Specialty Sessions – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Call for topic-focused sessions and pre-sessions – AIC 2019

Greetings, colleagues! I hope your summers are off to a good start. We are now taking session proposals for AIC’s 2019 annual meeting. I know you get a lot of email, so in case you missed the call for proposals, all the info you need is below. Ruth and I hope to hear from you! We are both travelling this month, so if we don’t write you back immediately, don’t feel downhearted. We’ll be in touch as soon as we can.

2019 Meeting Theme

New tools, techniques, and tactics in conservation and collection care
Are conservation professionals innovators? We think so. From developing new approaches to conservation treatment and preventive care, to utilizing cutting-edge technological research, to examining how cultural heritage is defined and valued, conservation professionals are innovative, dynamic, forward-looking agents of change. And, how does collaboration with related fields and allied professionals influence the dynamics of the conservation – innovation process? We seek papers that explore all types of new work: practical, method-focused treatment projects; advances in collections care and management; discoveries in conservation science; and conservation initiatives that intentionally have a positive impact on communities. In 2019, let’s come together to share new ideas for solving conservation and collections care problems large and small.

Call for sessions at the main meeting
Do you have an idea related to “New tools, techniques, and tactics in conservation and collection care” that would make a great, topic-centered concurrent general session? If so, please email AIC Vice President and General Session Program Chair Suzanne Davis at davissl@umich.edu. Include a tentative title, the program format, and a brief description of what subject(s) will be addressed; multi-disciplinary topics are encouraged. Members proposing sessions must be willing to serve on the General Session Program Committee. The deadline for submissions is June 28, 2018. For questions or to learn more, write Suzanne.

Call for Pre-session/Special event proposals
Do you have an idea for a pre-session event that is not exactly a workshop or tour? If so, please let us know! Just email AIC Meetings and Advocacy Director Ruth Seyler at rseyler@conservation-us.org with your thoughts on pre-session events. Calls for tours and workshops have gone out separately, but in case you missed those, please send them along to Ruth.

Abstract submissions should be no more than 500 words with an additional 300-word speaker biography and will be due on or before September 15, 2018. In mid-July, an email will be sent out with more detailed information including a link to AIC’s abstract submission portal.

For more info about the 2019 Meeting
View the results of our 2019 Annual Meeting Themes Survey to see how the theme was selected. For more information on the Greater New England location concept and the Mohegan Sun Resort, visit our 2019 Annual Meeting website.

Sneak Peak at STASH Flash V storage tips session at AIC’s Annual Meeting

STASH FLASH V – Storage Tips Session
Moderators: Lisa Goldberg and Rachael Arenstein
The STASHc (Storage Techniques for Art, Science and History collections) website www.stashc.com, hosted by FAIC is now five years old and continues to expand as a resource for sharing well-designed storage solutions. To complement AIC’s 46^th Annual Meeting conference theme, the 2018 STASH Flash session, part of the Collection Care Network session in the afternoon of Thursday, May 31, will focus on the interplay between the material composition of artifacts and the materials chosen for the construction of storage and support solutions. The session will utilize a lightening round or “tips” format and the full presentations will be posted on the STASHc website following the conference. After the presentations there will be an update on the Collection Care Network’s new Materials Working Group and we will engage participants in discussion about their hopes and needs for an online resource that will aid in making suitable materials choices for storage, exhibit and transport. Take a look at the presentations that will be given at the session

Scrapbook Rehousing
Alison Reppert Gerber, Smithsonian Institution Archives
The Archives recently received several scrapbooks created by Elizabeth C. Reed during her husband’s tenure as Director of the National Zoological Park (NZP). These scrapbooks contain information about noteworthy events and consist mainly of newspaper clippings and pamphlets from around the country. The primary goals of this housing was to provide added support for the textblock to prevent damage during handling and the mitigate future deterioration of the groundwood paper pages. It was also important to maintain them in bound form to prevent any dissociation or disarrangement of pages. First, the scrapbook was taken apart and the plastic posts and nylon cord of the spine were removed. Interleaving paper (80 lb. weight, acid-free, buffered) was cut to size and used between each scrapbook page. To replicate the support of the removed plastic posts, a “spine wrap” was created using archival E-flute corrugated board. The textblock was placed inside the wrap and the original cover pages were reattached using an 8-ply hemp cord, mimicking the original structure of the scrapbook.

