion

This study confirms the relevance of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) as a tool for identifying environmental priorities in conservation treatments. By applying the proposed protocol to a representative canvas painting, we quantified the impacts associated with each treatment phase and assessed how strategies—focused on material substitution or process optimization—affect environmental performance. The Baseline Scenario revealed paint softening and varnish removal as the most impactful phases, largely due to solvents like MEK, ethanol, and white spirit. These contribute significantly to climate change, ecotoxicity, and toxicity categories. Biocidal treatment, though applied in small quantities, also showed high freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity impacts, demonstrating that minimal doses can still generate significant environmental burdens.
These results are further corroborated by the impact profile of the consolidation phase, particularly the stabilization step. As seen in Figure 3, its contribution is consistently lower across all environmental categories, closely matching the profile of the esthetic presentation phase. This suggests that, while consolidation involves synthetic polymers and solvents, the limited quantities and low toxicity of the materials used (e.g., EVA in White Spirit) reduce its overall environmental burden. Therefore, from a mitigation perspective, this phase may be considered less critical, allowing efforts to focus primarily on more impactful treatments such as varnish removal and paint softening.
Scenario 1, based on replacing conventional solvents with lower-impact alternatives, such as isopropyl alcohol and ethanol from fermentation, allowed for a meaningful reduction in several impact categories, especially climate change and ecotoxicity. These improvements, however, were not uniform across all phases. For example, water consumption remained essentially unchanged, since this scenario did not alter the use of absorbent materials, which are among the main drivers of this category.
Scenario 2, which instead focused on process efficiency—through reduced solvent volumes, better waste management, and optimized application methods—produced more moderate but widespread improvements. In particular, it effectively reduced water consumption and hazardous waste, two categories directly influenced by operational practices rather than material composition. What emerges from the comparison between the three Scenarios is a clear indication that no single strategy is sufficient to significantly lower environmental impacts across the board. While material substitution can drastically reduce specific categories (e.g., ecotoxicity and GHG emissions), it may leave others untouched. Similarly, process optimization tends to yield smaller but more balanced benefits, particularly in those categories where impacts are tied to quantities and disposal methods. The consolidation and cleaning phases remain the primary targets for improvement, both because of their frequency in conservation practice and the environmental intensity of the materials involved. Overall, the results demonstrate that even within the constrained and highly specialized context of conservation laboratories, there is ample margin for enhancing environmental sustainability. The combination of informed material selection, supported by functional performance indicators such as solubility parameters, and improvements in application and disposal practices can lead to tangible reductions in the environmental footprint of treatments. These findings also point to the importance of broader institutional measures, such as the need to develop guidelines and training programs according to regulations, to support sustainable decision-making in the conservation sector. The existing literature reveals a significant gap in the study of the life cycle impacts of complete restoration interventions. This research is the first to focus specifically on a mobile piece of artwork with an organic support. Consequently, there is a limited amount of data available for both methodological and qualitative comparison. An additional challenge lies in the absence of data within inventory datasets for many restoration materials, particularly for innovative substances that have yet to undergo environmental assessment—such as FAMEs (fatty acid methyl esters), DESs (Deep Eutectic Solvents), NADESs (Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents), and ILs (Ionic Liquids) [5,54,55,56]—and water-based solutions [57]. The fact that many of these materials are commercially available yet lack environmental classification greatly restricts the ability to identify lower-impact alternatives to those that are already known and widely used. These observations highlight the importance of continuing research into the environmental evaluation of restoration materials. Although these materials represent a niche within the broader market, they are essential to advancing the ecological transition of the conservation sector as a whole. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct additional case studies in order to assess product impacts based on performance (i.e., functional output) rather than abstractly per unit of weight, relying solely on raw data from the inventory dataset, as previously emphasized in other studies [28,36]. Additionally, a comparative analysis of different inventory datasets would be valuable to obtain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the same process. Each analytical method relies on distinct modeling approaches for impact indicators, which can significantly influence the final impact assessment [14,17]. Expanding inventory databases and publishing environmental profiles for emerging products is essential to progress in this field. Future studies should also explore impact comparisons across inventory datasets and develop performance-based functional units to better reflect conservation-specific realities. This final consideration further underscores the sensitivity and inherent limitations of the LCIA system, whose results should be interpreted in a relative rather than absolute manner.

