Topics – Page 17 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Are your chemicals labeled correctly?

Hazard Communication Update

The New Year marks an important point in the implementation of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS); the labeling provisions of the standard went into effect in 2015. This means that all chemicals you receive as of January 2016 should have the new Global Harmonization System (GHS) label format, and all Safety Data Sheets (SDSs)–formerly MSDSs–must follow a uniform sixteen section format.
The purpose of both the label and SDS are to provide information for making decisions about using the product safely. The label is intended to deliver critical information at a glance, whereas the safety data sheet provides greater detail.
What does this mean to you, the end user?
First and foremost, it is important to understand that the information provided is based on the intrinsic properties of the material – pH, flammability, affinity for a specific organ or tissue, etc.
The risk associated with the product depends on circumstances surrounding its use, storage and handling.
While chemical manufacturers have a responsibility to tell you about the hazards of their products along with basic guidelines for safe use, the manufacturer has no way of knowing exactly how you intend to use the product. It is the end user’s responsibility to evaluate product information in the context for which the product is being used in order to minimize risk.
The example label below is in the required GHS format:

Xylene GHS Label - Small — image: www.mysafetylabels.com

The product is clearly identified with the name Xylene.
This container of xylene has the signal word Danger. The signal word is selected following set criteria for hazard determination. There are two possible signal words – Danger and Warning. Danger indicates more severe hazard than Warning. [1]
The hazard statements for this container of xylene are: Flammable liquid and vapor. Causes skin irritation. May be fatal if swallowed and enters airways. May cause drowsiness or dizziness.While straightforward and clear, issues of vapor generation/minimization and selection of appropriate personal protective equipment require more in-depth analysis of product use. The label is providing an indicator of risks you must consider.
Three “pictograms” correspond to the particular hazard statements:
1. The flame indicates flammability
2. The exclamation mark indicates irritation and narcotic effects (drowsiness or dizziness)
3. The torso with starburst indicates aspiration toxicity.

NOTE: Pictograms have to be considered along with other label information.The exclamation mark pictogram for example may represent: Irritant (skin and eye), Skin Sensitizer, Acute Toxicity, Narcotic Effects, Respiratory Tract Irritant and Hazardous to Ozone Layer (Non-Mandatory). Because a pictogram may have multiple meanings it should never be relied upon as a stand-alone source of hazard information.

Precautionary Statements used on the example label address prevention and response.

Prevention: Keep away from heat, sparks and open flames – No smoking.Keep container tightly closed. Avoid breathing vapors or mist. Wash hands and any other contaminated skin after handling. Wear protective gloves and eye protection. Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area.

Response: If swallowed, immediately call a poison center or doctor. Do NOT induce vomiting. If inhaled: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing. Call a poison center or doctor if you feel unwell. If on skin: Take off all contaminated clothing. Wash with plenty of soap and water or shower. Wash contaminated clothing before re-use. If skin irritation occurs: Get medical attention.

In case of fire, use foam, water spray or fog. Dry chemical, carbon dioxide or sand may be used for small fires only. Do NOT use water in a jet.

If this were a real label, it would also have the name, address and phone number for the manufacturer or distributor of the material.

As labels go, this sample provides a quite a bit of precautionary information. HOWEVER, it still requires interpretation with respect to use. Is a large quantity of the material being used outdoors on a hot day or just a few drops on a cotton swab in a laboratory? How much ventilation is necessary? What is the correct type of protective glove? Answers to these and similar questions will enable you to minimize the risk associated with use of the chemical.
More detailed product information is available on safety data sheets. New formatting requirements provide consistency which is intended to make the SDSs more user friendly. SDSs are also required to include certain minimal information which is explained here.
As a consumer, it is important for you to understand the new label elements and take the time to obtain and review the safety data sheets so that you can make informed decisions about safe chemical use and storage and disposal.
When you receive new chemicals you should replace your old bottles and MSDSs with the new bottles with GHS-compliant labels and updated SDSs. All secondary containers (smaller bottles you fill yourself) should also be appropriately labeled. Labels are available through retailers, such as www.mysafetylabels.com, and laboratory and safety suppliers. Free GHS label-making software is also available.
Additional information about Hazard Communication and the Global Harmonization System is available at www.OSHA.gov and through the AIC Health & Safety wiki.

UPDATE (2/29/2016): In response to requests for more information on how the other labeling systems relate to the new GHS labels–
The purpose of well-known “diamond label” from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), NFPA 704, is to provide basic information for emergency personnel responding to a fire or spill and those planning for emergency response. The number system is 0-4 where 0 is the least hazardous and 4 the most hazardous.

The Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) is a numerical hazard rating that incorporates the use of labels with color developed by the American Coatings Association as a compliance aid for the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. This is a tool that can be used for in-house labeling of secondary containers. The HMIS Color Bar is similar to the NFPA fire diamond. Before 2002 the fire diamond and the color bar both had sections colored blue, red, white, and yellow. After April 2002, with the release of HMIS III, yellow in the color bar (which stood for reactivity) was replaced by orange, standing for physical hazard. The fire diamond is designed for emergencies when information about the effects of short, or acute, exposure is needed. The color bar is not for emergencies and is used to convey broader health warning information. Numeric ratings have historically been:

(4) Life-threatening, major or permanent damage may result from single or repeated overexposures (e.g., hydrogen cyanide).

(3) Major injury likely unless prompt action is taken and medical treatment is given.

(2) Temporary or minor injury may occur.

(1) Irritation or minor reversible injury possible.

(0) No significant risk to health.

A new version of HMIS (HMIS Implementation Manual 4^th edition) contains the information necessary to align with the written hazard communication program and labeling requirements of the revised OSHA HCS (March 26, 2012). http://www.paint.org/advocacy/occupational-health-and-safety/hmis/
As explained above, manufacturer’s labels on shipped containers include six standard elements:

Product Identifier matching the product identifier on the safety data sheet
Supplier Information including name, address and phone number of responsible party
Signal Word, either “Danger” or “Warning” depending upon severity
Pictogram(s), black hazard symbols on white background with red diamond borders that provide a quick visual reference of hazard information
Hazard Statement(s) that describe the nature of the hazard and/or its severity
Precautionary Statement(s) that provide important information on the safe handling, storage and disposal of the chemical

Exactly what information goes on the label for items 3-6 is determined by the classification/categorization of the chemical which also is much more systematic under GHS. For instance, any chemical that is classified as a Category 1 Flammable Liquid will carry on the label the signal word “Danger” and the hazard statement “Extremely flammable liquid and vapor.”
Where things start to get tricky between GHS and the NFPA/HMIS systems is in the use of numbers. With GHS, the lower the categorization number, the greater the severity of the hazard. This is opposite of the way numbers and severity relate to each other under NFPA and HMIS. For instance, with NFPA, the higher the number, the greater the severity.
The numbers in the GHS system, as adopted by OSHA, do not show up on the label, instead they are used to determine what goes on the label. The numbers appear in section 2 of GHS formatted safety data sheets along with other information describing the hazard.
Comparison of NFPA 704 and HazCom 2012 Labels can be found on an OSHA Quick Card.
For more information on the GHS system, see the Health & Safety Committee’s Guide, Revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard Improves Chemical Label Information–Changes You Need to Know. Please note that the Committee’s 2005 article “Health & Safety: A Conservator’s Guide to Labeling Hazardous Chemicals,” has not yet been updated to reflect the current GHS system.

[1] 29 CFR 1910.1200, Appendix C.The Hazard Communication standard defines the terms warning and danger, requires that they be included on labels and states danger is more severe than warning. Appendix C shows how the label elements are allocated. For example, if the hazard determination per Appendix A results in a category 1 acute toxicity, the word Danger is used

ENGAGING CONSERVATION: COLLABORATION ACROSS DISCIPLINES

Penn Museum Symposium
6-8 October 2016
Call for papers and posters – Deadline: 4 April 2016
The Conservation Department of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) is celebrating its 50th anniversary in the fall of 2016. To commemorate the establishment of the lab, the Penn Museum is hosting a symposium on issues relating to archaeology, anthropology, and conservation. The symposium will explore how conservation of these materials has evolved over the past half century, the ways in which conservators may inform and support the work of archaeologists and anthropologists, and the development of cross-disciplinary engagement.
Professionals in archaeology, anthropology, or conservation are encouraged to submit abstracts (300 word limit) to conservation@pennmuseum.org by 4 April 2016 for consideration. Presentations will be 20 minutes. Funds toward travel and lodging are available for speakers. Successful applicants will be required to submit the full text and presentation by 30 September 2016. A resulting peer-reviewed publication is planned. Please visit http://penn.museum/loveconservation/ for further guidelines and instructions.
Recommended topics to consider, though others are welcome, include:

History of archaeological or anthropological conservation, particularly in university museums
Facilitating collaboration between conservators and archaeologists or anthropologists, or other interested parties
Planning for conservation in the development of an excavation plan, including funding conservation in the field
Education and training
Treatment techniques
Analysis of materials

In addition to full-length papers, we also invite short-format submissions on topics listed above as well as those related to practical tips and techniques, insights, or questions relating to the symposium theme. Please submit abstracts (300 word limit) to conservation@pennmuseum.org by 4 April 2016 for consideration. These submissions are limited to 5 minutes or less, and an informal approach is appropriate. Successful short-format applicants will be required to submit a digital copy by 30 September 2016 and will be included in the publication following the same guidelines as the full-length papers.

Archaeological Institute of America 2013-2014 Conservation Workshop Summaries and Proceedings Now Available Online

We are very pleased to announce that summaries of two interdisciplinary workshops on the integration of conservation and archaeology are now available on the website of the Archaeological Institute of America at https://archaeological.org/sitepreservation/hca
The publications include full transcripts of the panel presentations and panel discussions, as well as summaries of the key points of both workshops. The workshops were organized by conservators Claudia Chemello, Thomas Roby, Steve Koob and Alice Boccia Paterakis, and were presented in 2013 and 2014 at the AIA’s annual meeting.
The 2013 workshop Integrating Conservation and Archaeology: Exploration of Best Practices brought together conservators and archaeologists for a dialogue about the integration of conservation and field archaeology. Panelists shared their experiences on what constitutes responsible conservation, preservation, and stewardship of archaeological resources. The panel discussed moveable and immoveable cultural heritage, including terrestrial and maritime archaeological sites.
Panelists were C. Brian Rose, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Giorgio Buccellati, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of Los Angeles, Matthew Adams, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, Robert Neyland, Underwater Archaeology Branch, U.S. Navy, Alice Boccia Paterakis, Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology, Kaman-Kalehöyük, Kırşehir, Turkey, Paul Mardikian, H.L. Hunley Project, Clemson University, and Thomas Roby, Getty Conservation Institute.
The 2014 workshop Interdisciplinary Studies: Archaeology and Conservation comprised archaeologists and conservators heavily involved in educational efforts in their respective disciplines and discussed the subject of the cross-education of both fields and the need for interdisciplinary studies.
Panelists were C. Brian Rose, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Pennsylvania, Frank Matero, University of Pennsylvania, John Papadopoulos, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, Ioanna Kakoulli, UCLA/Getty Program on the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials & Materials Science and Engineering Department, Kent Severson, Shangri La Center for Islamic Arts and Cultures, Christopher Ratté, University of Michigan, John Merkel, University College London, and Elizabeth Pye, University College London.
We gratefully acknowledge our workshop sponsors: the AIA Conservation and Site Preservation Committee, the Getty Conservation Institute, and the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (2013). The GCI also provided support for panelist travel and the production of the transcripts of the workshop proceedings
Posted on behalf of Claudia Chemello, Thomas Roby, Steve Koob, and Alice Paterakis

This post is promoted by the AIC’s Archaeological Discussion Group (ADG). For more information about ADG, please visit ADG’s webpage.” (http://www.conservation-us.org/specialty-groups/objects/archaeological-discussion-group )

Treating Archaeological Copper Alloys on Site: A Survey on Current Practice

By Anna Serotta, Eve Mayberger, and Jessica Walthew

New York University has been excavating at the site of Selinunte in southwestern Sicily for almost a decade (NYU Selinunte excavation website). During the 2015 field season, the conservation team conducted an informal survey on the treatment of metal objects in the field (Wiki page: Copper Alloy Treatment Survey (CATS) 2015). The survey was conducted because the Selinunte conservators were not satisfied by the results of their current treatment protocols for newly-excavated archaeological metals. Although all three conservators had worked at other archaeological sites, they all received the same graduate training and had similar approaches to field conservation treatment protocols.
The survey was broken into categories regarding several commonly used treatment methods: cleaning, desalination, corrosion inhibitors, and coating, as well as issues of storage and re-treatment. Questions were distributed to a group of archaeological field conservators known to the Selinunte conservation team via email. The following is a summary of the initial survey results.

Scope of survey

There were 24 full responses from colleagues and input on individual questions from a handful of others.
Collectively, respondents have worked on approximately 50 different sites. The majority of these sites are in the Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Middle East (Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, and Syria), but respondents have also worked in Pakistan, Mongolia, Peru, Panama, Chile, and on various sites in the Continental US. Almost all of these sites are terrestrial, although several respondents have worked on metals from underwater/shipwreck sites as well.
The condition of metals on all of these sites is of course extremely variable, but all respondents reported unstable copper alloys and bronze disease outbreaks on at least one of the sites on which they worked.

Cleaning

Most respondents use predominantly (or exclusively) mechanical cleaning methods for corrosion reduction.
Respondents generally avoid wet cleaning, except for the use of ethanol and/or a mixture of ethanol and water in combination with mechanical cleaning.
Most respondents avoid any sort of chemical cleaning, although some mention doing so in the past.
A minority of respondents did report using one or more of the following chemical treatment methods (predominantly for coins): Rochelle salts, alkaline glycerol salts, EDTA, formic acid, ion-exchange resins, Calgon, electrochemical and/or electrolytic methods; these methods are generally followed up with rinsing and mechanical cleaning.

Desalination

Most respondents do not soak their metals to remove soluble salts. This seems to have been a more common practice in previous years; several respondents mentioned discontinuing previously established soaking procedures on their sites.
Some respondents said that they only soak metals after chemical treatments to remove residues.
Several respondents questioned the efficacy of soaking to remove chlorides and mitigate bronze disease; since corrosion products like nantokite are not water-soluble, it is unknown what is actually being removed with soaking. In addition, there was some concern that soaking could actually have adverse effects on condition by exposing the metal to moisture and promoting chloride corrosion growth. The time-consuming nature of this treatment was also mentioned as a factor against its use. It can also be challenging to obtain enough deionized water for desalination.

Corrosion Inhibitors

Most respondents reported occasionally or regularly using benzotriazole (BTA) as a corrosion inhibitor.
Summary of BTA application protocols reported:
- BTA is generally applied by immersion (whenever feasible)
- Roughly half of the respondents who treated with BTA immersed in a vacuum desiccator. Availability of equipment and stability of the artifact were considered in deciding whether to immerse in a vacuum.
- Those respondents who reported the specific concentration all used 3% in ethanol; one responder mentioned the use of a brush application of 10% BTA for particularly concerning chloride-driven corrosion
- Immersion time varied considerably. Reported immersion times ranged from 15 minutes to several days.
  - Overnight, 12-24 hours, or 24 hours were the most commonly reported immersion times
  - Several respondents mentioned research supporting the optimal effectiveness of immersion for one hour
Several respondents have tried using 0.1M BTA + 0.01M AMT, as reported by Golfomitsou (ref 1); those who tried it generally did not notice much of a difference between this treatment and treatment with BTA alone
Additionally, a couple of respondents mentioned testing other corrosion inhibitors: e.g. cysteine, or carboxylic acid-based treatments (ref 2)
Several respondents only use corrosion inhibitors only when an object cannot be placed in a desiccated environment; otherwise, only preventive methods are used.
There were concerns raised regarding both the efficacy and the safety of BTA. (i.e. safety both during application and also safety concerns for people handling the artifacts). On one occasion concern was expressed about BTA interfering with future analysis.
The importance of rinsing in ethanol after treatment to remove excess BTA was mentioned. One respondent reported the development of a BTA-copper chloride complex within 24 hours.

Coating

Many respondents reported occasionally or regularly coating their copper alloy objects.
Paraloid B-48N was the most common material used, but many people also reported using Paraloid B-72, Paraloid B-44, and Incralac; there was one report of the use of cellulose nitrate.
When mentioned, factors influencing the choice of coating material included: availability, Tg, and whether or not solvent toxicity was a problem (pertaining to Incralac).
Many respondents did not indicate the method used for coated, but those who did generally reported coating by immersion; a couple of respondents reported two applications of the coating material.
Several respondents do not coat their metals and expressed some concern about the creation of microclimates under the coating film that would encourage further corrosion. A couple of respondents coat only in specific circumstances: when metals will be displayed or when consolidation is required.

Storage

Over half of the respondents store metals in silica gel at some or all of the sites on which they work.
Several respondents used the RP system and Escal bags (ref 3) for long-term storage.
Most of the respondents who use silica gel recondition it annually. One respondent reported reconditioning based on indicator color change. A few respondents who use silica gel report having no annual access to metals after treatment.
A couple of the respondents who do not use silica gel or other desiccated storage reported environmental conditions that were dry enough not to warrant micro-climates.
Some respondents expressed apprehension about using silica gel when yearly access for reconditioning was not guaranteed; these respondents are concerned that housing with unconditioned silica gel will cause greater problems than housing without silica gel. One respondent suggested that reconditioning yearly may not even be enough.

Re-Treatment

Over half of respondents were able to survey their metals to check stability. Some reported doing this regularly every year or every other year. Some respondents reported having too many metals for annual survey, so partial surveys were done, or more random checks, depending on time constraints and when metals are accessed by researchers.
Some respondents reported using silver oxide for treating bronze disease outbreaks; others reported using the same methods used for initial treatment. Several respondents questioned the efficacy of silver oxide and expressed concern about its implications for future analysis.

Our thanks to the respondents, who provided thoughtful responses to the proposed questions. The 2015 Selinunte conservation team hopes to create and conduct a more detailed set of questions examining metal treatment protocols and distribute the survey to a wider audience (especially to conservators who completed their training outside the USA) in the near future. While we hope to expand the limited scope of this survey, it has nonetheless brought up some interesting points. There is no standard protocol for the treatment of archaeological copper alloys, and while the conservation literature is vast, there are still many unresolved questions.
Of course, there won’t be a one-shoe-fits-all treatment for archaeological bronzes, as the condition of the artifact, available resources (material resources, personnel resources, time constraints, etc), storage conditions, access, site policies, and local politics are all factors that influence treatment decisions. However, the survey revealed disagreement from practicing conservators on some of the principles integral to the general methodology: is soaking useful or harmful? Is treatment with corrosion inhibitors or coatings effective?
While there have been other recent projects compiling data on the treatment of copper alloy objects, more formalized follow-up research seems like a necessary next step. We welcome your thoughts on effective ways to move forward with this conversation and look forward to organizing a workshop session or discussion at upcoming professional meetings.

References:

Golfomitsou, Stavroula and John Merkel. “Understanding the efficiency of combined inhibitors for the treatment of corroded copper artefacts.” METAL 07 Proceedings of the Interim Meeting of the ICOM-CC Metal Working Group (5): 38-43.
Gravgaard, M. and J. van Lanschot. 2012. “Cysteine as a non-toxic corrosion inhibitor for copper alloys in conservation.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 35 (1): 14-24. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19455224.2012.681618
Mathias, C., K. Ramsdale, and D. Nixon. 2004. “Saving archaeological iron using the Revolutionary Preservation System.” Proceedings of Metal 2004, National Museum of Australia Canberra ACT, October, 4-8 2004: 28-42. http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/346034/NMA_metals_s1_p3_saving_archaeological.pdf

“This post is promoted by the AIC’s Archaeological Discussion Group (ADG). For more information about ADG, please visit ADG’s webpage.” (http://www.conservation-us.org/specialty-groups/objects/archaeological-discussion-group )

Author Bios:
Anna Serotta is a Project Objects Conservator at the Brooklyn Museum. She received her Master’s Degree in Art History and an Advanced Certificate in Art Conservation at the Institute of Fine Arts, NYU, where she majored in objects conservation with a focus on archaeological materials. Prior to her work at the Brooklyn Museum, Anna held positions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History, and she has worked as an archaeological field conservator on sites in Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Italy. Anna is a Fellow of the American Academy in Rome, a Professional Associate of the American Institute for Conservation, and also a lecturer for the Institute of Fine Arts Conservation Center.
Jessica Walthew is currently a Mellon Research Fellow at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in the Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. She is a graduate of The Conservation Center, Institute of Fine Arts, NYU, specializing in archaeological and ethnographic conservation and has worked at Sardis, Turkey (Harvard-Cornell Expedition) and Selinunte (Institute of Fine Arts Excavations).

STASH Flash III Storage Tips Session – May 14, 2016

The 2016 STASH Flash storage tips session at the Montreal annual meeting will have three themes:

Building on the conference theme the first group of presentations offer solutions for emergency or disaster situations like flooding or earthquakes.
Building on a topic that came out of the 2015 STASH Flash discussion session and the TSG Tips session, the second proposed theme focuses on multi-function supports, with functions serving more than one purpose, such as storage, storage, travel and/or exhibition purposes.
Additional innovative storage solutions for individual or collections will be presented in the third grouping.

Presentations will be posted on the STASH site after the meeting.

1. EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS

Name: Rustin Levenson, Veronica Romero, Oliver Watkiss, and Kelly O’Neill
Institution: ArtCare, Miami
Object/collection type: Paintings
Abstract: When we moved into our new space, we designed an art storage rack that we felt would offer the best protection for works in our care if we faced a hurricane. The shell of the rack is plywood. The interior is divided into slots by reinforced PVC piping, which allows air to circulate freely. Clear vinyl flooring on the bottom of each slot protects paintings from the wood and provides safe access. The rack is on large wheels, which would allow us to move to the driest area in the studio if the roof is compromised and lock when the rack is in place. A sail maker designed a waterproof, zipping cover for the rack. The cover has extra material, which allows room for a dehumidifier, which could be powered by a generator.
Name(s): Nichole Doub, Head Conservator
Institution: Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
Collection Type: Waterlogged wood
Abstract: When a runaway barge collided with navigation markers on the Nanticoke River last spring, the Coast Guard called the resulting debris a hazard to the commercial waterway and ordered Maryland State Highways Association to remove the timbers. When the divers started to haul up the timbers, it was a surprise to find a 30 foot section of a ship’s keel. Suddenly, it was a rush to salvage as many timbers before the disturbed wreck site was washed out to the Chesapeake Bay. With no plans for funding, staff, excavation, curation, conservation, viability surveys etc., an above ground pool with a custom made bubbler system became a very quick, inexpensive, and effective temporary storage solution.
Name: T. Ashley McGrew
Institution: Cantor Art Center at Stanford University
Collection Type: Dimensional Art /seismic restraints
Abstract: Working in a seismic zone, we have to take steps to keep a potential geological event from becoming a disaster for our collection. Presented are two systems we use for restraining 3D objects on shelving in collection storage. In both applications the designs focus on ease of use to help insure compliance with established storage protocols. We utilized 1” nylon webbing for strength in both small and large object storage solutions. Small object storage pairs the webbing with ¼” polyethylene netting which is secured using plastic snap buckles. In large object storage the webbing is sewn together to make “cargo netting” which is secured with carbineers, either to the uprights of pallet racking, or to custom-made removable metal brackets designed for use on heavy-duty cantilever shelving.

