Construction projects have been on my mind lately and I thought this would be a good complement to Angela Chang’s presentation about her experiences during two major construction projects at the Straus Center (she spoke at the Conservation & Exhibition Planning: Material Testing for Design, Display, and Packing conference in DC in November 2015). Jeffrey Hirsch and Angela Matchica from Ewing Cole (an architect-design-engineering-planning firm) put together a clear and useful review of how conservators and collections care professionals can be active participants in a construction planning process. They took turns speaking, with Jeffrey giving an overview of each issue or area of collaboration, and Angela providing the in-practice examples from her experience as a lighting designer. The concrete examples were helpful in illuminating how collaboration goals can be translated into actual practice and decision making.
Jeffrey emphasized the complexity of the team on both sides of a museum construction project, with a wide variety of interests being represented. He noted that while those from Facilities departments are probably used to talking to architects and designers, the rest of the museum representatives may not initially be as comfortable, but need to make the time to stay at the table and speak up whenever they have questions. The slide below started out as just two dots – Design Team and Museum – and then grew and grew to encompass all the different roles that are part of the discussions around planning a new space or changes to an existing space.
In this diverse group, achieving consensus can be difficult, and knowing everyone’s individual needs is important. Angela discussed one instance in which repaired dinosaur skeletons were going on view, and light levels were initially assessed for the bones themselves, though it turned out that the most sensitive material present was the adhesive in the repairs. She also mentioned that they built a standalone mockup so that lighting levels could be experienced by all stakeholders, to get a real sense of what the space would feel like with different lighting, to achieve consensus. I thought this slide was helpful in illustrating all the sub-questions from different stakeholders that are a part of one major design decision.
Jeffrey noted that what looks like one construction project is really a number of simultaneous and interdependent projects – structural, exhibit design, conservation, and so on – all coming out of basically one pot of money. Scheduling all of this was likened to a symphony, in which it’s very difficult to get the multiple instruments to finish the piece at the same time.
As always, communication was underscored as the most essential element. Each group should be aware of how the other groups are progressing, and know if someone’s end date is shifting, and what that means for all the others. On this point, he stressed how important it was to have a contingency amount of funds specified in the budget very early on. Changes cost a lot more at the end then they do at the beginning, so it’s also important to assess all your options early on and make choices then, with full information about the long-term costs of each option. Here, Angela presented the choices between various types of light bulbs, some of which are low cost but require frequent replacement, while spending a bit more at the beginning can lead to major savings in time and materials later in the life of the building – value engineering.
The end message for all involved parties was to stay at the table, attend all meetings, read and familiarize yourself with all the minutes and notes, and keep track of what decisions are made. No sweat! I still feel like the only way to really know how to predict and prepare for all the things that can go wrong in a construction project is to go through one and learn from your own mistakes – but it was great to hear from the other side of the table, especially from a team that has a real sense of the wide-ranging and diverse concerns of working in a museum setting and the energy to work towards collaboration.
Category: Specialty Sessions
Posts on talks that were presented as part of the specialty sessions at AIC’s Annual Meeting
44th Annual Meeting, Paintings Session, May 17, 2016, “Experimental study on merits of virtual cleaning of paintings with aged varnish” by Giorgio Trumpy and John K. Delaney
Giorgio Trumpy presented interesting work he has been conducting on the “virtual cleaning” of paintings at the National Gallery, Washington, D.C. as a post-doc with John Delaney. He described a mathematical/- computer model which is being developed to predict and represent what a painting would look like after the removal of a yellowed varnish. The idea is not to replace the conservator, but to provide a tool in helping conservators visualize the results of such a treatment.
The model makes use of the contribution of the scattering (diffuse reflectance) of light from the surface of a painting with and without an aged varnished, after application of a fresh varnish, and from the interface of the paint layer and the varnish surface itself. Measurements were made on two paintings to obtain values for use in the model, and the optics of the yellowed varnish itself was estimated by measuring the transmittance through a solvent containing the dissolved yellow varnish.
The results give a pretty good indication of what the painting might look like after removal of the vanish. Click on the image* to see the animated .gif (it worked on my computer). There are differences with the paintings however as can be seen comparing the virtual cleaning image and the after (real) cleaning image. Trumpy thinks that the differences are due, among others, to the fact that the model does not account for local variations in varnish thickness or aging, and the use of the transmittance values for the yellow varnish as measured through the solvent.
In a follow-up e-mail van John Delaney I understood that the goal of the work is to better understand which factors are important for this kind of modelling work, and also to determine the limits of what the model can do. Still, I found it fascinating to see how far they had gotten.
______________________
* Image courtesy of G. Trumpy and J. Delaney, Scientific Research Department, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; detail from “Flowers in an Urn” by Jan van Huysum, c. 1720/1722, oil on panel,
79.9 x 60 cm.
44th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 15, “Analysis of Historical Tintype Plates: Materials, Methods and Manufacturers” by Dr. Corina Rogge
Dr. Corina Rogge, the Andrew W. Mellon Research Scientist at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, presented a very interesting (and thorough) talk on the “Analysis of Historical Tintype Plates: Materials, Methods and Manufacturers” giving a brief overview of the tintype process and the ongoing project to characterize their material properties. The analysis was undertaken on a study collection involving 226 unknown tintypes.
Despite the popularity of the process, there were only three patents filed in its history, and how they were actually made is poorly known. Hamilton Lamphere Smith and Peter Neff first patented their process for a collodion image on a japanned surface in 1856. Their melainotypes, so named from the Greek melano, or black, consisted of a varnished image layer on the japanned iron plate, also varnished verso. Peter Neff was interested in the commercial properties, including japanning purchased plates. He sold prepared plates, as well as licensing the process for use. The plate itself was not patented. Victor M. Griswold patented a competitive process also in 1856, using bitumen on an iron plate, and called them ferrotypes to indicate the iron content. There were eventually several plate manufacturers including Neff, Griswold, Dean & Co., and Phenix; however, only Neff and Griswold stamped their plates.
Tintypes were affordable, durable and accessible, and became widely popular in mid-1800s America, and really came to represent the middle class. They are not as common in museum collections, but a large number survive as family and historical items. Dr. Rogge noted that the market and development of the process were strongly economically driven, and the producers found a need to create trends to keep their edge or drive sales. For example, Griswold began to name and sell imperfect plates as “eggshell,” in addition to glossy plates.
Dr. Rogge’s study sought to determine whether different manufacturers used different materials, and if so, whether they be differentiated and dated. X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) analysis revealed mostly iron, as would be expected for the plate. A smaller number contained manganese, but didn’t seem to correspond to a trend. There were no major differences in thickness, aside from very early Neff plates being thicker. These very were fairly quickly thinned down to the typical size, making them cheaper to manufacture and mail. Griswold used thicker plates only very briefly.
Organic analysis was carried out on the japanning layer by pyrolysis gas-chromatography (py-GC-MS). There were no particularly unusual result, as might be expected for a commercial process. Drying oil was the most common component, then pine resin, followed by a small number containing shellac. Asphaltum, which Dr. Rogge pointed out is difficult to work with, was found in fewer than 10% of the plates although it is mentioned in two of the three patents ever filed.
Microscopy determined the most common pigments of the japanning layer to be carbonaceous blacks, as given in the Neff patent, and iron earth pigments as given in the later patent. Plates were sometimes advertised as chocolate or black, and an effort was made to differentiate between the two. Colorimetric analysis ignored the CIE b* parameter (blue-yellow) to accommodate the assumed yellowing of the varnish. CIE a* when checked against manganese didn’t correlate. In attempting to differentiate the bare support versus japanning layer with support, the thickness of the japanning layer seemed to have much more influence. However, Dr. Rogge believes further study may prove chocolate plates (more red) correlate to the use of iron earth pigments in the japanning layer.
Relatively few plates had a single japanning layer, while many had two or three. Though the practice is not indicated in any of the patents, it is mentioned in articles of the time on how to make tintypes. Though multiple coats would increase the cost and difficulty of production, they would provide a smoother, glossier surface. In addition, a more pigmented bottom layer (a ‘face coat’) might serve to isolate and protect pigments from reactive image silver, and approximate the depth of an ambrotype by allowing more light to pass through.
Dr. Rogge pointed out that the project needs more data but points to the possibilities of trends and potentials for identification. She noted also that the actual plates varied significantly over time, and differed between manufacturers and particularly from the patented processes. For example, Neff plates may have more layers as time goes on, and Griswold plates may be associated with profiles containing asphaltum, drying oil, pine oil and shellac. Such an ability to profile the plates would give the possibility of identifying and dating unknown plates.
44th Annual Meeting, Photographic Materials Session, May 17, 2016, "Methods for Cleaning Brass Mats from Cased Photographs" by Christophe Vischi, Ariane Lalande, John McElhone and Chloé Lucas
Christophe Vischi and Ariane Lalande presented a talk on practical tests they conducted to determine how to clean brass mats of photographs from the collection of the Colby Curtis Museum, Stanstead, Quebec. These mats suffered from multiple corroded spots (which I know as pitting corrosion from industry), containing stable Cu2O cuprite and active atacamite Cu2Cl(OH)3. They compared two electrochemical methods and the use of an ion exchange resin to treat the mats:
– spot electrolysis using an EDTA electrolyte and at 9 Volts,
– brushing an glycerine electrolyte on the object, wrapping it in aluminum foil and laying it a humid chamber
– use of the ion exchange resin, Amberlite IR 120 HM. This comes in the form of beads, which were applied locally on the object as a poultice using a fine brush.
The authors did not obtain good results with the electrochemical methods, with staining being a problem for the spot electrolysis, and a gray patina a result of the wrapping method. They chose the method using the ion exchange resin. It was found that grinding the beads before application improved the results. Very local cleaning was possible, and the solution could be rinsed off with a mixture of ethanol and water. Still, there were flecks left where the pitting corrosion was, but these could be retouched to match the finish. Care had to be taken to avoid staining uncorroded areas. The result appeared to be satisfactory, and they want to continue work on optimizing this method.
I would like to note that electrochemical methods should not be ruled out based on this paper. When performed properly, electrochemical cleaning can be used to clean most metals found in museums. C. Degrigny, among others, has demonstrated that local electrochemical cleaning can work under properly controlled conditions (cathodic potential/voltage), using the proper equipment, and electrolytes. The aluminum foil method might have worked if the objects were not wrapped (traps the reaction products), and the proper electrolyte was used. If I heard correctly, glycerin was used as the electrolyte, but it is non-conducting, so it could not have worked.
44th Annual Meeting, Architecture Session, May 16, 2016, "Protecting Stained Glass Windows from Vibrations Caused by Construction Operations" by Dean Koga, Erica Morasset and Michael Schuller
Dean Koga and Michael Schuller gave an interesting and useful talk on the protection of original Tiffany stained glass windows at the Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City during heavy renovation work there. The talk gave a clear outline of what they did and how others can prepare for such events. It should be noted that there was little warning between the time that the Congregation was informed of the work and the start of the work.
They carried out the following actions (which I would strongly recommend):
- Look for local engineering expertise in vibrations and the monitoring of vibrations. Michael Schuller represented this company.
- Look at existing (inter)national standards for the protection of buildings due to vibrations including those caused by construction work. These included building codes for New York City, international codes for France and Russia, and the vibration literature.
- Document fully any preexisting damage in the stained glass windows
- Look at the levels of current existing vibrations due to, for example, traffic, wind, opening and closing of the windows or doors. This showed that such events, as well as the opening and closing of the windows themselves were also a source of background vibration and shock.
- Determine limits for vibrations including a warning limit, and a limit where work has to immediately stop. These were 0.15 in/sec (3.75 mm/s) and 0.2 in/s (5 mm/s) for the low vibration frequencies expected.
- Negotiate with contractors to use more “gentle” construction methods. The contractors agreed to avoid using a wrecking ball for razing the old part of the synagogue, and to use augured piles for the foundation instead of pile driving.
The precautions were successful. No damage was found after demolition work, and only one new crack was found near an operable window. It was interesting to hear that wind pressure on the windows actually increased due to exterior protection. The authors were aware that the vibration sensor they used, a geophone actually designed for earthquake monitoring, was too heavy for the job, but time constraints limited their choices. A lightweight (several grams) sensor placed on the window frame or horizontal supports would have been better.
The authors recommended more studies on systems to protect stained glass windows, and testing to determine how much deformation/displacement such windows can tolerate. I would certainly agree with that.
44th Annual Meeting – Emergency Session, May 17, 2016, “Emergency Preservation during Armed Conflict: Protecting the Ma’arra Museum in Syria” by Brian Daniels and Corine Wegener
I wanted to attend this presentation because I couldn’t imagine what type of emergency response would be possible in a situation as horrific as the one in Syria. When your life is in danger or there isn’t enough to eat, how can you think about saving artifacts or cultural sites? What I learned from Brian Daniels’ talk was inspiring and thought-provoking.
Brian Daniels is the director of Research and Programs at the Penn Cultural Heritage Center of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. A primary focus of the Center is community archaeology, an archaeological practice dedicated to engaging local communities in the preservation of cultural heritage. Could some of the practices of community archaeology be usefully carried over to a conflict zone? How could a response to safeguarding Syrian heritage be local, empowering, and post-colonial? How could Syrian cultural heritage professionals be involved?
This thinking led to the creation of the SHOSI (Safeguarding the Heritage of Syrian Initiative) project where outside experts and Syrian professionals worked together to determine what might be saved and how it could be done. Daniels gave three examples of the work undertaken by the team.
The first was at the Ma’aara Museum where there were numerous large Roman and early Christian mosaics installed into the fabric of the building. Based on protocols developed to protect Leonardo’s Last Supper during World War II, the Syrian team faced the mosaics with a water based adhesive and fabrics readily available at Turkey’s equivalent of Home Depot. Sandbags were placed in front of wall-mounted mosaics or on top of floor mounted ones. The non-Syrian experts helped procure the necessary supplies. The museum was bombed on two separate occasions, but the mosaics survived.
The second example was the intervention at the bronze-age site of Ebla known for a major find of cuneiform tablets in the 1960s. Satellite images showed changes in the excavated structures, suggesting disturbance to the site as a result of looting. The Syrian team confirmed that the mud brick buildings had been tunneled into. They used concrete blocks and a mud mortar to help shore up the walls, and as a result the damaged walls did not collapse in the winter rains.
The last example was not a success story. The 5th-century Church of St. Simeon Stylites is part of an important early Byzantine complex. Armed groups were operating near the church and looters were digging in the complex for mosaics. As the team was trying to decide what to do, the area was bombed and the church was damaged.
I am not an archaeological conservator, and one of the powerful aspects of the presentation was seeing images of these incredible Syrian sites. And the extreme risks that Syrian heritage professionals were taking seemed much more real when you saw that their faces had to be blurred out in the presentation.
As with many talks at this meeting, Daniels and Wegener have been thinking about how our profession can be inclusive, responsive, and involved in the pressing problems of the 21st century.
44th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 15, 2016, “The History, Technical Study, and Treatment of Francis Bacon’s Painting 1946” by Ellen Davis, Michael Duffy, Chris McGlinchey, and Lauren Klein
I am interested in artists’ involvement with the conservation of their pieces, and I love Francis Bacon’s paintings so I was happy when I saw that this presentation needed a blogger.