Mounting Caps: from Imaging to Storage
Sarah Gordon and Isaac Facio, The Art Institute of Chicago
This project involved rehousing a series of 17th-century English caps when they were presented for imaging. The caps feature fragile metal-wrapped thread embroidery and paillettes, which were vulnerable to loss due to abrasion and lack of sufficient support in their previous storage configuration. The scope of the project was therefore two-fold: create an efficient mounting system for imaging, as the project was time-sensitive, and reconceive the storage design to prevent losses to the material. The solution was to use 0.31 mil polyethylene sheeting (“painter’s plastic”) as a quick, economical, and safe material to form easily adjustable mounts. Isaac Facio covered the existing thin, somewhat abrasive padded muslin inserts with plastic to shape a fuller mount, leaving a gap in the middle to receive an Ethafoam insert on which to rest. While the plastic was used to adjust mount size, the insert provided stability and could be removed and reused for different caps. To limit handling long-term, Sarah Gordon then constructed individual FomeCor trays, each with a universal Ethafoam insert adhered to receive a padded hat; the trays were secured with bumpers in a new blue board box. Modification of this simple imaging mount has provided an efficient approach to housing hats while limiting direct handling in the future.

In-Situ Storage of Wrought Iron Gates
Dorothy Cheng, Smithsonian American Art Museum
The historic Art Deco-era building housing the Seattle Asian Art Museum is currently undergoing major renovations. To prepare for these comprehensive updates, the entire collection was packed and transported to storage in either the downtown museum location or an off-site facility. However, the iconic wrought-iron Samuel Yellin gates, commissioned specifically for the newly established museum in the 1930s, are integral parts of the architecture and could not be removed from the premises. It was determined that the gates would be packed in-situ with materials that would buffer against inevitable environmental fluctuations and provide protection from renovation dust and debris. Associate Objects Conservator Geneva Griswold and I used a combination of the stiffer and more affordable Tyvek HomeWrap and the more commonly used needle-punched Tyvek SoftWrap, along with polyester quilt batting, Volara, cable ties, and twill tape to create secure and affordable “blankets” for the gates.

Bug Tubs: Streamlining Blunder Trap Collection for Storage and Transport
Morgan Nau, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University
Blunder traps are used throughout most museums as a critical component in Integrated Pest Management. However, given the nature of blunder traps, collecting, storing, and transporting them can become a frustrating and sticky task. Detaching traps that are stuck together not only takes time (and accidental contact with creepy crawlies!), but it can also cause loss of data through damage, as well as contamination of data if pests accidentally transfer from one trap to another. This presentation will discuss a storage and transport system for traps that was devised at the Peabody Museum. The system utilizes easy to source and relatively inexpensive materials including sealable plastic tubs and coroplast trays, requires little skill to assemble, but will result in a secure, efficient storage solution that can be used for movement within your institution or when shipping traps off site to your pest specialist.

Boa Storage: Development and Execution
Mary Kuhn, Courtney Bolin, Namrata Dalela, Miriam G. Murphy, John Weingardt, Allison Gentry, Jake Shonborn, and Mary Ballard
A group of boas were found amidst the Black Fashion Museum collection. Several appear to be associated with the Precola DeVore’s School of Charm, a charm school and modeling agency in Washington, D.C. It appears to have opened its doors in 1955. A literature survey of feather storage in other museums did not provide an adequate storage solution for these costume accessories to be stored at an off-site facility. One ethnographic conservator said that proper storage would be vertical storage with the feather hung from their central yarn cord. Such a system would not answer the needs of the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC): safely transportable, protected from insects, easily accessible, and ready for transfer to a gallery space and exhibition. A special storage method was needed that would be easy to use and to re-use, that suggested to the viewer, even in storage, how stunning and alluring such a garment accessory could be.

Rehousing a Collection of Pre-Columbian Ceramics and Stone
James Thurn, Library of Congress
The Collections Stabilization Section of the Conservation Division at the Library of Congress recently housed a large collection of pre-Columbian objects made of stone and fired clay. The collection was donated by collector Jay Kislak, and is under the care of John Hessler, Curator of the Jay I. Kislak Collection of the Archeology and History of the Early Americas. The archival enclosures reduce direct handling of the objects and facilitate their viewing. To conserve space and allow long-term storage in museum-style cabinets, the enclosures are made as small as possible. The enclosures are outfitted with foam, polyester batting, and Tyvek sheeting to protect the objects housed within. Three general designs were used for the project: the nest-type enclosure, the drop-front enclosure, and the drop-front enclosure with sliding tray. The type of enclosure for a specific object is chosen based on what is most protective of the object, and how the object will best be presented to viewers. Protective foam is configured to the specific size and shape of the object and adhered to the interior of the box with hot-melt glue. Consideration is also given to safe removal of an object from its housing in the event removal is necessary.

Glass Enclosures for Papyrus
Marieka Kaye, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation
While there is a general consensus that papyrus be handled, exhibited, and stored between sheets of a transparent rigid material such as glass, debates remain as to the very best material for glazing. Historically soda-lime glass has been used, but acrylic has been more recently favored in some institutions. The use of damaging materials such as cellulose nitrate and polyester films are also found in collections. There is much advancement in the field of glass manufacture in recent years, influenced by the need for a lightweight, scratch-resistant, and unbreakable glass to be used in the manufacture of electronics. With a particular focus on Corning Gorilla Glass, this paper will explore how new types of glass may be successfully employed in the housing of papyri, including economic feasibility and an investigation of the way the glass ages and how it handles under stress in a variety of environments.

Preservation Housing System for Cased Daguerreotypes
Ralph Wiegandt, University of Rochester
Due to their reactive silver and silver-gold-mercury nano-structured surface, daguerreotypes are highly sensitive to atmospheric deterioration and excessive relative humidity. Destructive deterioration occurs readily within the enclosed American-style cases, exacerbated by relative humidity >50% and off-gassing case materials containing acidic and sulfur-bearing leather, dyed wool, and silk. This submission describes a low-profile inner daguerreotype plate isolation package assembled with 0.5mm ultra-thin surface-enhanced cover glasses and placed inside the case, without modification of original materials and presentation. The “enhanced” daguerreotype case is then placed in an aluminized flexible barrier foil enclosure with a lock-zippered closure and a 40% RH equilibrated silica-gel sheet. An indicator strip is visible through a clear barrier window to monitor for sustained <50 % RH. Specific daguerreotype deterioration will be described along with the merit and imperative to address this pervasive risk to daguerreotypes with a low-cost and efficiently achievable solution.

ECPN Mentor Project with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

If you attended the AIC Member Business Meeting at last year’s 45th Annual Meeting in Chicago, you learned about some of the initiatives our colleagues have been involved in to increase diversity in the field. Last year, ECPN became directly involved with one of these initiatives, a collaboration with WUDPAC, Yale, and the Alliance of HBCU Museums and Galleries (HBCU = historically black colleges and universities).

Just to provide some quick background to ECPN’s involvement – in the winter of 2016, members of the HBCU Alliance of Museums & Galleries, AIC, ANAGPIC, the Smithsonian, WUDPAC and Yale University, met to propose ways of engaging underrepresented students in the field of cultural heritage. This meeting was initiated, organized, and led by Dr. Caryl McFarlane, an independent diversity consultant, and strongly supported by Dr. Jontyle Robinson, Curator of the Tuskegee Legacy Museum and CEO of the HBCU Alliance of Museums and Galleries.

One result of this meeting was the development of two programs which occurred back-to-back last summer (summer 2017): Yale University’s HBCU Students, Teachers and Mentors Program and the University of Delaware’s TIP-C or Two-week Introduction to Practical Conservation. For more information on these programs, make sure to follow the links included here.

Mentoring was identified as an important component for these initiatives, so the HBCU program leaders reached out to ECPN, and ECPN identified and solicited mentors for a pilot mentoring program. Based on recommendations from ECPN and a survey of the mentors, matches were made to pair the 11 TIP-C students with conservation professionals. ECPN also created resources for both the mentors and the 11 TIP-C students, which included useful links and resources and a suggested reading list. The mentoring period began at the end of last summer, and is wrapping up this spring.

ECPN is currently working with Dr. McFarlane, Yale, and WUDPAC to facilitate the TIP-C students’ attendance at the 2018 AIC annual meeting pre-session: “Whose Cultural Heritage? Whose Conservation Strategy?”. This pre-session, taking place on May 30th, is AIC’s first symposium on diversity, equity, inclusion, and access in cultural heritage preservation. Students will also be encouraged to attend the Untold Stories “Storytelling as Preservation” program, which immediately follows the pre-session.

Attending these programs at the AIC annual meeting this year will not only be an opportunity for the students to learn more about conservation and to experience attending a large professional meeting, but it will also allow some of the students to connect in-person with their mentors for the first time! It has been a privilege for me to be involved in this program, both in my role as a mentor as well as in my role as the AIC Board Director of Professional Education and the Board Liaison to ECPN.

We hope to feature at least one student from this program on the blog later this year, so stay tuned for more information.

