A simple vacuum revolution

 I have recently had an 'Aha!' moment. I have always struggled with the small attachment tool for vacuuming. Untill now!

You know that wonderful, handy and inexpensive micro-tool that comes with the many small changeable tools. I realize that part of my struggle when using it, was the narrow-long plastic tube that linked the small attachment brush to the vacuum cleaner connection. It always seemed like I needed a third hand,  because two hands were needed to manipulate the tubes, but one was still needed for the tweezers, the micro-tool and the like.

Why does this narrow tube need to be so long, I thought? Really a new thought. The innovation is just to  cut the tube. So I did this, and Voila! Now less of the tube to manipulate, it simply connects the two sections of the micro-tool. Now, one hand is free to hold the vacuum attachment and the other for other tools that I might need, such as tweezers.

A Low-Tech Treatment for Small Areas of Visible Mold

The humidity many of us have experienced this summer due to torrential rains and heat sweeping across the country can easily lead to mold growth. Now in the wake of Hurricane Florence mold will be rampant as the flooding recedes. (For more on freezing see our earlier post.) It's important to be vigilant by monitoring humidity levels throughout your institution or home to prevent excessive moisture levels. Mold is not only a hazard for objects, it's also a danger to people.

If you've got a big mold problem, first fix the source of it and then call in professionals to remediate it. Poor drainage, foundation or wall cracks, leaking roofs or plumbing, lack of sufficient ventilation or air-conditioning all contribute to the spread of damaging mold.

If you have visible mold in less than 10 continuous square feet, you may be able to remediate it yourself with dehumidification and a low-tech water trap attached to your vacuum to capture the spores.

The water trap can be made of any glass or jar. The one we use in the studio is in the image below. It is important to ensure that it is well sealed around the openings and the tubes. Ethafoam (a strong, resilient, medium-density, closed-cell, white polyethylene foam which is acceptable for use in the preservation of objects) is really helpful for this. Gwen even carved out a stand for the glass to ensure it would not fall over. The other critical aspect is the ends of the two tubes inside the glass are above the water line. It is the vacuum's suction that forces the mold spores into the water i.e. trap, while not traveling into the vacuum cleaner.

The above photo illustrates how the water trap is connected to a vacuum. The right hand hose (with the blue end on it) is the one used to suck up the mold.

When finished, thoroughly clean all of the associated tools, mark them and save them together, including brushes.

It's very important to contain the spores, not spread them around (which is what regular vacuuming will do). Here's a step-by-step guide to what to do next and don't forget to wear an approved N95 respirator, gloves, and eye protection!

Captured mold

Resources

Gwen Spicer. When Water Strikes, It's a Freezer to the Rescue! March 2018.
Ibid. Mold on Pastel Portraits, why it grows and how it can be prevented. January 2017.
Idid. Mold in museum collections is the environmental "canary in a coal mine". September 2014.

Creepy, crawly, and hidden in your collection?

Recently SAC posted a couple of images of a moccasin that got some attention. Mainly because many were interested in what was found in the "out of sight" parts of this artifact. The moccasin (pictured below) was purchased ca. 1923 and was believed to be made by the Onondaga for trade purposes. Is is one of a pair that are made of semi-tanned leather and elaborately embellished with glass beads.

The beaded vamp of the moccasin before treatment.

The underside of the vamp before treatment. Here you can see that the wool layer (which should be between the leather and the vamp) is missing. The small dark regions are the moth casings. 

Traditionally, when a moccasin like this was being made, the glass beads were sewn to sandwiched pieces of paper and leather that would make up the decorative pieces of the vamp and cuff. These parts of a moccasin were typically embellished separately before being attached to the moccasin. To cover the backside of the stitching of the beads, a wool layer was commonly used to line these sections. In the case of this moccasin, the wool layer is missing, because it had been breakfast, lunch, and dinner for some hungry webbing clothes moths. Delicious!

These little, but incredibly voracious bugs have long departed from this moccasin, leaving behind the remnants of their stay: the casings in which they morphed from larvae to moth. Like most infestations, there is no simple way to know when this infestation occurred.  What is important now is that the infestation is inactive. However, as evidenced from the amount of casings found, these moths certainly were very happy when they were here.

The lifecycle of a moth.

You may wonder what it was about this location (i.e. under the vamp) that made the moths so content to stay. Webbing clothes moths (and other pests) prefer to be left alone and undisturbed. They also really like dark locations, and if the location is slightly damp and warm, it is even that much better! The fascinating part here is that webbing cloths moths also like to graze the surface of semi-tanned leather, but in this case there is no evidence of this type of damage. Therefore they were content with the wool alone.

