I remember hearing/reading eons ago (or so it seems) that the problem with 
deacidification sprays is that they only treat the surface of the paper 
(i.e. the acids deeper in the paper will migrate up to the 'deacidified' 
areas). As such, it seemed that the deacidification was a temporary fix at 
best. . . therefore, I have to wonder if it is worth the time or effort or 
money. It also seems like there is potential to damage papers if one hasn't 
been properly trained and just buys it from a catalog. One key issue I would 
be concerned about is the stability of the ink on the paper.

It seems to me that housing them in buffered enclosures, separating sheets 
with buffered archival paper as needed, etc. would be a better long-term 
investment. Over time acids will migrate to these enclosures and they will 
need to be replaced but that's par for the course.

I realize I come from a museum background rather than an archives/library 
one, but I wouldn't use deacification sprays. If a treatment is needed, I 
would consult a conservator. If the object is important enough to consider 
something like deacidification spray and in such bad condition, consulting a 
conservator seems like a reasonable course of action. Otherwise I would 
rehouse with archival materials and monitor.

Any paper conservators out there with an opinion on this? Have any folks 
that have used the deacidification sprays evaluated the long-term effects 
and effectiveness of the sprays on the objects in their collection?

Thanks,

Nancy Russell
Museum Curator
Everglades National Park


>From: Holly Wilhelm <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: The Bookkeeper and the Cuhna Cocktail
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:35:23 EST
>
>In a message dated 2/23/2006 1:29:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>Bookeeper is...deacidification spray? I think I had bought a can years ago
>and it didn't go very far towards the work I was doing. It was...$19/can? 
>And
>I
>think, to apply it on books and documents, etc., that are critical...I 
>would
>need about 50 cans! There has got to be a better way!
>
>________________
>
>Pam,
>
>Yes!  Microfilming and photocopying on to modern office paper (usually acid
>free, but alkaline buffered is better, especially if it may be coming into
>contact with stuff that increases in acidity).  Microfilming is the 
>preferred
>method for preserving the content of old newspapers, and by that I mean 
>true
>quality controlled preservation microfilming.  Newspaper clippings are best
>photocopied.  Considering how acidic that paper can get, you don't want it 
>in
>the
>files with stuff it can damage.  (Have you ever taken a close look at the
>"shadows" that appear when acid migrates?)
>
>That may explain the name "Bookeeper."  More likely to be used for books 
>than
>other materials for which there are "cheaper" methods for preservation.  
>And
>sorry 'bout the extra K in my first post--what can I say?  It must have 
>been
>the spellcheck!
>
>Yes, it's expensive, or at least more so than a bottle of soda and a bottle
>of milk of magnesia.  Since I'm new to museums and more familiar with
>archives,
>I'm using archivists' terms, which I hope cross-over enough for museum 
>folks
>to understand.   "Appraisal" is the process by which archivists decide
>whether
>to keep and preserve or not.  It is a matter of applying such questions as
>"Is the content important?" and "Is the actual, original document 
>important?"
>
>and then moving on to questions as "Is it worth the cost of saving the
>document
>itself, or is it just the information that requires preservation?"  After a
>while of questions like this you've gotten a pretty good idea as to whether
>to
>keep it, toss it, microfilm it, photocopy it, or spray Bookeeper on it.  If
>you use Bookeeper, use it on the stuff that's worth it.
>
>And yes, Pam, we never have enough funding for the preservation.  The 
>public
>doesn't see preservation, only the lack of it.  And it's generally not
>considered a glamorous enough expense at which big donors want to throw 
>their
>money.
>Unless one is going to put engraved gold plaques on the Bookeeper cans and
>put them on display for the public to see.  Donors like the public to see
>their
>names on popular funding.
>
>Preservation and conservation just ain't there yet.  Unless you work with a
>sophisticated and intelligent core of donors...
>
>Holly
>being doggedly cynical today!
>
>=========================================================
>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
>http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed 
>information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail 
>message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should 
>read "help" (without the quotes).
>
>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to 
>[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff 
>Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).