2. MULTI-PURPOSE SOLUTIONS

Name: Jennifer Torres, Kate Gallagher & Sanchita Balachandran
Institution: Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum
Object/collection type: Small archaeological objects
Abstract: The Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum is a teaching museum that encourages the use of the collection for teaching, study, and research by faculty and students. Accessibility and visibility are both important factors in rehousing objects to serve these purposes. The collection contains thousands of small archaeological objects and limited storage space. A “file” storage system was developed to house these objects and to save space. This storage design is best suited for robust objects, particularly Egyptian faience amulets and small Greco-Roman metal objects that would be difficult to access and would consume too much storage space with traditional rehousing methods. Objects are placed in polyethylene zip bags lined with Volara and tied to a piece of corrugated blue board of standard size using twill tape. Each object/board is then “filed” into a custom-made box that fits in our storage drawers. The backside of each board is lined with thin Ethafoam to mitigate damage to the object behind it. This storage method allows for maximum visibility and accessibility, and minimizes the unnecessary handling of the object and disturbance of other objects that are not pertinent to the study or research at hand.
Name: Emily Wroczynski
Institution/Affiliation/Title: Shelburne Museum
Object/Collection Type: Wooden artifacts, Bird Decoys
Abstract: The Dorset House at the Shelburne Museum is currently undergoing renovations funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The historic structure has been the exhibition space for the Museum’s expansive bird decoy collection. The conservation department is taking this opportunity to examine the decoy collection and perform needed treatment before it returns to display. The installation within the renovated Dorset House has not been finalized, and the decoys will continue to be housed in storage for about another year. A versatile mount (similar to a sink mat) was designed in discussion with the curator, which would function in storage and could easily transition for exhibition in Dorset. The exciting challenge of this project was to create a footprint that did not greatly alter the aesthetic profile of the object, while at the same time provided ample support. The curator’s input was instrumental in choosing a method of covering the mount that made it polished without a complex technique or expensive materials.
Name(s): Emily Eifert Brown
Institution: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
Collection Type: shells, travel/storage mount
Abstract: A complex storage housing was built for an oyster shell presented in a delicate gold and silver gilt mount, which is in the collection of the Walters Art Museum. The housing served three important functions: the ability to safely hand-carry the object from Winterthur, Delaware to Baltimore, Maryland; the ability to safely and efficiently store the object while disassembled in multiple parts; and the ability to scavenge for airborne pollutants, thus preventing tarnishing of the delicate and difficult to clean metal components. The streamlined design took into account storage space restrictions and materials specifications required by the Walters Art Museum. Design features of the housing include a shelf within the main box, blue board inserts upholstered in Pacific Silvercloth, and buried rare earth magnet closures.
Name(s): Kesha Talbert, Pam Young and Lauren Gottschlich
Institution: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Collection Type: Handheld Fans
Abstract: Conservators and interns at Colonial Williamsburg have been creating dual purpose storage and display mounts for folding handheld fans which are part of the costume and textile collections. The fans are composite objects of wood, ivory, paper, textiles and/or metal with unique risk factors for study or display due to their function of folding and unfolding. In an effort to decrease handling and the associated friction and movement of components supportive mounts have been created to house the fans in storage which are also acceptable for display. The mounts are custom made for each fan to provide adequate support for both leaf and sticks. Archival products including Alpharag matboard, folderstock, ethafoam and sueded polyethylene were used in the creation of the mounts. A step-by-step guide was created to allow future interns to easily replicate the process.
Name(s): Stephanie Gowler, Graham Patten, Carlynne Robinson and Susan Russick
Institution: Northwestern University Library Preservation and Conservation Work Group
Collection Type: Archival
Abstract: Project Description: The Charlotte Moorman collection at Northwestern University Libraries is the core of a major exhibit at Northwestern’s Block Museum, soon to travel to NYU’s Grey Art Gallery and on to the Museum der Moderne, Salzburg. Because much of this unwieldy archive of Avant Garde art from the 1960s had never been fully processed, we wanted to develop an exhibit mount that could also be used for travel and storage. One solution that worked for several objects was sewing the objects onto padded boards. Boards were constructed of Tycore, Volara and cloth. Objects were sewn on using a variety of threads – a delicate process that could require 3 conservators. Mounts allowed for easy handling and installation as well as security for the multi-part objects at each venue. Ethafoam®, corrugated blue board, and Hollytex® quilts were used to pad and clamp the boards inside of boxes for travel. Many of the objects will eventually be stored, mounted, in their travel boxes.
Contributor(s): William Bennett
Institution: Smithsonian Institution Archives
Collection Type: Photographs
Abstract: The Archives recently received an early gelatin print which is mounted on a friable, acidic board. The brittle ensemble has cracked completely in half, with small pieces flaking away from the breakage point. There is also damage evident on the lower portion of the photograph, possibly from blocking. The top and bottom edges of the photograph and support are also curling upward due to differences in expansion and contraction of the two materials. A custom housing was designed and created, and is composed of three elements—a base in which the photograph sits, a magnetic over-mat that gently restrains the curling edges of the image, and a protective cover mat. The base is also composed of three layers, divided into two pieces that fit together like puzzle pieces with tongue-and-groove joints. This solution provided adequate support to the broken photograph; facilitated easy removal of the image from its housing without abrading the edges, by sliding the pieces of the base apart; and restrained the curling edges of the support. The cover mat may also be folded completely behind the base and is thus suitable for display.
Name: Liz Peirce
Institution/Affiliation/Title: Winterthur Museum and Garden, Kress Conservation Fellow
Object/Collection Type: Hough’s American Woods – 14 Volume set, 1888 edition
Abstract: Hough’s American Woods is a rare collection of thin sliced wood samples suspended in heavy cardstock pages. These pages are currently stored as a loose block within a three-quarter wrap cover slid into a slipcover held closed with a decorative clasp. The loose pages make removal for study difficult, cumbersome, and potentially damaging to the delicate samples. To remove the block, the pages must be grasped and compressed to slide out of the case. Damage to the pages has already been noted; several samples within each volume suffer from cracks and losses due to improper handling and storage. Rehousing for this collection (starting in February 2016) will provide stability and support for the samples. It will include a four-flap wrapper with both a warning to researchers about the unbound nature of the samples as well as handling instructions to prevent further damage. Once wrapped, the volumes will be stored in individual clamshell boxes which will support the block on all sides and prevent shifting. The original wrap and slipcase will be preserved and all relevant information on the book plates will be scanned, copied, and kept with the new rehousing. Rehousing will make the collection easier to access for research as well as display within the library should exhibition be desired.

3. MISCELLANEOUS SOLUTIONS

Name(s): Alicia Ghadban
Institution: Re-ORG, former CCI and ICCROM Intern
Collection Type: Various
Abstract: The RE-ORG methodology was developed by ICCROM with the support of UNESCO to assist smaller museums (under 10,000 objects) who do not have access to external expertise and whose collections are at serious risk due to overcrowding and poor storage conditions. In September 2015, ICCROM held an international RE-ORG workshop in partnership with the Chinese State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) and the Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage (CACH). The workshop was hosted by the Wuhou Shrine Museum (Chengdu, China) and allowed participants to gain practical experience implementing a RE-ORG project. The host museum presented an ideal case study for the RE-ORG project as objects could be found directly on the floor, collection and non-collection items were stored in the same rooms, sub-collections were displaced in various rooms, and part of the ceramic collection had been stored on unsecured wooden shelves though the museum was located in an earthquake prone region. This presentation will outline the solutions devised and accepted by staff members of the Wuhou Shrine Museum as they lowered the risk to collections and provided improved working conditions for museum staff members. The solutions included the following: adaptation of metal shelving units, reuse of existing furniture, relocating and grouping sub-collections, removing non-collection items from the storage, and ensuring no objects were on the floor by utilizing platforms on wheels.

Name(s): Gretchen Anderson, Linsly Church, Amy Henrici
Institution: Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Collection Type: Oversize collections, Vertebrate Paleontology
Abstract: Keeping dust off of specimens in open storage is always a challenge, particularly in an old building in an urban environment. In 2014 the Carnegie Museum of Natural History received a grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to improve storage conditions for type specimens in the vertebrate paleontology collection. Some of these specimens are large slabs embedded in plaster with wood frames. These are very heavy and difficult for scientists to access. In the past the specimens were covered with plastic sheeting in a wood frame to protect them from water drips and dust. Through time the deteriorating, opaque plastic made the specimens impossible to view without removing the cover. Our new method uses a polyester film window in a rigid box lid, to improve visibility of even the largest and heaviest blocks. With a slight modification, the method is easily adapted for three dimensional models or objects.
Name(s): Gretchen Anderson, Deborah Harding, Lesley Haines
Institution: Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Collection Type: Oversize collections, large items
Abstract: Protecting large and irregularly shaped objects from dust, water and other environmental conditions that put them at risk is a challenge. Large and awkward objects are often stuck in corners or on top of cabinets and draped with plastic sheeting. The sheeting is often in direct contact with the object. As the sheeting ages, it deteriorates, becoming brittle and chemically unstable, causing additional damage to the object. At the Science Museum of Minnesota Anderson and Newberry developed an inexpensive and easy to construct a support for dust covers using PVC pipe, corrugated plastic sheet. The support prevents the dust cover from touching the object, allows for airflow and reduces other risks. New materials such as Tyvek™ can be is used to replace plastic. Anderson continues to adapt the system at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History where the Anthropology Department is using it for large objects.
Name: Erika Range
Institution/Affiliation/Title: Conservation Student (previous CMN Intern)
Object/collection type: Natural History Labeling
Abstract: Choosing the right substrate, attachment method, inks and printing technologies are critical to ensuring that the information remains intact and associated with an artifact or specimen. In natural history collections, labels often contain original data not found elsewhere, so their preservation is as important as the specimens. The Canadian Museum of Nature houses over 10 million specimens requiring a vast variety of labeling methods. A recent survey at the Canadian Museum of Nature revealed three types of labels typically used in natural history collections, and also attempted to adapt standards to help clarify to collections staff what to buy and how to use it, as they adopt new technologies for labeling. Three ‘Decision Trees’ were created to guide collections and conservation staff and volunteers with choosing the right tool for the right job, and highlights standards and best practices for materials in archives and some simple tests for quality control.

AIA and SCS 2016 Annual Conference – A Conservator's Perspective

20160109_141552 — View of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, January 2016

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) and the Society for Classical Studies (SCS) recently held its annual conference on January 6-9, 2016 in San Francisco (conference program). This was my first time attending an AIA annual meeting. Although the conference was obviously geared towards archaeologists, I did find many of the sessions useful for conservators. The talks and workshops were generally organized by geographic location, time period, or specialized topics. Additional activities were organized by specific graduate programs or archaeological projects.
The conference began with the AIA public lecture given by Professor Lord Colin Renfew and the opening reception. The talk touched on some of the troubling world events that are currently affecting cultural heritage sites and some of his work on the island of Keros. The presentation was very well attended (standing room only of those who did not show up early). The opening reception immediately following the public lecture was a time when people could informally gather and discuss their work.
The AIA meeting had many different sessions running simultaneously and I had to strategically choose the talks I wanted to attend. I tried to go to all the presentations about archaeology sites that I had done fieldwork. I was interested to see how the material was presented to a specialized audience of archaeologists and to support my colleagues. I also attended several technical sessions such as archaeological photogrammetry and archaeometric approaches to the Bronze Age.
One of the themes that was touched on in many of the talks was addressing the current threat to cultural heritage in zones of conflict. There was a specialized workshop on the topic that brought leading experts to discuss not only the extent of destruction but the role of the international cultural heritage community. While overall these were sobering discussions, there were a few ideas that have the potential to be actualized and could possibly make a noticeable difference. Many organizations are working to document the damage using local reports and remote sensing in the hopes that the data could be of legal use for future war crime prosecutions. There was also the suggestion that resources should be allocated to reflect the racketeering cycle to have the maximum affect.
On Saturday morning, there was a special workshop entitled Innovation at the Junction of Conservation and Archaeology: Collaborative Technical Research moderated by Anna Serotta and Vanessa Muros. Below are the four talks presented during the session.

“Looking Closely: Microscopy in the Field” – Colleen O’Shea and Jacob Bongers
“Archaeologist-Conservator Collaboration through Imaging: Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) on the Sardis Expedition, Turkey 2015” – Emily Frank, Harral DeBauche, and Nicholas Cahill
“Same Data, Targeted Uses: Site Photogrammetry for Archaeologists and Conservators” – Eve Mayberger, Jessica Walthew, Alison Hight, David Scahill, and Anna Serotta
“Drilling, Zapping, and Mapping for more than a Decade: Collaborative Project to Source Classical Marble in the Carlos Museum” – Renée Stein and Robert Tykot

I was honored to co-present the collaborative work undertaken at Selinunte during the 2015 excavation season. Following the talks, there was a general discussion regarding the role of conservation in fieldwork and the specialized knowledge that conservators can contribute to archaeological research questions. I hope that the AIA will continue to allow a space for conservation to engage with the larger archaeological community within the context of their annual meeting.

Health & Safety Committee – Call for Student Member

Are you concerned about the health and safety of yourself and others? Do you want to get involved in AIC and be part of a great team? Will you be enrolled in a graduate conservation program during the upcoming academic year?
The Health & Safety Committee of AIC is seeking a new student member to serve a 2-year term (2016-2018).
Health & Safety is a very active committee, with members contributing articles and guides to the AIC News and AIC wiki; hosting an informational booth, workshops, and sessions at the Annual Meeting; and regularly addressing questions and issues related to health and safety in our field.
Membership parameters:
The Committee is composed of eleven members (maximum) that include:

Up to nine Conservation Professionals, who serve a four-year term with a possible renewal for a second term.
A Conservation Student, who serves a non-renewable two-year term, 50% of which must be in school and/or internship.
At least one allied Health and Safety Professional (s), who serve a two-year term with up to three possible renewals.
All Committee members must be members of AIC

Student member position description:
The student member will share with the other committee members the responsibility to plan for AIC Annual Meeting activities, attend meetings/conference calls, contribute to H&S projects, and represent the organization. This position will also offer the student member an opportunity to act as the liaison between H&S and the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network. The ideal candidate will have a strong interest in health and safety issues, and a desire to participate and learn from the more experienced members of the committee.
For more information on the H&S Committee, please visit our website. If you would like details on the duties and commitment of the position, please contact current student member Miranda Dunn, mirandahdunn@gmail.com.
Potential candidates should submit a resume or CV and statement of interest to Co-Chair Kerith Koss Schrager, Kerith.Koss@gmail.com, by March 1, 2016.

Getting the Interview: Emerging Conservator Involvement in the FAIC Oral History Project

Amber Kerr interviewing Richard Wolbers, Associate Professor, Coordinator of Science, and Affiliated Paintings Conservator for the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation

Interviewing with iPhone — Diana Hartman interviewing Joy Gardiner, Assistant Director of Conservation and Textile Conservator at the Winterthur Museum, and Affiliated Assistant Professor for the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation

Since 1975 the Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation (FAIC) has supported an initiative to chronicle the history of the field of conservation. The FAIC Oral History Project has resulted in a growing database of transcripts and audio recordings of interviews with conservators, conservation scientists, and individuals in related disciplines. This archive constitutes an invaluable professional resource.
I became involved in the project a little over a year ago, contributing to the archive by conducting interviews. I can testify that my involvement has been both immensely rewarding and unexpectedly challenging. It’s reasonable to feel pressure to do justice to someone’s legacy. Before even arriving at the interview, however, the greatest obstacle I’ve encountered has been to simply schedule a meeting.
Though some individuals firmly decline an interview, the most common response has been agreement to interview — but in a few months. These few months usually turn into several additional months, which may turn into a year or more. In many cases, this is understandable: I’ve found that the timing of my request and the career trajectory of the potential interviewee are crucial. Conservation professionals close to retirement but still working are generally difficult to pin down, while those who have just retired are in a transitional period and may have equal difficulty scheduling a meeting. A commitment to periodically following up is critical to securing an interview.
I’ve found thus far that conservators and conservation professionals generally tend to be modest individuals who would otherwise be inclined to downplay their achievements. Those who have agreed to interview seem to have done so with reluctance. It is in these instances that it is most important to advocate for the value of recording both professional and personal experiences, and to attest that a request for an interview reflects the richness of an individual’s career rather than age. Many members of the generation of conservators in question were fundamental to shaping training programs, treatment methodologies, and the field of conservation as it has emerged in its own right.
As for the interview itself, I admit that it can be a humbling experience. For one, it can be embarrassing to hear yourself on tape! Yet, on the whole, leading interviews has constituted a beneficial learning process for me. Through doing so, I’ve been developing a tangential set of skills to endeavor to employ in each interview: I research my subject thoroughly beforehand to develop meaningful questions; try to listen patiently and actively with minimal interjections; and attempt to direct the conversation organically in a way which puts the interviewee at ease. These are valuable abilities to be nurtured.
An interview I conducted last month confirmed for me how personally insightful it can be to speak with colleagues for the Oral History Project. Interviewing Ann Massing, Paintings Conservator and Assistant to the Director at the Hamilton Kerr Institute (Emeritus), provided insights into the formation and teaching philosophies of the Hamilton Kerr Institute at Cambridge University, where I am currently a Post-Graduate Intern. I was amazed to hear about how international the cohort at the Institute was from the get-go, a characteristic that is still cultivated today. I was exposed to the history of the Institute and its major players over the years, foremost being the first director Herbert Lank, whose influence has been lasting. This has enriched my understanding of working at the Institute. Through Ann’s interview, I also received a sense of how incredibly interconnected the field is, and I am grateful to her for having shared her personal history with me.
As an emerging conservator, it has been fascinating and rewarding to learn about the history of conservation through the Oral History Project. It is a unique way to discover more about institutions of interest or to become better acquainted with colleagues in your vicinity. Interviews provide a window into how the discipline has developed, as well as into current trends in the field and prevailing research questions. Speaking with such accomplished and influential professionals is a privilege, as is being an agent for preserving their memories and legacy, and I would highly recommend the experience.
If you’d like to become involved with the Oral History Project, contact Joyce Hill Stoner at jhstoner@udel.edu or visit the AIC page for more information.

