TECHNART 2009
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ABSTRACT AUTHORS
GENERAL
Please use the TECHNART 2009 Abstract Template (see next page) to ensure uniformity.
Abstracts should NOT exceed one page in length.
ABSTRACT STRUCTURE
1. Title
Please type a concise but informative title of no more than 110 characters (including spaces).
2. Authors and affiliations
The names and affiliations of all authors should appear on the abstract (the layout is given in the
template). Clearly indicate the corresponding author with an asterisk* and be sure that you have typed
correctly his/her e-mail address and complete postal address.
3. Abstract classification data
Please choose one of the conference scientific topics:
X-ray Microanalysis (XRF, PIXE, XRD, SEM-EDX)
Confocal X-ray Microscopy (3D Micro-XRF, 3D Micro-PIXE)
Synchrotron, Ion Beam and Neutron based techniques/instrumentation
FT-IR and Raman microscopy
UV-Vis and NIR absorption/ reflectance and fluorescence
Laser-based analytical techniques
Magnetic resonance techniques
Chromatography & Mass spectrometry (GC, HPLC)
Optical imaging & coherence techniques
Mobile spectrometry & remote sensing
4. Abstract main text
Introduction: Please outline briefly the state-of-the-art and aim of the work.
Experimental: Give a short description of the instrumentation and materials used. Please refer to
already published papers, where instrumentation is fully described.
Results: The most outstanding results have to be presented in this section. Figures (graphs or b&w
photographs) or Tables may be used within the one-page space limit. Figures should be accompanied
by an appropriate caption (Figure number and content). Tables should have a brief heading and if
required, explanatory footnotes may be typed below the table.
Conclusions: This section should include a small discussion on the significance and innovation of the
presented results.
Acknowledgements: Optional field.
References: Literature references may be provided by inserting in the text the reference number in
square brackets. The reference list at the end of the abstract must conform to the following style:
Journal: G.M. Aguilar, M.I. Osendi, J. Lumin. 27, 365 (1982).
Book – Chapter in a book: J.J. Rorimer, Ultraviolet rays and their use in the examination of works of
art (Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1931).
M.D. Lumb, Organic luminescence, in: M.D. Lumb (Ed.), Luminescence Spectroscopy, Academic
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 93-148.
Proceedings: F. Colao1, L. Fiorani, R. Fantoni, A. Palucci, J. Striber, Diagnostics of stone samples by
laser induced fluorescence, in: V. I. Vlad (ed.), ROMOPTO 7th International Conference on Optics,
SPIE Proceedings 5581 (2004), 455-464.
COLOR FIGURES AND TABLES
Please DO NOT include color figures. Try to use other ways for interpretation of color photograph
features or to clarify complex data plots.
Please note that abstracts not complying with these Instructions may be returned to the
author(s) for revision!
TECHNART 2009
RELIABILITY OF UV – INDUCED FLUORESCENCE PHOTOGRAPHY
FOR DETECTING ANCIENT MARBLE FORGERY
K. POLIKRETI1* and C. CHRISTOFIDES2
1
Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Conservation of Ancient and Modern Monuments, Dept. of Applied
Research, Pireos 81, 105 53, Athens, Greece, kpolikre@ucy.ac.cy
2
University of Cyprus, Department of Physics, Photonics and Optoelectronics Laboratory, P.O. Box 20537,
Nicosia 1678, Cyprus
Main scientific topic:
Preferred type of presentation : ORAL  POSTER 
I intend to submit a full paper to Analytical Bioanalytical Chemistry: YES  NO 
Introduction
In the case of marble there is no physicochemical
technique to ensure reliable answers to all
authenticity or dating problems. Numerous of
museum items have been accused of being forgeries
in the last 20 years and many controversies over
important artifacts have remained unresolved due to
lack of conclusive evidence. UV-induced
fluorescence photography has been adopted
worldwide by museums and art collectors as a
standard authenticity test. According to empirical
observations of the thirties [1], fresh marble surfaces
display an even “purple” color under ultraviolet light,
while long-buried surfaces are distinguished by a
“spotty bluish-white” color. However, these colors
have never been related to marble properties and the
reliability of the technique has often been questioned.
The present work aims to investigate the origins of
“blue” emission under UV and test the reliability of
the technique.
Experimental
The analysed samples include 7 excavated
archaeological marble pieces and 27 pieces from
building material buried after 1970. The samples
were excited by an argon ion laser (Spectra-Physics
2025-5 at 363 nm) and the measurements carried out
with a double monochromator system coupled to an
Olympus microscope. Details on the experimental
set-up are given in ref. [2]. The microphotoluminescence spectra (PL) obtained this way
simulates the PL recorded on a common
photographic film by a curator after UV excitation.
Results
The “bluish” luminescence emitted by long-buried
marble surfaces (Fig. 1) originates from humate
complexes existing in the weathered layers [3].
Ancient surfaces but also surfaces buried for at least
30 years exhibit this typical “bluish” emission. For
burial periods less than 20 years and soil pH values
lower than 6.0 no blue-green PL is observed
indicating absence of humates in the marble patina.
Conclusions
The examination of a large number of ancient and
recently buried surfaces shows that both types may
give similar photoluminescence spectra (Fig. 1),
therefore complementary techniques should also be
used in cases of ambiguous authenticity.
5000
Newly cut surface –
Purple photoluminescence
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
350
400
450
500
550
600
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
7000
Ancient excavated surface
–Blue photoluminescence
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
650
700
750
11000
Surface buried since 1971
–Blue photoluminescence
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
Figure 1: Comparison of PL spectra from newly cut,
ancient and recently buried marble surfaces. The
dramatic resemblance between the ancient and
recently buried spectra proves that UV-induced
fluorescence is unreliable for authentication testing
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Cyprus Research
Promotion Foundation Project AUTHENTIC
(“Authentication of ancient marble objects by
luminescence methods”- KOINW/0104/07/2004).
References
1. J.J. Rorimer, Ultraviolet rays and their use in the
examination of works of art (Metropolitan
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1931).
2. K. Polikreti, C. Christofides. Appl. Phys. A 90:
285 (2008).
3. K. Polikreti, C. Christofides. Phys. Chem. Miner.
(online first).