Physical and mineralogical changes of Hungarian monumental stones exposed to different conditions: stone-testing in-situ and under laboratory conditions

The Székesfehérvár Ruin Garden is a unique assemblage of monuments belonging to the cultural heritage of Hungary due to its important role in the Middle Ages as the coronation and burial church of the Kings of the Hungarian Christian Kingdom. It has been nominated for “National Monument” and as a consequence, its protection in the present and future is required. Moreover, it was reconstructed and expanded several times throughout Hungarian history. By a quick overview of the current state of the monument, the presence of several lithotypes can be found among the remained building and decorative stones. Therefore, the research related to the materials is crucial not only for the conservation of that specific monument but also for other historic structures in Central Europe. The current research is divided in three main parts: i) description of lithologies and their provenance, ii) physical properties testing of historic material and iii) durability tests of analogous stones obtained from active quarries. The survey of the National Monument of Székesfehérvár, focuses on the historical importance and the architecture of the monument, the different construction periods, the identification of the different building stones and their distribution in the remaining parts of the monument and it also included provenance analyses. The second one was the in situ and laboratory testing of physical properties of historic material. As a final phase samples were taken from local quarries with similar physical and mineralogical characteristics to the ones used in the monument. The three studied lithologies are: fine oolitic limestone, a coarse oolitic limestone and a red compact limestone. These stones were used for rock mechanical and durability tests under laboratory conditions. The following techniques were used: a) in-situ: Schmidt Hammer Values, moisture content measurements, DRMS, mapping (construction ages, lithotypes, weathering forms) b) laboratory: petrographic analysis, XRD, determination of real density by means of helium pycnometer and bulk density by means of mercury pycnometer, pore size distribution by mercury intrusion porosimetry and by nitrogen adsorption, water absorption, determination of open porosity, DRMS, frost resistance, ultrasonic pulse velocity test, uniaxial compressive strength test and dynamic modulus of elasticity. The results show that initial uniaxial compressive strength is not necessarily a clear indicator of the stone durability. Bedding and other lithological heterogeneities can influence the strength and durability of individual specimens. In addition, long-term behaviour is influenced by exposure conditions, fabric and, especially, the pore size distribution of each sample. Therefore, a statistic evaluation of the results is highly recommended and they should be evaluated in combination with other investigations on internal structure and micro-scale heterogeneities of the material, such as petrographic observation, ultrasound pulse velocity and porosimetry. Laboratory tests used to estimate the durability of natural stone may give a good guidance to its short-term performance but they should not be taken as an ultimate indication of the long-term behaviour of the stone. The interdisciplinary study of the results confirms that stones in the monument show deterioration in terms of mineralogy, fabric and physical properties in comparison with quarried stones. Moreover stone-testing proves compatibility between quarried and historical stones. Good correlation is observed between the non-destructive-techniques and laboratory tests results which allow us to minimize sampling and assessing the condition of the materials. Concluding, this research can contribute to the diagnostic knowledge for further studies that are needed in order to evaluate the effect of recent and future protective measures.

A novel specific genetic translocation in epithelioid hemangioendotelioma, showing a fusion of the WWTR1 and CAMTA1 genes, supports the monoclonality of multifocal epithelioid hemangioendotelioma.

Like other vascular tumors, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is multifocal in approximately 50% of cases, and it is unclear whether the separate lesions represent multifocal disease or metastases. We hypothesized that the identification of an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in different EHEs from the same patient supports the monoclonal origin of EHE. To test our hypothesis, we undertook a molecular analysis of two multicentric EHEs of the liver, including separate tumor samples from each patient. Matherial and Methods: We retrieved two cases of EHE with available tissue for molecular analysis. In both cases, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed to identify the presence of the WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement to confirm the histologic diagnosis of EHE, as previously described. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) products were analyzed by electrophoresis and the RT-PCR–amplified products were sequenced using the Sanger method. Results: FISH analysis revealed signal abnormalities in both WWTR1 and CAMTA1. Combined results confirmed the presence of the t(1;3)(1p36.23;3q25.1) translocation in both cases of EHE. Using RT-PCR analysis, we found that the size of the rearranged bands was identical in the different tumors from each patient. The sequence of the fusion gene confirmed a different WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each patient, but an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in the different lesions from each patient. Discussion: Because of its generally indolent clinical course, EHE is commonly classified as a multifocal, rather than metastatic, disease. In this study, we examined two cases of multifocal liver EHE and found an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each lesion from the same patient, but not between the two patients. These findings suggest that multifocal EHE arises from metastasis of the same neoplastic clone rather than from the simultaneous formation of multiple neoplastic clones, which supports the monoclonal origin of multifocal EHE.