5. Conclusions

This study proposes a structured Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) protocol to evaluate material-related environmental impacts in the conservation of a canvas painting. By analyzing five typical treatment phases—disinfection, softening and stabilization, varnish removal, and esthetic presentation—across three scenarios (Baseline Scenario, Scenario 1, material substitution, and Scenario 2, process optimization), the assessment highlights clear environmental priorities within the conservation workflow. Among the phases considered, paint softening and varnish removal consistently emerged as the most impactful, particularly due to the use of solvents such as MEK, ethanol, and White Spirit, which contribute substantially to climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and water consumption. The results underscore the disproportionate influence of solvent-intensive operations and absorbent materials, even when used in relatively small volumes. The comparative scenario analysis demonstrates that targeted material substitution (Scenario 1) can significantly reduce specific impacts—especially greenhouse gas emissions and ecotoxicity—without compromising treatment efficacy. Meanwhile, improvements in process efficiency and waste handling (Scenario 2) yield more modest but widespread benefits, particularly in reducing water use and hazardous waste generation. These findings confirm that measurable environmental improvements are achievable even in the context of small-scale, highly specialized conservation interventions. The application of LCIA, even in a screening format, proves to be a valuable support tool for guiding more sustainable practices in conservation laboratories. Future work should aim to refine data quality, address uncertainty more systematically, and extend the protocol to a wider range of materials and conservation contexts, contributing to the development of evidence-based environmental guidelines for the cultural heritage sector. This methodology is designed to be replicable and adaptable, enabling its implementation by conservators and institutions as a decision-support tool. In practical terms, it can be used to compare treatment options, select materials with lower environmental burdens, and refine application techniques based on measurable impact data. Cultural heritage laboratories can adopt the protocol in simplified form to inform procurement strategies, develop internal sustainability guidelines, or support applications for green certifications and funding calls. Moreover, by identifying environmental hotspots, the methodology encourages targeted mitigation strategies without compromising conservation ethics or treatment quality. Furthermore, it is important to stress that environmental impact is not determined by material selection alone. Application methods—such as whether solvents are applied via swabs, gels, or controlled evaporation systems—can substantially influence key impact categories like water consumption, human toxicity, and hazardous waste generation. Therefore, any implementation of the protocol should consider both the materials and the techniques used during treatments. Future refinements of this methodology should aim to systematically incorporate application procedures as core variables in the assessment process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.P., A.M., F.S., and F.P.; methodology, A.M., B.P., A.C., and P.C.; validation, A.M. and B.P.; formal analysis, F.P.; data curation, B.P. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, B.P., A.M., and F.P.; writing—review and editing, A.S. and F.P.; supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all members of YOCOCU for their continuous support during the development of this study. Special thanks go to Paola Moretti and Fiammetta Susanna for their valuable contributions, as well as to Fondazione Ecosistemi and ICOM for their collaboration and commitment to promoting sustainability in cultural heritage conservation. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of conservation professionals and technical staff who provided essential insights and support throughout the research process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

LCIALife Cycle Impact Assessment
LCALife Cycle Assessment
LCILife Cycle Inventory
EFEnvironmental Footprint
GWP100Global Warming Potential
CTUeComparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems
CTUhComparative Toxic Unit for Humans
REDRelative Energy Difference
MEKMethyl Ethyl Ketone
FAMEsfatty acid methyl esters
DESDeep Eutectic Solvents
NADESNatural Deep Eutectic Solvents
ILsIonic Liquids

References