From the exterior of this particular pair of moccasins, you would not be able to detect what was within the layers below the surface. However, being aware of the placement of the wool layer both under the vamp and cuff, and knowing that it provided a paradise location for pests, helps to understand safe storage/collection management for this particular artifact in the future.

So how do you prevent this type of damage from occurring with your artifacts? You need to practice IPM, otherwise known as Integrated Pest Management. The basic philosophy of IPM is to make your environment as inhospitable to pests as possible and to avoid the use of chemicals (read our recent post on moth balls). An inhospitable environment can be accomplished with these simple steps:

1. Inspect and "disturb" your artifacts regularly, particularly those that might be enjoyed most by pests.
2. Treat your vacuum as your best friend and use it often.
3. A cold and dry location is the best location to store your artifacts.

It is always best to avoid pest problems rather than reacting to infestation.  Remember the motto of IPM:       

"Prevention is better than cure"

If you want to know more about museum pest management check out this website: http://museumpests.net

And if you cannot help but find humor in museum pest management, you must see Historic Cherry Hill's youtube video to better understand the insect's point of view!

_____________________________
Gwen Spicer is a textile conservator in private practice.  Spicer Art Conservation specializes in textile conservation, object conservation, and the conservation of works on paper.  Gwen's innovative treatment and mounting of flags and textiles is unrivaled.   To contact her, please visit her website.

Mothballs, yuck.

by Gwen Spicer

Over the years I have seen mothballs in many collecting institutions and client homes. They are a true "left-over" from a time in the twentieth century where chemicals were thought to solve all of our problems. While mothballs and other chemicals gave the appearance of solving some problems, what they really did was produce a great deal more!

Mothballs.  No one should use them, EVER.

Our awareness of the hazards of chemicals is still quite new. We all have Rachael Carson to thank for her timely publication "Silent Spring" in 1962. It woke us all up to the danger and harm that we were doing to our environment and ourselves. Sadly, it may have not been widely read. 52 years later we continue to use harmful products thinking we are somehow helping.

Rachel Carson, truly a voice ahead of her time.


After Carson's book, laws were quickly enacted that stopped or limited the use of the most harmful chemicals and pesticides, especially the use of DDT. However, many others still remain on the market. Mothballs are one of these. The little white balls of toxin have been used for decades to deter and kill moths and other insects from damaging wool textiles.


The definition of a mothball is as follows:


Small balls of chemical pesticide and deodorant used when storing clothing and other articles susceptible to damage from mold or moth larvae. They come in two different formulations; one, using naphthalene, and the other using paradichlorobenzene as the active ingredient. Naphthalene, a hydrocarbon derived from coal tar, which easily exudes gas, acts as a fumigant.

So why are mothballs hazardous to your health? Several reasons:
 Naphthalene fumes may overwhelm a child wearing a sweater recently removed from a chest containing mothballs. Inhaling the chemical can lead to nausea, vomiting, fatigue, headache, fever, confusion, and fainting. Routine exposure can cause a condition called hemolytic anemia, where a person's red blood cells get damaged. Ingestion or skin exposure causes more extreme reactions in the liver and bladder, causing jaundice, lightheadedness, and eventually leading to coma. Not surprising, but cigarette smoke contains the chemical, which as we know can lead to cancer. So really, there are no health benefits associated with naphthalene.

Toxic nature and damage from use:
Older mothballs consisted primarily of naphthalene, but due to naphthalene's flammability, many modern mothball formulations instead use 1,4-dichlorobenzene, which may be somewhat less flammable. The latter chemical is also variously labeled as para-dichlorobenzene, p-dichlorobenzene, pDCB, or PDB, making it harder to identify unless the purchaser knows these synonyms. Both of these mothball chemicals have the strong, pungent, sickly-sweet odor often associated with mothballs.

Both naphthalene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene are the main ingredient in mothballs because they undergo sublimation, which means that they start in a solid state which evaporates directly into a gas; this particular gas is toxic to moths and moth larvae, hence it is an effective pesticide.

Another version of a mothball, and just as dangerous, is moth crystals. They are made exclusively from paradichlorobenzene (PDB), which is considered even more toxic than naphthalene. Regardless of their toxicity, both chemicals are a poor choice for storage because prolonged exposure of PDB vapors on plastics may melt them, affecting some sweater boxes and other types of plastic; it is therefore not recommended to use on clothes with plastic buttons or decorations. The effects of PDB on humans are not well known, but it is a suspected human carcinogen because it has been shown to cause cancer in animals.

