INTRODUCTION

Trends in library conservation policies and techniques since 2000 have had a substantial impact on emergency preparedness and response. Many of these changes have resulted from an increased emphasis on prevention over intervention. This transformation reflects a shift toward digitization and collaborative collection development, which has reshaped library collecting policies. The most important factor in book and paper conservation is the presence of water, whether in the form of humidity in the air, rain from the sky, a leaky pipe above the ceiling, rising damp though the foundation, or storm surge from a hurricane. This chapter highlights new developments in the field of library conservation, including the conservation of books, paper, and photographs. Preservation of audiovisual and born-digital media is beyond the scope of this chapter; however digitally-printed media are included as prints on paper.

Conservation treatments in this chapter are discussed in sufficient detail to permit readers to understand their advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other treatments; they should not be considered recommendations or endorsements of any individual treatment. Specific treatment instructions can be found in some of the references cited, but the methodologies might not reflect current standards.

While supported by traditional peer-reviewed literature, this chapter also relies upon conference proceedings and online open access journals in order to achieve a better balance between book and paper conservation. Since 2000, most mainstream peer-reviewed articles on library material conservation have addressed general preservation and paper conservation, rather than the hands-on conservation treatment of bound volumes.

BACKGROUND

The 1966 flood of Florence’s Arno River is widely credited with creating the modern field of library conservation. Certainly, there was a previous generation of art conservators, some of whom served as “Monuments Men” during World War II, and founded many of today’s professional organizations and training programs for art and artifact conservation (Edsel 2013, 2014). However, the response to the Florence Flood galvanized the library conservation community, during an era when the systematic preservation of artifacts was just beginning to take precedence over restoration and craft traditions.

Early conservation efforts tended to focus exclusively on rare materials, leaving most library materials in mending or book repair programs that did not adhere to standards for preservation. In 1990, the Research Library Group articulated a strategy for collections conservation as part of a general preservation program. Collections conservation was driven by use or circulation and condition (Merrill-Oldham & Schrock, 2000). Discussions about the state of library conservation in the 1990’s addressed the trend toward rehousing as a substitute for invasive treatment and the tension between reformatting and “the book as artifact” (Fredericks, 1992). In 1992, the Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) began to expand the discussion of processes and techniques for circulating and non-rare materials with a collections approach, rather than the single-item method typically presented at AIC meetings. The focus of the collections approach was to establish protocols and specifications to allow a library to sort items into batches, based on the

pre-defined parameters for a finite range of treatments. (Grandinette & Silverman, 1994). The principal role for the conservator in such a conservation program was to set standards and to provide guidelines for their application.

In recent years, there has been a growing appreciation of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century cloth cased bindings. Most public libraries had already weeded these books on account of their age, yet many of them have remained in academic libraries. Unfortunately, research libraries in the twentieth century frequently categorized these books as non-rare, so many of them were rebound as part of standard collection maintenance programs (Silverman, 2007). To ameliorate this problem, research libraries have created new workflows for rehousing or transfer to off-site storage for this group of “medium-rare books” (Baker and McCarthy, 2006).

Most treatments have continued to follow established models, using time-tested materials and techniques. New treatments have been sought to address persistent problems for which no good solution had been found in the past. Conservators and conservation scientists have investigated techniques for strengthening paper, as well as techniques that might make paper less acidic. Consolidants for flaking and friable media were tested. Researchers evaluated methods for stabilizing unstable iron gall ink. Conservators attempted creative solutions for the repair of leather bindings, while continuing to amass evidence that leather dressings were usually ineffective and/or harmful. Conservators tended to be somewhat cautious about applying unknown materials to objects of value. As a consequence, many new treatments represented incremental shifts from past practices, rather than radical departures from existing norms.

Since the 1970’s, the conservation literature has placed heightened emphasis upon analysis of artists’ materials or investigations of new materials. A bias against publishing information about “standard treatments,” has made case studies of traditional procedures rather scarce (Brown & Bacon 2001). This means that unique and novel materials and techniques have been more strongly represented in the conservation literature than in actual practice.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSERVATION

Shifts in Collection Storage

New developments in storage, circulation, and housing have provided conservation options for many collections that permit non-treatment or minimal treatment. Recent peer-reviewed articles have discussed the movement toward off-site storage. This type of housing has freed large collections from the limitations of storage in a space that is designed for human comfort, rather than preservation. A revolution in storage has been precipitated by the growing role of digital resources as surrogates for print materials. Another enhancement to storage was the wide array of microclimates made from high-tech materials that could help to protect the item by blocking or absorbing harmful chemicals.

For many institutions, the move toward off-site storage was initiated with serials collections, due to the quantity of bound volumes that could be relocated efficiently. Cataloging staff needed to collaborate with other departments to accomplish the relocation of these collections, but the procedure was largely driven by the catalogers’ ability to describe batches hundreds or thousands of items in a single bibliographic record. The largest task was the verification of the actual

physical holdings (Ilik, 2012). In some collaborative off-site storage projects, consortium partners agreed to fill the gaps in the holdings of consortium partners, while reserving the option to weed any duplicates from their own collections. For example, the Duke University storage facility has a partnership with the University of North Carolina; 41% of 604 foreign language health science journal titles were found to overlap between the two collections. The two libraries had 11% partial overlap with complimentary holdings. Retention decisions were guided by the condition assessment for all duplicated items. Individual volumes were bar-coded either by direct attachment or by attachment to acid-free paper strips, depending on the imprint date or physical fragility of the items (McKenzie, 2007).

Over time, most of these consortia moved from collecting journals to collecting monographs. The University of California system was established in the 1980’s as the first consortium-based off-site storage depository (Payne, 2014). This project managed two regional facilities, with low-use, paper-based collections from Berkeley, Davis, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco campuses in the Northern Regional Library Facility (RLF), and the collections of the Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego campuses in the Southern RLF. Originally conceived as off-site storage for each campus, the facilities were not intended as shared collections. A Distributed Collection Model (DCM) has been established to manage holdings, incorporating the availability of digital counterparts for some physical items, versus physical items without digital counterparts. The libraries have begun to move toward a shared, collaborative collection, by creating clear criteria for selection as a planned, rather than a “coincidental” collection (Schottlaender, 2004).

The Washington Regional Library Consortium (WRLC) has interfiled its collections on the shelves and listed them in a union catalog as a single “branch.” This meant that the individual libraries had to embrace shared stewardship, obligating partners to preserve their unique holdings, while permitting them greater freedom to weed holdings duplicated by partner libraries (Payne, 2014). It is not clear what provision has been made to ensure that all partners are devoting adequate resources to preserving the “last copy” in the consortium.

The partner libraries of five colleges repository in Massachusetts have donated their collections to the consortium, with ownership residing in the consortium, rather than the originating institution (Payne, 2005). As a member of the Association for Research Libraries (ARL), the University of Massachusetts needed to keep a separate collection in order to maintain a high volume count for its ARL statistics. Unlike other collaborative collections storage facilities, the Amherst College Library depository was begun by a small liberal arts college, not a state library or a large research library. Amherst was able to repurpose a surplus military bunker in 1993 at a very reasonable cost. Owing to its previous use, the building had thick walls and floors that provided an ideal interior temperature of 50-52°F year-round (Bridegam, 2004). This meant that Amherst could offer to host the Five College Library Depository as a cost-effective preservation facility, rather than constructing a new building to house the consortium’s collections.

Other consortia have a de facto repository, by virtue of policies prohibiting duplicates; however, partners retain ownership of their respective collections. They simply agree to extend full borrowing privileges to consortium members. The future of collaborative collection development and storage will be shaped by the use of the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) Worldcat

database as a tool for analyzing and comparing library holdings across individual institutions and consortia (Genoni, 2013).

These policies raise the question of how many duplicates are needed nationally or internationally. Nadal and Peterson (2013) determined the number 26 as the minimum quantity of copies needed to ensure preservation and access. More importantly, the question of preserving the “best copy” is extremely problematic in many of the libraries that choose to weed their collections on the basis of duplicates residing in these repositories. The large state research university or the well-heeled private research university that has agreed to permanently preserve its copy of a work may not have the most complete copy or the copy that is in the best condition. In the current workflow, the collections that are not consortium partners are not surveyed to discover the copies that might actually be those most worthy of preservation in such a repository.

One challenge identified by members of the Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group was the difficulty of selecting the best copy for the repository, even when conservators are available to assist in the process. In one case study, there was no system for comparison of print resources from different member libraries. Preservation staff members have found it difficult to convince librarians to offer their best copy for preservation in the repository; instead the librarians preferred to circulate the best copy, while storing a damaged copy in the repository (Baker & McCarthy, 2006).

Existing workflows can provide a baseline level of collection care as items are transferred to off-site storage. For example, materials in the Nebraska Library Depository Regional Facility (LDRF) were cleaned with a HEPA vacuum upon arrival at the facility. Collections were assessed for insects, mold, and structural damage at the same time (Pearson & Busch, 2007). Many conservators involved in the Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group had delegated minimal repairs to trained students or to cataloging staff. Many libraries relied on shrink-wrapping or vacuum sealing to stabilize damaged volumes in lieu of treatment (Baker & McCarthy, 2006).

Regardless of the selection and assessment problems inherent in the existing consortium models, conservation concerns have played a major role in the development of this type of facility. The “Harvard model” is followed by most libraries, with collections sorted and organized according to physical size, rather than call number (Payne, 2014). This manner of shelving permits adjacent volumes to support each other in trays on the shelf, whereas tall volumes would have been distorted when flanked by smaller books.

A desire for more flexible library study space has had a significant influence on the relocation of collections in recent years, yet this development has great potential to enhance collection care. In addition to structural preservation, the off-site storage facility can provide passive conservation, mitigating against the agents of deterioration: light, heat, and humidity. The ReCAP facility, housing collections from Columbia University, Princeton University, and New York Public Library, was built specifically with a preservation objective. The partner libraries sought a cost-effective preservation environment with stricter climate control than was feasible in the traditional library (Payne, 2014). ReCAP began with completely separate collections, neither interfiled on the shelves nor integrated in the catalog. The off-site collection storage has

also become a means of providing continuity of service after disasters that might affect the individual institutional libraries (Kuzyk, 2007).

