Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Environmental control

Environmental control

From: Christine Woodland <lycw>
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 1996
I'm forwarding this in case readers of this list are not subscribed
to the archives list.  I don't have access to the Smithsonian
article.  Does anyone have any comments?  Can we turn down our air

    **** Moderator's comments:   For background, see the following
    areas in Conservation OnLine:
    The WAAC Newsletter, Volume 17, Number 1
    The Abbey Newsletter, Volume 18, Number 4
    and the archives of the Conservation DistList (see Instance:
    8:23, September 30, 1994 and Instance: 8:24, October 2, 1994

The following appeared on ARCHIVES and is reproduced here without
the knowledge or consent of the author.

    Date: 1 Jul 96
    From: Sheila Miller <smiller [at] mail__dos__state__fl__us>
    Subject: Article of interest
    To:  Multiple recipients of list ARCHIVES
        <ARCHIVES [at] miamiu__acs__muohio__edu>

    Interesting article in the March 1996 Smithsonian magazine, pages
    20-22.  The article claims that a conservation team from the
    Smithsonian Institution has determined the standards for humidity
    control in museum collections to be too stringent and too costly.
    This team has determined that humidity changes are not as
    destructive as previously thought.

    The article mentions work from the 1970s by the National Gallery
    of Art in London.  Essentially the Smithsonian team has devised
    a strategy for matching particular materials (bug wings, oil
    paintings, furniture, photographs, etc.) to their specific
    environmental controls.  "Armed with exact knowledge of the
    safety margins, museums no longer have to over-correct
    (environmental controls).  The difference in costs is

    "So far at least 80 museums and organizations from all over the
    world have requested information on the team's new approach, and
    some have already reported huge savings."

    "The team reports that changes as great as plus or minus 15% RH
    will cause stretching of only 0.4%, a mere one-tenth of the
    actual breaking point."

    Worth reading!  Check it out!

    Sheila Miller
    Archivist II
    Florida Dept. of State
    Bureau of Archives and Records Management

Christine Woodland
Senior Assistant Archivist
Modern Records Centre, University Library
University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
+44 1203 524495
Fax: +44 1203 524211

                  Conservation DistList Instance 10:6
                  Distributed: Saturday, July 6, 1996
                        Message Id: cdl-10-6-018
Received on Tuesday, 2 July, 1996

[Search all CoOL documents]