Volume 1, Number 4
Oct 1988

The pH of New Library Books:
Monitoring Acquisitions at Columbia University

Readers of the Abbey Newsletter and the Alkaline Paper Advocate are all too familiar with the corrosive power acids except on printed material and our labors to preserve these materials sometimes seem to have taken on a distinctly Sisyphian monotony as the "information explosion' continues to pour acidic paper into our libraries. How large will the mountain of brittle paper be 50 years from now? Have our efforts at encouraging publishers to use alkaline paper been successful? What percentage of new acquisitions to the nation's research libraries are acidic? If mass deacidification becomes standard preservation practice, will wholesale treatment of new acquisitions be necessary and cost-effective, or might certain groups of materials be excluded, university press publications for instance?

In an attempt to answer these and other questions, Ellen McCrady conducted a study in 1983 at Columbia University Libraries' Preservation Department to test pH in books then being added to CUL's collections.¹ Using chlorophenol red to measure pH, she found that 41% of book papers were alkaline (pH >6.7); 16% were close to neutral (pH 6.0 to 6.7); 43% were acidic (pH <6.0). Fifty percent of U.S. imprints tested were alkaline. The confidence level of McCrady's results was 95% with a 10% margin of error.

A follow-up of McCrady's study was conducted, again in Columbia's Preservation Department, during the Spring and Summer of 1988, by three Columbia School of Library Service students. While a complete report will be published at a later date, preliminary results are encouraging and warrant timely dissemination throughout the preservation community.

In this second investigation, over 800 monographs were tested--hard cover and paperback, U.S. and foreign imprints. The single size, characteristics and selection method were determined, with assistance from statisticians in Columbia's Mathematics Department, for a confidence level of 95% with a tolerance of 5%. Chlorophenol red was again used to measure pH and small samples were taken of all papers measuring pH >6.7 for buffering tests.

Of the total sample, 35% were alkaline; 11% slightly acidic; and 54% were acidic. Of all U.S. imprints (which accounted for 37% of the total sample), 66% tested alkaline. Of these, 29% had either the infinity sign or another alkaline paper notation on the title page verso. Forty-six of alkaline university press imprints carried acid-free notes. Five acidic U.S. imprints were falsely advertised as alkaline. Sixty-three percent of all U.S. imprints were published in 1987 and 1988; of this group 78% were alkaline.

Japanese imprints fared very well in the tests with 75% having a pH greater than 6.7. Grouping test results by general geographic regions, we found that 48% Asian, 44% West European and 29%. Middle Eastern imprints had a pH over 6.7. No alkaline papers were found in books from Africa, South and Central America, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, or Australia.

McCrady's results coincide very closely with our own, with the heartening exception of the dramatic rise over the past five years in alkaline U.S. imprints. While it looks as though the "lobbying" efforts of alkaline advocates have met with some success, still 54% of new acquisitions to at least one research library are acidic and tomorrow's mountains of brittle paper continue to grow.

References

1. Ellen McCrady and Michael Koenig, "Columbia Study on Use of Permanent Book Paper," Abbey Newsletter 8(l): 2, 1984.