Disaster response in these facilities could be difficult, due to the scale of the buildings and the density of storage. Leaks might be not be detected easily. One off-site storage unit was equipped with catwalks to permit staff to reach upper shelves without an order picker. Glow-in-the-dark tape on shelves and contrasting-colored storage trays were used by some libraries to facilitate identification and triage of special collections that might be dispersed into different parts of the facility (Baker & McCarthy, 2006).

Occasionally, the movement of personnel to off-site storage has accompanied the transfer of collections. For example, the University of Florida relocated its Preservation Department to off-site storage in 2008. The construction of improved, purpose-built conservation labs and other preservation facilities, such as digitization studios, justified the relocation of the preservation departments to the off-site storage facility, according to survey respondents at 19 ARL institutions where conservation labs had been moved to off-site storage (Martyniak, 2010). This conservation lab location would facilitate the routing of damaged materials to be conserved before or after they were requested by patrons (Baker & McCarthy, 2006).

Passive Conservation or Active Housing

Passive conservation or active housing incorporates physical and chemical methods to reduced the need for conservation treatment. Sheets of zeolite-containing boards were enclosed in shrink-wrapped packages books being transferred to high-density storage (Baker & McCarthy, 2006). Studies from the 1990’s suggested that zeolite-containing papers preferentially adsorbed air pollutants, but it was not clear whether the zeolites inside of paperboard products would provide better preservation of chemically unstable papers housed with those paperboards. In sealed packages with newsprint, resin-coated silver gelatin photographs, and other papers, the efficacy of zeolite-containing boards was not demonstrated conclusively; however the boards have been shown not to cause harm (Schaeffer, Druzik, & Norton, 2004).

Marvelseal 360 a polyethylene, aluminum, polyester film laminate has been used to seal small microclimate framing packages. Parchment documents have been housed in this type of sealed package in order to prevent distortions caused by humidity fluctuations (Hepworth & Michelozzi, 2004). Marvelseal 360 has been used as a backing sheet for “passepartout” framing packages that contained silica gel-impregnated sheets to maintain a specific level of relative humidity (Norton & Furuhata, 2006).

A study by the Image Permanence Institute (IPI) established that delignified wood pulp papers were adequate substitutes for cotton rag papers in the storage of photographs. The study also demonstrated that air space in a box diluted the off-gassing of harmful contaminants from lignin-containing box boards, yet damaging conditions continued to exist inside the box. The dilution effect varies based on the capacity of the box, and there is no standardized “safe” level of lignin for boxes (Burge et al 2002).

There are many institutions that may have invested in acid-free, lignin-free, protective enclosures for photographs, while continuing to use lignin-containing boxes. According to the IPI, the

collecting institution should place a higher short-term priority on improvements in temperature and humidity than replacing existing boxes. The environmental improvements will retard the deterioration of the lignin-containing box-board and contribute to the preservation of the box’s contents (Burge et al 2002).

Environmental control was especially important in those institutions adopting a “More Product, Less Process” (MPLP) approach, wherein environmental control is the primary preservation technique (McCann, 2013). The MPLP strategy suggested that archivists retain metal fasteners and acidic, lignin-containing folders in order to process collections more quickly; the temperature and humidity of storage spaces would be responsible for stabilizing the collection (Greene & Meissner, 2005). Unfortunately, this system was predicated on the notion that most collections were housed in ideal environmental conditions.

Digitization

The role of digitization in library conservation cannot be overstated. Digitization affects decisions on what to conserve and to what extent to conserve it. Conservation treatment decisions in the age of digitization, are largely driven by digital collection projects. For example, the Wellcome Library in the UK has defined a project to digitize its entire holdings. There are numerous items that require are range of conservation treatments to facilitate scanning or to stabilize after scanning (Boal, 2014). In an effort to avoid duplication of the collections in Google books, libraries have turned their focus to unique archives and manuscript materials that may be difficult to run through a mass-digitization workflow (Gracy & Kahn, 2012). Typical treatments required for scanning include unrolling or unfolding via humidification. Tear repair is also important to ensure safe handling during digitization (Baker, Croft, Taranto, & Welsh, 2008). Overlapping components can be challenging to photograph without damaging or dismantling composite objects, such as scrapbooks (Frellsen, 2014). At the London Metropolitan Archives, a workflow has been formulated to place item-level conservation assessment at the beginning of the digitization process, identifying specific treatment requirements for individual objects, rather than merely estimating a percentage of items needing treatment (Lindsay, 2003).

In a digital world, questions of context and perception could be distilled into this metaphor for the research library collection: either a museum of valuable artifacts or a storehouse of obsolete junk (Teper, 2005). Ultimately, libraries must be systematic in creating policies to determine which aspects of their collections are worth conserving.

While Google has not been viewed as a reliable digital archive, the non-profit HathiTrust has been organized around standards and methodologies that influence the conservation of print collections. The objectives of HathiTrust include preservation of digital collections and support for collaborative collection management. This includes the ability of member libraries to use the HathiTrust copy as a print-on-demand replacement for a compromised print copy, such as a brittle book. In practice, HathiTrust also serves as a substitute for interlibrary loan for conservators seeking to replace a missing page or to repair a page with missing text. The organization ensures preservation through adherence to documentation and metadata standards coupled with redundancy for physical storage of digital content (Christianson, 2011). One of the essential characteristics of the digital object is that it is not tied to its storage medium; constant

maintenance of the digital file is required, refreshing or replacing the physical carrier (Howell, 2001).

The public confusion of digitization with digital preservation has planted the seeds of future conservation problems. Selection for digitization has been driven by public programming objectives, rather than condition. Many mass-digitization projects were planned around workflows that expressly rejected fragile items in need of conservation; this stands in stark contrast with the earlier reformatting efforts, such as brittle book microfilming projects (Nadal & Peterson, 2013). Access goals might appear to be met with the ease of scanning original documents or photographs for web-based consumption, without significant improvements in preservation (Forde, 2007). Some conservators have likened conservation for digitization projects to conservation for exhibits (Reidell & McCarthy, 2007). Cathleen Baker (2004) argued against mass approaches to treatment, such as deacidification, and digitization without regard for actual use and condition of the items in question. The general audience may accept the digital copy of text or image as a reasonable facsimile, for informational value, yet experts will be aware that some information is missing. For photographs, the digital image has not completely replaced the physical original, because of concerns with authenticity and fixity of digital information (De Lusenet, 2006).

Digital prints played an increasingly important role as surrogates for fragile or damaged originals. Digital “image reconstruction” provided a means of avoiding chemical treatments for damaged photographs. Such projects both obscured the original object’s history and eliminated some evidence of the artist’s technique. Lavédrine (2009) emphasized that the production and preservation of digital surrogates could not be a substitute for the proper care of the original.

Digital imaging provided a new method for image compensation in the 2000’s. Although the technology was available in the 1990’s, the price and availability of high-quality digital imaging made it possible for conservators to create matching repair papers for printed objects. Inkjet printing was much faster than traditional toning methods. By using colorimetry to measure the exact color of the original, the conservator could achieve an accurate match on a properly calibrated printer (Papanagiotou, 2002). An inkjet print was used to fill losses in a Jacques Callot print (Novak, 2009).

Digital conservation documentation became more widely discussed as a means of providing greater standardization and access to treatment records. Stand-alone FileMaker or Access databases and paper records have not been accessible to the public. Frequently, such systems have not been available to librarians who might have benefitted from their contents. The 583 action note added a convenient method of conveying conservation information to library staff through the Machine-Readable Catalog (MARC 21) records already in use in the vast majority of libraries (Hinz & Gehnrich, 2006). In a 2011 survey of ARL library staff, the MARC 21 field 583 was used “always” or “usually” by about 12% of respondents, yet the method was used “rarely” or “never” by 64%. Participants in the survey displayed an interest in linking treatment records to catalog records, but many described barriers to implementation, such as difficulty coordinating the process with the catalogers (McCann, 2013). Northeast Document Conservation Center explained how a conservation lab could convert to a digital documentation photography studio without full-time IT or photography staff (Pearson, Frisa, & Fischer 2009).

Conservation Treatment

Many of the developments in conservation treatment, or “benchwork,” involved modification or modernization of old restorers’ techniques. New tools, adhesives, and consolidants were introduced or old materials were used in new ways. In many instances, scientific research was devoted to evaluation of existing conservation lab practices, with suggestions for improvements in treatment materials and techniques. Many past attempts to improve the strength and brightness of paper had failed over time, so a significant portion of conservation research has been aimed at re-evaluating old methods and analyzing new methods of achieving these goals. Researchers have often found prevention to be more effective than remediation, and this has contributed to an increased reliance on general preservation through environmental and storage improvements. As Stewart (2000) explained, “the history of conservation is filled with examples of materials or treatments originally thought to be safe that resulted in later damage…” This has created a tendency for most conservators to rely heavily upon older, trusted solutions to most conservation problems (Iriving & Choi, 2010).

One of the most common treatments for unbound documents was to wash the paper in alkaline water. Sometimes, books have been disbound for washing, but usually such invasive treatments were reserved for volumes where covering materials, sewing, or sewing supports were already missing or severely compromised. Degree of polymerization of cellulose, quantity of carbonyl groups, and brightness of Whatman filter paper samples were compared, using calcium salts of various pH levels, in a study of alkaline water washing. The study enabled researchers to separate the effects of pH from the effects of calcium itself. Calcium hydroxide was found to be more beneficial than either calcium hydrogen carbonate or calcium chloride, which had a lower pH than calcium hydroxide. The best results were obtained with a pre-treatment of sodium borohydride, which reduced carbonyl groups, followed by calcium hydroxide (Bogaard & Whitmore, 2001). In subsequent study, aqueous alkaline treatment baths were found not to damage oxidized cellulose in degraded cotton paper (Stephens, Whitmore, Morris, & Smith, 2009). Conservation scientists assessed the rate of washing and effectiveness of various washing techniques. All washing treatments were found to be dependent on contact time, rather than water flow rate. Increased water flow has a minimal effect, because washing works by a relatively slow diffusion mechanism (Daniels & Kosek, 2002).

Deacidification remained an important process for large-scale library preservation projects in the 2000’s. Several European mass-deacidification systems were evaluated to determine the effect of these treatments on the alkaline reserve of test papers. After non-aqueous deacidification, papers became more permeable to water, indicating some change or loss of sizing (Ahn, Banik, & Potthast, 2012). European conservators have proposed a single-step aqueous deacidification system for wood pulp papers. The process involved a 1:1 mixture of magnesium hydrogen carbonate and calcium hydrogen carbonate solutions with potassium iodide added as an antioxidant. A cationic sizing agent Empresol N was added to strengthen the paper (Jančovičová et al 2012). The process showed promise, but further testing was needed, especially with regard to Empresol N, a potato starch-derived cationic ether and weak adhesive (Maková, Kuka, & Kyšková, 2003).

Since the 1990’s there have been numerous studies on the efficacy and working properties of cyclododecane as a fixative or as a barrier material. Cyclododecane (CCD) is a waxy cyclic

alkane that has been used to temporarily saturate water-sensitive inks, isolating the media from water, during aqueous treatments. The advantage of cyclododecane over other fixatives was that it would sublimate from the paper after treatment, passing directly from the solid to the gaseous state (Brückle, Thornton, Nichols, & Strickler, 1999). Other temporary fixatives had to be washed out of paper with hazardous solvents. Cyclododecane films formed by melting were less porous and more hydrophobic than films formed from solutions (Rowe & Rozeik, 2008). Additional heat employed during and after the CCD application improved its penetration into the paper (Brückle et al, 1999). However, cyclododecane embedded deep within the paper could take months to sublimate (Rowe & Rozeik, 2008).

Several ionic fixatives have been shown to cause undesirable long-term color changes (Letouzey 2008). Cartafix GS and Cartafix NTC cationic fixatives from the paper pulp industry were found ineffective as fixatives for water-soluble inkjet prints (Porto & Shugar, 2008). Many other cationic fixatives have never been tested for conservation applications.

Poulticing materials were also subjected to rigorous testing to evaluate existing practices and to make recommendations. Hydrous sodium lithium magnesium silicate, known as Laponite RD, is used as a poulticing medium, a gel that facilitates local delivery of water or solvent for stain reduction or adhesive removal. The poultice gel has been used in direct contact with parchment. The glue on the spine of a book has been softened with Laponite gels (Pataki-Hundt, 2012). Direct contact was found to leave a distinct residue on parchment and paper (Totten, 2003). A comparison of methylcellulose, agarose, Carbopol and Laponite RD gels, demonstrated that gampi usuyo paper was effective as a barrier to prevent the deposition of Carbopol and Laponite residues in the paper (Warda, Brückle, Bezúr, & Kushel, 2007).

Sodium carboxymethylcellulose has been a familiar but little-used adhesive and consolidant for decades. New research at the University of Michigan Libraries revisited this ionic cellulose ether, describing its properties and possible applications (Baker, 2007). The resistance to mold growth made it a useful adhesive for non-conservators, who would not need to make a fresh batch of starch paste every week. Remoistenable tissue coated with Aqualon Cellulose Gum CMC 7H3SF PH was successfully used to repair papyri at the University of Michigan. More importantly, the repair method has been adopted by papyrologists working in the field (Lau-Lamb 2007). Sodium carboxy methyl cellulose has been used to attach bookplates in libraries (Baker, 2007). Rare seventeenth-century playing cards were split from their core layers and lined with kozo paper, adhered with 2% weight/volume sodium carboxymethylcellulose (Schirò & Lupi, 2003).

Another consolidant that was evaluated during the 2000’s was funori, a seaweed extract. A flaking Kurt Schwitters collage was consolidated with a combination of JunFunori® and isinglass sturgeon glue (Masson & Ritter 2003). Funori is a desirable consolidant, because of its low gloss; however unrefined funori contains many impurities. Many conservation labs developed in-house processing methods to purify funori (Swider & Smith, 2005). JunFunori® is a specially purified polysaccharide extracted from red algae (Geiger & Michel, 2005). JunFunori® and unrefined funori were not found suitable for use as adhesives for remoistenable repair tissue, when compared with starch paste and cellulose ethers (Pataki, 2009).

Modern synthetic adhesives saw more widespread use after 2000. They were frequently applied in situations where traditional aqueous paste would not have worked. Lascaux 498 HV acrylic dispersion adhesive was cast as a film onto kozo paper to make a repair tissue that could be reactivated with organic solvents or heat. Solvent set repair tissue was used in some book repairs, where it caused less darkening than PVA (Anderson & Puglia, 2003). Lascaux 360 HV, an acrylic adhesive that remains tacky at room temperature, has been used for repairs and linings on items that could not tolerate heat or moisture (Sheesley, 2011). An oversized billboard was lined to kozo paper with a 1:1 methyl cellulose and paste mixture and secured to a Tycore honeycomb panel with Lascaux 360 HV acrylic dispersion adhesive. The acrylic adhesive was selected to facilitate future removal from the panel without compromising the adhesion of the kozo paper lining to the billboard (Schell, 2008). Solvent activated adhesives were not easily reversed, so they did not replace water-soluble adhesives for routine repairs.

Several groups of researchers proposed solutions to the problem of iron gall ink corrosion. Iron gall inks so sensitive to light that they should be considered fugitive (Reissland & Cowan, 2002). The main problem however, was the degradation of paper by the iron (II) or Fe2+ ions in the ink (Neevel, 1995). Older treatments were based on removal of excess iron by washing, but humidification and washing treatments could cause the iron to disperse within the paper. Iron gall ink fraktur documents were treated with ethanol and deionized water, without deacidification, to avoid interference with any future pH-dependent treatments (Irving & Choi, 2010). New treatments relied on chelating agents to complex the Fe2+ ions in the ink, converting them to compounds with stable Fe3+. One of the more popular chelating agents, calcium phytate worked best at a slightly acidic pH, so alkaline washing could only be performed after the ink was stabilized between pH 5-6 (Orlandini, 2009).

The Library of Congress developed a set of decision trees defining treatment protocols for iron gall ink, incorporating recent research into iron gall ink stabilization. A new examination form was designed to permit rapid and systematic documentation of visible characteristics and the results of chemical testing. The treatment decision trees aid the conservator in determining when to use the calcium phytate/ calcium hydrogen carbonate treatment instead of ethanol.

To establish treatment protocols, many conservators conducted quantitative and qualitative assessments of various iron gall ink treatments. Orlandini (2009) compared the effects of washing at increased temperature, ethanol, and calcium phytate to traditional washing techniques. Samples were washed in magnesium hydrogen carbonate (pH 7.3), calcium hydrogen carbonate (pH 6), calcium hydroxide (pH 8.5), ethanol, 3:1 ethanol/water mixture, 1:1 ethanol/water mixture, 1:3 ethanol water mixture, and several combinations of calcium phytate treatments. Calcium hydroxide treatments were conducted at 40°C and 90°C to simulate the effects of “simmering” water washing. The ethanol baths and pre-wetting ethanol sprays were intended to evaluate the efficacy of ethanol and a means to prevent the ink from feathering or bleeding during treatment. A side-effect of this treatment was a diminished extraction of Fe2+

ions from the paper; this could cause an increase in future chemical degradation (Orlandini, 2009). Similarly, French researchers found problems with iron migration when washing with alcohol mixtures in concentrations less than 66% ethanol to water (Rouchon, DuRocher, Pellizzi, & Stordiau-Pallot, 2009). The treatment with chelation by calcium phytate and deacidification by calcium hydrogen carbonate (without ethanol) yielded the best visual appearance and chemical stabilization(Orlandini, 2009). In an assessment of the effects of treatment with calcium phytate

followed by calcium hydrogen carbonate, historic rag paper received more benefit that filter paper or a model paper (Henniges & Potthast, 2008)

While calcium phytate was found effective for stabilizing iron gall inks, it had to be applied aqueously, and it was specific to iron. Tetra butyl ammonium bromide (TBAB) emerged as an alternative treatment that could be used with unstable copper pigments (Maitland, 2009). Calcium phytate preparation required the ventilation of fumes from liquid ammonia, so magnesium phytate was investigated as a treatment alternative. After the magnesium phytate process, the papers were washed in two baths of aqueous calcium hydrogen carbonate, rather than magnesium hydrogen carbonate, to reduce the risk of color change (Kolar, Možir, Strlič, De Bruin, Pihlar, & Steemers, 2007).

Paper splitting is a somewhat risky European restorer’s technique that has been modernized as a method for preserving brittle paper and papers suffering from iron gall ink damage. As an alternative to lining or leaf-casting, paper splitting has had the advantage of preserving the appearance of both sides of the document or artwork. The original paper was laminated between two facing papers. In the 1960’s polyamide-based adhesives were used, but today, most conservators use gelatin as a facing adhesive. A thin core sheet of abaca fiber or cotton paper was sandwiched by the split halves. Traditionally, split papers were adhered to their core paper with animal glue or starch paste. Modern core adhesives were mixtures of paste with methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, and acrylic resin, suspended in an ethanol-water mixture. The core adhesive also contained calcium carbonate, to stabilize the paper. Some conservators added Captan or other fungicides to the core adhesive. Galactomann, a plant gum was also added by some conservators. The facing paper and gelatin were removed in a warm water bath with protease enzymes that broke the bond by consuming the protein in the gelatin (Brückle & Dambrogio, 2000).

The core adhesive of split paper remained “swellable” or soluble in water, and this could have significant implications during disaster response. There was also the possibility that residual facing adhesive was left in place (Brückle & Dambrogio, 2000). This would be particularly problematic for books, where bound pages could be subject to “blocking” or sticking together when wet. To date, there is no known study specifically addressing disaster response procedures for documents that have been treated by paper splitting.

Enzymes were also used in the removal of silked documents, which had been laminated between sheer sheets of silk fabric with starch paste. In general, conservators would have left old treatments in place, but silk laminations from the early twentieth century had begun to fail after one hundred years of storage. Silking had originally provided a translucent lamination, but the silk deteriorates faster than the underlying paper and tends to crack and flake over time (Smith 2007). New interest in health and safety generated warnings about the presence of toxic arsenic residues in archive and library collections with silked documents. Arsenic was typically used as a preservative for paste in the early twentieth century, when silking was common (Blaser & Peckham 2005). In the treatment of George Washinton’s Last Will and Testament, an amylase enzyme was used to digest the paste on the silked document, aiding in the release of the brittle and discolored silk layers (Smith 2007). Amylase was also used in the removal of silk from the pages of the ABC Book of the Ephrata Cloister (Irving & Choi 2010).

Bleaching treatments underwent significant study and testing after 2000, as many conservators began to encounter previously-restored items. Bleaching treatments work by either oxidizing or reducing the part of a molecule that creates color, the chromophore. Sodium borohydride is a reducing agent, but all other commonly-used bleaches are oxidizing agents. Many older treatments had been abandoned due to health or environmental hazards, but recent testing has shown that many of these bleaches were also damaging to the paper itself.

Brückle (2001, IPC) described the difference in context that shapes a viewer’s expectations of stain removal for fine art, where the disfiguring stain reduced one’s ability to appreciate the image, versus archival material, where some staining would have been acceptable or valued as evidence of age.

Numerous studies in the 1980’s and 1990’s had evaluated light bleaching and concluded that it was effective in brightening paper; recent studies were aimed at creating new quantitative data and understanding the effect of new tools. Closely related to hydrogen peroxide bleaching, light bleaching used a high pH to encourage the formation of perhydroxyl ions, instead of unstable peroxy radicals. The original techniques required the paper to be immersed in water while exposed to sunlight, but artificial light bleaching banks were used in the 1980’s (Verbourg 2012). Light bleaching had the advantage of being non-toxic, and easy to control. A disadvantage was that the long period of immersion in an alkaline water bath weakened the paper. High pH levels and the use of magnesium hydrogen carbonate were known to remove gelatin sizing from the paper (Schaeffer, Bltyh-Hill, & Druzik, 1996). Many conservators estimated that the weakening of the paper was caused by this removal of gelatin size (Schopfer 2012). New light banks were designed to use high-intensity-discharge metal halide lamps that were bright enough to reduce treatment times. Recent quantitative research has suggested that the oxidative light bleaching process caused a decrease in degree of polymerization (DP) of the cellulose molecules, causing weakness in test papers (Verbourg 2012). Another disadvantage of light bleaching was that darkened wood pulp papers would suffer from color reversion, with discoloration returning after treatment. Provenance, date, and condition could be clues to lignin content, so confirmation by chemical testing was recommended (Schopfer 2012).

During light bleaching, iron or copper contaminants in paper caused the formation of damaging free radicals from the naturally occurring hydrogen peroxide in the water (Schopfer 2012). Conservators sought to solve this problem that interfered with the use of hydrogen peroxide as a bleaching agent. One research project tested the chemicals used in the paper pulp industry for their suitability in conservation treatment; these chemicals were compared with treatments used by conservators to stabilize iron gall inks (Niehus 2012). Paper samples with known iron content were pre-treated with experimental solutions, washed, bleached, and rinsed. Then they were subjected to artificial ageing. One chelating agent that showed promise was diethylene-triaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), when used in combination with magnesium hydrogen carbonate (Niehus 2012).

During the 2000’s, older chemical bleaches were evaluated in order to determine the future course of treatment for previously restored documents. Calcium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, light bleaching, potassium permanganate, sodium borohydride, tert-butylaminoborane were compared in terms of their effects on carbonyl groups and molecular weight, in addition to brightness. As an alkaline reducing agent, sodium borohydride was the least damaging chemical

bleach (Henniges & Potthast, 2009). Tert-butylaminoborane, another reducing agent, has been used in Italy as a reducing agent in conjunction with a rigid gel cleaning system (Iannuccelli & Sotgiu, 2010). The rich documentation created by early conservators at the Fogg Museum at Harvard University has provided an opportunity to evaluate real-time ageing of treatments that were performed over 50 years ago. In addition to the actual treated artifacts, the laboratory notes provided a clear picture of the treatment protocols for chlorine dioxide (gas), calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and Chloramine T (Smith, 2012). In this same spirit, Irene Brückle (2012) shared the treatment protocols for the liquid chlorine dioxide process used by Christa Ghaede, a very influential twentieth century conservator in private practice.

While most bleaching articles from post-2000 were filled with caveats and critiques, there were a few that continued to recommend obsolete and dangerous chemicals like chloramines, without any warnings as to their hazards; the persistence of obsolete information seems most serious outside of the EU and North America (Sunil & Kumar 2009). This was possibly due to reliance on widely available “classic” works by pioneering conservators. In order to remain abreast of the current thinking in the field, conservators needed to conduct their own research and pursue continuing education through workshops, conferences, and online discussion forums. Since 2000, more literature has been available online for free, so alternatives to obsolete techniques were more widely publicized.

A trend toward fewer total conservation treatments, combined with a decrease in non-professional staffing and a corresponding increase in professional staffing indicated that libraries may have shifted toward more treatments of special collections. Commercial binding has decreased by 60% since 2000 (Peterson, Robertson, & Szydlowski, 2014). A survey by Baker and Dube (2010) suggested a convergence of special collections and general collections treatments. For example, the overwhelming majority (over 80%) of surveyed libraries mended and guarded book pages with Japanese paper and paste, rather than pressure-sensitive tape.

Two treatments of Coptic parchment manuscripts in different collections demonstrated the impact of contextual information on treatment objectives. A 6th or 7th century C.E. Fayum goatskin manuscript in the Cleveland Museum of Art was a single leaf expected to be housed flat in a widow mat. On the other hand, a similar Egyptian goatskin manuscript at the Walters Art Gallery was a bifolium that would be returned to a bound format, permitting researchers to read the contents as part of a book.

Both parchment treatments used remoistenable repairs, coated with adhesive and dried prior to use. Remoistenable repair tissues permit the repair to be applied with minimal moisture. The Cleveland manuscript was repaired with “fish skin,” a swim bladder membrane, closely resembling the thin, transparent, collagen-based gold beater’s skin that has been used by many conservators for parchment repair. Isinglass, derived from sturgeon swim bladders, adhered the repair membrane to the parchment. Unlike parchment size and gelatin, isinglass could be reactivated with cold water. The transparent repair enhanced the legibility of text adjacent to the tears and losses in the parchment. The Walters’ document was repaired with layers of kozo paper, adhered with a mixture of methylcellulose and wheat starch paste. The Cleveland manuscript was humidified, repaired and flattened with the aid of a suction table; whereas the Walters’ manuscript was humidified, flattened, and dried prior to repair (Hepworth & Michelozzi, 2004).

The hair silk mount was developed to frame parchment manuscript pages from the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a travelling exhibit to the J. PaulGetty Museum, without introducing moisture or interfering with any future procedure to rebind the disbound leaves. The protein-based silk thread was softer than nylon monofilament or polyester straps, yet the silk was equally visually unobtrusive. The silk can be passed through existing sewing stations (holes) in the parchment or passed over the parchment to strap it down to the mat. To mitigate against climate fluctuations, the humidity-sensitive parchment manuscript pages were housed in microclimate frames (Lawson, 2004).

Non-adhesive binding methods were valued as a means of preserving historical evidence in rare books. Spitzmuller(2007) shared a non-adhesive method of relining a parchment textblock and reattaching boards, without replacing the original sewing supports. With the new thread passing through the gap between gatherings, the replacement stitches did not pierce the gatherings. Folded parchment or paper stays were placed into the gaps between gatherings and sewn to the new spine lining material, which was divided into strips that did not cover the sewing supports. The spine lining strips were wide enough to anchor the boards to the textblock in lieu of lacing the cords into the boards (Spitzmuller, 2007).

While many book conservation treatments have followed historical models, modern variations were created to improve the stability and movement of bindings. Although it was controversial to convert a tight-backed spine to a hollow spine, the semi-rigid support of the hollow spine reduced wear and tear on the flaking and fragmentary leather of Annotationes in Libro Evangeliorum. The disadvantage of this treatment was that stress was added to the hinges. The advantage was that it permitted the original spine leather to be reattached to the book (Honey, 2003).

Rubber cement was used in unusual technique for preserving a leather spine on a tight-backed volume. The technique has been used at the Folger Shakespeare Library and the New York Academy of Medicine, but it was developed in during a fire recovery in Sweden. Rubber cement was a highly flexible facing adhesive that could be removed mechanically, as long as a release layer of microcrystalline wax was applied to the leather as a preliminary step. After the structural repairs were completed and the spine was reattached, the rubber cement could be peeled off mechanically (McCann & Haun, 2009). To date, no analytical test results have been published to confirm the long-term stability of leathers treated with this method.

Leather dressings fell out of favor in many conservation labs many years ago. However, conservators have devoted research to testing and removing problematic lubricants. In a 2011 survey, Teper and Straw found that some leather dressings remained in use among conservators and non-conservators alike. Colorimetry and SEM have demonstrated that four tested leather dressings were harmful to vegetable tanned leather (Blaschke, 2012). Sticky residues and whitish bloom marred the surface of dressed leathers (Campbell, 2009). Liquid dressings caused more significant discoloration than thicker, waxier formulations (Blaschke, 2012). The oily, liquid formulations could be reduced with a household vacuum pump system, but waxy dressings were more difficult to remove (McCann & Haun, 2009). An acrylic-wax blend, SC6000 has proven to be an effective coating on undamaged leather; however it could stain damaged or red-rotted leather (Brewer, 2006). Klucel G hydroxypropylcellulose was the most common consolidant for degraded leather (Teper & Straw 2011). A recent study of the effects of Klucel G, SC6000, and

Renaissance Wax (a microcrystalline wax blend) was inconclusive (Johnson, 2013). No formula has been found to completely consolidate or protect deteriorated leather, so it was not surprising that 42% of survey respondents from 2011 elected to use no consolidants at all (Teper & Straw 2011).

For the most part, book conservators have exercised caution when applying adhesives to leather. Conservators have been concerned about adhesives making leather less flexible or creating dark stains (Metzger, Boal & Howe, 2003). The main adhesives for leather repair were mixtures of poly vinyl acetate aqueous dispersion (PVA) and methyl cellulose or wheat starch paste. According to a 2011 survey, pure wheat starch paste was more commonly employed on new leather than on old leather (Teper & Straw 2011). Mixtures with under 50% PVA seemed to be adequately reversible (Metzger, Boal & Howe, 2003). Paper spine and hinge repairs, with and without linen reinforcement, had become increasingly popular alternatives to leather, but many preservation officers were repairing leather bindings with cloth (Teper & Straw, 2011).

As an alternative to leather, handmade paper was toned and molded to serve as a sympathetic covering material for pre-1800 imprints. The paper conformed well to the tight joints, stretching to cover the original raised sewing supports. Developed at Syracuse University, the treatment was similar to the cloth-covered Treatment 305 developed at Princeton University in the 1990’s. The paper was toned with acrylics and pasted to the boards after a kozo paper lining, cloth spine lining, endsheets, endbands, and boards were attached to the book (Conn, 2005).

Korean hanji paper was introduced into many conservation labs as a strong, lightweight, long-fibered paper. Unlike the Korean ssangbal and Japanese nagashizuki methods of sheet formation, the traditional Korean webal technique produces a two-ply sheet without a pronounced grain direction (Lee, 2012). Hanji was used as a lining paper for fragile iron gall ink fraktur documents (Irving & Choi, 2010).

Although most library conservation projects do not require inpainting, toned papers have been used in many book and paper repairs. Many traditional coloring agents, such as watercolors and acylic paints, have acted as sizing agents, filling spaces between the paper fibers, creating a glossy appearance, and making the paper less flexible. Conservators have sought many different toning materials to provide a subtle color that is less distracting than a bright new paper repair, while matching the texture and flexibility of the original object.

Paper extract was made by evaporating colored residues from alkaline washed aged Western paper scraps. Resembling caramel, the coloring material was a pH-neutral mixture of sugars, including arabinose, xylose, rhamnose, galactose, glucose, and mannose. The Tate Museum has used calcium-rich London tap water to make paper extract, but the concentration of iron, copper, chlorine and other harmful chemicals had not been determined (Townsend 2002). Deionized water would yield a pure paper extract. Magnesium hydrogen carbonate could not be used, because it made the colored compounds precipitate out of solution (Townsend 2002).

Another method of toning paper repairs was devised using kaolin clay, a material traditionally by papermakers to make paper more opaque. The clay-toned paper could be colored with watercolors. This method permitted the use of thin, translucent Japanese kozo or other Asian long-fibered papers to fill losses in thick, opaque Western papers (Minter, 2013).

An alternative means of coloring paper was to tone with paper with fiber-reactive dyes. Unfilled, unsized papers were more receptive to dye that sized papers, sizes could be washed out to improve dying (Gyles & Maver, 2002). The dyed papers were pH-neutral, solvent fast, and lightfast. Chemical tests on dyed papers showed that there were no residual chlorides from the dye bath. The dye powders could not be mixed by eye, because powder did not look the same as the final color. Norton (2002) suggested that a conservator create a set of sample swatches to assemble a color chart matched to the colors of the pure stock solutions and mixtures of those dyes.

Disaster Recovery

It is important to understand options for collection recovery before a disaster strikes. For small emergencies, in-house responses have been adequate, but major disasters have required the services of outside contractors. Many institutions have made arrangements with a major disaster recovery vendor in advance as part of their disaster planning process.

The experience of the Virginia Historical Society following a New Year’s Eve 1993 fire suppression pipe rupture is very instructive. The flood waters soaked rare books, archival materials and general collections. Forty boxes of unprocessed manuscripts were air-dried, but it would have been more efficient to send them to be frozen and vacuum freeze-dried with the general collection books. All of the books had been frozen within 24 hours of the emergency to give the conservators time to evaluate treatment options for the affected collections. For example, the rare books were sent to a private book conservator for air drying in small batches, because seventeenth- and eighteenth-century wet leather would have responded poorly to vacuum freeze-drying (Rusch & Herro, 2000). Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy were major catastrophes that affected cultural institutions, but many library disasters have been caused by plumbing or other leaks.

Like the Virginia Historical Society, the Czech National Library was able to stabilize damaged collections by freezing them as soon as possible after the Prague Flood of 2002. Fortunately, a large portion of the collection had already been relocated to a remote storage building, which became a command center for salvage of collections from the library’s other facilities. The Prague Municipal Library was more severely affected by the flood waters, because the library branch housing rare books and special collections was inundated. Czech libraries initially favored vacuum packing as a drying method, but the process could only treat a few volumes at a time. With vacuum packing reserved for rare books, the librarians adopted a new thermal drying system for the other collections, understanding that the thermally weakened materials would be reformatted through microfilming or digitization (Ray, 2006).

In a study comparing seven treatment methods for recovery of wet books, different volumes from multi-volume sets, were used to improve the reliability of the study; it was assumed that volumes from the same set would react similarly to a given treatment. Air drying, vacuum freeze-drying, thermal drying, vacuum packing, and Zorbix/ Vacme press were used to dry the books. Thermal drying caused a significant loss in the mechanical strength of treated pages. Air drying with intermittent restraint and Vacme drying were the least expensive options, while the most cost-effective mass drying treatment was vacuum freeze-drying (Silverman, Bliss, Erickson, Fidopiastis, Francl, Knight, Lively, Novotny, & Yeager 2007).

Zorbix is a biodegradable corn-based product that has demonstrated a potential to replace blotters in many conservation applications. The absorbent material is enclosed between sheets of nonwoven material. It has been shown to absorb 50 times its weight in water, making it very effective for drying wet books and documents. Zorbix has also been used to create a humidification package, relaxing rolled or folded papers (Suszkiw 2007). The usage of Zorbix is somewhat labor-intensive for a large disaster, but it could be suitable for a small in-house response.

Dry Ice dusting was developed as a minimally abrasive blasting method for removal of soot from books after a fire. The conservation department at the University of Utah’s Marriott Library compared dry ice dusting with rubber sponges. The rubber sponge tended to remove more soot from some samples, but the dry ice method caused significantly less surface abrasion (McCann & Haun, 2009).

At the end of the twentieth century, lasers were introduced into architectural and architectural stone conservation as an alternative to high-pressure abrasive washing systems. There has been a great deal of research into the transfer of laser cleaning from stone to paper conservation. Conservators were hesitant to embrace laser cleaning due to concerns about laser-induced yellowing, among other possible side effects (Vergès-Belmin & Dignard, 2003). Other problems included the possibility that heat from the laser might have caused some chemical deterioration of the paper (Pérez, Barrera, & Díez, L. 2003). Szczepanowska (1994) explored the use of lasers to reduce fungal stains, but the technique did not gain widespread adoption among book and paper conservators in the United States. Newer laser cleaning techniques have been found useful for cleaning sized rag papers (Ersoy, Tunay, Uǧuryol, Mavili, & Akturk, 2013). Laser cleaning techniques were fine-tuned in terms of pulse duration to mitigate against thinning, charring, or disrupting the surface of the paper; digital images were used to select treatment areas down to the pixel level, reducing risks to non-target areas, such as the printing on a page (Scholten, Schipper, Ligterink, Pedersoli, Rudolph, Kautek, Havermans, Aziz, van Beek, Kraan, van Dalen, Quillet, Corr, & Hua-Ströfer, 2005). In attempts to remove mold from paper, the green laser (532 nm) worked more efficiently on some fungal species than others (Pilch, Pentzien, Mädebach, and Kautek, 2005). Lasers at long wavelengths near infrared caused the most yellowing, while ultraviolet wavelengths (266 nm and 355 nm) caused photochemical damage to sample papers, so the 532 nm green laser was the only wavelength recommended for cleaning (Kaminska, Sawczak, Cieplnski, & Sliwinski, 2005). Treatment options for soot-damaged and mold-damaged objects are limited; conservators have to weigh the possible risks against the potential gains for salvaging severely damaged collections.

Mold has presented a major hazard for personal health, as well as preservation. To be safe, workers handling moldy items wore frequent changes of disposable personal protective equipment, including nitrile gloves, N-95 (or better) face mask, and coveralls (Blaser & Peckham, 2005). Florian (2000) suggested that gloves be cleaned with alcohol between handling objects. Use of a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum cleaner has been a long-established standard practice for cleaning both books and storage areas. In a recent survey of conservators, ethanol was the most popular chemical chosen to treat moldy collections (Sequeira, Cabrita, & Macedo, 2014). To deactivate the mold on objects damaged by Superstorm Sandy in the New York area, individual objects were sprayed with a mixture of readily available

chemicals: 2-propanol, ethanol, and hydrogen peroxide (Stavroudis, 2014). The mixture was allowed to dry prior to vacuuming the mold spores, and the objects were sprayed again, after cleaning (Rousseau, 2014). In a recent workshop on mold remediation conservators discussed the benefit of spraying a disinfectant without subjecting the moldy artifacts to an anoxic drying treatment; the partial treatment would limit the redistribution of mold spores in a thoroughly controlled, dry, cool environment (Nunan, 2014b).

For large mold outbreaks, mass sterilization has been required, but many conservators have been concerned about the effects of these treatments of the stability of paper, cloth, and leather. In 2002, flood-damaged books in Prague were treated with ethylene oxide (Ray, 2006). Ethylene oxide was also used to treat materials water damaged by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China; toxic residues from the treatment were allowed to off-gas before the collection was handled (Zhang & Sun, 2013). Ethylene oxide was compared with gamma radiation for mass treatment and found to be less damaging to the treated books (Silverman et al 2007). Most color changes induced by gamma radiation were reversible, except for changes to calcium carbonate, a component in many papers. (Negut, Bercu, & Duliu, 2012). Ionizing radiation was shown to decrease the degree of polymerization of cellulose, making it weaker; lower doses of radiation were recommended (Magaudda, 2004). According to an international survey, only 9% of conservators have used gamma radiation and only 2% have used ethylene oxide to treat mold-damaged collections (Sequeira, Cabrita, & Macedo, 2014). Conservation risks, health hazards, environmental threats have made conservators reluctant to use any mass sterilization measures for mold infestations.

Conservators have also been concerned about cleaning contaminated storage areas and furniture. It had been considered important to clean the shelving in moldy storage areas with quaternary ammonium compounds, rather than chlorine bleach, because chlorine evaporates quickly, leaving behind water that can encourage new mold growth (Blaser & Peckham, 2005). Recent experience from the response to Sandy, suggests that quaternary ammonium salts are not effective at killing mold, even though they disrupt biological processes (Rousseau, 2014).

Chitosan has been proposed as a treatment for mold damaged paper. It is a biodegradable natural polymer derived from chitin, the building block of exoskeletons for insects, crustaceans and fungi. Chitosan has a chemical structure similar to cellulose, substituting an amino (NH2) group for one of the hydroxyl (OH) groups on the cellulose molecule. To deposit chitosan onto paper, the solution must be moderately acidic, around pH 5. Above pH 5.7, the chitosan will form an insoluble precipitate; thus, alkaline washing neutralizes the acids in the paper and fixes the chitosan on the paper simultaneously. An experimental chitosan treatment appeared to strengthen mold-damaged paper more effectively than cellulose ethers. It also appeared to provide some protection against further fungal growth. This treatment has not gained widespread adoption, because it has not been studied sufficiently.

Solutions and Recommendations

Consortia involved in mass storage projects can develop cooperative preservation assessment surveys of their duplicate holdings. This would provide some assurance that libraries are not discarding their best copies, simply because these items are already held in a collaborative

repository. This element seems to be missing from most collaborative collection development schemes, but it does not seem to be an unreasonable process.

Partnerships between conservators and allied professionals should be encouraged. Conservators and catalogers must collaborate to ensure that item records are linked to treatment histories, at least for rare books and special collection materials. The additional documentation will assist non-conservators in identifying potential problems in the course of emergency triage. Water-soluble adhesives and consolidants could cause pages to block, or stick together, when wet. Some treatments remove sizing or open up the spaces between paper fibers, allowing the paper to absorb water more quickly. Most collections respond very poorly to increased humidity, so they should be stored in a dry, stable microclimate. If archivists or librarians advocate a MPLP approach, then they must support efforts to maintain low temperatures, low humidity levels, and low light levels for collections of value. There are treatments that may reduce the speed of decay, but there is no treatment that can truly strengthen weakened or brittle paper; prevention is the only option.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

There are a few categories of paper conservation that have received a great deal of attention from conservation scientists, such as washing, bleaching, and iron gall ink stabilization. Book conservation has been almost entirely absent from the literature in the twenty-first century, as far as bindings are concerned. Structural treatments and chemical treatments for books have been relegated to informal “tips” and online discussion lists, rather than being published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Water damaged books often have to sacrifice their bindings, so better alternatives for large-scale drying of leather-bound books would be useful. Non-aqueous methods and materials continue to raise important research questions. There is a need for further study of methods for sanitizing and stabilizing mold-damaged paper. Evolving health and safety standards have also increased the need to find materials and techniques of lower toxicity. The anoxic methods used for pest eradication and mold remediation have also shown potential for other conservation applications, but there are significant limitations in scale.

CONCLUSION

Conservation in the twenty-first century has been shaped by new methods of storing and accessing information. Risks to physical collections have been reduced as more libraries are participating in mass-storage facilities that are capable of achieving cool, dark, low humidity environments to extend the useful life of collections. At the same time that access to text has been enhanced by electronic delivery, there has been an increased interest in the artifactual characteristics of books that were not specifically identified as “rare.” Conservation scientist continue to make new discoveries, but it is incumbent upon practicing conservators to propose research topics that solve real conservation treatment questions. For example, the enormous body of literature on iron gall ink has had a significant impact on the treatment of documents with ink corrosion. New materials and techniques will continue to cross-over from other disciplines, providing new opportunities for study. It is entirely appropriate for conservators to wait until there is a substantial body of published research before adopting a new technique or material.

This approach places an even greater burden on conservators and conservation scientists to conduct formal research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

REFERENCES

Ahn, K., Banik, G., & Potthast, A. (2012). Sustainability of mass-deacidification. part II: evaluation of alkaline reserve. Restaurator, 33(1), 48-75.

Anderson, P. & Puglia, A., (2003). Solvent-set book repair tissue. Book and Paper Group Annual, 27,

Baker, A., Croft, J. A., Taranto, J., & Welsh, J. (2008). What lies beneath: treatment of canvas-backed Pennsylvania coal mining maps for digitization. Book and Paper Group Annual, 27, 1-7.

Baker, C. (2007) Sodium carboxymethylcellulose re-evaluated for paper, book, papyrus, and parchment conservation. Book and Paper Group Annual, 26, 177-185.

Baker, C. (2004).The importance of differing perspectives in the conservation and preservation of paper-borne materials. Book and Paper Group Annual, 23, 1-7.

Baker, W., and McCarthy, C. (2006). Library collections conservation discussion group 2006: The changing role of collections conservation II: New workflows and new collection paradigms: Conservation's role in off-site storage workflows and projects. Book and Paper Group Annual, 25, 49-54

Baker, W., and Dube, L. (2010). Identifying standard practices in research library book conservation. Library Resources & Technical Services, 54 (1), 21–33.

Balakhnina, I. A., Brandt, N. N., Chikishev, A. Y., & Rebrikova, N. L. (2013). Effect of laser radiation on 19th century paper. Restaurator, 34(1), 30-44. doi:10.1515/res-2013-0003

Blaschke, K. (2012). Lubricants on vegetable tanned leather: effects and chemical changes. Restaurator, 33(1), 76-99.

Boal, G. (2014, May) The impact of digitization on conservation activities at the Wellcome Library. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Conservation-Book and Paper Session, San Francisco, CA.

Bogaard, J. and Whitmore, P. (2001) Effects of dilute calcium washing treatments on paper. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 40(2), 105.

Bogaard, J., Morris, H., Whitmore, P. (2005) A method for aqueous deacidification of oxidized paper. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 44(2), 63-74.

Bridegam, W. E. (2004). Print preservation at the local level—The five college experience. Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services, 28(1), 29-38. doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2003.11.005

Brown, A.J. & Bacon, A. (2001). Perspectives on image reintegration. Paper Conservator, 25, 11.

Brückle, I. (2001). The practice of looking in paper conservation. Paper Conservator, 25, 113-123.

Brückle, I. (2012). Historical note: aqueous chlorine dioxide bleaching at Christa Gaehde's studio in the 1990s. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 274-286. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0013

Brückle, I., Thornton, J., Nichols, K., & Strickler, G. (1999). Cyclododecane: Technical note on some uses in paper and objects conservation. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 38(2), 162-175.

Burge, D. M., Reilly, J. M., & Nishimura, D. W. (2002). Effects of enclosure papers and paperboards containing lignins on photographic image stability. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 41(3), 279-290.

Campbell, B. (2009). The removal of leather dressing from paper. Book and Paper Group Annual, 28, 125-131.

Christianson, H. (2011) HathiTrust: a research library at webscale. Library Resources and Technical Services, 55(2), 93-102.

Conn, D. (2005). Molded paper spine. The Bonefolder, an e-Journal for the Bookbinder and Book Artist, 2(1), 25-28.

Daniels, V., & Kosek, J. (2002). The rate of washing of paper. In Works of art on paper, books, documents and photographs: techniques and conservation. Contributions to the Baltimore congress, 2-6 September 2002. International Institute for Conservation. 47-51.

Deckle, C. & Haude, M.E. (2008). Iron-gall ink treatment at the Library of Congress: old manuscripts- new tools. Book and Paper Group Annual, 27,15-26

De Lusenet, Y. (2006) Moving with the times in search of permanence. In Preservation management for libraries, archives and museums. London: Facet Publishing.

Edsel, R.M. (2013). The monuments men: Allied heroes, Nazi thieves, and the greatest treasure hunt in history. New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.

Ersoy, T., Tunay, T., Uǧuryol, M., Mavili, G., & Akturk, S. (2013). Femtosecond laser cleaning of historical paper with sizing. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 15(3), 258-265. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2013.07.002

Florian, M. E. (2000). Aseptic technique: a goal to strive for in collection recovery of moldy archival materials and artifacts. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 39(1), 107-115.

Fredericks, M. (1992). Recent Trends in Book Conservation and Library Collections Care. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 31(1), 95-101.

Frellsen, A., Norman, K., & Methot, B. (2014, May). Preserving the African American Scrapbook Collection of Emory University Libraries. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Conservation-Book and Paper Session, San Francisco, CA.

Geiger, T., & Michel, F. (2005). Studies on the polysaccharide JunFunori used to consolidate matt paint. Studies in Conservation, 50(3), 193-204. doi:10.1179/sic.2005.50.3.193

Genoni, P. (2013). An international review of the development and implementation of shared print storage. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 44(1), 50.

Gorman, G. E., & Shep, S. J. (2006). Preservation management for libraries, archives and museums. London: Facet.

Gracy, K.F., & Kahn, M.B. (2012). Preservation in the digital age. Library Resources and Technical Services, 56(1), 25-43.

Grandinette, M., & Silverman, R. (1994). The library collections conservation discussion group: Taking a comprehensive look at book repair. Library Resources and Technical Services, 38(3), 281-287.

Greene, M. A., & Meissner, D. (2005). More product, less process: Revamping traditional archival processing. The American Archivist, 68(2), 208-263.

Gyles, L. and Maver, I. (2002) Some alternative strategies in matching and toning paper and Parchment for repair of books and manuscripts. Paper Conservator, 26, 59-71.

Henniges, U., & Potthast, A. (2008). Henniges, U., & Potthast, A. (2008). Phytate treatment of metallo-gallate inks: Investigation of its effectiveness on model and historic paper samples. Restaurator, 29(4), 219-234.

Henniges, U., & Potthast, A. (2009). Bleaching revisited: Impact of oxidative and reductive bleaching treatments on cellulose and paper. Restaurator, 30(4), 294-320.

Hepworth, P. and Michelozzi, M. (2004) Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments. Paper Conservator, 28, 63-73.

Hinz, J. and Gehnrich, B. (2006). Documenting library conservation treatents: Using the 583 Action Note field in the MARC record. Book and Paper Group Annual, 25, 59-64.

Honey, A. (2003). The conservation of Annotationes in Libro Evangeliorum using a natural cloth hollow over a moulded Japanese paper spine-former. Paper Conservator, 27, 5-11.

Howell, A. (2001). Preserving information in a digital age: what’s the difference? Paper Conservator, 25, 133-149.

Hummert, E., Henniges, U., & Potthast, A. (2013). Stabilisation treatments with aerosols: Evaluating the penetration behaviour of gelatine and methylcellulose. Restaurator, 34(2), 134-171. doi:10.1515/res-2013-0008

Hummert, E., Kling, S., & Brückle, I. (2012). Treating a previously bleached artwork on paper. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 395-408. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0017

Iannuccelli, S. and Sotgiu, S. (2010). Wet treatments of works of art on paper with rigid gellan gels. The Book & Paper Group annual, 29, 25-39.

Ilik,Violeta1. (2012). Off-site storage from a cataloging point of view. Serials Librarian, 63 (3/4), 350-358.

Irving, J., & Choi, S. (2010) Decision making and treatment of the Ephrata Cloister ABC Book. The Book & Paper Group annual 29, 41-50.

Jančovičová, V., Havlínová, B., Mináriková, J., & Hanus, J. (2012). Impact of stabilizing procedures on acidic paper. Restaurator, 33(2), 179-198.

Johnson, A. (2013). Evaluation of the use of SC6000 in conjunction with Klucel G as a conservation treatment for bookbinding leather: notes on a preliminary study. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 36(2), 125-144. DOI:10.1080/19455224.2013.815646

Kaminska, A., Sawczak, M., Cieplnski, M., & Sliwinski, G. (2005) The post-processing effects due to pulsed laser ablation of paper. In Dickmann, K., Fotakis, C., & Asmus, J. F. Lasers in the conservation of artworks: LACONA V proceedings, Osnabruck, Germany, Sept. 15-18, 2003 (pp. 35-41). New York; Berlin: Springer.

Kolar, J., Možir, A., Strlič, M., De Bruin, G., Pihlar, B., & Steemers, T. (2007). Stabilisation of iron gall ink: aqueous treatment with magnesium phytate. E-Preservation Science. 4, 19-24.

Kuzyk, R. (2007). Serving through disaster. Library Journal, 132(5), 26. Retrieved from http://137.198.76.25/docview/196834775?accountid=11272

Lau-Lamb, L. (2007) A new material for the conservation of papyrus. Book and Paper Group Annual 26. 187-188.

Lavédrine, B. (2009). Photographs of the past: Process and preservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute Los Angeles.

Lawson, M. (2004). A method for mounting parchment using hair silk. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation. 43, 175-184.

Lee, A. (2012). Hanji unfurled: one journey into Korean papermaking. Ann Arbor, MI: The Legacy Press.

Letouzey, M., Barbalat, M., and Rouchon, V., (2008), Side effects of ionic fixatives: colour changes versus artificial and real ageing. PapierRestaurierung: Mitteilungen der IADA 9(1), 29-37.

Lindsay, H. (2003) Preservation microfilming and digitization at London Metropolitan Archives: surveying and conservation prior to image capture. Paper Conservator, 27, 23-34.

Long, J. S., National Endowment for the Humanities, Heritage Emergency National Task Force (U.S.), & Heritage Preservation (Organization). (2006). Field guide to emergency response. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation.

Maitland, C. (2009). Where archival and fine art conservation meet: applying iron gall ink antioxidant and deacidification treatments to corrosive copper watercolors. Book and Paper Group Annual. 28, 37-45

Maková, A., Kuka, I., & Kyšková, Z. (2003, September). The use of native, modified starches and cellulose derivatives in restoration-conservation practice comparison of their adhesive qualities. In Proceeding of the International Conference “Chemical Technology of Wood Pulp and Paper.” Bratislava, Slovakia,17, 424-427.

Magaudda, G. (2004). The recovery of biodeteriorated books and archive documents through gamma radiation: some considerations on the results achieved. Journal of Cultural Heritage. Elsevier SAS. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2003.07.003

Martyniak, C. (2010). When preservation moves off campus: trends and effective practices in ARL libraries. Library Resources and Technical Services, 54(4), 183-199.

Masson, O., & Ritter, M. (2004). “Fräulein Huth” and the red seaweed: consolidation of a collage by Kurt Schwitters with JunFunori. Paper Conservator, 28, 91-98.

McCann, L. (2013). Conservation documentation in research libraries: making the link with MARC data. Library Resources and Technical Services, 57(1), 30-50.

McCann, L. (2013). Preservation as obstacle or opportunity? rethinking the preservation-access model in the age of MPLP. Journal of Archival Organization, 11(1-2), 23-48. doi:10.1080/15332748.2013.871972

McCann, L. and Haun, W.(2009). Library Collections Discussion Group 2009: library collections conservation 2.0- new directions. Book and Paper Group Annual, 28, 107-114.

McKenzie, Diane M. (2007) A collaborative collection of off-site foreign language health sciences journals: a proposal. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserves, 17(3)65-74.

Merrill-Oldham, J. & Schrock, N. (2000). Conservation of general collections. In Banks, P. N., & Pilette, R. (eds.). Preservation: issues and planning (pp. 225-247). Chicago: American Library Association.

Metzger, C., Boal, G. and Howe, D. (2003). Use of adhesives on leather discussion. Book and Paper Group Annual, 22, 99-104.

Meyer, F., Hansen, D., Knjasev, V., & Volland, G. (2014). The "schinkel's legacy" project at the kupferstichkabinett berlin: Air quality in storage cabinets - cause and effect. Restaurator, 35(2), 81-112. doi:10.1515/res-2014-1002

Nadal, J., & Peterson, A. (2013). Scarce and endangered works: using network-level holdings data in preservation decision making and stewardship of the printed record. Preprint, accepted for publication in ALCTS Monographs). Retrieved from http://www.jacobnadal.com/162.

Neevel, J.G. (1995). The development of a new conservation treatment for ink corrosion, based on the natural antioxidant phytate. In Koch, M.S., and Palm, K.J. (eds.), Preprints of the 8th International Congress of IADA (pp. 93-100). Tübingen, Copenhagen.

Negut, C., Bercu, V., & Duliu, O. (2012). Defects induced by gamma irradiation in historical pigments. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 13(4), 397-403. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2012.01.002

Niehus, L., Henniges, U., Horsky, M., Prohaska, T., Potthast, A., & Brückle, I. (2012). Reducing the risks of hydrogen peroxide bleaching in presence of iron ions in paper. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 356-394. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0016

Norton, C., Furuhata, S. (2006). Passepartout: properties, performance, packaging: reevaluation of an environmental package for traveling works of art on paper. Book and Paper Group Annual. 25. 29-33.

Norton, R. (2002). Dyeing cellulose-fibre paper with fibre-reactive dyes. Paper Conservator 26, 37-47.

Novak, A. (2009). Digital surrogates: a new technique for loss compensation of graphic works on paper. Book and Paper Group Annual. 28, 55.

Nunan, E. (2014a, August 14). 42nd Annual Meeting – Health and Safety Session, May 31st, “Sustainability for the Conservator: Mold Remediation.” [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.conservators-converse.org/2014/08/42nd-annual-meeting-health-and-safety-session-may-31st-sustainability-for-the-conservator-mold-remediation/

Nunan, E. (2014b, August 13). 42nd Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 28, “Responding to Mold Outbreaks after a Disaster” [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.conservators-converse.org/2014/08/42nd-annual-meeting-workshop-may-28-responding-to-mold-outbreaks-after-a-disaster/

Orlandini, V. (2009). Effect of aqueous treatments on nineteenth-century iron-gall-ink documents: calcium Phytate treatment- optimization of existing protocols. Book and Paper Group Annual, 28, 137-146.

Papanagiotou, C. I. (2002). An investigation of the use of digital colour matching for the toning of papers using ink-jet printing, Paper Conservator, 26, 73-83.

Pataki, A. (2009). Remoistenable tissue preparation and its practical aspects. Restaurator, 30(1-2), 51-69. doi:10.1515/rest.004

Pataki-Hundt, A. (2012). Conservation treatment and stabilization of the ninth-century stuttgart psalter. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 35(2), 152. doi:10.1080/19455224.2012.745206

Payne, L. (2014). Winning the space race: expanding collections and services with shared depositories. American Libraries September/October. 50-53.

Payne, L. (2005). Depositories and repositories: changing models of library storage in the USA. Library Management, 26(1), 10-17. Retrieved from http://137.198.76.25/docview/198858844?accountid=11272

Pearson, D. J., & Busch, N. J. (2007). Nebraska's library depository retrieval facility. Library Philosophy and Practice, 9(2), 1-17.

Pearson, M., Frisa, C., & Fischer, M. C. (2009). How we got "there" from here: An overview of the design and implementation of a digital documentation photography studio. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 48(2), 103-119.

Pérez, C., Barrera, M., & Díez, L. (2003). Positive findings for laser use in cleaning cellulosic supports. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4, 194-200. doi:10.1016/S1296-2074(02)01198-6

Pilch, E., Pentzien, S., Mädebach, H., and Kautek, W. (2005). Anti-fungal laser treatment of paper: a model study. In Dickmann, K., Fotakis, C., & Asmus, J. F. Lasers in the conservation of artworks: LACONA V proceedings, Osnabruck, Germany, Sept. 15-18, 2003 (pp. 19-27). New York; Berlin: Springer.

Ponce-Jiménez, M. D. P., Toral, F. A. L., & Fornue, E. D. (2002). Antifungal protection and sizing of paper with chitosan salts and cellulose ethers. part 1, physical effects. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 41(3), 243-254.

Ponce-Jiménez, M. D. P., Toral, F. A. L., & Gutierrez-Pulido, H. (2002). Antifungal protection and sizing of paper with chitosan salts and cellulose ethers. part 2, antifungal effects. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 41(3), 255-268.

Porto, S., & Shugar, A. N. (2008). The Effectiveness of Two Cationic Fixatives in Stabilizing Water-Sensitive Dye-Based Inks on Paper. Book and Paper Group Annual, 27, 63-69.

Rabin, I., & Hahn, O. (2012). Dead sea scrolls exhibitions around the world: Reasons for concern. Restaurator, 33(2), 101-121. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0005

Ray, E. (2006). The Prague Library Floods of 2002: Crisis and Experimentation. Libraries & The Cultural Record, 41(3), 381-391.

Reidell, S. & McCarthy, C. (2007) Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group 2007: Digitization and the Role of the Conservator. Book and Paper Group Annual, 26, 141-144.

Reissland, B., & Cowan, M. W. (2002). The light sensitivity of iron gall inks. Studies in Conservation, 47(Supplement-3), 180-184. doi:10.1179/sic.2002.47.s3.037

Rouchon, V., Durocher, B., Pellizzi, E., & Stordiau-Pallot, J. (2009). The water sensitivity of iron gall ink and its risk assessment. Studies in Conservation, 54(4), 236-254. doi:10.1179/sic.2009.54.4.236

Rousseau, E. (2014). New comprehensive approaches in mold remediation and recovery. Retrieved from http://www.conservation-us.org/docs/default-source/annualmeeting/2014am_poster64_new_comprehensive_approaches_mold.jpg?sfvrsn=2

Rowe, S., & Rozeik, C. (2008). The uses of cyclododecane in conservation. Reviews in Conservation, 9, 17-31.