  1. Marzano, M.; Castellini, M. Cultural Heritage and Sustainability: What Is the State of the Art? A Systematic Literature Review. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2024, 42, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pinheiro, C.; Beaumont, A.; Cardinali, F.; Marra, A.; Molinari, D.; Fife, G.; Wagner, J.; Galacho, C.; Southwick, C. Access to Sustainability in Conservation-Restoration Practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. De Silva, M.; Henderson, J. Sustainability in Conservation Practice. J. Inst. Conserv. 2011, 34, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chelazzi, D.; Poggi, G.; Baglioni, P. The GREENART Project: Environmentally Friendly and Low Impact Materials for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Stud. Conserv. 2024, 69, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zaratti, C.; Marinelli, L.; Colasanti, I.A.; Barbaccia, F.I.; Aureli, H.; Prestileo, F.; De Caro, T.; La Russa, M.F.; Macchia, A. Evaluation of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAME) as a Green Alternative to Common Solvents in Conservation Treatments. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Paolino, B.; Sorrentino, M.C.; Pacifico, S. Greener Solutions for Biodeterioration of Organic-Media Cultural Heritage: Where Are We? Herit. Sci. 2024, 12, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Macchia, A.; Zaratti, C.; Biribicchi, C.; Colasanti, I.A.; Barbaccia, F.I.; Favero, G. Evaluation of Green Solvents’ Applicability for Chromatic Reintegration of Polychrome Artworks. Heritage 2023, 6, 3353–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Macchia, A.; Valentini, F.; Colasanti, I.A.; Zaratti, C. Prediction of Green Solvent Applicability in Cultural Heritage Using Hansen Solubility Parameters, Cremonesi Method and Integrated Toxicity Index. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nowak, P.M. What Does It Mean That “Something Is Green”? The Fundamentals of a Unified Greenness Theory. Green. Chem. 2023, 25, 4625–4640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Del Curto, D.; Turrina, A. Towards a Reasoned Glossary of Green Conservation: A Semantic Review of Green-Oriented Terms in the Field of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nunberg, S.; Sanchez, S.A.; Eckelman, M.J. Sustainability Tools in Cultural Heritage: Life Cycle Assessment Examining Crates for Heritage Objects. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 2025, 64, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Muñoz, I. LCA in Green Chemistry: A New Subject Area and Call for Papers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 517–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Curran, M.A. Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of the Methodology and Its Application to Sustainability. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2013, 2, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jourdaine, M.; Loubet, P.; Sonnemann, G.; Trébucq, S. The ABC-LCA Method for the Integration of Activity-based Costing and Life Cycle Assessment. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 1735–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Birat, J.-P. MFA vs. LCA, Particularly as Environment Management Methods in Industry: An Opinion. Matériaux Tech. 2020, 108, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Barbhuiya, S.; Das, B.B. Life Cycle Assessment of Construction Materials: Methodologies, Applications and Future Directions for Sustainable Decision-Making. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Herrero, C.C.; Laso, J.; Cristóbal, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Albertí, J.; Fullana, M.; Herrero, Á.; Margallo, M.; Aldaco, R. Tourism under a Life Cycle Thinking Approach: A Review of Perspectives and New Challenges for the Tourism Sector in the Last Decades. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 845, 157261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Campos, C.; Gallego, M.; Villanueva, P.; Laso, J.; Dias, A.C.; Quinteiro, P.; Oliveira, S.; Albertí, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Mélon, L.; et al. Life Cycle Assessment to Address the Environmental Impacts of Tourism in a Spanish Tourist Destination: The Case of Rias Baixas (Galicia) Holidays. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 896, 166242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Settembre Blundo, D.; Ferrari, A.M.; Pini, M.; Riccardi, M.P.; García, J.F.; Fernández Del Hoyo, A.P. The Life Cycle Approach as an Innovative Methodology for the Recovery and Restoration of Cultural Heritage. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 4, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blundo, D.S.; Ferrari, A.M.; del Hoyo, A.F.; Riccardi, M.P.; Muiña, F.E.G. Improving Sustainable Cultural Heritage Restoration Work through Life Cycle Assessment Based Model. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 32, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gravagnuolo, A.; Angrisano, M.; Nativo, M. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Historic Buildings Conservation through Life Cycle Assessment in a Circular Economy Perspective. Aestimum 2020, 241–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Serrano, T.; Kampmann, T.; Ryberg, M.W. Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Restoration and Renovation of a Traditional Danish Farmer House. Build. Environ. 2022, 219, 109174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Foster, G. Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mohaddes Khorassani, S.; Ferrari, A.M.; Pini, M.; Settembre Blundo, D.; García Muiña, F.E.; García, J.F. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Cultural Heritage Restoration and Its Application to the Uncastillo Fortress. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1297–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sabzi, J.; Esfahani, M.R.; Ozbakkaloglu, T.; Gholampour, A.; Masoodi, A.R. Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Beam: Sustainable Restoration Mortar with Waste Materials. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2024, 20, e02827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferrari, A.; Pini, M.; Neri, P.; Bondioli, F. Nano-TiO2 Coatings for Limestone: Which Sustainability for Cultural Heritage? Coatings 2015, 5, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pozzo, A.D.; Masi, G.; Sassoni, E.; Tugnoli, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Stone Consolidants for Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Build. Environ. 2024, 249, 111153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Opher, T.; Duhamel, M.; Posen, I.D.; Panesar, D.K.; Brugmann, R.; Roy, A.; Zizzo, R.; Sequeira, L.; Anvari, A.; MacLean, H.L. Life Cycle GHG Assessment of a Building Restoration: Case Study of a Heritage Industrial Building in Toronto, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tate-Harte, A.; Thickett, D. Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Interventive and Preventive Conservation at English Heritage, UK. Stud. Conserv. 2024, 69, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. UNI 11897:2023; Conservazione del Patrimonio Culturale—Linee Guida per L’applicazione dei Criteri Generali di Qualità Negli Interventi di Conservazione e Restauro dei Beni Culturali. Ente Italiano di Normazione (UNI): Via Sannio, Italy, 2023.
  32. Elnaggar, A. Nine Principles of Green Heritage Science: Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool Enabling Green Transformation. Herit. Sci. 2024, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. ISO 14040:2006/Amd 1:2020; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  34. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  36. Pranjić, A.M.; Ranogajec, J.; Škrlep, L.; Škapin, A.S.; Vučetić, S.; Rebec, K.M.; Turk, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Novel Consolidants and a Photocatalytic Suspension for the Conservation of the Immovable Cultural Heritage. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Turk, J.; Pranjić, A.M.; Tomasin, P.; Škrlep, L.; Antelo, J.; Favaro, M.; Škapin, A.S.; Bernardi, A.; Ranogajec, J.; Chiurato, M. Environmental Performance of Three Innovative Calcium Carbonate-Based Consolidants Used in the Field of Built Cultural Heritage. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abdalla, J.A.; Hawileh, R.A.; Bahurudeen, A.; Jyothsna, G.; Sofi, A.; Shanmugam, V.; Thomas, B.S. A Comprehensive Review on the Use of Natural Fibers in Cement/Geopolymer Concrete: A Step towards Sustainability. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cappitelli, F.; Cattò, C.; Villa, F. The Control of Cultural Heritage Microbial Deterioration. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Michalski, S.W. A Physical Model of the Consolidation Process, Particularly of Paintings (with Errata). In Proceedings of the Scientific Methods to Evaluate Their Effectiveness: Proceedings of the CESMAR7 Conference, Milan, Italy, 10–11 November 2006; Il Prato: Milan, Italy, 2008; pp. 23–47. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bridarolli, A.; Nualart-Torroja, A.; Chevalier, A.; Odlyha, M.; Bozec, L. Systematic Mechanical Assessment of Consolidants for Canvas Reinforcement under Controlled Environment. Herit. Sci. 2020, 8, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ploeger, R.; McGlinchey, C.W.; De La Rie, E.R. Original and Reformulated BEVA® 371: Composition and Assessment as a Consolidant for Painted Surfaces. Stud. Conserv. 