Sustainability Committee seeks new Professional Member

AIC Sustainability Committee Seeks New Professional Member

Term: June 2018 – May 2020

The Sustainability Committee seeks a new professional member to join our dynamic, interdisciplinary team. The position is open to anyone in the profession including interim year members, Associates, PAs, and Fellows from any conservation specialty.

Committee goals:

Provide resources for AIC members and other caretakers of cultural heritage regarding sustainable approaches to all aspects of the conservation practice. Resources may be provided via electronic media, workshops, publications and presentations.
Define research topics and suggest working groups as needed to explore sustainable conservation practices and new technologies.

Note: The SC is working to expand our focus to include economic and social sustainability, whereas in the past we have focused on environmental sustainability.

Membership Parameters:

The committee is comprised of 8 voting members.
Members serve for two years, with an additional two-year term option.
One member is a conservation graduate student.
One member serves as chair for two years.
During the second year of the chair’s term, another member serves as chair designate, assisting with and learning the chair’s responsibilities.
As needed, corresponding (non-voting) members and non-AIC experts will be invited to guide research on special topics.

Tasks:

Monthly telephone conference calls with the committee members.
Participate in researching and writing group presentations, publications, blog posts, and social media posts.
Research, write and edit the AIC Wiki Sustainability pages.
Contribute to development and planning for the Sustainability Session at the AIC Annual Meeting.
Initiate and support committee projects to increase awareness of sustainable practices in the conservation community.
Collaborate with related committees, networks, and working groups.

To Apply:

Please submit a statement of purpose (1 page maximum length) and resume by March 1, 2018 to Geneva Griswold, Committee Chair, at sustainability(at)conservation-us.org with “Call For Members Application” in the subject line.

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Specialty Group – “Conservators as Collaborators: Working with artist Dan Colen” by Suzanne Siano.

Presenting on Thursday, Suzanne Siano, Chief Conservator and Director of Modern Art Conservation in New York, set about to detail the some of her history of artist-conservator collaborations. Initially Suzanne set the stage by providing examples of the theme “Collaboration to Restore”, with artists Glenn Ligon and Louise Fishman. The focus however was on the epic collaboration with artist Dan Colen.

Dan Colen led a wild lifestyle that in recent years has mellowed to include living on a farm and painting for a children’s hospital. This bucolic turn, however, is not reflected in the materials and techniques he and his idiosyncratic studio assistants employ in his artistic practice, of which he retains ownership of the final artistic product. His list of materials are a cacophony of items: oil paint, flowers, crack pipes, concrete, living birds (parakeets), Styrofoam and most relevant to this talk, chewing gum. These lush, colorful assemblages ranged in size from quite small to over 17 feet long. The multi-colored creations had gum in all shapes and forms, glommed onto a support. In one example, the humidity drove up too high, resulting in the activation of the sugars of the gum. The result? Drips formed and delamination of some of the gum pieces occurred. Suzanne’s treatment, in concert with the artist’s wishes, focused on re-adhering of the delaminated gum pieces and removal of the drips. No filling, no inpainting, no stain reduction as per the artist’s request. Though Suzanne suggested that the artist construct a gum that was sugar-free, the artist insisted that the degradation was part of the artwork. Colen did adopt her suggestion of pre-primed canvas and rigid panels.

But let’s back up a few years to when Suzanne met Dan. Well actually Dan’s assistants, because Suzanne and Dan didn’t formally meet at the onset of the first project in 2013. That project involved feathers coated in two types of tar; one was solvent based which was fine and the other was water-based, which had mould growth. The artist needed a support that allowed air-flow that would reduce the chance of future mould growth and Suzanne worked with them to create better stretchers.

Throughout the presentation, Suzanne engaged the audience with the overarching theme of the exploration of the artist’s working method and the integration of the conservator. One statement that resonated with me: as conservators, we collaborate while trying to stay ethical. To me, this relationship can be fraught with difficulty, as we try to steer the artist away from their sometimes-problematic choices. It’s like watching your partner’s new fiancé boil an egg for eighteen minutes: you want to tell them this is not going to end well (because you have the knowledge), but you don’t have the honest relationship yet that allows you to make any comment whatsoever (because there are boundaries). This is not what we anticipated when we were training as conservators, insofar as we were taught to focus on the object. The artist was the distant (read: likely long deceased) element and we had a responsibility to execute best practice for the preservation of the artwork. Suzanne reminds us that our role has evolved, and that with an effective artist-conservator relationship the artist is free to be courageous and bold. Now, the conservator is less constrained in our role, as the artist sees us a new resource. If we think back to some of our most challenging projects, we lament the fact that conservators didn’t get a chance to help inform the artist of the fallibilities of their methods or materials. Moving forward, Suzanne gives us a framework for fostering a respectful and informed relationship with artists, reminding us that our role is an evolution and with that evolution, we can ourselves be enriched.

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Specialty Group – “Gecko-inspired μ-Dusters for Cleaning: Ongoing Research and Potential for Art Conservation” by Cynthia Schwarz, Hadi Izadi and Kyle Vanderlick.

Not often does one read about the use of reptiles in art conservation. Interest immediately spikes with the word gecko, that warm climate lizard that you often cross paths with during your much-needed tropical vacation.

In our efforts to find novel and non-destructive methods to clean artwork, conservators and conservation researchers set about to find applications in corollary fields that might be adapted to our needs. During this PSG presentation on the Tuesday, Cynthia Schwarz presented the work being conducted alongside fellow contributors Hadi Izadi and Kyle Vanderlick, Cynthia stressed from the outset that this was a very early pilot study, but the depth of information would suggest that quite a bit of work has already been initiated. This work focused on the generation of a new cleaning tool that mimicked the unusual adhesion principles found in the tiny (no, really tiny) toe pads of geckos. This cleaning tool is called a μ-Duster, which is composed of PDMS (polydimethyl siloxane) fibrillary microstructures that are able to remove particulates from vulnerable surfaces.

Geckos have the ability to climb, adhere and release from just about any surface, and can remarkably unclog dirt that lodges in the toe pad structure simply by taking a few more steps atop your beachside resort table lamp. The primary mechanism for adhesion are van der Waals forces, which Izadi modified in the application to create a gecko-mimicking material. Like gecko pads, the goal was to create a dry technology that left no residues, left no mechanical damage and only required minimal force to use. The necessity of such a cleaning tool is high: conservators are confronted more and more with surfaces that are sensitive to liquids (aqueous and solvent-based), complex in nature (such as acrylic paint) and cannot tolerate the presence of any residues in the short or long term (absorbent surfaces). Gecko-inspired adhesive tapes are in use, so why not an adaptation as a cleaning tool?

In the testing, the micro-pillar cleaning tool touches the test surface in a dab and pinch method. Test surfaces were made to mimic an acrylic paint surface, which was composed of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) as well as actual artificially soiled acrylic paint films. Note that the soiling agents were a variety of silica spheres and that the team tested three different pillar sizes. Colorimetry, gloss measurements and SEM imaging monitored the test surfaces before and after testing. Tested alongside the μ-Dusters were other dry methods such as goat hair brushing and polyurethane cosmetic sponges. The results suggest that the μ-Dusters are able to not only remove loosely bound contaminants, but also sub-micrometric particles that were not removed by other methods such as traditional dusting methods. Concurrently it was revealed that the damage to the surface from the process was noticeable with cosmetic sponge and brush-dusting evidenced in lateral marks seen via SEM imaging, while the much gentler μ-Duster cleaned areas avoided said damage.

This initial foray into μ-Duster cleaning of vulnerable surfaces is very promising, and the researchers note that many factors will come into play during development. The challenges presented by this method include a learning curve (it isn’t a very intuitive method … one has to practice the technique), the roughness of the surface (with some resolution by creating a thinner backing for the μ-Dusters), the slowness of the activity, the repeated contact with the surface and the necessity of cleaning the μ-Dusters (possible need for solvents in the cleaning and re-use of the μ-Dusters). Future research includes methodologies that necessitate cleaning with progressively smaller sizes of pillars (analogous to sanding wood with finer grades of sandpaper), development of different tip shapes for a wider range of dust particle sizes, creating a roller/brayer type tool (which may not be ideal for paintings) and micro-structuring solid gels for cleaning. Cynthia revealed an exciting prospect in nanometric particle removal … this might include soiling agents such as tobacco smoke (goodbye wet cleaning) and an application of removing particles out of air bubbles trapped in the matrix of acrylic paintings.

Thanks to Cynthia and her colleagues for crafting a presentation that was derived from a topic replete with many physics and chemistry based components. I endeavored to draft this blog as an attendee that hails from the bench, and any errors in my interpretation are completely my own. I very much look forward to the growth of this new non-destructive cleaning model.

