indoor air pollution: effects on cultural and historic materials

The International Journal of Museum Managmmt and Curatorship (1985), 4, 9-20

Indoor Air Pollution: Effects on Cultural and

NORBERT S. BAER AND PAUL N. BANKS

Historic Materials

Traditionally, one has associated the development of awareness of air pollution damage to cultural artifacts with the observations by Michael Faraday in London in the 1850s. He attributed the rotting of leather bindings and armchairs in the Athenaeum Club to SO* emissions from gas illumination, and the soiling of pictures in the National Gallery to particulate matter from smoke. ‘** However, Brimblecombe’*4Bs has demonstrated that such concerns were noted as early as 1284 when a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate air pollution from coal used as a fuel for kilns in London and Southwark. By the seventeenth century many references were made to the soiling of household materials. In 16 58, Digby wrote:

. . . this coal hath in it a great quantity of volatil salt very sharp, which being carried on by the smoke doth dissipate it self, and fill the air it spoils beds, Tapistries and all other

household stuff. . .’

Similarly, Evelyn in his Fumifugium of 166 1 wrote:

the weary Traveller, at many Miles distance, sooner smells, than sees the City to which he repairs. This is that pernicious Smoake which sullyes all her Glory, superinducing a sooty Crust or Furr upon all its lights, spoyling the moveables, tarnishing the Plate, Gildings and Furniture, and corroding the very Iron-bars and hardest Stones with those piercing acromonious Spirits which accompany its Sulphure; and executing more in one year, than exposed to the pure Aer of the Country it could effect in some hundreds. Finally it spreads a Yellowness upon our choycest Pictures and Hangings, . . . .’

Despite these observations of material damage and warnings of serious health consequences, pollution levels continued to climb in industrializing England. Brimblecombe,’ using a simple single-box model for the annual mean SO? and particulate levels in London air, estimates that SO* rose to mean annual levels of about 1 SO pg mm3 as early as the end of the seventeenth century and began to drop only at the end of the nineteenth century. Particulate levels followed in parallel with a peak mean annual value of 125 pg m- ’ about 1880.

It was only some 50 years ago with the development of central air-conditioning systems that attention began to be paid to effective control of the museum environment. In 193 3, the National Bureau of Standards undertook a study of alkaline-wash systems for the removal of SO2 in library atmospheres.6 The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC, installed such a system in the 193Os, but abandoned it due to maintenance problems. Since 1941, the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC, has had an alkaline scrubbing system. However, until recently, interest in air purification remained limited. A comprehensive survey in 197 3 of 429 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom’ revealed that only some 9 per cent of exhibition areas and

0260.4779/85/01 0009-12 $03.00 0 1985 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd

10 Indoor Air Pollution

2 per cent of show-cases have relative humidity control with similar estimates for air filtration. Only 10 per cent of those institutions with a conservation staff monitor atmospheric pollutants that cause chemical and physical damage to exhibitions. More recently, the Library of Congress (Madison Building), the Newberry Library (Chicago), The Prado (Madrid), and the National Library (Caracas) installed activated alumina systems while the National Gallery (East Building) again installed an alkaline-wash system for the removal of SO,. It is now being recognized that, in addition to acidic gases, oxidizing pollutants can cause significant damage to cultural property.’ Other concerns include emissions from building materials, the introduction of anti- corrosive chemicals from humidification systems, and the recirculation of vapors from chemicals used in conservation processes.

Indoor Pollutants

Indoor pollutants in libraries, museums, and historic houses originate for the most part from outgassing of structural or decorative materials, heating plants, activities of visitors and staff, and by the intrusion of outdoor pollutants. In special cases the artifacts themselves may emit significant and even dangerous amounts of polluting gases. The types of damage observed, principal air pollutants implicated, and methods of quantifying damage for different materials are given in Table 1 .9 The discussion which follows is classified by the source of pollutant emissions since control strategies and mitigative measures to be taken will, in general, be determined by the

source.

Pollutants Emittedfrom Building Materials

In a series of papers Toishi and Kenjo”,“,” reported that the air in new concrete buildings is usually alkaline due to the presence of minute aerosol particles. These particles are in the ultrafine particulate range (c. 0.0 1 pm). Among the damaging effects attributed to such alkaline aerosols were darkening of oil paint films, loss of tensile strength for silk, discoloration of dyes and pigments, and the loss of precision for hair hygrometers. In general, indoor formaldehyde concentrations exceed outdoor concentrations. Urea-formaldehyde foam used as thermal insulation is the dominant source of formaldehyde. Another source is the various formaldehyde resins used in plywood, particle board, and other building materials. Where these materials are heavily used for partition walls and furnishings, formaldehyde concentrations can reach 1 ppm or more, enough to cause eye and upper respiratory irritation.13

Pollutants Introduced by HVAC Systems

Much of the SO,, NO,, 03 and particulate matter detected in the library or museum environment is introduced by way of the HVAC system. Even in buildings with HVAC systems lacking pollutant gas removal capability, the ratio of indoor-to-outdoor concentrations is typically less than one due to reaction of the gases with building surfaces or with objects in the collections. The introduction of a well-maintained, effective, pollutant filtration system permits the removal of substantially all of the SO,, 03 and particulate matter from the make-up air (see Table 2). Some question obtains as to the effectiveness of NO, removal. Many conservation procedures involve the use of such toxic solvents as acetone, benzene, N, N-dimethylformamide, toluene, trichloroethylene, and xylene.14 In siting intakes for make-up air in HVAC systems, particular care must be exercised to avoid entrainment of vapors emitted from solvent exhaust systems. In 1982, the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Cornell University discovered extensive


Table 1. Indoor air pollution damage to materials

11

Material Type of impact

Principal air pollutants

Other environmental

factors Methods of

measurement

Metals Corrosion, tarnishing

Paintings and organic coatings

Paper

Discoloration, soiling

Embrittlement, discoloration

Photographic materials Textiles

Microblemishes, ‘sulfiding’ Reduced tensile strength, soiling

Textile dyes

Leather

Fading, color change Weakening, powdered surface

Rubber Cracking

Sulfur oxides, hydrogen sulfide and other acidic gases Sulfur oxides, hydrogen sulfide, alkaline aerosol

Sulfur oxides

Sulfur oxides, hydrogen sulfide Sulfur and nitrogen oxides

Ozone, nitrogen oxides Sulfur oxides

Ozone

Moisture, air, salt, particulate matter, ozone

Moisture, sunlight, ozone, particulate matter, micro- organisms Moisture, physical wear, acidic materials introduced in manufacture

Particulate matter, moisture Particulate matter, moisture, light, physical wear, washing

Light, high temperature Physical wear, residual acids introduced in manufacture Sunlight, physical wear

Weight loss after removal of corrosion products, change in surface characteristics Surface reflectivity loss, chemical analysis

Decreased folding endurance, pH change, molecular weight measurement, tensile strength Visual and microscopic examination Reduced tensile strength, chemical analysis (e.g. molecular weight), surface reflectivity Reflectance and color value measurements Loss in tensile strength, chemical analysis, shrinkage

Loss in elasticity and strength, measurement of crack frequency and depth

Source: Adapted from Yocom and Baer.9

coatings of diethylaminoethanol (DEAE) on artifacts in its art collection. It was determined that the source was DEAE routinely added to steam lines to prevent corrosion. The steam lines had been tapped to provide humidity for the museum climate control system. In August 198 3, the museum was closed for a clean-up after a majority of the museum staff reported eye and respiratory irritations, skin rashes, and other health problems.” Ethylene oxide (EtO) has been a routine fumigant in some archives and ethnographic collections. Growing concern about the health effects of Et0 exposure and observation that many fumigation chambers have been inadequately maintained, operated and vented have reduced its use in conservation practice.‘”


Table 2. Measured indoor-outdoor pollution levels for archives, libraries and museums

Institution

NARS (Archives Building) NARS (Archives Building) National Gallery (East Building) Library of Congress (Madison Building) Tate Gallery (London) Victoria & Albert (London) NARS (Archives Building)

NARS (Archives Building) National Gallery (East Building) Library of Congress (Madison Building) NARS (Archives Building) NARS (Archives Building) National Gallery (East Building) Library of Congress (Madison Building) LA County Museum (Los Angeles) Sainsbury Centre (Norwich. UK)

Dates Exterior Interior Filtration Pollutant measured concentration concentration system Reference

SO2

so2

so2

so2

so2

so2

NO,

NO,

NO,

NO,

03

03

03

03

Nov. 1977 32-40 ppb <3 PPb ( 1 Ox reduction)

Dec. 1982- 7-34ppb 2-25 ppb Jan. 1983 daily average

Feb. 1983 7-34ppb < 1 ppb daily average

Jan. 1983 7-34ppb GO.5 ppb daily average

1980-1983 12-80ppb 0-4 ppb

Jan.-Feb. 22-60 ppb 3-42 ppb

1983

Sept. 1977 41 ppb 20-80 ppb average

(followed exterior)

Dec. 1982- lo-527 ppb” lo-252 ppb Jan. 1983

Feb. 198 3 40-92 ppb” 7-50 ppb

Jan. 1983- 46-318 ppb” 4-154 ppb

Feb. 1983 Sept. 1977 97 ppb O-42 ppb

Dec. 1982- 1-21 ppb” <O

Jan. 1983 Feb. 1983 1-21 ppb” <o

Jan. 1983 1-21 ppb” <O

Particulate

Particulate

Alkaline wash Purafil

Activated carbon None

Particulate

Particulate


Particulate

Particulate


Or July 1982 200 ppb average

03 Sept. 1981 56 ppb maximum

<lOppb

40 PPb maximum

Activated carbon Particulate

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(6%

(6%

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(68)

(66)

(65)

a Measured at 24th and L Streets NW by the District of Columbia.

Pollutants Emitted by Artifacts and Exhibition Cases

NO, from Cellulose Nitrates. Cellulose nitrate, made by reacting purified cellulose from cotton

linters or purified wood pulp with nitric acid in the presence of sulfuric acid, is a well-known

source of NO, emissions in libraries, archives, and museums. It was discovered in the

nineteenth century, and a few products are still made from it. Cellulose nitrate preparations were

among the first plastics invented, and as such found a tremendous range of use until more satisfactory materials replaced them. Widely used products based on cellulose nitrate include photographic films,“,‘* ‘acetate’ recording discs, I9 imitation silk, lacquers, adhesives, and

NORBERT S. BAER AND PAUL N. BANKS 13

pyroxylin-coated or impregnated fabrics including pre-vinyl ‘imitation leather’.20 Cellulose nitrate continuously emits NO, as it ages. The largest and potentially most devastating source of NO, emissions in collections of cultural property is photographic materials. The NFPA Fire

Protection Handbook notes that, ‘When a large quantity of nitrate film decomposes in a small room or vault not rovided with adequate vents, the gas pressure may be enough to force out masonry walls’ .20,2 P Cellulose nitrate was the first flexible film base, supplanting glass plates, and all early motion pictures and many still negatives were on nitrate film base. The manufacture of nitrate-based photographic film continued until 19 5 1. Th e most serious problem occurs with nitrate motion-picture film because of the large, compact masses of film, often in closed containers, which prevent the escape of NO,, creating an autocatalytic reaction, whose endpoint can in extreme cases be spontaneous ignition.22 Many disastrous fires have been caused by the ignition of nitrate motion-picture films, and elaborate precautions, including reduced temperature, frequent inspection for advanced deterioration, and extensive provision for venting of evolved gases are required for the safe storage of this materia12’ In addition, NO, emitted by nitrate film bases is a recognized hazard for other film materials in their vicinity.24,2s

The emissions of NO, from cellulose nitrate plastics in other industrial applications is recognized in a fire protection standard specifying extensive venting.26 Pyroxylin-coated or impregnated cloth has been in almost universal use in library rebinding and to a lesser extent in publishers’ bindings since its introduction in 1922.27 It has been speculated that the higher levels of NO, found in testing the air in the stacks of the Library of Congress might be caused by emissions from the large amount of this cloth.28

Volatile Acids from Storage Materials. Oak and Douglas fir are among the wood species giving off acetic, formic and tannic acids. These have caused significant damage to lead objects, which in some cases have been converted entirely to amorphous masses of lead carbonate after long storage in oak cupboards. *’ Adhesives such as polyvinyl acetate emulsions can lead to similar effects. Lead formate was observed growing on bullets on display in the National Air and Space

Museum in a case with a painted plywood back. r” Other effects associated with acid emissions from wood are corrosion of zinc and vitreous enamel to create formates.” Nockert and Wadsten” identified sodium forrnate on the glass lids of sealed boxes used to store archaeological textile fragments. They determined the source to be cardboard in the boxes. Padfieldr’ found calcium acetate and calcium formate in a 1 mm thick corrosion crust on an aragonite cowrie shell stored in a Douglas fir box with a glass lid.

Silver tarnishing has been associated with sulfides emitted by certain rubbers, paints, degraded casein through the action of tbiobacillus, and finished textiles used in mounting displays.29,33 Black spots of copper sulfide corrosion have been observed on bronze archaeological artifacts in museums in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and ItaIy.34~“~36 Though it is assumed that the spots are the result of reaction between HIS and the copper of the alloy, the source of the H2S remains unidentified, with the possibilities including intrusive air pollution, microbiological decomposition of organic materials, outgassing of show-case materials, or carbonyl sulfide. r6 In a series of papers, Graedel noted the importance of carbonyl sulfide in the sulfidation of copper and other metals. He also proposed that such reactions are initiated by ozone.r7’r8.r9 A most interesting example of this phenomenon occurred when black spots of copper sulfide were observed on a polished metallographic specimen left for less than a week on a clean bench in a flow of filtered air at 100 feet per minute.40 Microscopically small colored spots or blemishes have been observed on silver-gelatin microfilms after storage of from two to twenty years. The spots are attributed to local oxidation of the image silver, resulting in the formation of colored colloidal silver. Possible atmospheric pollutants responsible for this damage


are peroxides, ozone, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen oxides. Storage in cool, dry air free from oxidizing gases or vapors is recommended for preventing the development of microblemishes.“‘~‘2~”

A number of simple tests for tarnishing or corrosive action by materials for proposed use in display cases or conservation procedures have been described.29.‘4.45 Such tests should be interpreted with caution since it is seldom the case that a single simple process takes place during the test. It is probable that local pH, local potential and catalytic activity of the surface affect the kinetics of tarnishing. 46 In a recent study, Dawson demonstrated that many pesticides in routine use in museums cause irreversible damage to a broad range of artifacts.+’

Intrusive Air Pollutants

The criteria pollutants, SO,, NO,, Or and total suspended particulates, represent a significant form of indoor pollution. All institutions with climate control systems undertake at least some filtration to remove particulate matter. Some have installed systems to remove SO, and, in impacted areas, ozone. NO, is currently removed only as a by-product of filtration for the other criteria pollutants. A growing body of evidence indicates that these pollutants are appropriately the concern of archivists, conservators, curators and librarians. However, the literature reveals few if any quantitative relationships (damage functions, dose-response relationships, etc.) between pollutant concentrations and damage.

Sulfur Oxides (SOJ. The role of sulfur dioxide in the deterioration of paper has been accepted since the 19 30s. Early experiments”8,49 relied on unrealistically high SO2 concentrations of 5000 ppm interacting with damp paper. Working with concentrations of 10 ppm, Gran? showed that SO? deposition increased with increasing aluminium sulfate/rosin sizing of the paper. A comparative study of identical copies of 25 seventeenth and eighteenth century books in two English libraries, one in a normally unpolluted atmosphere of rural Chatsworth, the other in the badly polluted urban atmosphere of Manchester, revealed a significantly higher level of paper acidity in the Manchester library copies.” This acidity was greatest at the page edges and decreased greatly toward the center of the page, which might be considered the initial sheet acidity. Wallpapers form an important part of the indoor surface area available for SO? sorption. Spedding and Rowlands” measured the sorption characteristics of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and conventional wallpapers on exposure to maximum initial SO? concentrations of 150 PLg m-r. Sorption depended largely on surface finish and design pattern, with greater sorption by conventional wallpapers. The researchers suggested that SO2 sorption accelerated the deterioration of wallpaper.

It has been observed that leather initially free of sulfuric acid will accumulate up to 1 per cent acid by weight per year if exposed to an atmosphere containing SO*. The mechanism is thought to involve the metal ion catalyzed conversion to sulfuric acid of the SO2 absorbed by the collagen of the leather. Using sulfur-3 5 labelled SO2, Spedding et aL.‘j showed that it is sorbed evenly over the leather surface, with the limiting factor in uptake being gas-phase diffusion to the surface. Sulfur oxides are capable of causing deterioration to natural and synthetic fibers. Cotton, like paper, a cellulosic fiber, is weakened by sulfur dioxide. Under circumstances where sulfuric acid comes in contact with a cellulosic surface, the product of reaction is water soluble with little tensile strength.” In field tests in St Louis, cotton duck, exposed to varying SO, levels, showed a direct relationship between loss in tensile strength and increasing SO, concentration.” ZeronianT6 exposed cotton and rayon fabrics under accelerated aging conditions of light and water spray with and without 0.1 ppm SOI. Loss in strength was 13 per


cent in the absence of SO* and 22 per cent in the presence of SOT. In a study of nylon fabrics exposed to 0.2 ppm SO* under similar conditions, he found that nylon fabrics lost 4-O per cent of their strength under the SOz-free conditions, and 80 per cent of their strength in the presence

of SOZ.” The degradation of nylon 66 by exposure to light and air is increased by the addition of 0.2 ppm of SO* to the air. Chemical properties and yam tensile properties both reflect this damage.s8 Results demonstrated that the mode of degradation is not changed, although SO* accelerates the rate of reaction. Among proteinaceous textiles, silk is most vulnerable to the effects of light, acidity, and sulfur dioxide, demonstrating much greater loss in strength than

wool.s9 Under normal conditions of temperature and relative humidity, paper, acetate film and other

photographic materials are oxidized at a very slow rate. One of the most serious factors in the

preservation of photographic materials is the presence of large quantities of oxidizing gases: hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide and, to a lesser extent NO,, peroxides and ozone.25 The effect of these pollutants is usually yellowing and fading of the silver of the image. The paper base may also be degraded and stained. Acidic gases will degrade gelatin, paper and the film base of

negatives.*’

Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ. Damage to textiles has been attributed to N0,.60 Such damage appears both as a loss of fiber strength and fading of textile dyes. Significant reduction in breaking strength and increase in cellulose fluidity were observed for combed cotton yams exposed in Berkeley, California to unfiltered air when compared to exposure to activated-carbon-filtered air.6’ Both sets of samples were unshaded and exposed at a 45 degree angle facing south. Though the authors did not isolate the effects of individual pollutants, they implied that compounds associated with photochemical smog, especially NO,, were the probable cause of increased damage. In an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chamber study of the effects of individual pollutants on 20 dyed fabrics, it was demonstrated that NO2 at 0.1 to 1 .O ppm produced appreciable dye fading, and SO2 at 0.1 to 1.0 ppm caused visible fading on wool fabrics.62 It was also concluded that higher temperatures and relative humidities increase dye fading, and that the rate of fading as a function of exposure time appeared to be non-linear.