2015, 60, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cremonesi, P.; Signorini, E. Un Approccio Alla Pulitura dei Dipinti Mobili; I talenti; II Prato: Padova, Italy, 2012; ISBN 978-88-6336-191. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cremonesi, P. L’uso dei Solventi Organici Nella Pulitura di Opere Policrome; I talenti; II Prato: Padova, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fazio, S.; Biganzioli, F.; Sala, S.; Zampori, L.; Diaconu, E.; De Laurentiis, V.; European Commission (Eds.) Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Version 2, from ILCD to EF 3.0; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2018; ISBN 978-92-79-98584-3. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jimenez-Gonzalez, C. Life Cycle Considerations of Solvents. Curr. Opin. Green. Sustain. Chem. 2019, 18, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shibin, K.T.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Dubey, R.; Mishra, D. Sustainable Consumption and Production: Need, Challenges and Further Research Directions. Int. J. Process Manag. Benchmarking 2016, 6, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Egemose, C.W.; Bastien, D.; Fretté, X.; Birkved, M.; Sohn, J.L. Human Toxicological Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment of Circular Economy of the Built Environment: A Case Study of Denmark. Buildings 2022, 12, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fantke, P.; Huijbregts, M.; van de Meent, D.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; McKone, T.E.; Hauschild, M. USEtox 2.0 Manual–UNEP/SETAC; USEtox® Team: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Boulay, A.-M.; Motoshita, M.; Pfister, S.; Bulle, C.; Muñoz, I.; Franceschini, H.; Margni, M. Analysis of Water Use Impact Assessment Methods (Part A): Evaluation of Modeling Choices Based on a Quantitative Comparison of Scarcity and Human Health Indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Czekała, W.; Drozdowski, J.; Łabiak, P. Modern Technologies for Waste Management: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Silberman, J.; Taylor, A. Carbamate Toxicity. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nasrabadi, M.; Nazarian, M.; Darroudi, M.; Marouzi, S.; Harifi-Mood, M.S.; Samarghandian, S.; Farkhondeh, T. Carbamate Compounds Induced Toxic Effects by Affecting Nrf2 Signaling Pathways. Toxicol. Rep. 2024, 12, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Melchiorre, M.; Melchiorre, C.; Moracci, M.; Somma, P.I.; Markiewicz, M.; Stolte, S.; Cerruti, P.; Ruffo, F.; Carpentieri, A. Lactic Acid-Based Compounds as Green Alternative Solvents for Cultural Heritage: Application on Canvas Painting Restoration. J. Cult. Herit. 2025, 73, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pacheco, M.F.; Pereira, A.I.; Branco, L.C.; Parola, A.J. Varnish Removal from Paintings Using Ionic Liquids. J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 7016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Melchiorre, C.; Melchiorre, M.; Marra, M.; Rizzo, E.; Fatigati, G.; Rossi, P.; Cerruti, P.; Improta, I.; Amoresano, A.; Marino, G.; et al. Green Solvents and Restoration: Application of Biomass-Derived Solvents in Cleaning Procedures. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 62, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cremonesi, P. L’ambiente Acquoso per Il Trattamento di Manufatti Artistici; II Prato: Padova, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Heritage 08 00212 g001
Figure 1. Experimental design: five phases of the pilot protocol.
Figure 1. Experimental design: five phases of the pilot protocol.
Heritage 08 00212 g001
Heritage 08 00212 g002
Figure 2. Solubility mapping based on RED values, demonstrating the acceptability of isopropyl alcohol as a replacement within the context of varnish removal. The green marker identifies the mixture of White Spirit and Ethanol (6:4) (RED = 0.0), while the blue markers represent Ethanol (RED = 1.26), White spirit (RED = 0.84), Isopropyl alcohol (RED = 0.89), and MEK (RED = 0.61).
Figure 2. Solubility mapping based on RED values, demonstrating the acceptability of isopropyl alcohol as a replacement within the context of varnish removal. The green marker identifies the mixture of White Spirit and Ethanol (6:4) (RED = 0.0), while the blue markers represent Ethanol (RED = 1.26), White spirit (RED = 0.84), Isopropyl alcohol (RED = 0.89), and MEK (RED = 0.61).
Heritage 08 00212 g002
Heritage 08 00212 g003
Figure 3. The bar graphics show the percentage of impact categories for each treatment considered, with regard to the overall total impact.
