Books wet by window cleaner

George R. Leake III <taliesin [at] mail__utexas__edu> writes

>>Bill Hollinger <billh96007 [at] aol__com> writes
>>
>>MicroChamber products (they contain molecular traps as well as
>>alkaline buffers) have proven to be very effective at removing
>>odors, so one of the MicroChamber papers will probably remove the
>>odor from your book.
>
>This brings up some questions: has anyone done independent testing
>of MicroChamber? Are there any kind of independent testing standards
>for the removal of odor? Are other options for removal of odor? Have
>aging tests ever been done on MicroChamber? And more importantly, in
>these times of dwindling budgets and massive cutbacks, who can
>afford to pay premium prices for archival board and paper?

Let me address George's concerns, as briefly as possible.

>This brings up some questions: has anyone done independent testing
>of MicroChamber?

Yes, and much of this information is and has been publicly
available. You may want to read some of the following publications:

    Hollinger, W. K. and Vine, M. G. "MicroChamber Active Archival
    Housing" Restaurator 14:123-130, 1993

    Hollinger, W. K. "MicroChamber Papers used as a Preventative
    Conservation Material" Preprints IIC Ottawa congress, 212-216,
    1994

    Rempel, S. "Zeolite Molecular Traps and Their Use in
    Preventative Conservation", Western Association for Art
    Conservation Newsletter, 18:12-18, 1996 .

    Guttman, C. M. and Jewett, K. C. "Protection of Archival
    Materials from Pollutants: Diffusion of Sulfur Dioxide through
    Boxboard", Journal of the American Institute for Conservation
    32:81-91, 1993.

    Hatchfield, Pamela "Mitigating The Effects of
    Internally-Generated Pollutants"  Preservation of Collections,
    Assessment, Evaluation, and Mitigation Strategies, 69-75, 1996,
    paper presented at AIC, Norfolk, VA., June 1996.

>Are other options for removal of odor?

I'm sure there are, but this is the solution I had at hand. The
zeolites in our paper should remove the molecules presented as
causing the odor, so I offered to provide MicroChamber paper at no
charge to solve someone's problem.

>Have aging tests ever been done on MicroChamber?

Yes, and they were spectacular. They have been published, and many
are contained in our literature. A recent example involved tests in
a polluted atmosphere. The buffered-only paper offered no protection
for the artifacts it was housing, and indeed suffered great damage
itself, with a pH of 2.4 after the test. The MicroChamber paper,
provided total protection from the pollutants, and retained a pH in
the neutral range. Additionally, every MicroChamber paper ever made
has passed the PAT test.

>And more importantly, in
>these times of dwindling budgets and massive cutbacks, who can
>afford to pay premium prices for archival board and paper?

Only the user can decide what material is appropriate for their
collection. We have greatly reduced the cost of MicroChamber papers,
and in some cases (storage boxes, for example) the price of a
MicroChamber box is the same as our Lig-free II box. When someone
chooses our Lig-free board over our gray/white board, they are
choosing to pay more for higher quality. The MicroChamber products
offer much that the buffered product can't provide, and if you care
only about the "acid-free" capabilities, consider that with two
identical papers, one buffered-only, and one MicroChamber paper, the
MicroChamber paper has the potential of removing approximately 170
times more acid than the buffered only paper, thereby providing
significant additional capacity for a very modest increase in cost.
It may be worth informing those people who control the purse strings
about the new capabilities this material provides for preventative
conservation. Prevention is surly less expensive than restoration.

If anyone has any questions about MicroChamber papers or technology,
they are most welcome to call and talk with me.

Bill Hollinger (the old one - my son Bill is also with the company)
Conservation Resources
800-634-6932
Fax: +1 703-321-0629

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 10:22
                Distributed: Wednesday, August 28, 1996
                       Message Id: cdl-10-22-004
                                  ***