Ozone (03. Only recently have conservators expressed concern over growing ozone

concentrations, especially in areas subject to photochemical smog. Measurements in the National Gallery (London) showed concentrations of 0.5 pg m - ’ in the exhibition rooms when

ambient concentrations reached 80 PLg me3.* In a recent study,63 no significant concentrations

of ozone were found in the National Archives, National Gallery (East Building) or Library of Congress (Madison Building). This study was conducted in winter 198 l- 1983 when the maximum ozone concentration reported in Washington DC was 2 1 ppb, substantially less than one would expect in summer or fall. In photochemically smoggy areas, e.g. Los Angeles, indoor ozone concentrations for typical buildings were found to lag in time and somewhat in value, though at times exceedin 200

$ .pp b, about 70 per cent of ambient values, in a typical office

building and laboratory.6 A similar ratio was reported for the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, opened in 1978, in rural eastern England where the indoor ozone concentrations were typically 70 f 10 per cent of ambient concentrations during the summer measurements period, with a peak indoor concentration of 40 ppb. During a photochemical episode the level in the gallery could exceed 70 ppb for many hours.6’


Effective ozone filtration by activated carbon was observed for the Huntington Library Gallery, San Marino and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art where ozone concentrations remained below 10 ppb.66 In laboratory experiments rubber, fabrics and plastics appeared to react with ozone.64 Cass and co-workers, studying the effect on watercolor pigments, concluded that ozone at the concentrations found in photochemical smog can fade or alter the color of pigments, in particular alizarin-based lakes and yellow pigments used in Japanese woodblock prints and in watercolors, and that ozone could pose a threat to the preservation of works of art.66,67

Particulate Mutter. Particles and aerosols constitute a broad class of pollutants damaging to cultural property. Dust, soot, residues of tobacco smoke, alkaline aerosols from setting concrete, and textile fibers are all encountered in the soiling of works of art. The only effective protection for collections as a whole is full, ducted air-conditioning with fdtration to remove particulate matter and pressurization to reduce infdtration.8 However, the effectiveness of such systems will be greatly reduced if the system is not properly maintained, or if measures to control pollutants introduced by visitors are not taken. An obviously avoidable problem is smoking in libraries or in museums where exhibition rooms are made available for receptions. Paintings in club rooms often demonstrate a tarry water-soluble brown stain associated with smoking.* Among the 2000 + compounds given off in tobacco smoke are carbon monoxide, acetone and hydrogen cyanide; while tar and nicotine dominate the particulate matter.” There is very little information available on the chemical composition of indoor particulate matter. Lead concentrations are generally low, though concentrations as high as 2 PcLg m-r have been measured in rooms painted with lead-pigmented paints or near major roads.”

Indoor Air Quality Criteria

Most attention to indoor air quality standards for cultural property has been directed to the intrusive pollutants: SO,, NO, and particulates. The essential questions are:

l What are the relationships between indoor concentrations and ambient outdoor levels? l What air filtration strategy is appropriate and cost effective? l What are the appropriate environmental criterid

Fundamental to answering these questions are measurements of indoor air quality and the development of quantitative relationships between pollutant concentration levels and damage. At present, many of the available data are qualitative or even anecdotal. Typical results of measurements of intrusive air pollution concentrations in museums, libraries and archives are given in Table 2.

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), under a contract with the National Archives and Records Service, convened an experts workshop which suggested air quality criteria for storage of paper-based archival records. 6J These criteria are compared in Table 3 to other standards and specifications for libraries and museums. Subcommittee R of ANSI 239, National Information Standards Organization, is drafting the standard, ‘Environmental Conditions for Storage of Paper-Based Library and Archival Holdings’, which is based in part on the NBS study.

Conclusions

There is substantial evidence that indoor air pollution causes significant damage to cultural property. Certain sensitive materials, e.g. photographs, silver objects, paper, leather and dyes demonstrate effects of immediate consequence. In the absence of quantitative dose-response


Table 3. Air quality criteria for archives, libraries and museums

17

Authority/ installation

ANSI-PH ASHRAE

BML cc1

LC NBS

N-PNB ROM-C

T

so, NO, 03 Particulates

Suitable washers or absorbers Preferably HEPA Canister-type filters or spray washers of 85% DSM chemical pollutants in outdoor air 0 0 0 0 Should not exceed 10 ppb. Consider central 95% > 1 pm air purification in higb ambient areas. 50% 0.5-I pm Purafil system in use 95% 1 pg mm3 SpLgrnm3 25pgme3 75 pg me3 (0.4 ppb) (2.5 ppb NO2) (13 ppb) TSP (HiVol) <lO~~grn-~ <10pgm-3 <2pgmm3 High-rating DSM Charcoal or equivalent filtration to remove 99% 210pm SO,, NO,, 03 95% > 1 pm <lO~gm-’ <10pgm-3 0-2pgm-3 60-80%

MBT

Reference

(70)

(63)

(63) (71,72)

(63) (63)

(73) (63)

(8)

Key. ANSI-PH = American National Standards Institute-Photographic Standards; ASHRAE = American Society of

Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers; BML= British Museum Libraries; CC1 = Canadian

Conservation Institute; LC= Library of Congress (Madison Building); NBS =National Bureau of Standards;

N-PNB = Newberry Library-PN Banks Planning Study; ROM-C = Royal Ontario Museum Conference; T =

G. Thomson; DSM = Dust Spot Method; MBT = Methylene Blue Test.

relationships, the trend has been toward best available technologies criteria for SO,, NO,, ozone and paniculates. Other pollutants are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, and the article is based on a paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association in San Francisco, California, 24-29 June 1984.

References

1. C.T. Eastlake, M. Faraday and W. Russell, ‘Report on the Protection by Glass of the Pictures in the National

Gallery’ (House of Commons, 24 May 1850).

2. A. Parker, ‘The Destructive Effects of Air Pollution on Materials’ (National Smoke Abatement Society, London,

1955).

3. P. Brimblecombe, ‘London Air Pollution, 1500-1900’, Atmospheric Emimwnent, 11, 1977, pp. 1157-l 162.

4. P. Brimblecombe, ‘Air Pollution in Industrializing England’, JAPCA, 28, 1978, pp. 115-I 18. 5. P. Brimblecombe, ‘Interest in Air Pollution Among Early Fellows of the Royal Society’, Notes and Records oftbe RoyalSocietyofLonabn. 32, 1978, pp. 123-129.

6. A. E. Kimberly and A. L. Emley, Study of tbe Removal of Sulfur Dioxide from Library Air (US Department of

Commerce, Standards Bureau, Miscellaneous Publication 142, Washington DC, 193 3).

7. International Institute for Conservation, United Kingdom Group, Cmwrvation in Museums and Galleries: A Survey of Futilities in tbe United Kingdom (IIC-UK, London, 19 7 8). 8. G. Thomson, 7’be Museum Environment (Butterworths, London, 1978).


9. J. E. Yocom and N. S. Baer, ‘Materials’. The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects: Critical Assessment Review Papers (North Carolina State University, 1983), Chapter E-7.

10. K. Toishi and T. Kenjo, ‘Alkaline Material Liberated into Atmosphere from New Concrete’, Journal ofPaint Technology, 39, 1967, pp. 152-1SS.

11. K. Toishi and T. Kenjo. ‘A Simple Method of Measuring the Alkalinity of Air in New Concrete Buildings’,

Studiesin Conservation, 13, 1968, pp. 213-214.

12. K. Toishi and T. Kenjo, ‘Some Aspects of the Conservation of Works of An in Buildings of New Concrete’,

Studies in Conservation, 20, 1975, pp. 118-122.

13. National Research Council, Indoor Pollutants (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 198 1).

14. N. S. Baer, ‘Risk Assessment as Applied to the Setting of Solvent Toxicity Limits’. Adhesives and Consolidants, Preprints of the Tenth International IIC Congress 1984, Paris (IIC, London, 1984).

15. W. Biddle, ‘Fear of Contamination StilI Impedes Museum’, New York Times, 18 September 198 3.

16. M. Ballard and N. S. Baer, ‘Ethylene Oxide Fumigation: Results and Risk Assessment’. Preprint, Annual

Meeting of the Society of American Archivists (1984).

17. R. A. Weinstein and L. Booth, Collection. Use, and Cure of Historical Photographs (American Association for State

and Local History, Nashville, 1977).

18. R. N. Sargent, Preserving the Moving Image (Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Endowment for

the Arts, Washington DC, 1974).

19. A. G. Pickett and M. M. Lemcoe, Preservation and Storage of Sound Recordings (Library of Congress, Washington

DC, 1959). 20. M. Johnson, ‘Nitrocellulose as a Conservation Hazard’. Preprints of Papers Presented at the Fourth Annual

Meeting, AIC (Washington, 1976), pp. 66-75.

2 1. F. D. Miles, Cellulose Nitrate (Oliver and Boyd. London, 19SS).

22. J. W. Cummings, A. C. Hutton and H. Silfin, ‘Spontaneous Ignition of Decomposing Cellulose Nitrate Film’,

Journal of tbe Society ofMotion Picture and Television Engineers. 54, 1950, pp. 268-274.

2 3. National Fire Protection Association, Standard for tbe Storage and Handling of Cellulose Nitrate Motion Picture Film, NFPA No. 40-1974 (Boston, 1974).

24. J. F. Carroll and J. M. Calhoun, ‘Effect of Nitrogen Oxide Gases on Processed Acetate Film’, Journal of the Society ofMotion Picture and Television Engineers, 64, 1955, pp. 501-507.

25. Eastman Kodak, Preservation OfPhotographs, Kodak Publication No. F-30 (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, 1979).

26. National Fire Protection Association, Code for the Storage of Pyroxylin Plastic, NFPA No. 40E-1980. (Boston,

1980).

27. M. F. Tauber, Library Binding Manual (Library Binding Institute, 1972).

28. J. C. Williams, personal communication.

29. H. J. Plenderleith and A. E. A. Werner, The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art, 2nd ed. (Oxford

University Press, London, 1971).

30. T. Padfield, D. Erhardt and W. Hopwood, ‘Trouble in Store’. Science and Technology in the Service of Conservation, Preprints of the Ninth International IIC Congress 1982, Washington DC (IIC, London, 1982), pp. 24-27.

3 1. E. W. Fitzhugh and R. J. Gettens, ‘CaIclacite and Other Efflorescent Salts on Objects Stored in Wooden

Museum Cases’. Science andArcbaeology (MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1971), pp. 91-102.

3 2. M. Nockert and T. Wadsten, ‘Storage of Archaeological Textile Finds in Sealed Boxes’, Studies in Conservation, 23, 1978, pp. 38-41.

3 3. A. E. Werner, ‘Conservation and Display: Environmental Control’, Museums Journal. 72, 1972, pp. 58-60. 34. H. Brinch Madsen and N. Hjelm-Hansen, ‘A Note on Black Spots on Bronzes’. Science and Technology in the Service of Conservation. Preprints of the Ninth International IIC Congress 1982, Washington DC (IIC, London, 1982) p. 125. 35. W. A. Oddy and N. D. Meeks, ‘Unusual Phenomena in the Corrosion of Ancient Bronzes’. Science and Technology in the Service of Conservation, Preprints of the Ninth International IIC Congress 1982, Washington DC (IIC, London, 1982), pp. 119-124. 36. N. Hjelm-Hansen, ‘Cleaning and Stabihzation of Sulphide-Corroded Bronzes’, Studies in Conservation, 29, 1984. pp. 17-20. 37. T. E. Graedel, G. W. Kammlott and J. P. Franey, ‘Carbonyl Sulfide: Potential Agent of Atmospheric Sulfur

Corrosion’, Science, 212, 1981, pp. 663-665. 38. T. E. Graedel, J. P. Franey and G. W. Kammlott, ‘The Corrosion of Copper by Atmospheric Sulphurous Gases’, Corrosion Science. 23, 1983, pp. 1141-I 152. 39. T. E. Graedel, J. P. Franey and G. W. Kammlott, ‘Ozone- and Photo-Enhanced Atmospheric Sulfidation of Copper’, Science, 224, 1984, pp. 599-601. 40. M. Goodway, personal communication.


41, R. W. Henn and D. G. Wiest, ‘Microscopic Spots in Processed Microfilm: Their Nature and Prevention’,

Photographic Science and Engineering, 7, 196 3, pp. 2 5 3 -26 1. 42. R. W. Henn, D. G. Wiest and B. D. Mack, ‘Microscopic Spots in Processed Microfilm: The Effect of Iodide’,

Pbotograpbic Science and Engineering, 9, 1965, pp. 167- 17 3.

43. Eastman Kodak, Storage and Preservation of Microjhzs, Kodak Pamphlet D-3 1 (Eastman Kodak, Rochester,

1981). 44. T. J. Callings and F. J. Young, ‘Improvements in Some Tests and Techniques in Photograph Conservation’,

Studies in Conservation, 2 1, 1976, pp. 79-84.

45. W. A. Oddy, ‘An Unsuspected Danger in Display’, Museums Journal, 73, 1973, pp. 27-28. 46. A. T. Kuhn and G. H. KelsaIl, ‘Methods for the Testing of Tarnish’, British Corrosion Journal, 18, 1983, pp.

168-173.

47. J. E. Dawson, ‘Effects of Pesticides on Museum Materials’, Sixth International Biodeterioration Symposium,

Washington DC (1984).

48. W. H. Langwell, ‘The Permanence of Papers, Part II’, Technical Bulhtin, 29, 1952, p. 2 1. 49. W. H. Langwell, ‘The Permanence of Papers, Part III’, Technical Bulkh, 30, 1953, p. 2. SO. R. L. Grant, ‘Some Factors Affecting the Attack on Paper by Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide’. PhD thesis (The

Victoria University of Manchester, England, 196 3). 51. F. L. Hudson, ‘Acidity of 17th and 18th Century Books in Two Libraries’, Paper Technology, 8, 1967, pp.

189-190. 52. D. J. Spedding and R. P. Rowlands, ‘Sorption of Sulphur Dioxide by Indoor Surfaces. I: Wallpaper’, Journal of Applied Chemistry, 20, 1970, pp. 143-146.

53, D. J, Spedding. R. P. Rowlands and J. E. Taylor, ‘Sorption of Sulphur Dioxide by Indoor Surfaces. III: Leather’,

Journal of Applied Chemistry and Biotechnology, 2 1, 197 1, pp. 68-70. 54. T. C. Petrie, Smokeless Air, No. 67, 1948, p. 62. SS. R. J. Brysson, B. J. Trask. J. B. Upham and S. G. Borras, ‘Effects of Air Pollution on Exposed Cotton Fabrics’,

JAPCA, 17, 1967, p. 294. 56. S. H. Zeronian, ‘Reaction of Cell&sic Fabrics to Air Contaminated with Sulphur Dioxide’, Textile Research Journal, 40, 1970, pp. 695-698. 57. S. H. Zeronian, K. W. Alger and S. T. Omaye, ‘Reaction of Fabrics Made from Synthetic Fibers to Air

Contaminated with Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, or Sulphur Dioxide’. Proceedings of tbe Second International Clean Air Congress (Academic Press, New York, 1971) pp. 468-476. 58. S. H. Zeronian, K. W. Alger and S. T. Omaye, ‘Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on the Chemical and Physical Properties

ofNylon 66’, TextileResearcbJournal, 43, 1973, pp. 228-237.

59. J. E. Leene, L. Demeny, R. J. Elema, A. J. de Graaf and J. J. Surtel, ‘Artificial Agingof Yarns in Presence as well

as in Absence of Light and under Different Atmospheric Conditions: Condensed Final Report’. ICOM Committee on

Conservation, 4th Triennial Meeting. Preprints 75/10/2, 1975, pp. l-l 1.

60. D. Harrison, who Pays for Clean Air: Tbe Cost and Benefit Distribution of Federal Automobile Emission Controls. (Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge MA, 1975).

6 1. M. A. Morris, M. A. Young and T. A.-W. Molvig, ‘The Effect of Air Pollutants on Cotton’, Textile Research Journal, 34, 1964, pp. 563-564.

62. N. J. Beloin, ‘Fading of Dyed Fabrics Exposed to Air Pollutants’, Textile Chemist and Colorist, f, 1973, pp.

128-133.

6 3. National Bureau of Standards, Air Quality Criteria for Storage of Paper-Based Archival Records, NBSIR 8 3-2795 (National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, 198 3).

64. R. H. Sabersky, D. A. Sinema and F. H. Shair, ‘Concentrations, Decay Rates, and Removal of Ozone and Their

Relation to Establishing Clean Indoor Air’, Environmental Science and Technology , 7, 19 78, pp. 347- 3 5 3,

65. T. D. Davies, B. Ramer, G. Kaspyzok and A. C. Delany, ‘Indoor/Outdoor Ozone Concentrations at a

Contemporary Art Gallery’, JAPCA, 3 1, 1984, pp. 13 5-l 3 7.

66. C. L. Shaver, G. R. Cass and J. R. Druzik, ‘Ozone and the Deterioration of Works of Art’, EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 17, 1983, pp. 748-752. 67. K. Drisco, G. R. Cass and J. R. Druzik, ‘Fading of Artists’ Pigments Due to Atmospheric Ozone’. Preprint No.

84-83.6, APCA, 77th Annual Meeting (1984).

68. E. E. Hughes and R. Meyers, Measurement of tbe Concentration ofSu@bur Dioxide, Nitrogen Ox& and Ozone in the National Archives Building, NBSIR 8 3-2 767 (National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, 198 3). 69. S. Hackney, ‘The Distribution of Gaseous Air Pollution within Museums’, Studies in Conservation, 29, 1984, pp.

105-l 16.


70. American National Standards Institute, American National Standard Practice for Storage of Processed Safety Photographic Film, ANSI PH 1.43-198 1 (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1981). Related

Standards are PH 1.45 (plates) and PH 1.48 (prints).

7 1. R. H. Lafontaine, ‘Recommended Environmental Monitors for Museums, Archives and Art Galleries’, Technical Bulletin @XI), 3. 1978, pp. l-22.

72. R. H. Lafontaine, ‘Environmental Norms for Canadian Museums, An Galleries and Archives’, TechnicalBulletin (CCz,J, 5, 1979, pp. l-4. 73, P. N. Banks, ‘Addendum to Planning Report 7: Preliminary Statement on Environmental Standards for Storage of Books and Manuscripts’ (The Newberry Library, Chicago, 1980).

indoor air pollution: effects on cultural and historic materials

Documents