Figure 3. The bar graphics show the percentage of impact categories for each treatment considered, with regard to the overall total impact.
Heritage 08 00212 g003
Heritage 08 00212 g004
Figure 4. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on climate change.
Figure 4. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on climate change.
Heritage 08 00212 g004
Heritage 08 00212 g005
Figure 5. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on freshwater ecotoxicity (CTUe).
Figure 5. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on freshwater ecotoxicity (CTUe).
Heritage 08 00212 g005
Heritage 08 00212 g006
Figure 6. Relative impact of each treatment and scenarios on carcinogenic human toxicity (CTUh).
Figure 6. Relative impact of each treatment and scenarios on carcinogenic human toxicity (CTUh).
Heritage 08 00212 g006
Heritage 08 00212 g007
Figure 7. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on non-carcinogenic human toxicity (CTUh).
Figure 7. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on non-carcinogenic human toxicity (CTUh).
Heritage 08 00212 g007
Heritage 08 00212 g008
Figure 8. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on water consumption (AWARE).
Figure 8. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on water consumption (AWARE).
Heritage 08 00212 g008
Heritage 08 00212 g009
Figure 9. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on hazardous waste generation.
Figure 9. Relative impact of each treatment and scenario on hazardous waste generation.
Heritage 08 00212 g009
Table 1. List of conservation treatment phases. The table describes the treatment, product used and the quantity needed to treat 1 m2 of oil canvas painting, and the application methodology.
Table 1. List of conservation treatment phases. The table describes the treatment, product used and the quantity needed to treat 1 m2 of oil canvas painting, and the application methodology.
Intervention PhaseTreatmentProductApplication MethodQuantity (L/kg)
DisinfectionAnti-fungal biocidal treatmentThio-carbamates-based productThe product is applied on the back of the painting by brush0.3 L/0.3 kg
ConsolidationSoftening of the support and pictorial layersMethyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)Exposure to solvent vapor. The cotton wool is soaked in MEK and placed inside a PET container, positioned close to the painting, and the chamber is sealed to promote the softening of artwork materials10 L/8 kg
Stabilization: Re-adherence of detached paint layers and strengthening of the canvas supportEthylene vinyl acetate copolymer in White Spirit 10% v/vThe product is applied locally to the front of the painting to reattach paint layer flakes and to the back of the canvas with a brushEVA: 0.08 L/0.07 kg
White Spirit: 0.72 L/0.58 kg
CleaningVarnish removalWhite Spirit and Ethanol mixture (6:4)The varnish removal is carried out after solubilization tests by cotton swabEthanol: 0.32 L/0.12 kg
White Spirit: 0.48 L/0.5 kg
Esthetic presentationInfilling Retouching using acrylic varnish, isopropyl alcohol, and pigment. Acrylic varnish in White Spirit as final protective layer (20% v/v)Calcium sulfate-based stucco and retouching with a mixture of diluted acrylic paint in isopropyl alcohol and powdered pigments, followed by a final coating with acrylic varnish and White Spirit.Acrylic Varnish: 0.16 L/0.19 kg
White Spirit: 0.64 L/0.51 kg
isopropyl alcohol: 0.06 L/0.04 kg
Retouching
Final varnishing
Table 2. Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSPs) of selected solvents and mixtures.
Table 2. Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSPs) of selected solvents and mixtures.
SolventδD (Dispersion)δP (Polarity)δH (Hydrogen Bonding)
White Spirit15.80.10.2
2-Propanol (Isopropyl alcohol)15.86.116.4
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)16.09.05.1
Ethanol15.88.819.4
White Spirit/Ethanol (6:4)15.83.587.88
Table 3. Calculated impact values for the following categories in relation to each conservation treatment phase: Climate Change = Global warming potential GWP100 (kg CO2-Eq); Ecotoxicity: Freshwater = Comparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems (CTUe); Human toxicity: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic = Comparative Toxic Unit for Humans (CTUh); Water use = Deprivation-weighted water consumption (m3 world); Land filling = Hazardous waste (kg of waste).
Table 3. Calculated impact values for the following categories in relation to each conservation treatment phase: Climate Change = Global warming potential GWP100 (kg CO2-Eq); Ecotoxicity: Freshwater = Comparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems (CTUe); Human toxicity: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic = Comparative Toxic Unit for Humans (CTUh); Water use = Deprivation-weighted water consumption (m3 world); Land filling = Hazardous waste (kg of waste).
TreatmentCompositionVolume/
Weight (Kg/L)		Reference Unit (kg)Global Warming Potential (GWP100) kg CO2-EqComparative Toxic Unit for Ecosystems (CTUe)Comparative Toxic Unit for Human (CTUh)Comparative Toxic Unit for Human (CTUh)User Deprivation Potential (Deprivation-Weighted Water Consumption) m3Hazardous Waste kg
Disinfection[Thio]carbamate- compound0.77 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.23 kg2.4043867130.535123.42 × 10−92.25 × 10−72.730124843.84 × 10−5
SofteningMethyl ethyl ketone 0.80 kg/LProduction Impact of 8 kg14.5234864120.4138323.84 × 10−99.63 × 10−88.46152961.46 × 10−4
StabilizationEthylene vinyl acetate copolymer0.94 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.07 kg0.16449551.5554013754.83 × 10−111.44 × 10−90.115320211.19 × 10−6
White Spirit0.80 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.58 kg0.313606017.105908681.75 × 10−105.11× 10−90.04940056915.56 × 10−5
Tot0.478101518.661310062.24 × 10−106.56 × 10−90.16472077915.68 × 10−5
Varnish RemovalEthanol, without water, in 99.7% solution state, from fermentation0.78 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.32 kg−0.496494179.55058882.50 × 10−97.16 × 10−82.028165927.26 × 10−6
White Spirit0.80 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.48 kg0.259536014.156614081.45 × 10−104.23 × 10−90.04088322964.61 × 10−5
Cottonseed and cotton fibre production Market Impact of 0.5 kg3.4062356193.17736092.08 × 10−81.78 × 10−7326.80672663.79 × 10−5
Tot3.1692774286.88456372.35 × 10−82.54 × 10−7328.87577579.13 × 10−5
Esthetic PresentationWhite Spirit0.80 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.51 kg0.275757015.041402461.54 × 10−104.49 × 10−90.043438431454.89 × 10−5
Isopropanol0.78 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.04 kg0.08132050.509143082.13 × 10−115.05 × 10−100.02597833246.56 × 10−7
Acrylic varnish production, product in 87.5% solution state1.18 kg/LMarket Impact of 0.19 kg0.512425915.36965540.00000000.00000000.30076780.0000083
Tot0.869503430.92020090.00000000.00000000.37018460.0000579
TOT21.4447554587.41502673.15 × 10−86.05 × 10−7340.60233553.90 × 10−4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paolino, B.; Prestileo, F.; Carnazza, P.; Sacco, F.; Strozzi, A.; Congeduti, A.; Macchia, A. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Materials in Painting Conservation: A Pilot Protocol for Evaluating Environmental Impact in Cultural Heritage. Heritage 2025, 8, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8060212

AMA Style

Paolino B, Prestileo F, Carnazza P, Sacco F, Strozzi A, Congeduti A, Macchia A. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Materials in Painting Conservation: A Pilot Protocol for Evaluating Environmental Impact in Cultural Heritage. Heritage. 2025; 8(6):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8060212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paolino, Benedetta, Fernanda Prestileo, Paola Carnazza, Federica Sacco, Alessia Strozzi, Alberta Congeduti, and Andrea Macchia. 2025. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Materials in Painting Conservation: A Pilot Protocol for Evaluating Environmental Impact in Cultural Heritage" Heritage 8, no. 6: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8060212

APA Style

Paolino, B., Prestileo, F., Carnazza, P., Sacco, F., Strozzi, A., Congeduti, A., & Macchia, A. (2025). Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Materials in Painting Conservation: A Pilot Protocol for Evaluating Environmental Impact in Cultural Heritage. Heritage, 8(6), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8060212

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop