Preservation - Digital Materials

http://ifl.sagepub.comIFLA Journal

DOI: 10.1177/034003520403000106 2004; 30; 31 IFLA Journal

Roberta Pilette Mass Deacidification: a preservation option for libraries

http://ifl.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

can be found at:IFLA Journal Additional services and information for

http://ifl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ifl.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

by Lipa Jasna on April 3, 2009 http://ifl.sagepub.comDownloaded from

31

Mass Deacidification: a preservation optionfor libraries

Roberta Pilette

Roberta Pilette has been inlibrary preservation for over20 years. She is a graduate ofthe Columbia Conservation Edu-cation Program (1984). Ms Pi-lette has been head of conser-vation laboratories at ColumbiaUniversity Libraries and theNew York Historical Society Li-brary. Prior to her current po-sition as head of the pres-ervation department at YaleUniversity Library, she was as-sociate chief of preservationtreatment at the New York Pub-lic Library. She was also on thefaculty and taught conservationcourses at the University ofTexas at Austins Preservationand Conservation Studies pro-gram. She may be contactedat: Preservation Department,Yale University Library, PO Box208240, New Haven, CT06520-8240, USA. Phone: 203-432-1714. Fax: 203-432-9900.E-mail: [email protected].

Introduction

The library and archive worlds are inundated with acidic paper.While it is true that many areas of the world have made greatstrides in producing alkaline paper, there are still many otherareas that are producing paper that would not be considered agood choice for permanence. Ultimately this acidic paper be-comes brittle and unusable. Unfortunately, this acidic paper hasbeen and is used in a wide variety of materials that libraries haveacquired in the past, are still acquiring, and will continue toacquire into the future. All acidic papers do not become brittle atthe same rate, but it is known that even the most flexible andwhitest of these papers left in an acidic state will deteriorate andbecome brittle. To be able to arrest, or at least slow significantly,the embrittlement of our important cultural resources is central tothe fulfillment of a librarys mission which is to collect, organizeand hold in perpetuity materials representing our cultural her-itages.

How can an institution ensure the long-term preservation of theseat risk items? Preservation and conservation work on single itemsis extremely expensive and carried out on only the most impor-tant and valuable pieces. Even then there is an awareness of thelimited resources of time and money. What other options arethere for the large numbers of materials that also contribute toour cultural heritages? Reformatting options such as microfilmingand digitizing are good for saving the intellectual content. Thedrawback is that these are expensive on a per volume cost. Theestimated cost to microfilm an average volume in 2003 is aboutUSD 118.00. I. Once filmed, there is the cost of maintaining thetwo negatives, the master and a printing negative, and a positiveviewing copy as well as the machines to view the film. Digitizing,while generally less expensive, can still cost about USD 74.00 peraverage volume. One may need to add to that:

. the cataloging costs associated with the creation of metadata

. the work done on the files to make them easily accessible eithervia the web or a workstation

. production of DVD or CD

. the maintenance of digital files.

Finally, in the case of reformatting, whether microfilm or digital,nothing has been done to preserve the original item. In fact, insome cases the actual act of capturing an image either digitally oron film may have caused some damage to the original. If all thatis being insured for long-term preservation is the intellectual con-tent for vast groups of brittle materials, how will libraries addressthe needs of those researchers who require studying the originalobject that could become brittle?


32

Libraries have been struggling with this for dec-ades and there have been a number of attemptsat developing a mass deacidification process. 5However, previous processes:

. have just not been effective

. were too risky to the items being deacidified orto operators

. were too expensive; or

. had complex selection criteria.

Individual institutions, for the most part, havenot felt it cost effective to develop in-house ca-pabilities for mass deacidification and commer-cial vendors have had only limited success untilrecently. But that recent success means thattoday in many institutions commercial mass de-acidification is now considered another toolavailable for the long-term preservation of re-search materials alongside other options, such as:conservation treatment of single items, bindingof soft cover volumes, staff and user education,and the use of good storage conditions. The evo-lution of mass deacidification to this state hashappened because we now have:

. dependable and effective methods of deacidify-ing a number of items at a single time with aminimum amount of handling or preparation

. straightforward selection criteria that areeasily understood by all levels of staff that re-sults in consistent identification of what can orcannot be mass deacidified

. commercial vendors that can process largenumbers of items at a single time resulting inquick return of items to the institution

. efficiencies of scale that are reflected in rea-sonable per volume costs.

Having all the above conditions met has beenkey, but once the efficacy of a method is estab-lished the two conditions that tip the scales atinstitutions I am most familiar with are the costand selection criteria.

Selection criteria

Key to the workflow issue are the selection cri-teria ; both the physical condition of the volumeas well as from which collection the volumecomes. In the United States most institutions areusing very straightforward physical selection cri-teria consisting of four points:

1. The text block has a pH of 7 or below. ThepH is taken with a pH pen. 6

2. The dominant paper in the text block is notglossy nor does it have coated stock. A fewpages of such paper in a text block, such asone finds used for photographs or illustra-tions, is acceptable but if half or more of thevolume is made up of this type of paper thevolume is not considered.

3. The paper is flexible. New York Public Library(NYPL) and Yale University Library are notconsidering volumes that have already be-come brittle. Though some institutions aredeacidifying brittle items to try and preventthem from getting any worse.

4. Finally, the text block must be sound - notsplit or having loose pages. However, thevendor with whom Yale is dealing did in-dicate that this was not necessarily a reasonto de-select a volume which otherwise meetsthe criteria.

These are very broad criteria and every institu-tion has thousands, perhaps hundreds of thou-sands, of books that are likely to meet thesecriteria. The key therefore is where to start. Thispaper discusses different approaches taken bysome US institutions in selecting items for massdeacidification and how and where the tasks re-quired for the preparation of items selected formass treatment are incorporated into institutionalworkflows.

Where to begin

Over the past few years I have discussed massdeacidification with a number of preservationadministrators at various institutions across theUnited States. The Library of Congress is the onlyinstitution I know that has consciously decided todeacidify all its acidic volumes and is systemati-cally working their way through the stacks. How-ever, even an institution that plans to do every-thing must decide where to begin.

In discussions with other preservation admin-istrators or conservators in charge of the massdeacidification operations at other research li-braries I asked how they had selected what todeacidify. Columbia University Library did a six-month survey of newly acquired volumes com-ing through their shelf preparation area. Thiswas used to identify from where the bulk of acidicpaper was coming. The decision on whether todeacidify new acquisitions or volumes alreadyon the shelf was made based on workflow issues.The choice of what subject area was a result ofthe new acquisitions study. The feeling is that if by Lipa Jasna on April 3, 2009 http://ifl.sagepub.comDownloaded from

33

Columbia Library is currently receiving volumeswith poor paper in a specific subject area, thevolumes on the shelf from that same area alsohave poor paper. So, volumes are being selectedfrom the subject area identified in the new ac-quisition study but pulled from the stacks usingthe physical criteria already mentioned.

At the University of Michigan Library the processis a bit more formal. Their Collection Manage-ment and Development Council receive a callfrom the head of preservation for proposals to de-acidify collections. The entire council reviews theproposals and the council makes a decision. Mostproposals are subject-based. Once a subject areais identified the volumes are pulled from thestacks according to the physical criteria outlined.

Yale is similar to the University of Michigan inthat it requests proposals. However, the proposalscome directly to the preservation departmentfrom the individual collections or libraries andthe decision as to which collection is selected isdone within the preservation department. Thoughthe decision is made after talking with all thesubject specialists who have submitted proposals,it does reflect a stronger influence by preserva-tion in what is selected. Yales method of selec-tion seems to be the exception in that the pre-ponderance of preservation departments tend towork directly with the collection developmentdepartment or committee in identifying whatcollection or collections are to be selected.

Two approaches

At New York Public Library two pilot projectswere done using two different selection methodsfollowed by a cost analysis of both methods. Inthe first pilot it was decided that approximately1,000 volumes would be deacidified. (The numberof volumes was based on the cost per volume todeacidify and the amount of funds available forthe project.) The thought was to incorporate thephysical selection process into the rather informalpreservation review process of all newly acquiredmaterials. This review happened in the processof preparing materials for the shelf. The desirewas to generate the 1,000-item sample quickly.After discussion with the Collection Develop-ment Committee the subject area of newly ac-quired Slavic monographs was identified. Thissubject area was chosen, as it was known that alarge percentage of these volumes were pub-lished on acidic paper and were therefore at riskof future embrittlement.

The staff members in the shelf preparation unitwere trained on the physical criteria listed above.Each was given a pH pen and taught how to useit. When volumes covering the subject area werebrought in for shelf preparation the staff memberwould test the pH of each volume as it was pro-cessed either for a spine label or in preparing itto receive a hard cover binding. If the paperwas acidic, a paper flag or slip was inserted in-dicating that it was to be sent for deacidificationwhen the shelf preparation tasks were completed.Those volumes that had a hard cover and hadreceived the paper flag or slip were packed andshipped directly to the vendor for deacidification.Those volumes that had soft cover bindings andhad received a paper flag or slip were put into ahard cover binding by the binder and then weresent to the vendor for deacidification. The time ittook for volumes to be sent to the vendor for de-acidification and then returned to the libraryupon completion of the process was about threeweeks on average. Those that received a hardcover binding went directly from the binder tothe vendor for deacidification and were returnedto the library in about five weeks. Each volumethat was deacidified received a small label, ap-plied by the vendor, on the inside, lower comerof the back cover indicating the name of thevendor carrying out the deacidification and themonth and year of deacidification. In addition,it was decided that a note would be entered in-to the online catalog record indicating the vol-ume has been deacidified. This was put in the583 Field of the MARC record, which at thistime appears only in the local catalog. A stand-ard 583 entry indicated in:

. Subfield a gives the action taken; in this caseit simply states mass deacidified.

. Subfield c the date of the action is entered.

. Subfield i indicates the method of action andhere it was decided to put in the chemical ba-sis of the mass deacidification rather thanproprietary names. Thus DEZ for diethyl zinc,MgO for magnesium oxide, or METE for mag-nesium ethoxide and titanium ethoxide.

. Subfield 2 gives the source for the terminol-ogy, which in this instance is the Preserva-tion & Digital Actions, abbreviated as pda.

. Subfield 5 gives the institutions abbreviation. 8

The second pilot project that was done at theNew York Public Library focused on the vol-umes already on the shelf. Again, the questionbecame how to choose which volumes would bedeacidified or more accurately which collectionsshould be looked at with an eye towards de-


34

acidification. Thus there was a real attempt toconsider which collections held the highest riskmaterials. The Collection Development Commit-tee was approached to help identify a collectionand, in a sense, determine where to begin. Thiswas looked upon as an ongoing responsibilityof this committee in consultation with preserva-tion - the identification of collections for de-acidification. The committee decided to focus onthe Latin American collection, especially Cubanvolumes. The Library had been doing extensivemicrofilming projects funded by the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (NEH) in thissubject area. The microfilming projects only cov-ered volumes prior to 1950 and included onlythose volumes that were already embrittled. Thefeeling was that there was a large number of vol-umes from 1950 to the present that would bene-fit from deacidification. And that deacidifyingnow would preclude the need to microfilm orreformat due to embrittlement in the future.

However, realizing there were perhaps manymore acidic volumes than dollars available at themoment, the decision was to have subject spe-cialists select the volumes from the shelves fordeacidification if a volume met both parts of atwo part selection criteria: first, the title was con-sidered significant and secondly, the volume metthe physical selection criteria mentioned earlier.It was acknowledged that this would be more ex-pensive per volume than the previous method ofselection, but the question was how much more.Again, about 1,000 volumes would be sent.

As one might expect, getting the subject special-ists to take on this additional task and provide aconsistent flow of volumes was difficult. In theend the subject specialists spent over 30 hoursidentifying 1,000 volumes. (This was more thandouble the time taken to select the volumes inthe first pilot study.) Once identified the volumewas pulled from the shelf and sent to the shelfpreparation unit where it was packed and sentto the vendor. After deacidification the volumeswere returned to the shelf preparation unit wherethey were inspected and then returned to theshelf. Except for not requiring hard cover bind-ings on any volumes and the fact that a subjectspecialist selected items, all other procedureswere the same as for the first pilot project.

Comparison of costs

The per volume cost for the first pilot proj-ects entire process including the deacidification,

but not the hard cover binding, was on averageUSD 16.20. The make up of this average waspredominately the cost of deacidification itselfand the shipping. However, USD 1.05 of the to-tal covered staff salaries associated with:

. initial review/selection

. packing and shipping

. inspection of volumes upon return from thevendor

. the cataloging entry into the 583 Field.

The deacidification cost of the volumes in thesecond pilot at New York Public Library wasslightly higher as the volumes were larger in size.However, the selection costs for the volumesin the second pilot had almost tripled. The se-lection cost had gone from slightly more thanUSD 0.35 per volume in the first pilot project toslightly less than USD 1.00 per volume in thesecond pilot project. This meant that overall pro-cessing costs per volume for this second pilotproject were USD 1.65 compared to USD 1.05in the first pilot project. But more to the point,the hue and cry raised by the subject spe-cialists in having to take on this responsibilityand the feeling that the results, in theory, ofdoing the most important works in a giventopic were not worth the additional effort. Itwas decided that simply using the physical cri-teria to identify volumes needing deacidifica-tion within a targeted collection was absolutelyvalid.

Currently, the New York Public Library is in thefinal year of a three-year cooperative state grantto deacidify materials from the period of 1950 to1971 in its Humanities and Social Sciences col-lections. It will do about 1,700 volumes eachyear for the term of the grant. Columbia Uni-versity, New York University and the Universityof Rochester are also participating in this grant.The grant is expected to result in each institutiondeacidifying approximately 5,100 volumes overthree years. The physical criteria for selection arethe same for all the participating institutions.Each has identified a different subject to concen-trate on.

When it came to choosing the volumes from agiven collection, except for New York Public Li-brarys first pilot project, those institutions que-ried seemed to choose volumes already on theshelf rather than new acquisitions. The reasonfor the choice has to do with workflows. It iseasier to get a smooth, efficient workflow usingvolumes already on the shelf. by Lipa Jasna on April 3, 2009 http://ifl.sagepub.comDownloaded from

35

Managing the process

When it came to the various tasks of pulling,packing, shipping and receiving the volumesback from the vendor, each institution put it inan area that was familiar with these tasks. ForNew York Public Library and Columbia Uni-versity this was being handled by the shelf prep-aration unit, which also prepares volumes to goto the binder. 9 These units are regularly packing,shipping and receiving volumes from the binder.At the University of Michigan a separate MassDeacidification operation has been establishedwithin the Conservation Services unit. Though,again, this is a unit that deals with binders and,therefore, is familiar with all that is entailed inthe shipping of volumes. This placement of theoperation was true in almost every institutioncontacted. Though at Yale University the ship-ping of volumes for deacidification is handled inthe unit that is responsible for coordinating themicrofilm operation. As an outside vendor doesall the microfilming, this unit is also familiarwith packing, shipping and receiving volumes.

Finally, the last task associated with the de-acidification of volumes is the recording of thisactivity in the MARC record. Not all institutionsare doing this, but many are. Having the in-formation in the local catalog is thought to beuseful if there is a reason to examine volumesthat were deacidified. An online search of theonline catalog can identify all the volumes de-acidified or a subset of all the volumes deacidi-fied defined by time or method of action (i.e.vendor or chemistry). Having this information inone of the national databases is open to discus-sion. Some institutions insist they do not care ifanother institution has deacidified that institu-tions copy, as it will not influence the decisionas to what, if anything, will be done with theirown copy. Regardless, there is an attempt tostandardize the entry in the 583 Field, as wasmentioned above, and an ongoing discussion ofwhether this goes in the Item Level Record or inthe Bibliographic Record. Those issues are for aseparate discussion. What is relevant to this dis-cussion is this activity, when it is done, is beingdone for the most part in the unit that is ship-ping and receiving the volumes; not in catalog-ing. The entry into the 583 Field can be donequickly. NYPL had catalogers do this entry forthe first pilot. However, the catalogers found it atrivial task that interrupted their workflow. Sub-sequently the task was put in the unit responsi-ble for preparing packing slips and charging out

the volumes though the online circulation sys-tem. The staff member is already dealing withthe bibliographic records so this became a taskto include in the process.

Conclusion

In each of the institutions where mass de-acidification has become a viable preservationoption there is an effort to follow establishedpatterns when it comes to the decision-makingand workflow. Each task that makes up themass deacidification operation is looked at andfit into a unit or workflow that is already doingsimilar tasks for other operations. Whether it isthe collection development department or theperson handling the shipping and receiving ofvolumes-the task is not completely new. Whatis new is the end result of the series of decisionsand tasks. This keeps the learning curve shortand speeds up the integration of any new opera-tion into the workflow thereby making use ofstaff knowledge and skills in organizing tasksand keeping costs down. These are importantconsiderations that can contribute to the overallsuccess of incorporating a new process into anoperation.

Are mass treatments a priority? Definitely. It isonly through the continuing use and develop-ment of appropriate mass treatments that wewill be able to ensure the long-term preserva-tion of much of our written heritage. We are allaware of our currently available human andfinancial resources. We are also aware of thevast amount of material that requires attention.Without a way of treating large numbers quicklywe will lose a great deal of valuable research ma-terial.

But we must realize that in order for any suchtreatment to be embraced by a large number ofinstitutions mass treatments have to be provenas effective at relatively low cost and require aworkflow that is easily incorporated into the in-stitutions choosing to use it.

AcknowledgementsMany thanks to all my colleagues who con-tributed to this paper: Janet Gertz and EmilyHolmes, Columbia University; Shannon Zacharyand Joan Gatewood, University of Michigan; LizDube, Notre Dame University; Paula DeStefano,New York University; Kristen St.John, conserva-tor and David Walls, Yale University.


36

Notes and references

1. All prices are in 2003 US dollars.2. Estimates are based on an average 340-page volume

with each microfilm frame capturing two pages ata cost of USD 0.37 per frame. Average preparationand quality control costs are USD 23.00 per volume,USD 25.00 for production of the print master andservice copy, and finally the polysulfide treatment forthe print master costs USD 7.00. These costs are cour-tcsy of the University of Michigans Preservation De-partment.

3. Estimates are based on an average 340-page volumerequiring 340 images at an average of USD 0.15 per im-age. In reality image capture from a bound volume isUSD 0.20 per image and unbound sheets arc USD 0.10per image. Preparation and quality control is similar tomicrofilm at USD 23.00 per volume. These costs arecourtesy of the University of Michigans PreservationDepartment.

4. For a look at what costs are associated with digitizing,read the report from the NINCH Symposium held inNew York City, April 2003: The price of digitization:new cost models for cultural & educational institu-tions. www.ninch.org.

5. Henk J. Porck, Mass deacidification: an update of pos-sibilities and limitations. European Commission onPreservation and Access, Amsterdam, Commission onPreservation and Access, Washington D.C., September1996.

6. The pH pen used contains chlorophcnol red as theindicator.

7. At the time it was the policy of the New York PublicLibrary that all books received a hard cover bindingbefore going to the shelf. There were, of course, ex-ccptions for special collection and rare book materials.

8. Preservation & Digital Actions: Terminology forMARC 21 Field 583, draft document revised June 27,2003.

9. In the United States putting hard cover bindings onnewly acquired soft covered volumes is done, for themost part, by outside binders referred to as commer-cial library binders.

Revised version of paper no. 030 presented at the WorldLibrary and Information Congress, 69th IFLA GeneralConference, Berlin, Germany, 1-8 August 2003 in ses-sion 100, Preservation and Conservation. English origi-nal and French translation available on IFLANET athttp://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla69/prog03.htm.


Documents

Preservation - Digital Materials