45th Annual Meeting – Sustainability, May 31, “Students for Sustainability in Conservation” by Caitlin Southwick

This talk was something I was super excited about since I am an emerging conservator myself. Having this type of platform for students and professionals in the field of conservation is something that will strengthen the communication about sustainability within the conservation world. Caitlin Southwick was such an animated speaker and really brought what she wanted to discuss to life. Southwick is a MA Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage student at the University of Amsterdam specializing in glass, ceramics, and stone. Through her many achievements and degrees in her art conservation education, it has spread to the conservation of the world around her. There are resources for large scale initiatives, but how as a student can she make her practice more sustainable?

The Sustainability in Conservation: Student Ambassador Program (SiC), formerly known as the Students for Sustainability in Conservation (SSiC), will help conservators, conservation treatments and labs become more ecofriendly on a smaller scale. One way Southwick has started this ecofriendly wave is with the recycling of nitrile gloves. The RightCycle Program is on a trial run at the University of Amsterdam and the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. This program is a propriety program from Kimberly-Clark Professional, which offers a range of high quality gloves under the KIMTECH brand that meet conservator’s needs. Nitrile gloves cannot be recycled the same way as other plastics due to their chemical makeup. Once nitrile glove recycling bin is full, the bin is picked up through the RightCycle program. The gloves are then broken down to a powder using cryogenic processes that make new ecofriendly products such as patio furniture.

Sustainability in Conservation has a wonderful website and can be found on Facebook as well as Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn. This is where the conservation community can ask questions about how they can make their practices and labs more environmentally conscious. There are SiC researchers ready to help find the answers you are looking for when you do not have the time to research in depth. Southwick and her team want to help bring these findings to you. As Southwick stated during her presentation, these are the steps “to address the issue of sustainability in a comprehensive and clear way.”

In her bio, she explains how she “hopes to continue conservation and make saving the cultural heritage also about saving the planet.” I definitely know she will be a strong voice in the conservation world about conservation practices as well as how to practice saving the environment through programs like RightCycle. Her discussion at AIC was an eye-opener as to what we as conservators can do to conserve more than just what’s on our benches, but also the environment around us. These small steps she has introduced have and will create a huge impact. Thank you for sharing your love for the world, Caitlin!

45th Annual Meeting – Collection Care, May 30, “A Review and Comparison for Anoxic Treatment Methods for Pest Management” by Elena Torok, Laura Mina, and Eric Breitung

This discussion was an area that I had not researched myself, and I was interested to see what types of pest treatments were being practiced. Five professional conservators shared their different techniques when carrying out an anoxic treatment. After the discussion of the different techniques, a comparison was compiled together about the different treatments.

Rachael Perkins Arenstein from A.M. Art Conservation, LLC discussed this type of treatment being used on-site or at home. This type of anoxic treatment uses oxygen scavengers in a completely enclosed chamber to modify the atmosphere to almost entirely of nitrogen. Keeping the oxygen levels below 0.5% for an extended amount of time will eliminate the insects within the enclosure. The object being treated was placed within the barrier film and vacuumed sealed with the oxygen scavenger packets inside. A monitor to read the oxygen levels as well as the RH/temperature was placed inside the chamber. A small window can be cut to allow the viewing of the monitors. Examples of the type of barrier film used were MarvelSeal 360 or MarvelSeal 470, and for the oxygen scavenger packets, Ageless® Z1000 were used for the treatment discussed. The amount of time to keep the object within the chamber depends on the insect, and the amount of oxygen scavenger packets depends on the size of the chamber. Another system called AnoxiBug® also deals with enclosing the object with scavenger packs within a vacuumed sealed chamber. These ready-made chambers are offered in different sizes depending on the type of the object being treated. This chamber should also have an oxygen monitor inside and a window to view during treatment.

William Donnelly from the Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library explained the modified atmosphere CO₂ treatment within their collection. This type of treatment was carried out in a fixed location where the object was brought to the chamber. The CO₂ canisters were attached to the framed enclosure by a hose hookup, as well as an oxygen sensor, gas monitor, vacuum pump, internal data logger, and a computer system to collect the data during the procedure. The CO₂ concentration was maintained above 60% and completed on a 21-day cycle. The RH does dip with the introduction of CO₂ in the atmosphere inside the chamber. This treatment is carried out on all the textiles coming into the collection.

Julie Wolfe from the Getty Conservation Institute at the J. Paul Getty Museum discussed the nitrogen treatment used on a variety of objects within the collection. This treatment can also be carried out on a variety of scales. The one discussed was on the larger side and took time to construct and prep before the actual treatment with nitrogen started. Instead of taking the object to the chamber, the chamber was built around the object with a Rentokil 6 m³ PVC reusable bubble. A skeletal structure from PVC tubes were constructed around the object so the chamber would not collapse on top of the object during the nitrogen treatment. A Liquid Nitrogen Dewar was used to hookup to the chamber as well as an oxygen monitor, and their home-made “bubbler”. The home-made “bubbler” was constructed to adjust the flow of humidification. To create the “bubbler”, it took about one week to build which included ordering the equipment. The construction of the chamber took about 2 days to build, and the time to flush the atmosphere to the correct percentage took between 2-5 hours.

