When you think of the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN), you likely think of the officers and the majority of members who are pre-program students, graduate students, and recent graduates. The many seasoned professionals who are involved in ECPN are probably less likely to come to mind. ECPN would like to take a moment to share how our “mentors” are engaged in ECPN and thank them for their thoughtfulness, generosity, and time, which have greatly contributed to our success.
Two AIC Staff Liaisons and an AIC Board Liaison serve on the ECPN committee and are actively involved in its daily activities. Ruth Seyler, Ryan Winfield, and Stephanie Lussier respectively currently hold these positions. From providing guidance on daily activities to helping us plan our events at the AIC annual meeting, ECPN literally could not function without them!
AIC-ECPN’s Mentoring Program matches seasoned conservators (AIC Fellows or Professionals Associates) with emerging conservators (AIC Students, Interim Year Members or Associates) to engage in mentorships that focus on topics such as, providing pre-program experience guidance to post-graduate career guidance. In 2012-2013, twenty-four mentors volunteered countless hours of their time to strengthening the emerging conservator community.
ECPN is always taking on new projects. For many of those projects, we ask seasoned conservators to share their expertise and experience with us. From 2012-2013, the following seasoned conservators assisted us with a variety of initiatives: Rachel Perkins Arenstein – AIC 2013 poster, “The Art Con<server>: How conservation professionals make use of online resources”; Julia Brennan, Rosa Lowinger, and Paul Messier – November 2012 webinar, “Considering your future career path: working in private practice”; Suzanne Davis and Kathleen Kiefer – AIC 2013 Portfolio Session; Debbie Hess Norris – July 2012 webinar, “Self-advocacy and Fundraising for Independent Research,” and fundraising support; Nancie Ravenel – AIC 2013 poster and AIC Lexicon Project; Rebecca Rushfield – student research resource; Liz Schulte – public relations toolkit; Sarah Stauderman – ECPN resources; Emily Williams and the Education and Training Committee – mentoring program. And, we are thrilled that many of these seasoned conservators will be continuing to work with us!
As we enter our sixth year as a network and reflect upon the many projects and programs we have been able to develop, we are aware of just how many have helped us. Thank you ECPN “Mentors.” We are profoundly grateful!
– Eliza Spaulding, ECPN Chair
Category: Topics
Meet the new ECPN officers
The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) is very excited to welcome our new officers as of the 41st AIC Annual Meeting. Following is a brief introduction to each new officer.
Eliza Spaulding – Chair
Eliza Spaulding is the current Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Paper Conservation at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. In 2010, she graduated from the Conservation Center, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University with an Advanced Certificate in Conservation and a Master’s Degree in Art History. From 2011-2013, she served as the ECPN Vice Chair, and is thrilled to be serving as the Chair this year. She is passionate about advocacy for conservation and the arts.
Megan Salazar-Walsh – Vice Chair
Megan Salazar-Walsh is a third year student specializing in paintings at the Buffalo State College graduate program in Art Conservation. She will be dividing her third-year internship between the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore and The Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, in The Hague. Megan served as ECPN’s Co-Outreach Officer from 2011-2013 and as the new Vice Chair she is looking forward to working with both emerging and established conservation professionals to create more resources for career development.
Saira Haqqi – Outreach
Saira Haqqi is a second-year student in the New York University graduate program in Art History and Conservation, where she is an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Library and Archives Conservation. She received her pre-program training at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., and Quarto Conservation of Books and Paper, Maryland. Having served as a student liaison for ECPN over the past year, Saira is excited to begin serving as Co-Outreach Officer.
Carrie McNeal – Outreach
Carrie McNeal will complete her Masters in Conservation of Library and Archival Materials from the Winterhtur/ University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation in August 2013. She is currently completing her third year internship at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. After graduation, Carrie will return to her hometown of St. Louis, MO, to serve the area as a private conservator. Carrie is excited to serve as ECPN Co-Outreach Officer.
Michelle Sullivan – Professional Education and Training
Michelle Sullivan is a second-year fellow at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation (WUDPAC) specializing in the conservation of works on paper. She has completed internships with the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Prior to her current position as ECPN Professional Education and Training Co-officer, she served as Regional Liaison to Southern California and Graduate Program Liaison to WUDPAC. Michelle is enthusiastic about conservation outreach and working collaboratively with allied fields.
Ayesha Fuentes – Professional Education and Training
Ayesha Fuentes is finishing her second year at the UCLA/Getty MA Program in the Conservation of Archeaological and Ethnographic Materials. Next year she will be working at internships in Bhutan and Cambodia. Ayesha has a BA from Williams College and an MA from Tufts University. Her research interests include the management of cultural heritage in disaster-relief and post-conflict situations, and the conservation of ritual objects from Buddhist and other South Asian traditions. Last year, Ayesha co-founded the Graduate Symposium for Students of Conservation and Preservation (GSSCP) and, in collaboration with Indigo Arts Alliance, established the Denese L. Easterly Conservation Training Pre-Program Grant.
Kendall Trotter – Communications
Kendall Trotter is pre-program with a BA in Art History from Tufts University and a BFA in studio arts from the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. She has completed pre-program training at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, MA and is currently a pre-program intern at the Cincinnati Art Museum in Cincinnati, OH. Kendall is preparing to apply to graduate programs for Fall 2014. She is excited to serve as Co-Communications officer this year.
Fran Ritchie – Communications
Fran Ritchie completes her MA and CAS degree in Art Conservation from Buffalo State College in the fall of 2013. She has been a Third Year Intern at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, and after graduation will be relocating to Washington, D.C. to be an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Objects Conservation at the Smithsonian National Museum of American Indian. In addition to her focus on Native American objects (especially organic materials), Fran also has a strong interest in natural science and is on the Conservation Committee of the Society for Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC).
Anisha Gupta – Webinars
Anisha Gupta starts her first year at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation in the fall of 2013. She has completed her pre-program training at the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art, University of Illinois Library Conservation Unit, and Indianapolis Museum of Art. She served as ECPN Co-Outreach Officer from 2011-2013. Anisha is passionate about conservation outreach and plans to draw on that enthusiasm as the ECPN Webinar Coordinator.
This post is just a brief introduction to who we are, but you can also follow ECPN’s ongoing projects right here on the AIC blog and on our Facebook page.
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st, “We Can Fix It, But Should We? Take 2: Contemporary Art Comes Knocking” By Tad Fallon
In addition to Rose Cull’s presentation on contacting the contemporary artist, or not, is a single case study by Tad Fallon. The object in question is a “Kosode” form cabinet titled “Meet Mr. Chips” by the California furniture maker, John Cederquist. I encourage everyone to check the website for images of other Kosode cabinets.
The cabinet is one of a series made of mixed woods, aniline dyes and epoxy resin and was completed in 2006. The owner had purchased it directly from a gallery exhibition. Displayed in a bright and sunny room in Connecticut, the highly decorated façade of the cabinet had faded dramatically, and the owner contacted Fallon and Wilkinson to have them treat it. The owner did not want to send it back to the artist for restoration.
Tad began the project with background research and then contacted John Cederquist directly. John was interested and friendly, and the conversation led to a visit by Tad to the artist’s studio. During the visit, Tad was given an in-depth tour by the artists assistant Chris Labont, and was able to take extensive notes and photographs of the artists materials, techniques and tools, enough to completely recreate the work from scratch.
However, the take-away was more complicated then that.
-From a conservators point of view, the materials and techniques were inherently problematic and prone to light damage.
-The large Kosode series techniques evolved over time and the techniques used at the end of the series were somewhat different from those used at the start.
-The range of materials available to the artist had changed over time, due to California VOC compliance.
-From the artist’s point of view, he had moved on, this was old work, and he was looking forward rather than back.
So what’s a conservator to do? The original work has faded and no longer resembles the original appearance or intent of the artist. The color and appearance cannot be “brought back” through intervention. The options are largely limited to:
- Leaving it alone.
- Creating a complete overlay from original materials on a reversible ground. (only marginally feasible)
- Restoring the façade completely using the artist original materials and techniques as recorded directly from the artist and artist’s assistant.
- Recreating the façade completely using improved materials that remain true to the original intent and appearance of the artist.
Not easy choices, not one of them. What would you do? I for one truly hope that Tad will be able to present “Take 3” next year!
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Paintings and Research and Technical Studies Joint Session, May 31, "Water in Oil Microemulsions: A Novel Cleaning System for Acrylic Paints" by Tom Learner, et al
This presentation summarized the collaborative research of the cleaning of acrylic paint films by the authors representing the DOW Chemical Company, the Tate Gallery and the Getty Conservation Institute. The aim of the research is to develop and educate professionals in the cleaning of complex, contemporary synthetic painting media. Early findings of this research have been presented at the AIC Annual Meetings in Los Angeles (2009) and Milwaukee (2010) and at the Cleaning 2010 Conference in Valencia. The components of these systems have varying effects on the medium: acrylic paint films are easily swollen in an aqueous environment, hydrocarbons have poor cleaning efficacy and on large colored surfaces there is a risk of tidelines. The surface character can be changed if extracts are removed.
Dynamic mechanical analysis of potential cleaning materials was conducted; the procedural process was described as “clamping” system that would provide uniform tension across the test film as it was dipped in solution. The displacement of the grips is measured as the paint film contracts upon drying. Acetone and water produced significant swelling, mineral spirits resulting in a flat line. Analysis was conducted using FTIR-ATR (Fourier transform infrared-attenuated total reflectance) spectroscopy on cleaning swabs indicating the level of surfactant material at the surface.
Trial microemulsion cleaning formulations were prepared by DOW and the Tate which were tested by conservators at workshops, including four CAP’s (Cleaning Acrylic Paintings) seminars presented in different cities by Chris Stravroudis. Resulting evaluations have contributed to further refinement of formulations for better compliance with performance criteria desired by conservators. Three classes of microemulsions were produced. All have an aliphatic hydrocarbon in a continuous phase. They incorporate different surfactants. The presence/level of an alcohol as a co-solvent is sometimes incorporated, as an alcohol is required in some systems to enable a stable microemulsion structure. One class of potentially useful formulations of water-in-oil microemulsion systems that are thermodynamically stable is being tested. They incorporate deionized water, a non-miscible hydrocarbon solvent (one being tested is hexanol/butanol (?)) and a surfactant in an attempt to remove grime without removing original material, namely surfactants used in the manufacture of these painting materials, which are known to migrate to the surface as they age. They offer the possibility of exploiting cleaning efficacy associated with aqueous systems but in a predominantly solvent environment where the micelles formed has the surfactant on the outside and the water on the inside. The pH in these systems can be varied using sodium chloride. The ionic strength of the solution should be compatible with the paint film; conductivity should be adjusted, as needed. A stable microemulsion will be clear, while an unstable one will be milky. Other components of the three series included a “green” surfactant, Ecosurf®, a promising new Triton material, Triton GR7, which is soluble in Shell Sol solvents, and the introduction by Richard Wolbers of silicon based cleaners. The latter material was reviewed by Chris Stravroudis in his article, “More from CAPS3: Surfactants, silicone-based solvents, and microemulsions”, WAAC Newsletter 34/3 (Sept 2012), pp 24-27.
The series of microemulsions are being extensively tested including the issue of clearance. A new publication on the progress of this research is expected in 2014.
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, “Bon Appétit? Plastics in Julia Child’s Kitchen” by Mary Coughlin
I wonder what Julia would think about the current state of her kitchenware? In Mary Coughlin’s talk, “Bon Appétit? Plastics in Julia Child’s Kitchen,” Mary discussed issues she and her Museum Studies class faced while inside the Julia Child Kitchen exhibition at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH). Mary is an objects conservator and professor at George Washington University. Her class carried out a condition survey of the exhibition as it transitioned from its original installation into part of the new FOOD: Transforming the American Table, 1950-2000 exhibition.
The kitchen was originally located in Julia Child’s Cambridge, Massachusetts home from 1961 to 2001 and was the setting of her last three television shows. When Julia donated it to NMAH, the museum accessioned over 1,200 objects, ranging from spatulas to a Rubik’s Cube. The kitchen was installed in the museum as Bon Appétit! Julia Child’s Kitchen, a temporary exhibition that was probably only meant to be on display for less than one year. But as is often the case with well-loved exhibitions, it ended up being on display for a decade.
Mary’s class worked within the exhibition, actually in Julia’s kitchen on view to the public, as they carried out the condition survey. It seems as though many of the museum visitors also wished to step inside the kitchen, as Mary humorously noted that they often heard the thud of visitors walking into the glass partitions. In an effort to provide outreach to the public, a curator was posted outside the kitchen to discuss the project with visitors. In addition, the students wrote blog posts about their experiences which can be viewed on the NMAH’s blog “O Say Can You See?” (For example, see one student’s post here).