An all-too-common sight.  Mothballs and the clothes they
are "protecting" sealed tightly in a plastic container

For the insecticidal chemicals of mothballs to be effective, they need to be placed with the clothing in a sealed container so the vapors can build up and kill the moths. In a sealed atmosphere like this, the vapors are not as harmful to people because they are relatively contained. The main exposures would occur when filling or opening the containers, or from wearing clothes immediately after opening (especially a problem for infants).

Naphthalene mothballs and 1,4-dichlorobenzene mothballs should not be mixed, as they react chemically to produce a liquid (rather than sublimating) that may cause damage to items being preserved. Should this happen to your artifact, the outlook is grim. :(

If that is not bad enough, there are things that make mothballs even worse. Wet mothballs are even more potent than dry ones. And the wetness can be profound, like exposure to water from a flood or leaky pipe, or mild, in the form of high humidity. Either will cause the odor to be more potent and sublimation to be more rapid. This increase in potency puts the person treating or washing the garment at more risk. Similarly, sometimes the garment has not been in moth balls for a long time, but upon wetting for treatment, the chemicals that had been absorbed inside the fibers and had sat dormant, are released. Textiles are not the only at-risk items for chemical absorption. Wooden cabinets, shelves, or drawers also have the propensity to absorb the harmful chemicals.

In addition to repelling or killing insects such as moths and silverfish, mothballs have been suggested for use as a stovepipe cleaner, a snake repellent, and to keep away mice or other pests. This of course is a terrible suggestion. A quick information search will show you that placing mothballs in the attic, or other areas of your home only results in the family dwelling there to become horribly ill.

Another major concern about the use of mothballs as an animal repellent or poison is their easy access to children, pets, and beneficial animals. Leaving them in a garden or in a living space unprotected makes it very easy for unintended victims to gain access to them. Mothballs are highly toxic when ingested (they have a sweet odor and taste, making this more likely), and will cause serious illness or death.


Now that you have read the above information and never want to use mothballs again, let us talk about the alternatives and why so many people prefer to use safer, more natural remedies to rid themselves of those pesky moth larvae that can eat holes through woolen sweaters, coats, and blankets.

ABOVE and BELOW: These images are from some time ago, but really not so far back in history. The garbage cans are from a museum and the images were taken in 2007. The accepted process, which really stopped being used in the 1980's, was to fill a stainless steel garbage can with the textiles to be stored or "fumigated", add mothballs and seal the can.

Alternatives:
Here are some alternatives to help save valued items without resorting to poisonous mothballs or moth crystals. Clearly some options are not for fragile or vulnerable textiles:

Items should be placed in the clothes dryer on a warm cycle to kill any moth eggs, or if possible, periodically air them in the hot sun.
• Shake out and brush woolen items every three to four weeks (this step may not be practical for all of us, but the following steps certainly are). Clean items prior to storage as moth larvae rely on human soil products, like perspiration residue, for essential vitamins missing from pristine wool.
• Store clean, off-season items in airtight containers.
• Freeze infested items in a tightly sealed bag for 48 hours; thaw at room temperature, and repeat. Once fully thawed and dry, seal in an airtight container for storage.

Storing susceptible items in a cedar chest will help reduce damage caused by moths or mold. Cedar oil is a natural repellent of insects like moths; however, many older cedar chests no longer have enough aroma left to do the job. On the other hand, if the chest seals well and smells strongly of cedar, it will probably be a safe place to store items.

Toxin-free alternatives to control clothes moths include freezing, dry cleaning, washing in hot water, or thorough vacuum cleaning.


There is no one-time only procedure for keeping moths at bay. It is only through diligence and monitoring that moths can be kept out of, and off of, wool items. If you have wool items in your collection, inspect them carefully and protect them…but never with mothballs.

So what if you have already used mothballs? Or you are the lucky curator of the museum who just found stainless steel cans hidden in your collection which have not only irreplaceable textiles, but lots of mothballs, and subsequently that horrible mothball smell. The short answer is: Call a Conservator.

"Oh, Dear!"  Sadly, sometimes valuable or irreplaceable objects are protected with mothballs.

_____________________________
Gwen Spicer is a textile conservator in private practice.  Spicer Art Conservation specializes in textile conservation, object conservation, and the conservation of works on paper.  Gwen's innovative treatment and mounting of flags and textiles is unrivaled.   To contact her, please visit her website.

The conservation of textiles or objects often begins with dirt, dirt, and more dirt

by Gwen Spicer

At the end of the day, does your collection of swabs look like this?

Much of the work that conservators perform on collections is removing surface dirt. Either mechanically with swabs, picks, or brushes; or capturing with vacuums. Much of this dirt has been accumulating while the artifact has been at the museum (often called "museum dirt") and is not the dirt that is associated with use or historical significance.

Summer begins today and with it comes a very busy time at historic homes and museums. Smaller institutions with a limited open season see all of their visitors in this short time before they close down again for the cold months of winter. So what kind of effect does this quick and short influx of visitors  have on these places? The answer is that the extra traffic can have a profound impact, but if great care is taken to monitor for dust and dirt, then that impact can be made minimal. This is true not just for the small institution, but for the large institution as well where visitors are seen year-round.

This chest is covered in animal hair, but along with it, is dust, (lots of it) and closer inspection reveals insect and water damage.  Prevention could have made a substantial difference here.

Common dust components can be anything from soil, soot or insects (that perhaps you would expect to find), to the hair and skin particles from humans or animals, to the paint or plaster from a home, or could be things like particles of paper, food, fiber, or heaven forbid - mold. Dust is bad enough by itself, and this is nothing new as Susannah Whatman, in her iconic housekeeping book of 1776, so aptly indicated when she said, "Places where dust lodges should be attended to. Otherwise, if left too long, it takes a long time and much labor to get it off". Is there something worse than leaving dust undisturbed for too long? Yes, and it is a simple and deadly equation: Dust + Humidity = "dirt cement" = hard or damaging to remove. This is why a favorite saying in conservation is: "Prevention is better than cure".

Sticky samples to the rescue! Simple prevention does not get simpler than this. Sticky samples collect and show the evidence of what is in the environment. Most importantly they indicate how often an area needs to be cleaned. It should be of no great surprise that when the samples below were examined, the samples farthest from the visitor "rope" showed less dust pollutants. The moral of the story here is to put the objects you want to clean less, farther away from the traffic flow. Another interesting tidbit is that the samples at the beginning of the tour have much more dust than the sticky samples at the end of the tour.  Of even further interest is that the sticky samples on the floor have far more dust collected than the samples on a table or up even higher. In fact 4 feet from the ground is the magic number. Here is the least "dusty" space.  However, move up above the average person's eye-level and things start getting dusty again.  This makes sense - when was the last time you looked at the top of your refrigerator?

The white squares indicate where tested, at regular intervals from the path of a visitor (the red rope is the limit of the visitors contact)

Is seems that there is a fine line between a historic institution having the right amount of dust (i.e. what is acceptable to the visitor vs. what comes off as making the institution look "uncared" for.) As conservators, curators, and archivists, we have all studied patterns of dirt and soiling migrations within environments. And as one might suspect, it is mainly the visitors themselves who bring the dirt and soiling into museums and historic homes. Folks like Mr. Peter Brimblecombe of the University of East Anglia, UK and others who have studied and monitored such things are able to provide us with the knowledge of how the movement and deposition of dirt and particulates damages historic homes, museums, archives and libraries.

But could there be a time when this is not the case? And a conservator's first step of treatment will not be surface cleaning or vacuuming?

Homes, work space, and other public spaces are all becoming more and more clean. Modern building construction is tighter to be more energy efficient. Windows are not made to open in some buildings because a HVAC system is in place, and these systems are equipped with sophisticated filters, able to wisk the air clean of particles and debris to the micron level.  Society itself has become more concerned than ever before with hygiene. There are biological antiseptic hand wipes, washes, and cleaners, all to keep our environments clean and germ free. Plus there are improved vacuum cleaners with fine particulate filters like HEPA and speed regulation.

How is this going to effect a conservator's work in the future? Could it be that vacuuming as a first step not be needed? What do you think?

Notes: Housekeeping is one of my favorite topics and more will come, but it is impossible to talk about dust in its entirety in a brief blog post. If you want to read some wonderful articles, please visit Professor Peter Brimblecombe's web page where you will find links to his mountains of publications about dust, historical places and the environmental factors that can cause damage. He may be more passionate about housekeeping than I am!

_____________________________
Gwen Spicer is a textile conservator in private practice.  Spicer Art Conservation specializes in textile conservation, object conservation, and the conservation of works on paper.  Gwen's innovative treatment and mounting of flags and textiles is unrivaled.   To contact her, please visit her website.