Volume 1, Number 5
Dec 1988

Letters

To the Editor:

I am sure that all of your readers are as pleased as I am by the news of the introduction on October 11 by Senator Claiborne Pell of S.J. Res. 394, "Joint Resolution to Establish a National Policy on Permanent Papers."

As a former legislative activist I know that members of Congress receive far more complaints than expressions of appreciation. Some of your readers, especially those in Rhode Island, may wish to thank the Senator.

Since the Joint Committee on the Library, which Senator Pell chairs, is not a legislative committee, further action will need to be taken next year in the Senate Committee an Governmental Affairs, the members of which are:

Your interested readers might also like to write the chairman, or Senators from their states on the committee, urging early hearings on the reintroduced bill in 1989. Hearings will provide an opportunity to explore the problem in depth as well as serving important educational and publicity purposes.

To the Editor:

Recently I came across a Technical Bulletin entitled, "Let's Give the Users What They Want: Fiche, Paper, CD-ROM --All from 35 mm." Among other things, the bulletin stated, "Copyflo, for going from film to paper, is a marginal technology now that it is not supported by its creator, Xerox."

Please let me set the record straight. In 1985, Xerox desired to get out of the Copyflo business but did not want to abandon the many users of these machines. Subsequently, an arrangement was made with Image Products to carry on the support of Copyflos. Xerox sold us all of their remaining Copyflo parts as well as a full set of parts drawings. In addition, they provided us access to their last known sources for parts. Since we were already in the business of furnishing toners, developers and photoreceptors for the Copyflos, it was a natural marriage that put Image Products in a position to lend full support to Copyflo owners. Also, we provide a reconditioning and refurbishing service for both Copyflos and major subassemblies. As you can see, the Copyflo machines and support for the Copyflo machines are alive and well.

This brings me to a point that should be of particular interest to you and your readers. Image Products Company has an acid-free paper available for use in Copyflo machines. The paper meets ANSI specification Z39.48-1984, entitled "Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials." We would be pleased to furnish additional information to anyone who might have an interest in the acid-free paper. Also, we have a complete list of Copyflo users, and could provide a referral service to the Copyflo locations closest to your readers. If you or your readers have any questions, please do not hesitate to call: 1-800-633-6464, Image Products Company, Inc., 1810 Scherer Parkway, St. Charles, MO 63303.

To the Editor:

There are a few points I would like to make on your Datek reprinted article in the October 1988 issue, entitled "Alkaline Imaging Papers Gain Market Share."

• Xerox introduced the first alkaline xerographic paper into the North American marketplace in 1973. The grade was "Xerox Microspheres Paper," made for us by P.H. Glatfelter Company, since discontinued for marketing reasons. Technically, it was a very successful and unique product.
• Xerox also introduced the first 25% cotton content, fully archival xerographic paper into the North American Market. The grade, "XXV Archival Bond," was introduced in 1975 and is a Type I permanence copy paper (re ASTM D3290-74), fully meeting all defined archival requirements. It is available nationwide from Xerox, 1-800-822-2200.
• We are obviously very much involved in any alkaline conversion efforts on the part of our suppliers, and we work very closely with them in creating paper products that fully meet our customers' requirements. This can be technically challenging. We develop Xerox papers, uniquely designed and qualified by us, before they are marketed. We would only introduce alkaline papers that pass our very rigorous requirements and are fully functional in our customers' machines. "We will sell no alkaline paper before its time" would be an appropriate description of our approach.
• International Paper, as you can see from my previous comments, was not the first supplier to have an alkaline Xerox product qualified. However, they were the first large-volume producer to do so and certainly deserve credit as a pioneer in North American alkaline papermaking-
• The alkaline Xerox products made for us by Ticonderoga are 4024DP paper and 4200DP paper, intended for use in all Xerox machines. We do not have 4024DP or 4200DP copiers! These papers are made to unique Xerox specifications and were qualified after an extensive program. I should note that there are also acid sized 4024DP and 4200DP papers in the marketplace.
• Finally, let me phrase what I think I would have said in the quotation attributed to me (p. 42).

"Xerox will market fully functional alkaline Xerox paper, and only after a thorough program to insure full customer satisfaction. These papers are intended to be used in all Xerox copiers, duplicators, and printers, as well as many other office machines."

To the Editor:

Responding to your letter dated November 11, the method described in the draft of Australian Standard: Permanence of Uncoated Paper appears to be based on the ANSI Standard which I had a part in drafting. The ESC 9310 [JCP A270, Uncoated Permanent Printing Paper] schedule is also based on the ANSI Standards.

The method is inherently accurate and precise, meaning that it will give a true measure of the amount present (accuracy) and that the results are reproducible (precision). Any well-trained chemist or quality control chemist will be familiar with the details necessary to assure the required accuracy and precision.

Note that in the FSC 9310 Paper Schedule it states that duplicate determinations should agree to within 0.3% CaCO₃. As a practical matter, it makes very little difference whether the paper contains 2.1 or 1.81 calcium carbonate--the paper will still be "permanent." These specification methods are drafted to assure that both the supplier's laboratory and the buyer's laboratory will be testing the paper by the saw method so that arguments over whether the paper matches specifications will be minimized.

If it is desired to have a more accurate and precise method [since one of the questions in the Editor's Nov. 11 letter had to do with the accuracy of the method], the first change to be recommended is to substitute a good pH meter for the methyl red indicator. In fact, if colored or degraded papers are to be analyzed, this is imperative. The end point for the pH meter titration is most conveniently set at 7.0, but it could just as easily be 6.8, provided the titrating solutions are standardized to exactly the same end point.

The second possible error is in the standardization of the 0.1 M hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. The method specifies 0.1 M but it is assumed that a knowledgeable chemist will standardize to a much more accurate standard. At the Library of Congress we always standardized to 0.1000 M with a permissible variation of � 0.0001. It is very easy to make up standard solutions to such an exact strength for convenience in calculation, but the standardization to four decimal places is just as accurate if the solution is used without adjustment to 0.1000 M (i.e., if the standardization is found to be 0.1073 M, this could be used without dilution to 0.1000, but the calculations would be more tedious.)

Along this same line, the temperature of the standard solutions in use must be the same as that at which they were standardized. For every °C difference in temperature, the standardization would change about 0.0001 less for use at temperatures higher than that used in standardizing, and 0.0001 more for lower temperatures.

If the laboratory is air conditioned and maintained at constant temperature, as at the Library of Congress, this is no problem, but a correction must be made under less ideal circumstances if high accuracy is to be obtained.

Finally, in a titration, the accuracy can never be greater than � 1 drop of titrant, or � 1/20 of 1 ml, since one drop is required to completely discharge the color of the indicator. If greater accuracy is mandatory, one must go to more dilute titrating solutions such as 0.05 M or 0.01 M, but here one has difficulty in judging whether one drop of the more dilute solution has completely discharged the color. For greatest accuracy with indicator titrations, one must specify both the illumination of the titration and the background against which the color is to be judged.

These factors are all pertinent in a single sample. However, one must face the fact that calcium carbonate or any other filler is not distributed uniformly throughout paper manufactured in a single production run, much less in separate runs. Therefore, all manufacturing specifications either have a minimum value or a range of acceptable values; say, 2% minimum or a range of 2.0% to, say, 2.5% would be reasonable specifications.

You can easily see why the paper specifications say that duplicates should agree to within 0.3% Accuracy or precision greater than this is hardly justifiable with a product such , paper, as it would lead to much higher production costs. This would be reflected in the price of the paper, and in analyzing the product many samples would have to be used to be certain that the average for the lot was within specifications--another cost item.

I think the method is basically suitable for unsophisticated laboratories. Addition of a pH meter in place of the methyl red indicator for the end point would be the only improvement that would be reasonable for normal paper analyses. The methyl red was specified because many paper users do not have a pH meter and the cost might be a burden for small print shops or other paper users.