After the condition survey, the class made recommendations for ways to incorporate preventive conservation into the new exhibition. Two of the main problems encountered in the old exhibition were dust and degraded plastics. The old exhibition did not have a ceiling, and the vents above the kitchen created a significant dust problem. This issue was particularly problematic considering that many of the plastics within the kitchen are oozing and sticky. The new installation is sealed on the top, and during Mary’s evaluation of the new exhibition six months later, she found a significant decrease in dust accumulation. One problem area was a large gap around one of the glass door covers, but it has since been gasketed to create a better seal.
Mary’s class also found evidence of fading and discoloration in plastics. For instance, the top surfaces of a set of rubber kitchen gloves had turned black, while the undersides remained blue. Mary placed mylar barriers underneath and between problematic plastics to prevent sticking and oozing on surrounding objects. And when the gloves were reinstalled in the new exhibition, the top glove was flipped in order to display the blue side, following the request of the curator.
Mary mentioned the curator’s desire for authenticity within the exhibition and that they wished to have all the original objects on display within the kitchen. While Mary’s class found evidence of plastic degradation, the museum continues to display the degrading plastics in a relatively similar environment as the previous exhibition (although the HVAC system is improved and dust is being mitigated. She also noted that the degrading objects were not causing damage to other objects). Mary’s talk raised questions that many museums and conservators must face, such as authenticity versus preservation? Does displaying original degraded objects or surrogate objects in good condition change the meaning or importance of the work? The answers to these questions may also be different within the context of a history museum as opposed to an art museum.
As I viewed images of oozing spatulas that are not dissimilar to those sold today, one of the questions I had (but didn’t get a chance to ask Mary) is whether there was any discussion with the curators about purchasing surrogate objects either to be displayed now or in the future? Maybe similar objects could be purchased now, while they are still readily available, and stored in more optimal conditions (dark, cold storage?) to be displayed later if needed.
I can’t help but wonder, what will the plastics in the exhibition look like in another ten years? And what would Julia Child think? Bon Appétit?
1000th post on the AIC blog!
This is the 1000th post for the AIC blog conservators-converse. Looking back at some of my favorite posts so far:
Proposal for the creation of a Collections Care Network
I love this post for the comments, it was so interactive and it brought out a lot of voices some who were familiar with blogging, some on web 2.0 for the first-time, which was great.
From the Bench Series
This is a fun series with images and information about current conservation projects. I probably like it a lot because I am an objects conservator, but I would like it still if there were examples of paper, photography, electronic media, and other materials featured.
10 Tips for becoming a conservator series
I think this was a good example of someone (Heather Brown) understanding how the medium of blogging works and how to write a good series of posts offering advice for potential conservators. It worked really well.
AIC members have been blogging since 2008, so perhaps there will be 2,000 posts by 2018?
Collections Care Network Preservation Planning Discussion Session Round 2: Prescriptive Standards versus Performance Management
Part two of the Thursday May 30th collections care session started with a brief recap of Round 1 by Collections Care Network Chair Joelle Wickens. Introducing Round 2’s speakers, Kristen Overbeck Laise of Heritage Preservation and James Reilly of the Image Permanence Institute, CCN editor Rob Waller presented the session’s aims to offer opposing views on the role of standards in guiding collections care decisions.
In her talk titled Importance of Standards and Guidelines to Inform Preventive Conservation Initiatives in Museums, Kristen Overbeck Laise underlined the importance and benefits of collections care standards as ways of focusing performance goals, educating and motivating museum staff, and highlighting conservation’s role as part of a larger museum context. Laise provided a compelling argument in favor of the adherence to standards by pointing to guidelines cited in the American Alliance of Museums’ core documents, which include a collections management policy (http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/core-documents/documents). She also pointed out that museums accredited by AAM tend to have stronger collections care policies. However, Laise did note that the committee who oversees AAM accreditation is made up primarily of museum directors, rather than other museum professionals such as conservators – a surprise to me and I am sure others in the audience. Laise cited two other organizations who promote collections care standards, including the American Association for State and Local History (see their Stewardship of Collections Standards workbook online: http://www.aaslh.org/), as well as Collections Trust, a UK charity whose goal is to be a leader in the management and use of collections and technology in museums, libraries, and archives by 2015 (http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk/). In all Laise made clear that collections care standards are valued by the professional organizations that write the guidelines for best practices, and are considered important points of credibility and accountability for cultural institutions.
In his talk titled Standards Make us Myopic: We Focus on Specific Values at the Expense of Real Issues, James Reilly of the Image Permanence Institute argued that such prescriptive standards do not necessarily reflect the real needs of collections. Reilly provided an amusing analogy in the form of a Gary Larson cartoon (http://s173.photobucket.com/user/spn_imgs/media/blahblah.jpg.html), alluding to the fact that we tend to oversimplify the statements that are made in environmental standards publications such as Thomson 1978, 1986. The resulting De Facto standards we set for ourselves, Reilly argues, have not evolved over time, and have been applied to collections where they might not be appropriate. He also pointed to the fact that these publications were made before certain measurement technologies –like digital dataloggers – were available. Reilly points to what is important – actual documents, measurements, and the known vulnerabilities of specific collections – and to future trends such as risk management, and more active environmental management. Reilly offers PAS (Publicly Available Specification) 198: 2012 as an example of how standards are being increasingly used; in this specification, the manager is asked to prioritize from a list of risks and mechanisms of decay, based on their understanding of the needs and vulnerabilities of their collection (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/environmental-standard.htm). In short, according to Reilly, standards are meant to inform us, but it is up to us to determine how to interpret and apply them.
The afternoon round of talks and subsequent group discussions were quite engaging, thanks to the compelling arguments made by both Laise and Reilly. I came away with a sense that there is truth to both sides – that standards do keep us focused on the fundamental importance of collections care, but that the decisions we make on how to care for collections are, with good reason, based increasingly on data and observation.
TIMBUKTU NEEDS YOU NOW!
Last week, PMG members were challenged to participate in the rescue effort called T-160K Timbuktu Libraries in Exile and help raise fund to protect 300,000 precious manuscripts that were evacuated last year from Timbuktu in the midst of a civil war.
Our goal was to help raise $1500 for the preservation of 50 manuscripts; it was met a few days ago. To this day PMG members have contributed enough funds to preserve more than 60 manuscripts.
I am now challenging you, Facebook Friends of AIC, to join the fundraising effort. If each of you contributes just $1 to the campaign, you could help preserve 231 additional manuscripts!
Hurry up, there are only a few hours left to contribute and join this great learning adventure of the Timbuktu Libraries. To show your support, make your donation directly at http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/timbuktu-libraries-in-exile/x/3254149?c=home and “like” this posting.
How your contribution makes a difference:
All of the funding raised through the Indiegogo campaign will serve a single purpose: better accommodate the manuscripts (individual boxing, buffering and humidity control while maintaining mobility so that the manuscripts can be moved in the case of an escalation of socio-political strife in Mali) to lessen the risk of deformation and arrest microbial infestation that are imminent and will lead to very significant loss of substance.
Many thanks,
Sylvie Pénichon
Chair, Photographic Materials Group
American Institute for Conservation
AIC 41st Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, May 31, “Artificial Aging of Paper-Based Cores Wrapped in Various Isolating Layers for use as Archival Storage Supports by Amy Williams and Catherine H. Stephens”
When faced with a budget dilemma for oversize mining maps storage, Amy Williams, project conservator at the University of Pittsburgh, asked herself “the $13,500 question:” Is there a benefit to using an archival 12” diameter storage tube core versus a non-archival 12” core wrapped with an isolating layer?
It would be easy to assume that archival cores were significantly better, well worth the extra $13,500. However, when faced with the substantial cost difference, Williams decided to conduct a scientific research project to determine the most cost-effective and preservation-friendly rolled storage system for the 5’ by 15’ maps of the Consol Energy Mine Map Preservation Project. She and her co-investigator, Dr. Catherine Stephens, presented their results on May 31, 2013 during the Research and Technical Studies Session of the AIC annual meeting.
If Williams and Stephens could prove that there was an acceptable, more affordable alternative to archival tubes, the news would be of great benefit to cultural institutions, collectors, and conservators. I was eager to hear their results.
Williams partnered with Stephens, Senior Research Scientist at the Art Conservation Research Center, Carnegie Mellow University (now at Yale University) for the investigation. They studied four types of tubes and six wrapping options suggested by conservators: no wrapping, polyester film, Tyvek, Marvelseal 360, heavy weight aluminum foil, and tissue paper buffered with 3.5% calcium carbonate. For the cores, they selected two archival tubes with different adhesives (sodium silicate versus a blend of polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetate), a non-archival core of kraft paper with an unidentified adhesive, and a Quik-Tube concrete pouring tube composed of recycled paper and a polyvinyl acetate/acrylic adhesive.
In the experiments, the maps were simulated by using Whatman #1 filter paper. The use of Whatman #1 paper versus historic papers was discussed in another 2013 RATS talk by Bill Minter and John Baty, “The Role of Polyester Film Encapsulation—With and Without Prior Deacidification—On Paper Degradation, Studied During Long-Term, Low Temperature Aging.” Minter and Baty chose historic papers for their research. I think it would add to our understanding if Williams and Stephens conducted a second phase of their research using commercially available papers or naturally aged historic papers to compare with the Whatman #1 results.
Their test samples, each consisting of a “map,” an isolating layer (or none), and a core, were aged at 90˚C and 50% relative humidity in an oven for up to 24 weeks.
The researchers’ first discovery was the unexpected impact of the adhesive, which caused staining on the tubes at the seam gaps between the narrow strips of paper comprising the tubes. This staining transferred onto the Whatman paper “maps.”
To prevent this problem, Williams recommended obtaining seamless tubes by asking the manufacturer to skive the edges of the paper. She also emphasized the importance of knowing the composition of both the paper and the glue of the cores.
I wonder how problematic the adhesive would be during a natural aging process or during a lower temperature artificial aging, and hope the researchers will consider exploring this in the future.
Williams and Stephens reported that the linen ties on the samples caused staining during the aging process. They switched to rare earth magnets, which caused no reported problems. Would a lower temperature during testing have prevented or reduced the problem with the linen ties? If this is a significant problem at all temperatures, linen ties may not be appropriate for rolled storage.
The experiment produced more unexpected results. The researchers evaluated the effects of the cores and isolating layers on the “maps” by measuring the chain scission of the cellulose, the yellowness, and the pH of the “maps.” I was surprised to learn that both the Tyvek and the Marvelseal 360 actively promoted degradation, yellowing, and a lower pH.
The aluminum foil, polyester film, and buffered tissue offered varying amounts of protection, depending on the type of core used. The best isolating layer overall was the heavy weight aluminum foil, and the best wrapper for the kraft tube was polyester film.
I wondered if the high temperature during aging might be responsible for the poor performance of the Marvelseal and the Tyvek, and whether the heat caused chemical changes within these two films. How much of the unexpected results overall was caused by the elevated temperature? Would similar results occur during natural aging at room temperature?
The researchers did speak about this issue. Stephens said that they chose the high temperature for artificial aging to ensure detectable changes, and stated that more research was needed lower temperatures.
From what I understood about the test results that Williams and Stephens presented, it seemed that wrapping a non-archival core with heavy weight aluminum foil could give comparable results to using an archival core. I would like to know more the amount of difference they saw, and hope they will offer a detailed discussion of this in their article about the research.
The results of their experiment have caused me to question my own assumptions about the storage materials we use. I hope Williams and Stephens will continue their valuable research, to determine what results are typical at lower temperatures and answer some of the other questions they raised during this first phase of the investigation.
41st Annual Meeting – Workshop – Integrated Pest Management for Collections
This was a full-day workshop taught by three excellent and complementary instructors, Pat Kelley (Vice-President, Insects Limited), Emily Kaplan (Conservator, Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian), and Rachael Perkins Arenstein (A.M. Art Conservation, LLC). The day was broken into four sessions:
- Introduction to IPM principles (including physical prevention, policies and procedures)
- Behind-the-scenes (and inside the nooks and crannies) tour and real-life demonstration of pest monitoring and trapping in the Eiteljorg Museum of Native American and Western Art
- Presentation/hands-on quiz on pest identification
- Presentation/practice session on remedial infestation treatments
While the emphasis was on museum objects (specifically natural history collections), there were many good lessons learned that translate to my field of interest, libraries and archives, as well as to other cultural heritage repositories. I highly recommend this workshop to anyone who has responsibilities in this area (I thought about writing “interest” but when it comes to bugs, that’s putting it a little strongly for many of us). I’d like to see this become an on-going AIC workshop. My only suggestion for improvement would be to expand the pest ID presentation, which sped by too quickly for my novice’s eyes.
Key takeaways:
- There is a comprehensive and dynamic resource that pulls together almost all the IPM we would ever need: www.MuseumPests.net, a product of the Integrated Pest Management Working Group, which is an interdisciplinary and independent professional group that is informally linked with AIC and also the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). An associated listserv, Pest List, gives amateurs a place to ask questions of the professional community, confirm ID of pests, etc.
- A key guiding principle of IPM is to reduce the use of chemical pesticides for many compelling reasons, including personal health and safety, environmental impact, cost, effective prevention of (rather than reaction to) pest-related damage, and early warning/response in the event of an infestation.
- IPM has to be a group effort that requires buy-in from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the highest levels of institution administration, the facilities managers, housekeeping staff, groundskeepers, security managers and patrol staff, pest management experts either within or contracted from outside the organization, curatorial/collection manager/registrarial and support staff, caterers and shop managers, exhibit designers, and human resources staff, as well as conservation/preservation staff.
- Including IPM as a part of an overall risk management strategy may be a way to draw resources to its successful implementation.
- Well-written, approved, distributed, promoted, and enforced policies and procedures are vital to a successful IPM program.
- Species identification is crucial in order to prevent/eradicate; it informs the feeding patterns, reproductive cycles, behavior, and environmental conditions that can be targeted/controlled to ensure successful trapping
- Traps come in various shapes, sizes, and odors (pheromones are species specific, so you have to identify what you have before you purchase the pheromone trap). A “blunder trap” has no pheromone or bait but is just sticky and is placed carefully in the likely path of a pest. A pheromone lure with sticky trap mimics the scent exuded by a specific species of female to attract males. Poisoned bait traps are also used, but you can’t control where the pest goes off to die.
- IPM is a great field for sleuths and puzzlers; but sometimes the answer (i.e. the cause of the infestation) is elusive, so there are some cold cases.
- Common museum pests are mostly moths and beetles, many of which look pretty similar to me so I’d need professional confirmation of my amateur ID; I’m going to seek out and cultivate a relationship with a local entomologist
- Remedial treatments include isolation, temperature (heat and freezing), and anoxia (nitrogen, argon, CO2). CO2 requires a pesticide license. Pesticides and fumigation are the last resorts. Heat treatments can be very cheap (black plastic bag in the sun, car with the windows closed on a hot summer day). Do not use anoxia if you have Prussian blue pigments.
- Freeze/thaw/refreeze is *not* necessary; just freezing for the right length of time will do the job
- My own personal observation: squeamishness may diminish when you get up close and personal on a regular basis.
And here is a list of some of the products and equipment that they demonstrated (this is not an endorsement, just information sharing)
- Door sweeps: sealeze.com
- Copper gauze for stuffing holes: Stuf-fit
- Landscape fabric: Geo Xcluder
- Desiccating treatment for high-risk displays (i.e. food art): diatomaceous earth
- Oxygen scavenger: Ageless
- Films for air-tight sealing: Marvelseal (opaque) and Escal (transparent) or Aclar (also transparent) can be heat-sealed together
- Cube of Marvelseal: Zer02 cube system
- Current fumigants: sulfuryl fluoride and phosphene (need a license)
- Other effective pesticide: boric acid, which is available loaded into a silverfish pack (corrugated board)
- Microscope: The Professor, stereoscope, battery powered, by Ken-A-Vision, lowest price at B&H Photovideo (~$80)
- We didn’t walk away with samples of sticky traps, but I’d add those to this list if I had the brand names etc.
Selected recommended publications:
Florian, Mary-Lou. Heritage eaters: Insects and fungi in heritage collections. London: James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd., 1997.
Kingsley, Helen; David Pinniger, Amber Xavier-Rowe, Peter Winsor. Integrated Pest Management for Collections: Proceedings of 2001: A Pest Odyssey. London: English Heritage, 2001.
Pinniger, David. Pest Management: a practical guide. Cambridge: Collections Trust, [2009].
Pinniger, David. Pest Management in Museums, Archives, and Historic Houses. London Archetype Press, 2001 (2004 reprint).
Winsor, Peter; David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard and Amber Xavier-Rowe. Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. London: English Heritage, 2011.