Bret Headley from Headley Conservation Service, LLC discussed his anoxic treatment using a nitrogen-based system. The object he was treating could not fit into a freezer, so an alternative treatment was constructed. Headley highly recommends the Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests by Charles Selwitz and Shin Maekawa (Getty Conservation Institute, 1998) when researching treatments such as the ones discussed during this panel. This treatment was also built around the object using barrier film along with the appropriate hookups for the gases and monitors.

Eric Breitung from the Metropolitan Museum of Art discussed an anoxic treatment using argon and oxygen. The setup also used MarvelSeal 360 for the chamber around the object with a hose hookup to the chamber which included the argon tank with a flow meter, water bubbler as well as an oxygen monitor. The MarvelSeal 360 was heat sealed for the treatment, and this mechanism took about 1-2 hours to setup which does differ with the size of the object. When flushing out the system it took about 1.5-4 hours for a smaller object and 4-20 hours for larger objects. The amount of time to leave the objects in the chamber was about 4 weeks which was based on kill times from the Getty Conservation Institute publications.

What I found most interesting in these types of pest control treatments, is it offered other options instead of using freezing or thermal techniques. The conservators in the panel were able to share and discuss their findings and the supplies they have found most effective. After all the presentations, the conservators were asked two survey questions about their treatments (Tables 1-3). I look forward to hearing and seeing more anoxic treatments and techniques. Thank you to everyone involved with this discussion!

45th Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, June 1, 2017 – “Ionic Fixatives on Water-Sensitive Media for Aqueous Treatment” presented by Soyeon Choi

In her talk on ionic fixatives, Soyeon Choi, head conservator of works on paper at Yale Center for British Art, presented an overview of the history of ionic fixatives, an explanation of how they work, and the results of several experiments. I had been looking forward to hearing Soyeon’s talk, due to the potential usefulness of ionic fixatives for library and archives materials. As Soyeon emphasized throughout her presentation, this type of fixative is likely to be most useful in cases where saving the information is a higher priority over aesthetic appearance, such as in the case of modern and contemporary inks, which are sensitive to a wide range of solvents. Soyeon’s experiments focused on a wide range of inks and included a variety of tests with numerous ionic fixatives and several different contemporary inks.

Prior to this talk, I hadn’t realized that ionic fixatives had remained more popular in Europe than in the United States since they were introduced as a treatment technique in Germany in the 1980s. As Soyeon explained, ionic fixatives have been used for mass scale treatment in Germany since 1996, but simply have not caught on in the US, for a number of reasons. One of the main challenges in translating this technique into practice is that these fixatives are industrial products which are used in processing textiles, and are not commercially available on a small scale. A related challenge is that the names of the fixatives are proprietary, and therefore vary from country to country, so fixatives used for research and testing in Europe are either not available in the US or go by different names. And, as with all things industrial, the exact composition of these fixatives is proprietary and subject to change. Soyeon felt it would be useful to complete a study of ionic fixatives in the US, and having seen her talk, I agree!

Soyeon gave a brief and thorough description of the main categories of ionic fixatives, which can be either cationic or anionic, and explained how these differ chemically. Interestingly, it has been found that cationic and anionic fixatives work best when used in tandem rather than when used separately. She also explained that the main drawback of all ionic fixatives is that some permanent change in the color of the ink should be expected, and that these are most useful in situations where preserving legibility is the main goal. Her research focused on dye-based inks, and compared 13 different fixatives. The experiments included examining the effects of applying the fixatives, and then testing the efficacy of the fixatives using localized treatment.

The goal of the first experiment was to determine if the fixatives leave any residue in the paper after washing, and to see if it made any difference to wash before or after the fixatives dried. Whatman filter paper was used, and the fixatives were applied to the paper on their own, as in not over any ink. Samples were left either unwashed, washed before the fixative dried, or washed after the fixatives dried. The fixatives tested included Polymin, Lupamin, Cartafix FF, Cartafix SWE, Cartafix WA, Cartafix WE, Cassofix FRN, Catiofast 159(A), Catiofast 2345, Mesitol NBS/Rewin EL, Nylofixan HF, Catiofast 269, and Appretan. The samples were washed for 15 minutes, and were examined for fluorescing residue and compared under UV light. There was a range of results in terms of fluorescence, and the fixatives which showed little to no fluorescence were chosen for further experiments.

