The "Framework for Preservation of Museum Collections" consists of
a 9 row by 7 column matrix. Along the left-hand side of the chart, various
threats to museum collections are grouped into nine agents of deterioration:
direct physical forces; thieves, vandals, and displacers; fire; water; pests;
contaminants; radiation; incorrect temperature; and incorrect relative
humidity. The type of museum object that is vulnerable to each agent is
identified, along with the type of damage that can occur. The columns outline
methods of control that can be carried out at each of three different levels or
scales: the building (architectural or engineering elements), portable fittings
(items or modifications that are generally purchased on an operating budget),
and procedures (actions that can be carried out by museum staff). Control at
the building or portable fittings level is further broken down into actions
that are suitable for storage, display, or transit situations. Each cell of the
matrix lists stages for controlling an agent of deterioration under five
general headings: avoid, block, detect, respond, and recover/treat.
In this article, I will restrict my discussion to the principal agents of
deterioration that are outlined in the Framework, and will discuss some
examples of how the Framework might be used.
Agents of Deterioration
The nine agents of deterioration group together various active agents that
threaten museum collections. The relative order of importance of these agents
was generally determined by the severity of damage that each inflicts on an
object and by the overall likelihood of this damage occurring. The actual order
of importance of the agents may differ for a given institution or for a
particular situation.
Direct physical forces can be either sudden and catastrophic or long-term and gradual.
Sudden damage usually results from a shock to the artifact while it is being
handled or moved, during collapse of shelving or supports, or as a result of
earthquakes or war. Long-term exposure to some force may result in the
deformation of an object, and may be due to inadequate support in display or
storage or to artifacts having been stacked. Vibration can also cause damage to
artifacts in the short term or the long term, depending on the circumstances.
The most common damages in this category result from improper handling
procedures, and the type of damage varies from complete loss of the artifact to
minor damage that can be repaired. Most museum artifacts are vulnerable to this
type of direct physical force.
Most of the risks in the category of thieves, vandals, and
displacers are traditionally covered by museum security services in
large institutions. Thieves obviously are a great concern because museum
objects have a high value, their location and existence are well known, and if
an object is stolen the loss is total. Vandals tend to attack high-profile or
noticeable items, and often inflict severe damage. The agent
"displacers" addresses the problem of artifacts that are misplaced
within the museum; this is usually done inadvertently by staff members in
storage areas. If an artifact or specimen has been misplaced and cannot be
found, the effect is the same as a theft.
Fire obviously poses a threat to all museum collections, although
organic artifacts are particularly vulnerable. In addition, smoke from fires
poses a particular threat, especially to porous specimens. Although fires are
infrequent, they result in massive loss and extensive damage.
Water is a major threat to museum collections because of leaking
roofs, skylights, or water pipes. Flooding or fire suppression equipment may
also cause water damage. Porous organic materials, metals, and composite
materials (i.e., materials that are layered or joined) are particularly
susceptible to water damage. In addition, many artifacts have some component
that is wholly or partially soluble in water.
There is an obvious relationship between the risks from the threat of fire
and the risks of water damage from having a sprinkler fire suppression system.
Although the risk of a sprinkler malfunction may be greater than that of a
fire, the damage caused by a fire is much more extensive and devastating to the
collection than that caused by water. The Fire Protection Advisor at Heritage
Services, CCI, who has inspected hundreds of museums and has seen the results
of a number of museum fires, strongly recommends installing sprinkler systems.
The agent of pests includes attack by insects, vermin, or mould. The
threat here is primarily to organic materials, which can be damaged either
because they are a food source to the pest or because they represent a barrier
that the pest wants to cross. Damage can be extensive if pests become
established (i.e., begin to live, eat, excrete, and die) in the museum
collection. Problems with mould and microbes are related to problems with
relative humidity.
Contaminants is the term used to describe chemical agents from the
museum environment that can cause some alteration of museum objects.
Contaminants can be in the form of gases, liquids, or solids. Gaseous
contaminants are frequently considered to be pollutants, although the source of
the gas may be external industrial and vehicle emissions (e.g., sulphur dioxide
or nitrogen dioxide), gases emitted by materials within the museum (e.g.,
vapours given off by wood, coatings, or other artifacts), or oxygen present in
the atmosphere. Liquids that might contaminate museum objects include
plasticizers migrating from plastics, and grease deposited by improper
handling. The most common solid contaminants are salt (either airborne or from
handling) and dust. Contaminants can result in complete destruction of an
artifact over a prolonged period of time, but more often result in some
disfigurement of the artifact.
Radiation includes ultraviolet and visible light. Ultraviolet
radiation can cause disintegration and discolouration of the outer layers of
organic objects, and visible light can cause fading (or, less often, darkening)
of the outer layers of coloured components in artifacts. Ultraviolet light is
not necessary for humans to view museum objects, and so should be avoided or
eliminated in museum display and storage areas. Some visible light is necessary
to allow visitors to see objects on display, but this must be balanced against
the stability of the colorants in the objects. Fugitive colorants will change
noticeably after just a few years of display, even if they are displayed at low
light levels (50 lux). Light damage will not cause complete physical
destruction of an artifact, but can affect the relevance of or the interest in
an object and can reduce its value considerably. Discolouration caused by light
damage cannot be repaired or reversed.
Temperature is a measure of a physical property and by itself cannot
directly cause damage to museum objects. However, damage to museum collections
does result from incorrect temperatures, which can be broken down into
three different types: temperatures that are too high, too low, or fluctuating.
High temperature can result in accelerated degradation rates of chemically
unstable components, low temperature can cause embrittlement of some materials,
and fluctuating temperatures can cause materials to fracture or delaminate.
Although temperature levels within museums are usually dictated by human
comfort levels, low-temperature storage areas are used for certain unstable
artifacts such as colour photographs. Temperature can be very important in
determining the useful life of chemically unstable artifacts such as
photographic films and acidic paper.
Incorrect relative humidity can be broken down into four subgroups:
damp (over 75%), above or below a critical value, above 0%, and fluctuations.
Mould growth can occur when the relative humidity is over about 75%, and
certain minerals or contaminated metals deteriorate above or below critical
relative humidity values. Some chemical deterioration reactions slow as the
relative humidity is reduced, and stop when the relative humidity drops to 0%.
Relative humidity fluctuations cause swelling or shrinkage of organic
components, which can result in fracture, crushing, or delamination of organic
components. Although incorrect relative humidity can result in considerable
damage to vulnerable artifacts, in most cases it does not lead to complete
destruction of artifacts.
We have found the "Framework for Preservation of Museum
Collections" to be an extremely useful tool in assessing the risks posed
by particular situations. The Framework's usefulness is not only due to its
comprehensive nature, but also because it identifies potential areas of risk
rather than directly identifying deficiencies.
Example 1
Consider a hypothetical situation where a large gallery receives a loan
request from a small community museum nearby for a series of graphite pencil
sketches on white rag paper that are of particular historical significance to
the district. To make the situation more interesting, suppose that the director
of the large gallery would like to agree to the loan but the curator involved
has grave concerns about the risks to the works of art, and that the
conservator is receiving subtle pressure from both sides. One method of
resolving this predicament would be for the conservator to meet with the
responsible person from the requesting institution and to use the Framework to
describe the range of potential dangers to the works of art, identify the
agents of deterioration that are pertinent in this situation, and then find
ways of reducing the risks.
If the large institution is concerned about direct physical damage occurring
during transit and handling, it may be possible to arrange for staff from the
large museum to deliver and install the works. Security will clearly be a major
concern, so arrangements must be made for securing the museum building, for
exhibiting the works (i.e., display case, alarms), and for the presence of
security personnel. Concerns about fire suppression, leaky roofs, and pest
control will have to be discussed. Because the works in question are on
untinted rag paper and are in stable condition, light levels are not a major
concern within the range of 50 lux to 300 lux, as long as the ultraviolet
component is filtered out. A discussion of the temperature and relative
humidity within the borrowing museum shows that the temperature control is
moderately good (between 18oC and 24oC), but that the
relative humidity can only be maintained at 25%. Because the works are properly
hinged and matted and because no thick paints are present, this will not pose
any serious risk. Therefore, it may turn out that the only major risk that
needs to be addressed is security. Further discussion between the borrowing
institution, the reluctant curator, the director, the conservator, and possibly
a security expert may be necessary to determine whether or not this risk can be
safely controlled. No matter what the outcome, at least the decision will have
been made on a factual, rational basis that can be clearly understood by all
involved.
Example 2
Museums are under increasing pressure to allow more public access to their
collections. The Framework may be useful in addressing the risks involved with
this access.
Let us consider another hypothetical situation where a curator is planning
to include a number of pieces of 19th- and 20th-century furniture in a public
session to let members of the public interact more closely with the collection.
In addition to security and transit concerns, there may be an increased risk of
artifacts being broken and contaminated (i.e., soiled) due to improper or
unauthorized handling. Also, in this case, it is possible that a number of the
pieces are quite vulnerable to relative humidity fluctuations, in which case
humidity control is essential. All of these considerations may result in a
decision to have the public session take place in an available gallery within
the museum rather than in some outside location.
Conclusion
The nine agents of deterioration outlined on the "Framework for
Preservation of Museum Collections" make up a comprehensive list of the
various situations that can threaten museum, gallery, or archival collections.
CCI staff members have found the Framework to be an extremely useful tool for
identifying risks to museum collections and for suggesting appropriate methods
of control. For a copy of the "Framework for Preservation of Museum
Collections" poster, visit our online
Bookstore.
|