RE-ORG Crowdsourcing Project Launch

“We re-used large wooden crates. We fixed secured chains on the crates to hang the masks. Now it is off the floor, so we will no longer risk stepping on them.”

Collection Storage Tips and Tricks – “#reorgtips”
RE-ORG International is an initiative to assist small museums, libraries and archives reorganize their collections in storage for better access and long-term conservation. RE-ORG encourages the reuse and re-purposing of existing equipment and space. Ideas are out there; sometimes all you need is a little inspiration.
If you work with collections show us your tips and tricks!
Storing collections is not a simple task, and you know first-hand the challenge of having to strike a balance between conservation, institutional and financial concerns. Storage solutions must adapt to the needs of the object but at the same time optimize space usage and costs.

“We adapted a shelving unit to store our collection of oars and spears. We are able to use up less shelf space than before. We gain more room for other objects.”

The good news is that it is often possible to repurpose or adapt already-existing equipment or materials, making sensible use of resources.
Many museums – through the years and at present – have found many inventive solutions:
ICCROM and the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) want to hear about all of them. Be part of a global solution!
Send us one or two photos of your storage solution with a short descriptive sentence that tells us:

The type of object
The materials used or re-used to create your storage solution
Why this system is better than before

There are several options for sharing your photos:

"We created compartments in a box with cardboard folded in zigzags. Now we can take each pen easily. Also, they don't rubbing against each other" — “We created compartments in a box with cardboard folded in zigzags. Now we can take each pen easily. Also, they don’t rubbing against each other”

On the RE-ORG International Facebook page
On Twitter, Instagram or Facebook using the hashtag #reorgtips
By email : reorgstorage (at) gmail (dot) com

You have until 31 January 2016 to send us your submission. The results will be posted on a Tumblr blog and hosted on the ICCROM website.
Important notice: By sending your images, you acknowledge that they are yours and that you have the permission to send them, but that you’re willing share them under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Collection Care Network Program for Montreal

The Collection Care Network has been busy! We are highlighting the connections CCN has developed with some of our allied preservation professionals. We are delighted to team with the Canadian Association for Conservation/Association Canadienne pour la Conservation et la Restauration (CAC-ACCR) to bring you these collection care offerings.
This year we thought, why not start early, even before the meeting officially starts. Our colleagues at the International Association of Museum Facilities Administrators (IAMFA) thought this was a good idea too. AIC, CAC-ACCR and IAMFA have developed a dynamic and interactive pre-meeting seminar that focuses on some of the concerns we share.
Share the Care: Collaborative Preservation Approaches, Friday, May 13, 2016, 9:00 am – 5:30pm
This seminar delves into the concepts of shared risk and responsibility of allied preservation professionals. The following topics will be considered through this lens: interacting among the professional groups, reviewing institutional emergency plans, surveying the current state of environmental guidelines, considering the existing international environmental guideline standards.
Choosing and Implementing an Automatic Fire Suppression System for a Collecting Institution, Saturday, May 14, 2016, 10:00 am to 12:00 pm
This special half-day session is the second part of the pre-meeting session hosted by AIC, CAC-ACCR, and IAMFA. The program will introduce attendees to the different types of automatic fire suppression systems available, evaluation criteria for each system, and implementation guidelines and considerations for collecting institutions.
This pre-session has a separate registration from the national meeting. For registration details for this special pre-meeting session consult: http://aics44thannualmeeting2016.sched.org/event/4gp4/pre-conference-meeting-iamfa-meeting#
Another pre-conference offering continues our successful collaboration and expansion of the original content provided by the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). We’re hosting the third installment of:
STASH Flash, Saturday, May 14, 2016, 3:30pm – 5:30pm. This session is FREE with regular meeting registration.Join your fellow colleagues for a lightening round of storage tips. Submissions are being solicited around three topics:

Building on this year’s program theme Emergency! Preparing for Disasters and Confronting the Unexpected in Conservation the program will present storage solutions that were either specifically designed to mitigate against the threat of a disaster or inappropriate environment, or presentations that assess how rehousing solutions performed in protecting (or not protecting) collections in a disaster or emergency event.
The second proposed theme focuses on multi-function supports serving more than one purpose, such as storage, storage, travel and/or exhibition purposes.
General presentations on innovative storage solutions for individual or collection group. To read more about the session and how to submit an idea for a short five-minute tip presentation visit the STASH website.

Next, join us for the Collection Care sessions. The first installment is planned for Sunday, May 15, 2016 with the second Tuesday, May 17, 2016. This year’s program covers an extraordinary wide range of collection care topics whose solution is frequently rests in the cooperation and input from a diverse group of allied preservation professionals.
Collection Care Session I, Sunday, May 15, 2:00 pm – 5:30 pm
This session will cover topics that include: risk management, considering loss of value in a collection, facing institutional change while maintaining consistency, planning pitfalls during construction projects, considering art and noise, designing exhibition HVAC in historic buildings.
Collection Care Session II, Tuesday, May 17, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Speakers in this session will discuss collaborative preservation training; unforeseen hazards of implementing emergency training, planning for emergencies at archaeological sites, and lessons learned creating emergency planning for international partners.
Consider meeting for lunch! There are two opportunities to hear about recent work in collection care while enjoying lunch. Advance registration and additional fees apply.
On Sunday, May 15, the Collection Care Network Lunch will focus on collection care issues that have arisen from content developed for the upcoming book, Preventive Conservation: Collection Storage, a partnership publication by AIC, SPNHC, Smithsonian Institution and George Washington University. Expected publication date, October 2016.
On Monday, May 16 IMLS staff will conduct a lunch presentation focusing on the 2014 Heritage Health Index. Tune in to hear about developments in IMLS’s continuing support of collections care and conservation. Hear about the launch of a new national conservation assessment program for collections care in small and medium-sized museums. And hear highlights of models, tools, and other resources recently developed by IMLS-funded Collections Stewardship projects.
The full conference schedule can be found at http://www.conservation-us.org/annual-meeting/meeting-schedule.
Meet me in Montreal!
Gretchen Guidess
AIC Collection Care Network