In the next experiment, the effect of accelerating aging on the washed samples was examined. In this experiment, unwashed and washed oven-aged samples were compared. The oven-aged samples were aged at 70^oC, 50% RH for 96 days. The fixatives used were Catiofast 159(A), Cartafix FF, Cartafix WA, Cartafix WE, Catiofast 269, Lupamin 9095, Catiofast 2345, Nylofixan HF, and Mesitol + Rewin. The samples were examined in visible and UV light. One fixative, Nylofixan HF, stained the paper even without aging. The not washed oven-aged samples developed significant amounts of fluorescence, but the washed, oven-aged samples did not, which suggests that washing did a good job of removing the fixative.

Based on these initial test results, three fixatives stood out as the most viable, including Cartafix WE, Mesitol & Rewin, and Cartafix FF. These three fixatives were then tested with contemporary inks. The inks tested, included Winsor & Newton Calligraphy Ink, Bombay India Ink, and Higgins ink. The fixatives were applied over fixed and unfixed inscriptions, again on Whatman filter paper. The fixatives were mixed with methyl cellulose and applied on a suction platen to both the front and back of the samples prior to washing. Both fixed and unfixed samples were washed. As expected, the unfixed samples bled profusely. Most of the fixatives gave acceptable results, and some fixatives worked better with certain inks. Higgins ink did not do well with any of the fixatives.

As Soyeon summarized, there are many factors to consider when using ionic fixatives, and their use requires a lot of fine tuning. The fixatives permanently alter the media to some degree in terms of hue and saturation, and rinsing is important for long term stability. The fixative names change fairly frequently. Future tests may include the use of ionic fixatives with blotter washing vs. immersion washing, gel vs. solution application, and air drying vs. quick drying. Overall, I thought the experiments were helpful and thorough. There was a lot more information presented than I was able to capture, so I hope that Soyeon publishes this work someday.

45th Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 30, 2017 – “Treatment 305: A Love Story” presented by Kathy Lechuga

In her talk “Treatment 305: A Love Story,” Kathy Lechuga, book conservator at the Indiana Historical Society, described a deep relationship with a treatment technique that was years in the making. Kathy punctuated her talk with references to Prince lyrics, which she used to emphasis her love for the versatility of her new favorite treatment technique. Treatment 305 was originally developed at Princeton and was presented by Brian J. Baird and Mick Letourneaux in 1994. It is described in the Book and Paper Group Annual, in an article which may be found here.

The talk began with a summary of why Kathy has found this technique useful, what sort of books this treatment is typically used for, and how it relates to the Indiana Historical Society mission statement. Typically, she has found it useful for printed books from the late 18^th to 19^th century, which fit into the “medium rare” category. As this category of book treatment isn’t often addressed, I enjoyed hearing two talks related to medium rare books, including Quinn Ferris’ talk, “Medium Rare: An innovative approach to the space between special and general collections.” As Kathy described, the books in this category within her institution included collections that are used frequently for research and exhibits, and the ultimate goal of treatment was to improve mobility and durability while maintaining an aesthetic appearance that was harmonious with the books’ time periods.

Kathy was inspired by the Treatment 305 technique, because it helped in many ways to meet her desired treatment goals. She found this technique appropriate for books with a weak binding and a strong text block, and found that it would allow her to create a tight back structure while minimizing the inherent weakness of the historic structure. However, she did decide to experiment with deviations from the exact Treatment 305 technique as described in the original 1994 article, in order to better accommodate the needs of specific volumes, and to incorporate more contemporary treatment practices.

The majority of the talk centered around four case studies which incorporated slight variations on the Treatment 305 technique. The books included in the case studies were similar in that all were missing significant portions of their original binding components, such as their spines, one board, or both boards, and dated to the late 18^th century or 19^th century. The treatment was varied slightly in each case study, in order to accommodate the needs of each particular volume. All four case studies varied slightly, although common features included minimal spine linings and new boards constructed from two pieces of 4-ply board which had been laminated together.

One component of one case study which really caught everyone’s attention, and resulted in a few audience questions, was Kathy’s use of a screen-printing kit to replicate the title information on the spine of a book. I also thought this was a great new tool to consider, because replicating an original spine is called for on occasion, and using new materials to replicate an aged aesthetic can be a challenge.