Rusch, S., & Herro, H. (2000). Midnight in the garden of soggy and damp: The New Year's Eve disaster at the Virginia Historical Society. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 39(1), 127-134.

Schaeffer, T. T., Blyth-Hill, V., & Druzik, J. R. (1996). Aqueous light bleaching of paper: Comparison of calcium hydroxide and magnesium bicarbonate bathing solutions. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 35(3), 219-238.

Schaeffer, T. T.; Druzik, J. R.; Norton, C. (2004). The efficacy of Microchamber boards in passepartout for paper-based art. Book and Paper Group Annual, 23, 87-88.

Schell, L. (2008). Larger than life: discovery and restoration of an 1878 ‘Buffalo Bill’ billboard. Book and Paper Group Annual, 27. 71-77.

Schirò, J., & Lupi, T. Z. (2003). The conservation and preservation of rare 'dragon' playing cards. Paper Conservator, 27, 13-21.

Scholten, H., Schipper, D., Ligterink, F.J., Pedersoli, J.L., Rudolph, P., Kautek, W., Havermans, J.B., Aziz, H.A., van Beek, B., Kraan, M., van Dalen, P. Quillet, V. Corr, S., & Hua-Ströfer, H.Y. (2005). Laser cleaning investigations of paper models and original objects

with nd:yag and krf laser systems. In Dickmann, K., Fotakis, C., & Asmus, J. F. Lasers in the conservation of artworks: LACONA V proceedings, Osnabruck, Germany, Sept. 15-18, 2003 (pp 11-18). New York; Berlin: Springer.

Schopfer, J. M. (2012). Light bleaching with HID lamps. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 287-328. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0014

Sequeira, S. O., Cabrita, E. J., & Macedo, M. F. (2014). Fungal biodeterioration of paper: how are paper and book conservators dealing with it? an international survey. Restaurator, 35(2), 181-199. doi:10.1515/res-2014-0005

Sheesley, S. (2011). Practical applications of Lascaux acrylic dispersions in paper conservation. Book and Paper Group Annual. 30, 79-81.

Silverman, R. (2007). Can't judge a book without its binding. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 42(3), 291-307.

Silverman, R., Bliss, M., Erickson, H., Fidopiastis, N., Francl, J., Knight, B., Lively, K., Neuvirt, J., Novotny, D., and Yeager, Nicholas. (2007) Comparing mass drying and sterilization protocols for water-damaged books. Book and Paper Group Annual, 26, 85-97.

Smith, A. W. (2012). Bleaching in paper conservation. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 223-248. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0011

Smith, C. (2007). George Washington's last will and testament: Conservation and rehousing. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 46(1), 15-26.

Smith, T. (2012). An evaluation of historical bleaching with chlorine dioxide gas, sodium hypochlorite, and chloramine-T at the Fogg Art Museum. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 249-273. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0012

Stavroudis, C. (2014, May). Sustainability for the conservator: mold remediation. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Conservation-Health and Safety Session, San Francisco, CA.

Stephens, C., Whitmore, P., Morris, H., Smith, T. (2009). Assessing the risk of alkaline damage during deacidification treatments of oxidized paper. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation. 48(3), 235.

Stewart, E. (2000). Special collections conservation. In Preservation : Issues and Planning. Chicago: American Library Association.285-306.

Sunil, A., & Kumar, K. P. (2009). Preservation of library materials: problems and perspective. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 29(4), 37.

Suszkiw, J. (2007). Corn-based aborbent dries soggy books. Agricultural Research. May/June 2007. 20-21.

Swider, J. R., & Smith, M. (2005). Funori: overview of a 300-year-old consolidant. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 44(2), 117-126.

Szczepanowska, H. M., & Moomaw, W. R. (1994). Laser stain removal of fungus-induced stains from paper. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 33(1), 25-32.

Teper, T. H. (2005). Current and emerging challenges for the future of library and archival preservation. Library Resources and Technical Services, 49(1), 32-39.

Townshend, P. (2002). Toning with “paper extract.” Paper Conservator 26, 21-26.

Verborg, M. (2012). Light bleaching with metal halide lamps: effects on naturally aged paper. Restaurator, 33(3-4), 329-355. doi:10.1515/res-2012-0015

Vergès-Belmin, V., & Dignard, C. (2003). Laser yellowing: myth or reality? Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4, 238-244. doi:10.1016/S1296-2074(02)01203-7

Zhang, M., & Sun, Y. (2013). Salvage and treatment for the archives in Beichuan earthquake. Restaurator, 34(2), 67-80. doi:10.1515/res-2013-0005

ADDITIONAL READING

Baird, B. J. (2003). Preservation strategies for small academic and public libraries. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Balloffet, N., Hille, J., & Reed, J. A. (2004). Preservation and conservation for libraries and archives. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Baker, C. (2010). From the hand to the machine: Nineteenth-century american paper and mediums: technologies, materials, and conservation. Ann Arbor, MI: Legacy Press.

Baker, N. (2001). Double fold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York: Random House.

Banik, G., & Brückle, I. (2010). Paper and water: A guide for conservators. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Banks, P. N., & Pilette, R. (2000). Preservation : issues and planning. Chicago: American Library Association.

Burgess, H. D. (1987).The colour reversion of paper after bleaching. In: Conservation of library and archive materials and the graphic arts, G. Petherbridge (ed.), London: Butterworths Series in Conservation and Museology, The Institute of Paper Conservation and The Society of Archivists, 57-70.

Choi,S. (2007) Foxing on paper: A literature review. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 46, 137-152.

Cunha, G. D. M., & Cunha, D. G. (1971). Conservation of library materials: A manual and bibliography on the care, repair, and restoration of library materials. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Drewes, J. M., & Page, J. A. (1997). Promoting preservation awareness in libraries: A sourcebook for academic, public, school, and special collections. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Dube, L. and Baker, W. (2010). The impact of training and institutional context on book conservation practices. Book and Paper Group Annual, 29, 143-160.

Florian, M. E. (1997). Heritage eaters: Insects & fungi in heritage collections. London: James & James.

Gorman, G. E., & Shep, S. J. (2006). Preservation management for libraries, archives and museums. London: Facet Publishing.

Jürgens, M. C. (2009). The digital print: Identification and preservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute Los Angeles.

Jürgens, M. C., & Schempp, N. (2010). Freeze-drying wet digital prints: An option for salvage? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 231(1), 012005. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/231/1/012005

Kahn, M. (2012). Disaster response and planning for libraries. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Lory, V., Figueira, F., & Cruz, A. (2012). Comparative study of washing treatments for pastel drawings. Restaurator, 33(2), 199-191.

Matthews, G., & Feather, J. (2003). Disaster management for libraries and archives. Burlington, VT; Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Pub.

Mowery, J.F. (2006). Burnt but not lost: the conservation of works of art on paper damaged by fire. Book and Paper Group Annual, 25, 25-28.

Norris, D. H., & Gutierrez, J. J. (2010). Issues in the conservation of photographs. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.

Ormsby, M. (2005). Analysis of laminated documents using solid-phase microextraction. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 44(1), 13-26.

Phibbs, H. (2005). Recent developments in preservation of works on paper. Book and Paper Group Annual, 24, 47-63.

Ritzenthaler, M. L. (1983). Archives & manuscripts, conservation: A manual on physical care and management. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

Ritzenthaler, M. L. (1993). Preserving archives and manuscripts. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

Rossol, M., & Jessup, W. C. (1996). No magic bullets: Safe and ethical pest management strategies. Museum Management and Curatorship, 15(2), 145-168. doi:10.1016/S0260-4779(96)00025-8

Society of Georgia Archivists (2007). Shelter from the stormy blast: a guide to disaster recovery resources for Georgia and the southeast. http://soga.org/resources/Documents/DisasterRecoverySection3.pdf

Swartzburg, S. G. (1980). Preserving library materials: a manual. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow P.

Swartzburg, S. G. (1983). Conservation in the library: a handbook of use and care of traditional and nontraditional materials. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Zorich, Diane M. (1999). Introduction to managing digital assets: options for cultural and educational organizations. Los Angeles: Getty Information Institute.

DEFINITIONS

Alkaline Reserve: Salts of calcium and/or magnesium deposited into paper during conservation treatment to prevent future oxidation, rather than simply neutralization of acids in the paper.

Anoxia: An environment free from oxygen gas, usually created by purging a storage page or exhibit case with nitrogen, argon, or carbon dioxide; oxygen-absorbers may create anoxia on a small scale inside a sealed framing package.

Chelating agent: Chemical that preferentially binds metal ions; these are often weak acids, so conservation treatment includes thorough removal or neutralization of chelating agents after use.

Chromophore: A colored compound or the color-making functional groups on a compound

Consolidant: An adhesive or binder added to halt the loss of flaking or friable media.

Gampi: A long-fibered paper made from bast fibers found in the inner bark of a Japanese shrub; usually shorter-fibered and glossier than a kozo paper.

Hanji: A long-fibered paper made from bast fibers found in the inner bark of a Korean mulberry tree; different style of sheet formation gives paper slightly different mechanical properties

Iron gall ink: A traditional ink made from oak galls and iron sulfate (vitriol), resulting in residual sulfuric acid and unstable iron(II); treatments are aimed at removing excess iron, converting iron(II) to stable iron(III), and neutralizing acids.

Kozo: A long-fibered paper made from bast fibers found in the inner bark of a Japanese mulberry tree; the most common conservation repair paper

Microclimate: The local environment inside a room, vault, exhibit case or storage box, as it differs from its surroundings; microclimate frames can protect vulnerable parchment documents from fluctuating relative humidity levels.

Oxidizing agent: Part of an oxidation-reduction reaction, this chemical receives electrons from a reducing agent

Reducing Agent: Part of an oxidation-reduction reaction, this chemical gives up electrons to another reagent; a reducing agent may convert an acid to a pH-neutral alcohol or a chromophore to a colorless compound

Rehousing: Preserving an item by using a container that provides structural support, counteracts acidic gases, and/or moderates climate fluctuations.

Size: A substance added to paper during or after manufacture to prevent writing or printing ink from sinking or bleeding into the paper; traditionally gelatin was used as surface sizing, but many modern papers are internally sized with chemicals before the sheets are formed.