Francis Bacon considered Painting 1946 to be a break-through work. It was purchased by MoMA in1948 two years after it was painted. Because Bacon used pastel ground in water as well as oil paint, the painting almost immediately had issues with the media flaking and fading.
In 1959 and again in 1971 Bacon proposed scraping down the pastel and repainting the background. In 1959 the museum was interested in this option, but for unclear reasons, Bacon did not end up reworking the piece. In 1971 before Bacon’s retrospective at the Grand Palais in Paris, Bacon again offered to repaint the background. This time MoMA did not want the artist to address the issues with his piece, but agreed that the painting needed conservation.
Before the Paris retrospective, conservator Jean Volker consolidated with gelatin and inpainted with crushed pastel. Francis Bacon was thrilled with the results and believed that the painting had been given a new life. He decided that he even liked the faded colors better.
Over the years, the pastel inpainting faded and no longer matched the original, gelatin consolidation residues turned gray, and there was continued flaking. The painting again needed treatment. Given Bacon’s satisfaction with the 1971 results, it was decided that the goal should be to return the piece to its post-1971 treatment state, but using more stable materials.
Ellen Davis’ treatment involved removing the gelatin aqueously through tissue followed by silicone solvent cyclomethicone D5 (to avoid tide lines). Lifting paint was consolidated with TRI-Funori. Where possible the faded inpainting was reduced mechanically. The new inpainting was carried out with more light-fast pastels.
As Davis noted at the end of her presentation, this painting can only be as stable as its original materials. It is fortunate that it is in a collection where it can be carefully monitored.
44th Annual Meeting, Book and Paper, May 17th, “TEK-Wiping Out the Competition: The Ideal Reusable Absorbent Material,” by Kaslyne O’Connor
This amazing material is made up of 55% cellulose and 45% polyester. It is formed by the process of hydroentangling, so it is a non-woven material. It does not contain any binders and its pH is naturally at about 6. It resists solvents and does not leave behind any residues. It has amazing wet strength, unlike blotters, and is dimensionally stable, so it won’t stretch when wet either.
Tek-Wipe is absorbent, reusable, sustainable, and economical. It costs significantly less than blotters. It is available for purchase in either sheets or rolls and in both a lightweight and heavyweight form.
It can be used for many things such as in disaster salvage kits as an absorbent material, for Gore-tex humidification in place of blotters, for capillary washing, with the suction table in place of filter paper, and in phytate treatments for books written in iron gall ink because it is so thin it won’t put stress on the binding. Tek-Wipe can also be used as a support for transporting wet objects and can be used for dry cleaning glass plate negatives.
Kaslyne’s first case study example was the treatment of a print that had been coated in varnish. The Tek-Wipe was soaked in ethanol and placed on the face of the print along with a sheet of Mylar and even weight for 15 minutes. This was repeated twice to make sure all of the varnish was removed from the paper. From the images that were shown in the presentation it appeared that the varnish was solubilized by the ethanol and absorbed by the Tek-Wipe and thus removed from the print.
The second case study was about a hand colored Audubon engraving that had been trimmed and mounted to a pulp board. They determined that the adhesive was strong and mechanical removal was too time consuming so they used a combination of humidification and mechanical removal using Tek-Wipe. For this treatment, sheets of Tek-Wipe were soaked in water and laid out flat. The print was placed back down on the Tek-Wipe and a sheet of acrylic was placed on top with weight added to ensure even contact. Once the pulp board was humidified it was taken out of the stack and the board was removed mechanically with ease. After the board was removed the print could be washed and light bleached.
Since Tek-Wipe is very absorbent and good for washing and varnish removal it gets stained. Don’t worry though, it is washable! It can be washed by hand or in the washing machine and you can reuse it! Kaslyne did warn not to scrub it because it can break the fiber bonds and cause fibrillation. Tek-wipe can be dried on a rack, but it will dry in the shape of its support so Kaslyne recommended flattening it on a table with a brayer with no weight or restraint needed.
44th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, 16 May 2016, “Bocour paints and Barnett Newman paintings: context and correlations,” by Dr. Corina Rogge and Bradford Epley
Barnett Newman was fairly private about his technique, and until recently, much less was known about his methods and materials than many other artists from the same era. Over the last few years, Dr. Corina Rogge and Bradford Epley have conducted an extensive study of Newman’s technique centered on the 2015 Menil Collection exhibit Barnett Newman: The Late Work, which included paintings drawn from the Menil and collections across the United States and Europe. By analyzing each of the paintings brought together for the show along with studio materials and Newman ephemera, the Menil team were able to learn a great deal about Newman’s working method, and Dr. Rogge’s presentation on the second day of the PSG sessions explored his loyal use of paints produced by Leonard Bocour.
Bocour began producing paint in the early 1930s, opening a storefront in Manhattan which quickly became a hang-out spot for AbEx artists. In 1947, Bocour Artist Colors introduced the solvent-borne acrylic Magna, and in 1963, the water-borne acrylic Aqua-Tec, which was a favorite of Newman’s. In addition to these and other lines, Bocour often produced bespoke colors for his artists, and Newman himself often hand-mixed pigments and other additives into Bocour paints, complicating the issue when trying to understand which paints are present on Newman’s various works.
Dr. Rogge highlighted some of the idiosyncrasies of Bocour’s paints, such as the fact that the names of colors don’t necessarily correspond to the actual colorants in the paint. For instance, she found that Bocour Hand Ground Oil Ultramarine Red was colored with manganese violet pigment, while his Bellini Oil Colors Cobalt Blue was actually ultramarine. Generally, these misleading names aren’t too much of an issue, but in certain colors synthetic organic dyes – which Bocour referred to as “toners” – were added, and this is where things get dicey. His so-called cadmium colors like red and yellow contained a mixture of (not necessarily cadmium-based) inorganic pigments and organic dyes, which causes them to be light-sensitive and susceptible to fading or color shifts. She also found that the paint formulas went through changes in their colorants, binders, and additives over their years of production, and offered this handy tip: the address listed on the tube will indicate the period from which it originates – Bocour tubes initially listed simply “New York City,” and then, in 1943, there’s the addition of a two-letter postal zone, and the addition of the newly created five-digit zip code in 1963-64.
The Menil team collaborated with the National Gallery to analyze the historic Bocour materials in their Art Materials Research and Study Center, and with Harvard Art Museum’s Center for the Technical Study of Modern Art to analyze the Newman studio paints in their collection. They also received a timely gift: sculptor Robert Murray, a friend and sometimes studio assistant of Newman’s, was an invited lecturer and guest at the Menil symposium accompanying the exhibition of Newman’s late works. Murray then donated to the Menil paints from Newman’s studio, including many Bocour products. By analyzing the pigment ratios of Newman’s hand-mixed additions to the standard Bocour colors, Dr. Rogge was able to group certain paintings together as having been created at the same time.
Rogge and Epley’s broad study of Barnett Newman’s work has benefitted from some excellent collaboration and has highlighted the great value of our national study centers for historic artists’ materials. Their study is allowing scholars to understand the chronology and evolution of his late works, many of which were simply found in his studio after his passing. Her presentation emphasized the fact that the apparent aesthetic simplicity of Newman’s canvases belies not only the surprising complexity of his working method but also his fervent commitment to technical excellence and the physical longevity of his work.
44th Annual Meeting- Textiles Session, May 16, "A Biological Disaster to Costume," by Cathy Zaret, Mary Ballard, and Carol Grissom
When we hear the word “disaster,” images of fire or flood and the subsequent damage might spring to mind, but what about the silent, tiny disaster that might be steadily digesting your collection? Cathy Zaret, presenting for Mary Ballard, provided a graphic example of just how damaging an infestation can be in her talk, “A Biological Disaster to Costume.”
The site of this infestation was a townhouse on Vermont Avenue in Washington, DC that housed the Black Fashion Museum. Founded in 1979 by Lois K. Alexander Lane, the museum’s collection is comprised of over 700 costumes, 300 accessories and 60 boxes of archival material; all designed, sewn or worn by African Americans. Notable highlights include the dress worn by Rosa Parks in 1955 when she refused to give up her seat on the bus in Montgomery, costumes designed by Geoffrey Holder for “The Wiz,” and the wedding dress, designed by Ann Lowe, worn Jacqueline Bouvier when she became Mrs. Kennedy.
The Black Fashion Museum was the life’s work and passion of Lane and after her death in 2007, the future of the collection was uncertain. Lane’s daughter, Joyce Bailey, ultimately donated the collection in its entirety to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, but while its fate was decided, the collection was sealed in a building without climate control and without monitoring. When the Smithsonian conservation team arrived to assess the collection, what they found was a dramatic example of the importance of good housekeeping. The collection was crawling with carpet beetles. Cathy offered the speculation that ground zero, a red dress surrounded by waves of red frass (a slight exaggeration on my part, cue horror movie soundtrack), was in a closet on the second floor, near a walled up fireplace. Left to run riot, what might have been a beetle or two became an infestation of epic proportions.
Carpet beetles (usually referencing genus Anthrenus and the various species including varied, museum and furniture carpet beetles) are ubiquitous throughout the United States (and beyond). The adults feed on pollen and nectar and are attracted to light, but females will seek dark and secluded places to lay their eggs. One female can lay 30-40 eggs on a food source. The developing larva can wreak havoc during their 3-36 month development as they feed on proteinaceous materials. As the infestation of the infamous red dress was undiscovered for some time, larva fed and matured into egg-laying adults, multiplying the hungry mouths with each generation.
In describing the way that Mary Ballard and her team addressed the infestation, Cathy stressed that an active infestation is a disaster that can come home with you. Carpet beetles, though they keep on giving, are not a gift you want to give to your friends (or museum). Quarantine is essential. Access to the site should be restricted and precautions taken to prevent the spread of the infestation. When working in the townhouse, team members were encouraged to wear clothing of cellulosic materials and to wash those clothes immediately after leaving the site. You can never say immediately too many times!
As the insect activity had to be addressed before the collection could be processed, the contents of the townhouse were documented in situ, triage packed and moved by truck to the support center of the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute. At the MCI, the entire collection of the Black Fashion Museum underwent an anoxic treatment using argon gas. In an environment with less than 1000ppm of oxygen for 30 consecutive days (the time for treatment will vary based on gas used, temperature, RH, and species), all life-stages should be rendered unviable. At the MCI, two vapor impermeable bubbles, each 8’x11’x11’ were constructed and the ambient oxygen was slowly reduced.
The bubbles were monitored during treatment (safety first! Always have a partner and monitor the oxygen levels around the bubbles), and the argon was topped off to ensure that oxygen levels were kept below the necessary minimum.
After the completion of the anoxic treatment, a condition survey and surface cleaning was still required for the contents of the 273 boxes moved from the townhouse. Although the treatment should have rendered all life-stages unviable, cast off larval skins and insect remains can provide a food source for future insects. Every surface, every layer of tulle in a massive confection of nylon net, needed to be vacuumed. As at the townhouse, nozzles and brushes needed to be washed after each use.
This massive treatment was absolutely essential in incorporating the Black Fashion Museum into the collection of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. I’m looking forward to viewing some of the iconic and historic objects on display when the museum opens this fall!
If you haven’t checked it out, the NMAAHC webpage has a lot of material to explore and information about the upcoming grand opening.
For additional information, MuseumPests.net is the go-to site for identification and great fact sheets on different solutions.