Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="User 67, post: 14834, member: 67"]When ever possible, it is always best to use a non-acid* mount, mat, page or binding for the preservation of artifacts. In case of old scrapbook pages, personally, I would dump the pages. I might, if I felt that the original page was important, keep it separate from the cards. For the most part in a case like this, wouldn't you be more interested in the actual text and not the artifact of the crumbling page. If it were a love letter, that might be different for me, but a caption, name, place or date scribbled under a card or photograph hardly seems, to me, to be a significant detail in that persons life -that is, the actually artifact, where the data is what is really important. There is the idea of the esthetic of the original, how pleasing it is to see writing from 100 years ago and that is where individual choice would come into play. Does the risk of damaging the cards and photos outweigh the esthetic of seeing grandmas handwriting? I would like to make a few notes about Bookkeeper and deacidification sprays in general. First, Bookkeeper is quite expensive! However it might be helpful as a home remedy to preserve paper. The problem is that it is basically an alkaline spry, which buffers (neutralizes) acid. Like adding baking soda to vinegar. However, one of the problems with this kind of deacidification is that it isn't necessarily permanent, the treated paper may gradually degrade back to an acid state (10-20 years?), in which case it may need to be treated again. However, deacidification can help to delay and forestall a pulp paper from disintegrating. The other problem with deacidification sprays, in general, is that they may contain harmful chemicals in the accelerant or surfactants which can cause stains or foxing over time. Personally, I would never use an aerosol spray, and Bookkepper does come in a pump and can be brushed on. <a href="http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v15/bp15-17.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v15/bp15-17.html" rel="nofollow">The American Institute for Conservation</a>, found that Bookkeeper"penetrate[d] the paper unevenly, [deposited/left] a precipitate*, and did not protect the paper from color changes during artificial aging." (*a solid deposit on the paper.) They also caution that the "...use of the smaller-scale* deacidificants in some cases is impractical or dangerous..." (*ie Bookkeeper or Wei T'o.) The AIC found that it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply Bookkeeper evenly with a hand-held sprayer. While a high concentration of magnesium compounds may insure that there is a high alkaline reserve, possible negative effects cannot be ruled out. Some papers treated with a magnesium-based deacidificant have an increased uptake of air pollutants. The AIC also suggest that too much of a magnesium deposit can have the opposite effect on lignin or wood-pulp papers, causing an " alkaline-catalyzed chain scission", that actually increases the rate of oxidation. They also found that when sprayed on only one side, the deacidificant did not penetrate through the paper to the other side, but that "there is a difficulty in determining if a two-sided application would be beneficial". The tests also showed that magnesium-based treatments have a tendency to yellow upon humid accelerated aging, (under high humidity). A chalky white precipitate of magnesium oxide was clearly visible on the surface of the artifacts treated with Bookkeeper. They were able to reduce this deposit by applying Bookkeeper with an airbrush. This deposit could be dry-brushed away, but they do not comment on the effect of doing that. It makes me wonder if I would be better off, when I use Bookkeeper, to only spray the back side of an artifact? The AIC conclusion was: "Papers treated with Bookkeeper® showed observable color changes after aging, and some changes in the paper character. An excess of magnesium oxide is easily deposited with hand-held sprayers, and an even deposition is difficult to achieve. The magnesium-containing particles leave a noticeable whitish haze on the paper that can be visually distracting. In one-sided spray application, the pH of the paper can be expected to be higher [more alkali] on the treated side than on the untreated side. Color shifts during artificial aging indicate that at least some types of paper treated with Bookkeeper® experience a whiteness reduction greater than that occurring in untreated papers." I would also like to acknowledge that "The American Institute for Conservation" is, for the lack of a better word, a guild for conservators, and their mission is to maintain high standards among their members and promote conservation. As such, the use of a product like Bookkeeper might come under more rigid scrutiny, because a client can easily use it at home and thus deny a conservator a job. Two other carbonated magnesium products mentioned were, Wei T'o (carbonated magnesium methoxide) and Archival Aids (carbonated magnesium methoxide ethoxide), primarily in use in Europe and Canada. [/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches