See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325095558

Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda

Article  in  Journal of the Institute of Conservation · May 2018

DOI: 10.1080/19455224.2018.1463921

CITATIONS READS

7 1,556

2 authors:

Christian Baars Jana M. Horak

National Museums Liverpool National Museum Wales
26 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS    71 PUBLICATIONS   388 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conservation Data - Analysis Interpretation Presentation View project

Management, access and use of geological collections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Baars on 10 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of the Institute of Conservation

ISSN: 1945-5224 (Print) 1945-5232 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcon20

Storage and conservation of geological

collections—a research agenda

Dr Christian Baars & Dr Jana Horak

To cite this article: Dr Christian Baars & Dr Jana Horak (2018): Storage and conservation of
geological collections—a research agenda, Journal of the Institute of Conservation

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19455224.2018.1463921

Published online: 11 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcon20
Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19455224.2018.1463921

Christian Baars and Jana Horak

Storage and conservation of geological collections—a

research agenda

Keywords
conservation; geology collection; mineralogy; palaeontology; research agenda; risk
management

Introduction
Existing guidance on the care of geological collections does not reflect the
state of current knowledge and is often contradictory. For example, a
British Geological Survey report recommends storage of pyrite and marca-
1 Paul Shepherd and Graham Tulloch,
site in a relative humidity (RH) of <55%.1 Another study suggests short ‘The Monitoring of Environmental Con-
periods of exposure to an RH of greater than 60% may result in rapid ditions Under Which BGS Data and
deterioration,2 while storage at 50% or less appears satisfactory over Information (Including Corporate Col-
periods of several years. A ConserveOGram suggests keeping RH in lections) are Managed at Keyworth and
Edinburgh 2006’, British Geological
storage areas below 60%,3 while misquoting Robert Waller.4 In fact, in
Survey Internal Report, IR/07/011, 2007.
Waller’s 1992 publication he had recommended an RH of near to 30%,
much closer to a level conducive to the long-term preservation of pyritic 2 Frank Howie, ‘Museum Climatology
and the Conservation of Palaeontologi-
specimens. Another paper by Chris Collins, which is often mentioned, is cal Material’, in Curation of Palaeontologi-
comprehensive yet brief, full of generalisations and short on references cal Collections: A Joint Colloquium of The
because of the paucity of published research on this topic in the 1980s.5 As Palaeontological Association and Geological
a result, Collins’ temperature guidance—16–21°C with a maximum fluctu- Curators’ Group, ed. Michael Bassett
ation of 0.5°Chr−1—bears no resemblance to the needs of geological collec- (London: The Palaeontological Associ-
ation, 1979), 103–25; Frank Howie, ‘The
tions. At the time, these figures were the recommendation for many Conservation and Storage of Geological
different types of museum collections and based not on their appropriate- Materials’, in Manual of Curatorship: A
ness for geological material, but on levels for human comfort.6 Guide to Museum Practice, ed. John
These authors, rightly so, are trusted sources of information for museum Thompson (Severnoaks: Museums
curators or conservators, but are confusing in the case of geological collec- Association/Butterworth & Co., 1984),
308–22.
tions where the tools and resources to verify them have been lacking. Con-
sequently, their more general guidance was followed without further 3 ConserveOGrams are short publi-
corroboration by many museums, including at National Museum Cardiff cations by the US National Parks
Service offering guidance on the care of
(Fig. 1).7 However, it should also be noted that these were the authors museum objects. Storage Concerns for
who first made the sector aware of the need to care for geological materials, Geological Collections (Washington, DC:
which, until then, were thought not to present any challenges in storage. For National Park Service Museum Manage-
example, Frank Howie argued that closer examination and understanding of ment Program, 1998), https://www.nps.
the factors affecting the stability of palaeontological material, as well as the gov/museum/publications/conserveogr
am/cons_toc.html (accessed 9 March
responses of certain types of specimens to variations in the environment, 2018).
were necessary to avoid deterioration and loss of specimens.8
4 Robert Waller, ‘Temperature and
The continued presence of confusing information on the care of geological col-
Humidity Sensitive Mineralogical and
lections, almost 40 years after Howie’s plea, is an indication of a general lack of Petrological Specimens’, in The Care and
certainty in the museum and heritage sector on the best way to preserve geologi- Conservation of Geological Material: Min-
cal collections. In a sense, knowledge about how best to preserve geological col- erals, Rocks, Meteorites and Lunar Finds,
lections today is comparable to that with archaeological iron in the 1990s: ed. Frank Howie (Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1992), 25–50.
developments in treatments lag behind theoretical understanding.9
While there are standards with recommendations for the storage of many 5 Chris Collins, ‘The Environment and
types of cultural collections, for example, archive collections,10 there is no Geological Collections’, The Scottish
Society for Conservation and Restoration
accepted international standard for the care of geological collections. The
Bulletin 10 (1988): 2–7.
closest we are to useful advice are the guidelines developed by the UK’s
Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC),11 and the Geological Curators’ 6 Cf. Stefan Michalski, ‘The Ideal
Climate, Risk Management, the
ASHRAE Chapter, Proofed Fluctuations,
(Received 9 December 2017; Accepted 9 April 2018)

© 2018 Icon, The Institute of Conservation

2 Baars and Horak

and Toward a Full Risk Analysis Model’

(contribution to the Getty Conservation
Institute Experts’ Roundtable on Sus-
tainable Climate Management Strat-
egies, April 2007, Tenerife, Spain),
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_
projects/science/climate/paper_
michalski.pdf (accessed 30 March 2018).
Marion Mecklenburg, ‘Determining the
Acceptable Ranges of Relative Humidity
and Temperature in Museums and Gal-
leries. Part 2, Structural Response to
Temperature’, online publication, Smith-
sonian Museum Conservation Institute,
https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/
7055 (accessed 9 February 2016).
7 Helen Kerbey and Jana Horak, ‘Main-
taining Standards in the Care of Petrol-
ogy and Mineralogy Collections at the
National Museum Wales’, Collection
Forum 21 (2006): 42–57.
8 Howie, ‘Museum Climatology’.
Fig. 1 Pyrite oxidation of a Jurassic ammonite (Pectinatites (Arkellites) hudlestoni) specimen stored
9 Cf. Suzanne Keene, ‘Real-time Survi-
at RH 50% ±10, resulting in damage preventing use for taxonomic studies. AC-NMW collection,
val Rates for Treatments of Archaeologi-
specimen number NMW 77.12G.528.
cal Iron’, in Ancient & Historic Metals:
Conservation and Scientific Research, ed.
David Scott, Jerry Podany and Brian
Considine (Marina del Rey: Getty Con- Group,12 which, while not comprehensive, are more detailed than most
servation Institute, 1994), 249–64.
other publications and caution that the environmental conditions required
10 British Standards Institute, Draft by minerals are species specific. Advice on specific environmental limits
International Standard ISO/DIS for individual mineral species has also been made available, to some
11799:2014(E), Information and Documen-
tation—Document Storage Requirements
extent, by Robert Waller.13
for Archive and Library Materials The British Standards Institution’s (BSI) PAS 198:2012 Specification for
(London: BSI, 2014). Managing Environmental Conditions for Cultural Collections is currently
11 Museum and Galleries Commission,
regarded as the most comprehensive collection care guidance for the
Standards in the Museum Care of Geological museum sector.14 While the standard provides wide-ranging recommen-
Collections (London: Museum and Gal- dations for the environmental and pollution-related requirements of many
leries Commission, 1993). different materials, there is a paucity of advice relating to geological collec-
12 Howard Brunton, Tristram Bester- tions, which reflects the lack of research in this area (cf. PAS 198 tables E.1
man and John Cooper, ‘Guidelines for and G.2). At present, it would be impossible to update the standards for
the Curation of Geological Materials— the comprehensive care of geological collections without first addressing a
Prepared by the Geological Curators’
catalogue of questions surrounding the storage of such collections.
Group’, Geological Society of London Mis-
cellaneous Paper No. 17 (London: Geologi-
cal Society, 1985).
What is damage?
13 Waller, ‘Temperature and Humidity Damage from various agents is almost inevitable for most types of
Sensitive Mineralogical and Petrological
museum objects and specimens,15 yet it is uncommon to find anyone in
Specimens’.
a museum prepared to make predictions on the expected lifetime of an
14 British Standards Institution, PAS object once in storage. It is thus important to have a clear definition of
198: 2012 Specification for Managing
damage, as both condition assessments and risk analyses are founded
Environmental Conditions for Cultural Col-
lections (London: The British Standards on such a notion and prior to undertaking any condition assessment of
Institution, 2012), https://shop.bsigroup. a specimen, a common denominator of what constitutes damage needs
com/ProductDetail?pid= to be agreed upon. Were this not the case, condition assessors would
000000000030219669 (accessed 13 March invariably apply different assumptions, leading to non-reproducible
2018.
assessments and hence unreliable results. There is currently no definition
15 Stefan Michalski, ‘A Systematic of damage for minerals.
Approach to Preservation: Description Damage, of course, is a highly subjective concept. In essence, damage sig-
and Integration with Other Museum
Activities’, Studies in Conservation 39,
nifies a change in the material state of an object. Not all change can be con-
no. 2 (1994): ‘Preprints of the Contri- sidered damage in the sense that it would lead to a loss of significance,16 and
it is now understood that damage cannot be defined objectively.17 In some

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 3

butions to the Ottawa Congress, 12–16

September 1994. Preventive Conserva-
tion: Practice, Theory and Research’: 8–
11; Carolyne Rose and Catherine
Hawks, ‘A Preventive Conservation
Approach to the Storage of Collections’,
in Storage of Natural History Collections:
A Preventive Conservation Approach, ed.
Carolyne Rose, Catherine Hawks and
Hugh Genoways (Iowa: Society for the
Preservation of Natural History Collec-
tions, 1995), 1–20; Robert Waller, ‘Risk
Management Applied to Preventive
Conservation’, in Rose, Hawks and
Genoways, Storage of Natural History Col-
lections, 21–7.
16 See, for example, Jonathan Ashley-
Smith, Risk Assessment for Object Conser-
vation (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann,
1999); and Veerle Meul, ‘Safeguarding
the Significance of Ensembles: Value
Assessments in Risk Management for
Cultural Heritage’, in International
Council of Museums, Committee for Conser-
vation (ICOM_CC) 15th Triennial Confer-
ence New Delhi from 22–26 September
2008, Preprints Volume 2, ed. Janet Bridg-
Fig. 2 Prismatic lansfordite crystals (MgCO3 * 5H2O), typically found in mines and caves, which land (New Delhi/Mumbai/Kolkata:
have dehydrated into pseudomorphic nesquehonite (MgCO3 * 3H2O), retaining the shape and Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd/ICOM-CC,
form of the original mineral but with irreversible changes to their chemistry and structure. The 2008), 1051–8.
feathery crystals are hydromagnesite. Electron micrograph courtesy of Tom Cotterell, 17 Cf. Salvador Munoz Vinas, ‘Contem-
Amgueddfa Cymru—National Museum Wales. porary Theory of Conservation’, Studies
in Conservation 47, no. 1 (2002): 25–34.

cases, change may even add value to an object, for example in social history
and ethnographic collections, where objects assume a greater significance
through physical use for their originally intended purpose.18 In addition, 18 Cf. Barbara Appelbaum, ‘Criteria for
not all change is relevant to a particular user. For example, if a mineral speci- Treatment of Collections Housed in His-
toric Structures’, Journal of the American
men has scientific value and is used for scientific purposes such as chemical
Institute for Conservation 33 (1994): 185–
analysis, no amount of chemical change is acceptable. Yet if a specimen is 91; Miriam Clavir, Preserving What is
used for its aesthetic value some change may be acceptable, so long as the Valued—Museums, Conservation and First
specimen does not become unstable. The degree to which material change Nations (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002),
is unacceptable is very much observer- and context-dependent and influ- 170.
enced by values.19 Matija Strlic et al. attempted to objectify the concept of 19 Ashley-Smith, Risk Assessment for
damage as being a function of unacceptable change dependent on agents Object Conservation.
of change.20 A material response to an agent of change is often affected by 20 Matija Strlic et al., ‘Damage Functions
dose, for example, a threshold concentration of a pollutant, or impact, and in Heritage Science’, Studies in Conserva-
may be measurable and quantifiable using scientific methods. tion 58 (2013): 80–7.
Occasionally the determination of unacceptable change is straight
forward. Unacceptable change is demonstrated unequivocally when a
vase is knocked of its plinth and breaks into many pieces—a case of ‘unin-
tentional visitor participation’, as Andreas Blühm put it.21 Unacceptable 21 Andreas Blühm, ‘Managing Change
change is less clear in the slow degradation of paper, as the process of cellu- at the Groninger Museum’, Museum
lose polymer chain oxidation is invisible to the naked eye but is entirely mea- Management and Curatorship 31 (2016):
96–101.
surable using appropriate instrumentation.22
Jonathan Ashley-Smith explored the concepts of ‘acceptable damage’, 22 Marina Bicchieri et al., ‘Analysis of
Degraded Papers by Non-destructive
‘perceptible change’ and their relationship to object value.23 The value of
Spectroscopic Techniques’, Journal of
geological specimens, in particular, can be linked to contextual information Raman Spectroscopy 37 (2006): 1186–92.
such as collector, locality, collection date and so on, rather than the integrity
23 Ashley-Smith, Risk Assessment for
of the specimen itself.24 Ashley-Smith surmised that any change to an object
Object Conservation.
may or may not be deliberate, and that it may or may not be considered posi-

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

4 Baars and Horak
24 Cf. Jane Robb et al., ‘Quantitative
Assessment of Perceived Value of Geo-
logical Collections by “Experts” for
Improved Collections Management’,
The Geological Curator 9 (2013): 529–43.
25 Jonathan Ashley-Smith, ‘Definitions
of Damage’, text of a talk given in the
session ‘When Conservator and Collec-
tions Meet’ at the Annual Meeting of
the Association of Art Historians,
London, 7–8 April 1995, https://cool.
conservation-us.org/byauth/ashley-
smith/damage.html (accessed 30 March
2018).
26 Robert Waller, ‘Conservation Risk
Assessment: A Strategy for Managing
Resources for Preventive Conservation’,
Studies in Conservation 39, no. 2 (1994):
‘Preprints of the Contributions to the
Ottawa Congress, 12–16 September
1994. Preventive Conservation: Practice,
Theory and Research’: 12–6; Robert
Waller, ‘Internal Pollutants, Risk Assess-
ment and Conservation Priorities’, in
ICOM-CC preprints, 12th Triennial
Meeting, Lyon, 29 August–3rd September
1999, ed. Janet Bridgland and Jessica
Brown (London: James and James,
1999), 113–8.
27 Christian Baars, ‘Dare to Prepare?
The Value of Preparing and Sampling
Historically Important Museum Collec-
tions’, The Geological Curator 9 (2011):
237–42.
28 Strlic et al., ‘Damage Functions in
Heritage Science’.
29 Jean Tetreault et al., ‘Corrosion of
Copper and Lead by Formaldehyde,
Formic and Acetic Acid Vapours’,
Studies in Conservation 48 (2003): 237–50.
30 Waller, ‘Temperature and Humidity
Sensitive Mineralogical and Petrological
Specimens’.
31 Cf. Stephen Turgoose, ‘Post-exca-
vation Changes in Iron Antiquities’,
Studies in Conservation 27 (1982): 97–
101; Lyndsie Selwyn, ‘Overview of
Archaeological Iron: The Corrosion
Problem, Key Factors Affecting Treat-
ment, and Gaps in Current Knowledge’,
in Proceedings of Metal 2004, National
Museum of Australia Canberra ACT, 4–8
October 2004, ed. John Ashton and
David Hallam (Canberra: National
Museum of Australia, 2004), 294–306.
32 Michalski, ‘A Systematic Approach to
Preservation’.
33 Waller, ‘Conservation Risk Assess-
ment’; Waller, ‘Internal Pollutants, Risk
Assessment and Conservation Priori-
ties’.
tive; if not deliberate and positive, we call it ‘patina’; if deliberate and posi-
tive, we call it ‘restoration’; if negative, then it is called ‘damage’.25 Arguably,
there are multiple reasons for keeping and conserving items in museums,
and curators make decisions about various forms of value based on a
sliding scale between poles of contextual information and object integrity.
Waller’s approach to risk assessment provides a numerically defined
method to characterise the risk of deterioration, resulting in a tool to prior-
itise conservation problems and target resources to the objectively most
urgent problems.26 However, Waller relies on the notion of value through
the use of the parameter ‘loss of value’ (LV), which is subjective. Whether
or not a value is assigned to, or the change experienced by, a specimen is
perhaps not as important in the context of routine care of museum collec-
tions as the ability to detect change itself. Given the difficulties surrounding
value,27 Strlic et al. suggested decoupling the value function from the change
function.28 Focussing on the dose–response function allows a separation of
value from parameters that can be measured.
For example, Jean Tetreault et al. took the pragmatic approach of assessing
the change of a specific chemical or physical characteristic by measuring the
highest concentration of a pollutant before it produces any observable
adverse effect, the ‘no observable adverse effect level’ (NOAEL).29 The
concept of NOAEL circumvents the notion of ‘damage’ and it appears
prudent to apply this to mineral collections as a way of using objective cri-
teria to assess change. The NOAEL threshold will need to be established
for each mineral species and a number of agents of change that may
induce chemical and/or physical changes in minerals, such as temperature,
RH and pollutants.
Around 10% of the approximately 3000 mineral species known when
Waller undertook his study are susceptible to alteration when removed
from their natural setting and exposed to the typical environmental con-
ditions in museum storage.30 This includes many minerals formed under
conditions that are difficult to maintain in museum stores, such as the low
temperature and high RH in mines and caves with, for example, minerals
such as iron and copper sulfates susceptible to dehydration. Others form
under anoxic conditions and oxidise readily when exposed to an oxygenated
atmosphere, including iron sulfides; it appears likely, but is currently unpro-
ven, that this reaction may be exacerbated by the presence of volatile acidic
pollutants. Similar phenomena are encountered with archaeological metals:
metal–mineral systems are frequently only stable within a particular burial
environment and re-mineralise when brought above ground, which may
result in damage to the excavated object.31
Once reaction mechanisms are fully understood the likelihood of damage
may be quantified using risk assessments to relate the damage observed to
the agents of decay.32 Following Waller, risks may be categorised on the basis
of their type: type 1: catastrophic and rare; type 2: sporadic and severe; type
3: constant and gradual. This allows the magnitude of the risk to be quanti-
fied as (after Waller):33
MR = PxFSxLV( for all type 1 risks),
and
MR = ExFSxLV( for other type risks),
where MR = magnitude of risk, P = probability of occurrence of an event, E =
extent of a process occurring, FS = that part of the collection considered vul-
nerable to a particular risk, and LV = ‘loss of value’, meaning the reduction in
value of an object or collection for its intended purpose.
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 5

This approach returns numerical results that allow ranking of risks and,
subsequently, effective resource allocation.
One of the main drawbacks of this approach is that, for many categories of
risk, current understanding of deterioration processes and their effect on the
value of an object is incomplete and it is therefore difficult to make a reason-
able estimate of the magnitude of risk.34 This requires knowledge and 34 Waller, ‘Conservation Risk Assess-
experience, as well as consensus on the magnitude of LV. A necessary conse- ment’.
quence of this approach is that it is subjective as it currently relies on human
evaluation of change. Nevertheless, risk assessments are now firmly
embedded in the management of heritage collections.35 Other types of risk 35 Cf. Nigel Blades et al., Guidelines on
assessment were developed more recently for type 1 (rare and catastrophic) Pollution Control in Heritage Buildings
risks and environmental and pollution parameters, with the latter model (London: The Council for Museums,
Archives and Libraries, 2000), 17–25.
assuming knowledge of the environmental requirements of objects.36
LV differs depending on the intended use of a specimen: the same damage 36 Xavier Romão, Esmeralda Paupério
and Nuno Pereira, ‘A Framework for
—say, in minerals, surface alteration to a depth of less than 1mm—may result
the Simplified Risk Analysis of Cultural
in an LV of 0.001 for research material and 0.99 for display material.37 The Heritage Assets’, Journal of Cultural Heri-
reason for this differential valuation according to utility is that the research tage 20 (2016): 696–708; Massimo
value of natural science specimens is perceived as depending to a large Andretta et al., ‘Proposal for a New
degree on their contextual information rather than the integrity of the speci- Environmental Risk Assessment Meth-
odology in Cultural Heritage Protec-
men itself.38 However, it is our opinion that decisions on the purpose of a
tion’, Journal of Cultural Heritage 23
mineral collection are case-specific and also depend on the expertise of the (2017): 22–32.
evaluator. It is difficult to come to any absolute decision on, for example,
37 Waller, ‘Internal Pollutants, Risk
the ranking of chemical and aesthetic values. This may be exemplified by Assessment and Conservation Priori-
the presence of mineral pseudomorphs where a specimen’s chemistry has ties’.
altered while retaining its original form. If the value of the specimen is in its
38 Robb et al., ‘Quantitative Assessment
form then there is no damage; if the value of the specimen is scientific and of Perceived Value of Geological Collec-
chemical, then its value is now largely diminished (Fig. 2). tions’.
The question then is what it is that should be measured? There are a large
number of measureable characteristics of geological specimens that may be
suitable to characterise change and rates of change, although individual
categories may well differ between different types of specimens. For
example, in mineral species categories might include: loss of reflectance,
cracking/fracturing and the size of cracks, gaseous emissions, change of
colour, weight loss or gain, in addition to studying the exposure-effect
relationships between pollutants and mineral species. Not all of these
may be suitable for determining loss of value, and different groups of
specimens also need to be classified with regard to their heritage value.
How value changes needs to be reflected by changes in measureable speci-
men characteristics. David Watkinson and Melanie Rimmer agree that
measuring heritage value requires a full understanding of both damaging
mechanisms and the quantitative measurement of their progress, which
can then be related to loss in value.39 This also requires an agreed 39 David Watkinson and Melanie
common denominator for the assessment of damage, which necessitates Rimmer, ‘Quantitative Research Under-
pins Heritage Management: Preserving
agreement among curators and conservators on what type and level of
Ferrous Metals’, in Science and Technology
change constitutes damage. for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage,
A logical consequence of the availability of information gained from environ- ed. Miguel Angel Rogerio-Candelara,
mental monitoring and condition assessments would be to project the expected Emilio Cano and Massimo Lazzari
lifetime of stored items into the future. Yet while predicting object lifetime is (London: Taylor and Francis, 2013),
415–8.
tempting, it is fraught with difficulties. The Image Permanence Institute’s
time-weighted preservation index (TWPI) is a measure of the rate of damage
predicted from the temperature and relative humidity experienced by an 40 James Reilly, Douglas Nishimura and
object.40 Tim Padfield was critical of this concept because it is not based on Edward Zinn, New Tools for Preservation:
Assessing Long-Term Environmental
the nature of the object but on its environment alone.41 There is a fairly
Effects on Library and Archives Collections
advanced discussion in archaeological metals conservation on the predictability (Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Insti-
of object survival rates which relates to the preservation of materials in tute, 2005).
different soil types, post-excavation treatment and subsequent storage con-
ditions. For example, Mark Kibblewhite et al. used soil characteristics in

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

6 Baars and Horak
41 Tim Padfield, ‘Why Keep Climate
Records—And How to Keep Them’, in
Microclimates: Contributions to the Confer-
ence in Copenhagen, November 2007, ed.
Tim Padfield and Karen Borchersen
(Copenhagen: National Museum of
Denmark, 2016), 157–63.
42 Mark Kibblewhite, Gergely Toth and
Tamas Hermann, ‘Predicting the Preser-
vation of Cultural Artefacts and Buried
Materials in Soil’, Science of the Total
Environment 529 (2015): 249–63.
43 Vicen Carrió and Suzie Stevenson,
‘Assessment of Materials Used for
Anoxic Micro-environments’, in Conser-
vation Science 2002: Papers from the Con-
ference Held in Edinburgh, Scotland, 22–
24 May 2002, ed. Joyce Townsend,
Katherine Eremin and Annemie
Adriaens (London: Archetype Publi-
cations, 2003), 34.
44 Joel Taylor, ‘An Integrated Approach
to Risk Assessments and Condition
Surveys’, Journal of the American Institute
of Conservation 44 (2005): 127–41.
45 Giliane Odin et al., ‘Accelerated
Ageing of Shales of Palaeontological
Interest: Impact of Temperature Con-
ditions’, Annales de Paleontologie 100
(2014): 137–49.
46 Paul Wincott and David Vaughan,
‘Spectroscopic Studies of Sulphides’, in
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry:
Sulfide Mineralogy and Geochemistry,
Volume 61, ed. David Vaughan (Chan-
tilly: Geochemical Society and Mineralo-
gical Society of America, 2006), 181–230.
47 Cf. Jan Jehlicka et al., ‘Fast Detection
of Sulphate Minerals (Gypsum, Angle-
site, Baryte) by a Portable Raman Spec-
Europe to predict and map the in situ preservation capacity of different
materials.42 Whether this works well in practice is a matter for future studies
and, in a sense, perhaps not as relevant as slowing the rate of damage to
items already stored in museum collections to prolong their useful life.
Protocol for condition assessing minerals
Linked intimately to the discussion about damage is the question of how to
measure change. Routine assessment of collections can only be undertaken if
a consensus exists on observable change indicators. Pyrite decay, for example,
appears to manifest itself in tarnish, cracking, sulfurous odour and efflorescence
(Fig. 3). If it can be proven that pyrite decay follows a sequence of changes that
always starts with tarnish, followed by cracking and later by efflorescence, it
would be possible to establish ‘tarnish’ as an early indicator of change and
that specimens would be more likely to progress through to cracking and efflor-
escence, and then crumbling, once tarnish had been observed. The certainty of
tarnish being followed by further signs of damage may then trigger a response
by the conservator or curator to intervene and undertake steps to prevent any
further changes to the specimen. This relationship is currently not established
for most minerals. It is, of course, impossible to determine retrospectively
whether a particular specimen is damaged because it reacted in a linear
fashion over a period of time to something such as conditions of permanently
elevated RH, or whether it responded catastrophically to a single short-term
incident, such as a sudden and large fluctuation in RH. Therefore, a more
nuanced approach is required to condition checking which would include
the assessment of past storage conditions, where such data exist.
At present, the condition assessment of mineral collections relies heavily
on non-objective methods, such as the visual examination of specimens by
an experienced curator or conservator. The results of such assessments are
therefore not necessarily comparable in time, even if undertaken by the
same person (contra the suggestion of Vicen Carrió and Suzie Stevenson),43
and less so across collections and museums if undertaken by different people
(cf. ‘intersurveyor differences’ as noted by Joel Taylor).44 Objective methods
would improve the consistency of condition assessments. A non-invasive
method would be preferred to increase the speed of condition checking
and leave specimens unadulterated by human interference, as well as for
reasons of specimen integrity and authenticity. Other authors arrived at
similar conclusions for example Giliane Odin et al. assessed the condition
of artificially aged iron sulfide-containing fossiliferous shales by visual
examination of photographs but found limits to this approach. Odin et al.
emphasised how future investigations would be helped by the development
of a methodology capable of characterising and quantifying the mechanical
damage to small (2–3cm) samples.45
Focussing on chemical and physical changes to specimens, the presence
and/or absence of the products of oxidation, hydration or dehydration
may be analysed non-invasively and in situ using, for example, Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) to determine lattice dynamics,
bond strengths and the co-ordination of atoms, or Raman spectroscopy to
identify particular molecular units and polyhedra in matter, and the linkages
between them.46 Portable Raman spectrometers have lower spectral resol-
ution and produce more background noise than laboratory instruments
but still have excellent reliability.47 Otherwise, techniques based on infrared
(IR) or ultraviolet (UV) light are less useful in studying sulfides than many
other mineral groups, partly as a consequence of the fact that many sulfide
minerals are opaque to IR and visible light, although the IR spectra of sul-
fides including pyrite and marcasite were studied by Heinz Dieter Lutz
et al.48 Attenuated total IR reflectance (ATR) was used by Courtney Usher
et al. to establish that water, rather than molecular oxygen, is the primary
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 7

trometer’, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy

40 (2009): 1082–6.
48 Cf. Wincott and Vaughan, ‘Spectro-
scopic Studies of Sulphides’, 189; Heinz
Dieter Lutz, Gabi Schneider and
Gerhard Kliche, ‘Chalcides and Pnic-
tides of Group VIII Transition Metals:
Far-infrared Spectroscopic Studies on
Compounds MX2, MXY, and MY2 with
Pyrite, Marcasite, and Arsenopyrite
Structure’, Physical Chemistry and Miner-
alogy 9 (1983): 109–14.

Fig. 3 Tarnish and cracking indicate early stages of deterioration in pyrite. AC-NMW collection,
specimen number NMW 33.90.GR10.

source of oxygen in the sulfate products of pyrite decay,49 and the 49 Courtney Usher et al., ‘Origin of
vibrational spectra of pyrite under ambient conditions were studied by, Oxygen in Sulfate during Pyrite Oxi-
dation with Water and Dissolved
for example, Joseph Verble and R.F. Wallis using Raman and IR.50
Oxygen: An in situ Horizontal Attenu-
Techniques based on X-rays include field-portable energy dispersive X-ray ated Total Reflectance Infrared Spec-
fluorescence (XRF) analysis, which is well-suited for investigations invol- troscopy Isotope Study’, Environmental
ving bulk chemical analyses of metals.51 However, XRF analyses cannot dis- Science and Technology 38 (2004): 5604–6.
tinguish ions of the same element in different valence states, and thus 50 Joseph L. Verble and R.F. Wallis,
analyses of rocks and minerals may be better undertaken alternatively ‘Infrared Studies of Lattice Vibrations
with techniques such as Mössbauer spectroscopy. The application of X-ray in Iron Pyrite’, Physical Review Letters
emission spectroscopy (XES) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) 182 (1969): 783–9.
to pyrite, using both conventional and synchrotron radiation sources, was 51 Cf. Philip Potts et al., ‘Analysis of Sili-
reviewed by Paul Wincott and David Vaughan, along with X-ray absorption cate Rocks Using Field-portable X-ray
near-edge structure spectroscopy (XANES) and Mössbauer studies.52 Fluorescence Instrumentation Incorpor-
ating a Mercury (II) Iodide Detector: A
If corrosion products are present but not powdery, then, according to Preliminary Assessment of Analytical
Tetreault et al., lightness measurements are approximately 10 times more Performance’, Analyst 120 (1995): 1273–8.
sensitive at indicating early change compared to weight gain measurements.
52 Wincott and Vaughan, ‘Spectroscopic
However, lightness provides no measure of the progress of deterioration Studies of Sulphides’, 200, 206, 210.
which is more accurately charted using weight gain. The composition of cor-
rosion products may be identified using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).53 David Watkinson and Mark Lewis 53 Tetreault et al., ‘Corrosion of Copper
used a high precision analytical balance to measure the weight change of and Lead’.
a ferrous chloride and iron powder mix to monitor the formation of cor-
rosion products in a climatic chamber.54 54 David Watkinson and Mark Lewis,
While the techniques discussed above are useful in establishing baseline ‘Desiccated Storage of Chloride-con-
taminated Archaeological Iron Objects’,
data and principles of reaction mechanisms, in the context of routine assess-
Studies in Conservation 50 (2005): 1–12.
ment of museum mineral collections curators and conservators will always
need to rely on the availability of inexpensive, easy to use and ideally porta-
ble instrumentation. At present, this applies to a limited range of techniques,
mainly FTIR and Raman spectroscopy, although protocols for the in situ
examination of mineral specimens, especially those packaged in micro
environments such as barrier film, are yet to be developed. X-ray diffraction

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

8 Baars and Horak
55 Frances Lennard and Janice Dulieu-
Barton, ‘Quantifying and Visualizing
Change: Strain Monitoring of Tapestries
with Digital Image Correlation’, Studies
in Conservation 59 (2014): 241–55.
56 Christina Young and Alice Aurand,
‘Using DIC to Develop an Experimental
Methodology for Measuring Moisture
Induced Fatigue in Panel Paintings’
(presentation at 10th International Con-
ference on Advances in Experimental
Mechanics, Heriot Watt University,
Edinburgh, 1–3 September 2015), http://
www.bssm.org/uploadeddocuments/
Conference%202015/2015papers/Using_
DIC_to_develop_an_Experimental_M
ethodology_for_Measuring_M
oisture_Induced_Fatigue_in_Panel_Pain
tings.pdf (accessed 28 October 2016).
57 Cf. Norbert Baer and Paul Banks,
‘Indoor Air Pollution: Effects on Cultural
and Historic Materials’, The International
Journal of Museum Management and Cura-
torship 4 (1985): 9–20.
58 Personal communication by tele-
phone with Alexandra Schieweck,
Project Manager with responsibility for
material analysis and indoor chemistry
at Fraunhofer-Institut für Holz-
forschung, Braunschweig, Germany.
59 Cf. Lorraine Gibson et al., ‘The Mode
of Formation of Thecotrichite, a Wide-
spread Calcium Acetate Chloride Nitrate
Efflorescence’, Studies in Conservation 50
(2005): 284–94; Kirsten Linnow, Lieve
Halsberghe and Michael Steiger, ‘Analysis
of Calcium Acetate Efflorescences
Formed on Ceramic Tiles in a Museum
Environment’, Journal of Cultural Heritage
8 (2007): 44–52; Lorraine T. Gibson and
Claire M. Watt, ‘Acetic and Formic Acids
Emitted from Wood Samples and their
Effect on Selected Materials in Museum
Environments’, Corrosion Science 52, no.
1 (2010): 172–8.
(XRD) is a well-established standard method for mineral identification and
characterisation and, recently portable units have become available but as
they require a small amount of sample to be processed, they involve destruc-
tive analysis. But even these methods may not be useful for routine condition
assessments for a number of reasons, not least the specialist expertise
required for interpretation of results. In addition, crucially, these techniques
do not offer a quantifiable assessment of change.
One method developed for materials testing has already found appli-
cations in conservation and has the potential for additional uses: Digital
Image Correlation (DIC) was used by Frances Lennard and Janice Dulieu-
Barton to quantify and visualise strain in tapestries,55 and by Christina
Young and Alice Aurand to measure fatigue in panel paintings caused by
humidity fluctuations.56 In both cases DIC was used successfully to
explain the mechanisms of object deterioration and provided an objectively
quantifiable means of monitoring heritage objects. There is the possibility
that this technique may be suitable for the objective assessment of longitudi-
nal studies of cracking in minerals; the potential is waiting to be explored.
Even more useful would be a technique involving much more easily acces-
sible tools, such as mobile telephones. A pilot study, undertaken in 2016 at
the National Museum Cardiff (NMC) in partnership with Cardiff Univer-
sity’s School of Engineering, indicated that the resolution of mobile phone
cameras is not yet developed sufficiently to detect small (less than 5mm)
changes to features (unpublished results). In comparison, conventional pho-
tography and, in particular, an industrial grade scanner achieved the most
accurate results. The disadvantage of the latter is that it is too resource-
heavy for the investigation of single specimens and therefore impractical
at present for routine monitoring of large numbers of objects in museum col-
lections. Any methodology, in order to be used routinely by museums,
would need to be not only reliable, but easy to use, cost-effective and
deliver reproducible results.
Environmental conditions and air quality
Until recently, the definition of indoor pollution included outdoor pollutants
which are transferred to indoor spaces via mechanical or other ventilation
systems.57 A more cautious approach considers that many gaseous sub-
stances are present naturally in air and contribute to the natural ageing
process of materials. In this sense, any substances found in indoor air
emitted by building materials or contents would be regarded more neutrally
as foreign rather than harmful.58 This is an important distinction. We define
indoor pollutants as those substances harmful to museum objects that have
their origin in indoor spaces or materials.
Indoor pollutants are known to cause damage to limestone, pottery, glass
and ceramics,59 but few studies have investigated the effects of indoor pol-
lutants on geological collections.60 It is therefore of little surprise that, at
present, any work in this area often poses more questions than it answers.
Summaries of methods used to establish the presence and effects of air pol-
lutants on museum collection objects were compiled by both Jean Tetreault
and Alexandra Schieweck with Tunga Salthammer,61 and Waller et al. estab-
lished that pollutants (carboxylic acids, SO2, mercury vapour, H2S) may be
more concentrated inside tightly sealed, compared to leaking, storage cabi-
nets, as lower concentrations occurred in the room environment compared
to the inside of cabinets.62 However, the authors of the latter study did
not measure air exchange rates of the respective cabinets, nor were calibra-
tions and measurements using test strips validated by independent chemical
analysis. In addition, the study did not note whether any of the three stores
investigated had any mechanical ventilation that might reduce the levels of
pollutants in the store environment outside the cabinets. Robert Waller con-
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 9

siders it likely that ventilation was present, although it is now impossible to 60 Andrea Tapparo et al., ‘The Mystery
retrospectively establish the nominal air exchange rate (AER) at that time.63 of the Discolored Flints. New Molecules
It is amply documented that wood emits various substances considered as Turn Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts Blue’,
being indoor pollutants,64 but their generation rate is rarely measured in a Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
399 (2011): 2389–93.
conservation context, although work by Morten Rhyl-Svendsen is one
notable exception.65 The amount of organic acids emitted by wood 61 Jean Tetreault, Airborne Pollutants in
depends on species, temperature and relative humidity,66 and there is Museums, Galleries, and Archives: Risk
Assessment, Control Strategies, and Preser-
some evidence that indoor acetic and formic acid concentrations may vation Management (Ottawa: Canadian
follow a seasonal pattern, with warmer indoor summer temperatures result- Conservation Institute, 2003), 81–6;
ing in considerably higher acid concentrations than in winter.67 Wood of any Alexandra Schieweck and Tunga Salt-
tree species emits acetic and formic acids by hydrolysis of the acetyl groups hammer, Schadstoffe in Museen, Bibliothe-
in hemicellulose, and hardwoods emit especially high concentrations of ken und Archiven (Stuttgart: Fraunhofer
IRB Verlag, 2014).
acetic acid due to possessing a large amount of acetyl groups.68 Additional
indoor sources of organic acids include other building materials.69 Hence, 62 Robert Waller, Kate Andrew and Jean
the rate of generation of ‘new’ pollutants has as much bearing on the Tetreault, ‘Survey of Gaseous Pollutant
Concentration Distributions in Mineral
supply of fresh air required to maintain a low pollutant environment as Collections’, Collection Forum 14 (2000):
does the amount of the same pollutant carried in that fresh air. Carboxylic 1–32.
acids, including acetic acid, are ubiquitous components of the troposphere,
63 Personal communication in a conver-
especially in urban environments.70 They are certainly present in outdoor air sation, September 2017.
in measurable concentrations. It is assumed, perhaps reasonably so, that the
64 Cf. for example, Edmone Roffael, ‘On
concentration of carboxylic acids in outdoor air is low, but this never appears
the Release of Volatile Acids from Wood-
to be verified when determining ventilation requirements. In rooms with a based Panels—Chemical Aspects’, Holz
large AER, concentrations of indoor pollutants are usually lowered als Roh- und Werkstoff 66 (2008): 373–8;
whereas the concentration of outdoor pollutants, if present, may be Gibson and Watt, ‘Acetic and Formic
increased through the supply of fresh air.71 We should not speculate on Acids Emitted from Wood Samples’.
whether the air introduced into a store to dilute internally generated pollu- 65 Morten Rhyl-Svendsen, ‘The Role of
tants is carboxylic acid-free, as knowledge of the concentration and rate of Air Exchange Rate and Surface Reaction
generation of pollutants both inside and out is of importance when planning Rates on the Air Quality in Museum
Storage Buildings’, in Padfield and Borch-
a ventilation strategy for a collection store. ersen, Museum Microclimates, 221–6.
Waller et al. concluded their study with a list of suggested future research
topics, which, almost two decades later, remain uninvestigated.72 These 66 Gibson and Watt, ‘Acetic and Formic
Acids Emitted from Wood Samples’.
included mapping pollutant concentrations inside storage cabinets, investi-
gating mineral species as pollutant sources or sinks, and determining rates of 67 Barbara Krupińska, Rene Van
Grieken and K. Karolien De Wael, ‘Air
change of specimens exposed to pollutants to establish the exposure-effect
Quality Monitoring in a Museum for
relationships between pollutants and mineral species. Preventive Conservation: Results of a
Three-year Study in the Plantin-
Moretus Museum in Antwerp,
Belgium’, Microchemical Journal 110
Ventilation requirements (2013): 350–60.
There are attempts to characterise and quantify the effects of pollutants on 68 Maria Risholm-Sundman et al.,
objects by using corrosivity loggers or dosimetry.73 Such methods are ‘Emissions of Acetic Acid and Other
Volatile Organic Compounds from
useful for estimating corrosive potential within a store. However, logging
Different Species of Solid Wood’, Holz
the corrosivity of the storage environment does not assist in managing an als Roh- und Werkstoff 56 (1998): 125.
appropriate reduction in pollutant concentrations, and is no substitute for
69 Alexandra Schieweck et al., ‘Organic
systematic measurements of indoor pollutants, which are better character-
and Inorganic Pollutants in Storage
ised by methodical analysis of organic acids, formaldehyde, volatile Rooms of the Lower Saxony State
organic compounds (VOCs) and dust.74 Museum Hanover, Germany’, Atmos-
Similarly, the air flow required to reduce the concentration of pollutants pheric Environment 39 (2005): 6098–108;
from an indoor space is based on various factors and can be calculated as: Gibson and Watt, ‘Acetic and Formic
Acids Emitted from Wood Samples’.

SM 70 Haider Khwaja, ‘Atmospheric Con-

Vh = centrations of Carboxylic Acids and
CRAL –CZUL m3 h−1
Related Compounds at a Semi-urban
Site’, Atmospheric Environment 29 (1995):
where Vh is the required air supply, SM is the generation/emission rate of 127–39; Abderraouf Chebbi and
pollutant [m3h−1], CRAL is the permissible concentration of pollutant P. Carlier, ‘Carboxylic Acids in the Tro-
[m3m−3 = ppm * 10−6], and CZUL is the concentration of pollutant in the posphere, Occurrence, Sources, and
supply air [m3m−3 = ppm * 10−6].75

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

10
Sinks: A Review’, Atmospheric Environ-
ment 30 (1996): 4233–49.
71 Wolfram Pistohl, Handbuch der Gebäu-
detechnik (Köln: Wolters Kluwer
Deutschland, 2007); Erin Darling and
‘Field-to-laboratory
Richard Corsi,
Analysis of Clay Wall Coatings as
Passive Removal Materials for Ozone in
Buildings’, Indoor Air 27, no. 3 (2016):
658–69.
72 Waller, Andrew and Tetreault,
‘Survey of Gaseous Pollutant Concen-
tration Distributions in Mineral Collec-
tions’.
73 Cf. Milan Kouril et al., ‘Corrosion
Monitoring in Archives by the Electrical
Resistance Technique’, Journal of Cultural
Heritage 15 (2014): 99–103; Terje Grøntoft
et al., ‘Assessment of Indoor Air Quality
and the Risk of Damage to Cultural
Heritage Objects Using MEMORI®
Dosimetry’, Studies in Conservation 61
(2016): 70–82.
74 Schieweck et al., ‘Organic and Inor-
ganic Pollutants’; Schieweck and Salt-
hammer, ‘Schadstoffe in Museen,
Bibliotheken und Archiven’.
75 Pistohl, Handbuch der Gebäudetechnik.
76 Rhyl-Svendsen, ‘The Role of Air
Exchange Rate and Surface Reaction
Rates’.
77 P.D. Donovan and T.M. Moynehan,
‘The Corrosion of Metals by Vapours
from Air-drying Paints’, Corrosion
Science 5 (1965): 803–14.
78 S.J. Adams, ‘Dust Deposition and
Measurement: A Modified Approach’,
Environmental Technology 18 (1997): 345–
50; Birgit Wehner and Alfred Wieden-
sohler, ‘Long Term Measurements of
Submicrometer Urban Aerosols: Statisti-
cal Analysis for Correlations with
Meteorological Conditions and Trace
Gases’, Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics 3 (2003): 867–79.
79 Nigel Larkin, ‘Pyrite Decay: Cause
and Effect, Prevention and Cure’,
NatSCA News 21 (2011): 35–41.
80 David Watkinson, ‘Chloride Extrac-
tion from Archaeological Iron: Com-
parative Treatment Efficiencies’, in
Archaeological Conservation and its Conse-
quences, ed. Ashok Roy and Perry
Smith (London: International Institute
for Conservation, 1996), 208–12.
81 Keene, ‘Real-time Survival Rates for
Treatments of Archaeological Iron’.
82 Frank Howie, ‘Pyrite and Conserva-
tion Part 1: Historical Aspects’, Geological
Curator 1 (1977): 457–65.
Baars and Horak
In addition, the concentration of compounds released into indoor environ-
ments is also dependent on adsorption onto indoor surfaces. This can be
expressed as
G/V
I/O =
n + vd (S/V)
where I = indoor concentration of pollutant, O = outdoor concentration of
pollutant, G = generation rate of pollutant [−1], n = air exchange rate [h−1],
vd = deposition velocity [mh−1], S = inside surface area of room [m2], and
V = volume of room [m3].76
Neither of these two equations can be resolved satisfactorily at present in
most museums. While determination of some factors may be straight
forward, such as CZUL which may be determined in a similar way to
indoor pollutant concentrations, several factors are usually unknown, in
particular emission rates, permissible concentrations and deposition vel-
ocities. Hence it is not possible to calculate the specific ventilation require-
ment in stores to ensure ventilation is sufficient to remove damaging
levels of pollutants.
The emissions of carboxylic acids from storage furniture (SM, correspond-
ing to G) need to be quantified for a statistically viable number of units. Such
analysis may also include tests on the wall paints for potential emission of
formic and acetic acids.77 Once the emissions per furniture item and time
are established it would be possible to approximate the overall emissions gen-
erated within the store per unit time. Deposition velocity may be determined
experimentally, using materials present in the store to test the flux of pollu-
tants to each type of surface. Considerably more difficult and thus resource-
heavy would be the determination of CRAL, which may require extensive
testing of change caused by different pollutants to various types of minerals.
Gaseous pollutants may be measured either directly or by using the fact that
some are correlated with the occurrence of ultrafine particles.78
Effectiveness of conservation treatments
Once a suitable monitoring methodology is established and the store is
maintained at the optimum environmental and air quality standards,
there is the question of what to do next if deterioration of mineral specimens
is observed. Nigel Larkin provided a comprehensive overview of available
conservation treatments and preventive options.79
In archaeology, where issues of object corrosion in museum storage pose a
similar problem, iron objects are frequently treated by some form of desali-
nation, typically by immersion,80 following which survival rates are appar-
ently significantly higher than those of untreated objects.81 In the past,
antibacterial treatments were attempted for pyritic specimens in geological
collections.82 But while there are similarities in collection care strategies
between both disciplines, generally the option of treating specimens prior
to storage is not suitable for most geological specimens because of the risk
of damage induced by chemical mechanisms that can render them valueless
for future geochemical analysis.
While recommendations exist for strategies of how to protect vulnerable
materials including minerals, a systematic evaluation of the long-term
success of packaging these materials in micro environments is still outstand-
ing. The evidence base for the effectiveness and long-term success of current
recommendations is very thin. In addition, there is no one technique offering
a one-size-fits-all solution. Sealed micro environments using barrier films
with low gas permeability appear to offer a low maintenance solution yet
may limit object accessibility.83 Non-sealed systems, such as plastic storage
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 11

boxes, offer easy accessibility but require regular maintenance which is often 83 Cf. Carrió and Stevenson, ‘Assess-
not possible due to staffing and resourcing problems in museums. Lyndsie ment of Materials Used for Anoxic
Selwyn asserted that the barrier film approach apparently lasts for five Microenvironments’; Julia Day, ‘Practi-
years only but cited no evidence.84 In our experience at NMC, items cal Application of the Revolutionary
Preservation (RP) System for Marcasite’,
stored in barrier film require less maintenance than those kept in plastic
in ICOM-CC 14th Triennial Meeting, The
boxes, but there is certainly a case for a more empirical study to be under- Hague, 12–16 September 2005: Preprints,
taken. ed. Isabelle Verger (London: James and
This raises the question of the suitability of storage media which is of James/Earthscan, 2005), 435–42.
utmost importance, as micro environments are generally hailed as an effec- 84 Selwyn, ‘Overview of Archaeological
tive and safe method of storing items vulnerable to oxidation, hydration or Iron’.
reaction with indoor air pollutants in a museum store.85 Preliminary tests of 85 Waller, ‘Temperature and Humidity
the suitability of micro environments, using an absorption system, Revolu- Sensitive Mineralogical and Petrological
tionary Preservation System (RP System®), were undertaken on stored archae- Specimens’; Andrew Newman, ‘Pyrite
ological iron,86 but further tests, especially in real time, are required to Oxidation and Museum Collections: A
determine the method’s capacities. For geological items stored in Review of Theory and Conservation
Treatments’, The Geological Curator 6
museums, there is presently only circumstantial evidence that the use of (1998): 363–71; Day, ‘Practical Appli-
micro environments has brought about improvement in their long-term cation of the Revolutionary Preservation
preservation. Contrastingly, there also appears to be some evidence that (RP) System for Marcasite’; Christian
specimens sealed in micro environments may suffer accelerated, sometimes Baars, ‘Conservation of Pyrite
catastrophic, damage compared to similar specimens stored in the same Damaged Ammonite Type Specimens
at the National Museum Wales’, Journal
store but under ambient conditions.87 Julia Day went some way towards of Natural Science Collections 1 (2013):
an evaluation of the effectiveness of micro environments by setting up a 34–7.
longitudinal study with pyrite specimens sealed in bags made
86 Alice Boccia Paterakis and Laramie
from barrier film, however, an assessment of her treatment is yet to be Hickey-Friedman, ‘Stabilization of Iron
undertaken.88 Artifacts from Kaman-Kalehöyük: A
Regular access to objects is easier with sturdy and stackable storage con- Comparison of Chemical and Environ-
tainers rather than sealed micro environments. Changes in the design of mental Methods’, Studies in Conservation
56 (2011): 179–90.
storage boxes may result in the ‘same’ type of box suddenly being less
good at maintaining the desired internal storage environment.89 Storage 87 Personal communication—conversa-
containers without a gasket seal were found to have greater humidity ingres- tion with Tom Cotterell, Senior
Curator: Mineralogy and Petrology,
sion rate than containers with a gasket seal. Some authors found the best
NMW, October 2017.
containers for maintaining microclimates were those with polyethylene
snap lid containers, which are accessible, reusable and maintain a stable 88 Day, ‘Practical Application of the
Revolutionary Preservation (RP)
environment.90 Using such containers may have the positive side effect of System for Marcasite’.
minimising handling during repackaging, but Larkin et al. raised the ques-
tion of air quality within such storage containers.91 Consequently, the use of 89 Nigel Larkin, Elena Makridou and
Gill Comerford, ‘Plastic Storage Con-
both polyethylene and polypropylene containers may be ill-advised for tainers: A Comparison’, The Conservator
storage of materials vulnerable to VOCs. 22 (1998): 81–6.
The current practice of buffering relative humidity inside storage contain-
90 Dana Senge, ‘Testing and Implemen-
ers through the use of hygroscopic desiccants may need to be augmented by tation of Microclimate Storage Contain-
additional inclusion of VOC adsorbents.92 ers’, AIC Objects Speciality Group
Good record keeping is essential during any conservation treatment. This Postprints 21 (2014): 123–40.
includes keeping records of any monitoring. Monitoring of micro environ- 91 Nigel Larkin, Nigel Blades and Elena
ments may be undertaken cost-effectively and easily using humidity indi- Makridou, ‘Investigation of Volatile
cator cards. There is currently no reliable information about the long-term Organic Compounds Associated with
stability and reliability of such cards and this is also an area that requires Polyethylene and Polypropylene Con-
tainers Used for Conservation Storage’,
further research.
The Conservator 24 (2000): 41–51.

Usefulness of current standards 92 Cf. Faisal Khan and Aloke Ghoshal,

‘Removal of Volatile Organic Com-
There is a lack of knowledge on the storage requirements of mineral collec- pounds from Polluted Air’, Journal of
tions, which is especially obvious when compared to other types of museum Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
collections. Appendix A of the UK’s Museums and Galleries Commission’s 13 (2000): 527–45; Antonio Joao Cruz
‘Standards in the Museum Care of Geological Collections’ sets out rec- et al., ‘Adsorption of Acetic Acid by Acti-
ommendations for relative humidity and temperature for the display and vated Carbons, Zeolites, and Other
Adsorbent Materials Related with the
storage of geological specimens.93 While this table references some impor- Preventive Conservation of Lead
tant works,94 its brevity highlights the paucity of research on this subject; Objects in Museum Showcases’, Journal
only four categories of specimens are suggested: ‘general’, ‘sensitive’,

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

12
of Chemical Engineering Data 49 (2004):
725–31; Yvonne Shashoua, Conservation
of Plastics—Materials Science, Degradation
and Preservation (Amsterdam: Elsevier,
2008), 196–9.
93 MGC, Standards in the Museum Care of
Geological Collections.
94 Including Waller, ‘Temperature and
Humidity Sensitive Mineralogical and
Petrological Specimens’; and Sally
Shelton and Jessica Johnson, ‘The Con-
servation of Sub-fossil Bone’, in The
Care and Conservation of Palaeontological
Material, ed. Chris Collins (Oxford: But-
terworth-Heinemann, 1995), 59–71.
95 Cf. Waller, ‘Temperature and Humid-
ity Sensitive Mineralogical and Petrolo-
gical Specimens’.
96 Brunton, Besterman and Cooper,
‘Guidelines for the Curation of Geologi-
cal Materials’.
97 Cf. Pamela Hatchfield, ‘Wood and
Wood Products’, in Rose, Hawks and
Genoways, Storage of Natural History Col-
lections, 283–9.
98 Blades et al., Guidelines on Pollution
Control in Heritage Buildings.
99 British Standards Institution,
PD5454:2012 Guide for the Storage and
Exhibition of Archival Materials (London:
The British Standards Institution, 2012).
This standard was recently superseded
by BS EN 16893: 2018 Conservation of Cul-
tural Heritage. Specifications for location,
construction and modification of buildings
or rooms intended for the storage or use of
heritage collections (London, The British
Standards Institution, 2018).
100 Cf. The Chartered Institution of
Building Service Engineers, CIBSE
Guide A: Environmental Design (London:
CIBSE, 2015).
101 See Nigel Blades et al., ‘Preventive
Conservation Strategies for Sustainable
Urban Pollution Control in Museums’,
Studies in Conservation 45, no. 1 (2000):
‘Contributions to the Melbourne Con-
gress, 10–14 October 2000. Tradition
and Innovation: Advances in Conserva-
tion’: 24–8.
102 American Society of Heating, Refrig-
erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), Addendum to Standard 62-
2001: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality (Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2003).
Baars and Horak
‘pyrites and marcasites’, ‘sub-fossil bone, tusks, teeth, fossils with shale or
clay matrix’. While this may be adequate for materials present in some
palaeontological collections, they do not take into account the complexity
of the requirements by minerals as highlighted by Waller and are therefore
entirely inadequate for the diversity of materials in mineral collections.95
Howard Brunton et al. mentioned the likelihood of hydration state
changes of sulfates and some zeolites, the vulnerability of halides for deli-
quescence, and the hygroscopicity of clay minerals, yet recommended 50%
±5 as storage RH for geological materials, only advising that ‘specialised col-
lections or specimens may require high or low regimes of humidity’.96
Contrastingly, Appendix C of the MGC guidance ‘Relative humidity and
temperature for the storage of geological records’, considered a wide range
of categories for archival materials and their environmental requirements,
reinforced by five national and international standards which developed
after decades of research on the subject. Comparable efforts to study the
preservation of geological collections were not undertaken and guidance
on, for example, ventilation is vague and unspecific.97
Previous recommendations on preventive conservation strategies for
museum collections have prescribed realistically achievable pollution levels,
implying that some damage is accepted as inevitable.98 At National Museum
Cardiff, pollution control is limited to filtration for dust at the air intakes of
mechanical ventilation units, with gaseous pollutants not actively removed
from the supply air. This situation contrasts with steps to control pollution
within display cases or storage boxes. More recent guidance is slightly more
specific with regards to pollutants. BSI’s PD5454:2012 Guide for the Storage
and Exhibition of Archival Materials recommends that any repository should
be ventilated with fresh air to reduce pollutant levels if internally generated
acetic acid vapours reach >100μgm−3.99 Threshold concentrations for some pol-
lutant–material interactions are suggested in Table G.4 of BSI’s PAS198:2012;
however, 75% of the fields in this table are blank, indicating a severe lack of
knowledge on threshold concentrations for many combinations. The table is
also non-exhaustive and lacks, for example, alloys, iron and susceptible min-
erals. The recommendation to ‘use the values for paper as an approximate gui-
dance for other materials in the absence of published threshold values’ is
inadequate not only because there is no valid basis on which to make the
assumption that paper will react with pollutants in a similar fashion as min-
erals, but also because there are gaps in knowledge even for the interaction
of paper with, for example, formic acid.
Guidance from building regulations is equally unhelpful. In most build-
ings the recommended minimum ventilation rate is set to disperse odour
and moisture generated by building occupants.100 Most heritage buildings
have a highly variable occupancy rate which may vary between very low
in stores to very high in galleries.101 Regulations differ between countries:
in the United States the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends a ventilation rate for
museum galleries, i.e. rooms with high occupancy, of 3.8Ls−1person−1,102
while in the UK, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
(CIBSE) guidance recommends a higher ventilation rate of 10Ls−1person−1.
Both ASHRAE and CIBSE regulations consider the effect of ventilation on
people, not objects, and neither has specific guidance for low occupancy
museum stores. CIBSE recognised that buildings used for the display or
storage of cultural collections have special requirements and made some
generalised recommendations.103 Blades et al. discussed various different
ventilation strategies; the suitability of a particular strategy depends on
the type of building, type of collection and budget.104 No guidance exists
at present for the ventilation requirements of geological collections. This
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 13

103 CIBSE, Guide A: Environmental

Design.
104 Blades et al., ‘Preventive Conserva-
tion Strategies’.

Fig. 4 Necessary precursor steps indispensable to updating current guidance for the storage and
preservation of geological collections.

article steps in the direction of setting out an agenda for the research necess-
ary to underpin future collection care guidance for such collections (Fig. 4).

Conclusions
Many geological collections contain minerals highly vulnerable to changes
as a result of chemical reactions with atmospheric water, oxygen or indoor
air pollutants. While the bulk of these collections may be well cared for fol-
lowing currently available recommendations, approximately 300 mineral
species require very specific storage environments to avoid specimens
becoming damaged. Risk assessments can help categorise the vulnerability
of parts of a collection and target conservation resources most effectively.
However, this approach assumes knowledge about the reactivity of
mineral species in museum collection environments that is not presently
available. The authors reiterate the suggestions made in 2000 by Robert
Waller et al. for further research into the subject, and expand on the rec-
ommendations made by previous authors through additional questions.
The prerequisite of any research is gaining a comprehensive understanding
of the changes induced in different mineral species and a thorough defi-
nition and consensus about what constitutes damage to minerals and
what level of damage to specimens is acceptable. This would then allow
the development of a workable protocol for the objective, non-invasive
and routine assessment and monitoring of the condition of any geological
collection for potential changes. Whether change to a specimen, once
detected, would trigger a conservation response relies on knowledge of
the reactivity of minerals to environmental factors, such as dose–response
reactions. In addition, the environment in a geological store needs to be
understood, and the effectiveness of conservation treatments requires meth-
odological assessment prior to application. The results can then be used to
recommend environmental requirements, maximum pollutant concen-
trations, conservation triggers and suitable conservation treatments. Such
a comprehensive research programme into the preservation of geological
collections would, ultimately, result in a set of international standards
similar to those for other cultural collections. We hope that this article will
stimulate further discussion and comparable efforts to study the preser-
vation of geological collections. The challenge is formidable yet not insuper-
able if tackled strategically. Geological collections took, in some cases,
centuries to compile, and have enormous historic, scientific, didactic and

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

14
financial value. There is no better time than the present to assimilate
the resources and collaborative partnerships required for the urgent
task of creating the expertise required for the long-term preservation of
these collections.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Alexandra Schieweck (Fraunhofer-Institut
für Holzforschung) for stimulating discussions and advice on
analytical methods; Robert Waller (Canadian Museum of Nature)
for thoughts on approaches to risk management; Caroline Buttler,
Tom Cotterell and Amanda Valentine-Baars (National Museum
Wales) for advice on conservation treatments, mineral storage
requirements and analytical techniques, respectively. We would
also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments, which helped strengthen this article.
Abstract
Despite centuries of research on pyrite decay there is a dearth of
knowledge in subjects that would help museums improve the effec-
tiveness of their care of geological collections, including characteris-
ation and categorisation of damage to mineral specimens,
methodologies for objective routine condition assessment, the defi-
nition of adequate storage environments, and successful conserva-
tion treatments. There is now sufficient evidence to dispel the myth
that geological collections are inherently stable and require fewer
resources to preserve them than other areas of museum collections.
In fact, a proportion of geological specimens demand a level of atten-
tion and maintenance comparable with that necessary for the care of
archaeological metal collections, and similar environmental and pol-
lution-related considerations. Currently available methodologies are
not suitable for routine collection monitoring, results are not necess-
arily replicable, and, in the absence of guidance on suitable storage
conditions, triggers and suitability of conservation actions are diffi-
cult to determine. In this paper we outline a research agenda that
would underpin a most robust approach to the delivery of preventa-
tive conservation of mineral collections. This includes defining what
kind of material change in minerals constitutes damage; developing a
protocol for routine monitoring of museum geological collections for
the potential damage; establishing optimum environmental and
minimum air quality standards for different types of minerals; and
testing rigorously the suitability of those conservation treatments
that are available presently.
Résumé
Malgré des siècles de recherche sur la décomposition de la pyrite, il y
a un manque de connaissances sur des sujets qui aideraient les
musées à améliorer l’efficacité de la prise en charge des collections
géologiques, notamment la caractérisation et la catégorisation des
altérations des spécimens minéraux, la méthodologie d’un constat
d’état objectif régulier, la définition des environnements de stockage
adéquat et les traitements de conservation réussis. Il existe mainte-
nant suffisamment de preuves pour dissiper le mythe selon lequel
les collections géologiques sont intrinsèquement stables et nécessitent
moins de ressources pour leur préservation que d’autres secteurs de
collections muséales. En fait, une partie des spécimens géologiques
exige un niveau d’attention et de maintenance comparable à celui
nécessaire pour l’entretien des collections de métaux archéologiques
et des considérations environnementales et de pollution similaires.
Les méthodologies actuellement disponibles ne sont pas adaptées à
la surveillance systématique de la collection, les résultats ne sont
pas nécessairement reproductibles et, en l’absence de conseils sur
les conditions de stockage appropriées, le déclenchement et l’adéqua-
tion des mesures de conservation sont difficiles à déterminer. Dans
cet article, nous présentons un programme de recherche qui soutien-
drait une approche très robuste de la conservation préventive des col-
Baars and Horak
lections de minéraux. Cela implique de définir quel type de
changement physique dans les minéraux constitue une altération,
d’élaborer un protocole de surveillance routinier des collections géo-
logiques des musées pour déterminer les dommages potentiels, d’éta-
blir les normes environnementales minimales concernant la qualité
de l’air et optimales pour différents types de minéraux et d’effectuer
des essais rigoureux sur l’adéquation des traitements de conservation
actuellement disponibles.
Zusammenfassung
Jahrhundertelanger Forschung zum Trotz ist unser Wissen über die
Erhaltung geologischer Sammlungen immer noch sehr lückenhaft.
Es gibt nun ausreichend Indizien um den Mythos zu beseitigen
dass geologische Sammlungen grundsätzlich stabil sind und
weniger Resourcen brauchen als andere Museumssammlungen.
Momentane Methoden sind ungenügend im Bereich der Routinebeo-
bachtung, Ergebnisse von Sammlungsuntersuchungen können nicht
unbedingt miteinander verglichen werden, und, wegen eines
Mangels an Richtlinien für optimale Lagerumweltbedingungen, Aus-
löseimpulse sowie Tauglichkeit von Konservierungsmassnahmen
sind schwierig abzuschätzen. In dieser Veröffentlichung umreissen
wir eine Forschungsagenda die einer robusten Vorgehensweise fuer
die präventive Konservierung geologischer Sammlungen vorausge-
hen würde. Dies beinhaltet eine Definition dessen was für Material-
veränderungen wir als Schäden bezeichnen; die Entwicklung eines
Planes für die Routinebeobachtung von geologischen Museums-
sammlungen auf potentielle Schäden; Festlegung von optimalen
Umwelt- und Luftqualitätsstandards für verschiedene Arten von
Mineralen; und rigorose Tauglichkeitstests von gegenwärtig ange-
wendeten Konservierungsbehandlungen.
Resumen
A pesar de siglos de investigación sobre la decadencia de la pirita,
hay escasez de conocimientos sobre temas que ayudarían a los
museos a mejorar la eficacia del cuidado de sus colecciones geológi-
cas. Esto incluye la caracterización y categorización de los daños de
las muestras minerales, metodologías evaluativas, objetivas y ruti-
narias; la definición de entornos adecuados para su almacenamiento
y de tratamientos de conservación con éxito. Actualmente hay sufi-
ciente evidencia para disipar el mito de que las colecciones geológicas
son inherentemente estables y requieren menos recursos para su pre-
servación que otras áreas de colecciones de museos. De hecho, hay
una proporción de especímenes geológicos que exige un nivel de
atención y mantenimiento que se podría comparar con el necesario
al cuidado de las colecciones de metales arqueológicos y similar en
cuanto al medio ambiente y la contaminación. Las metodologías dis-
ponibles actualmente no son adecuadas para un seguimiento del
estado de las colecciones rutinario, los resultados no son necesaria-
mente reproducibles, y, en ausencia de orientación sobre las condi-
ciones adecuadas de almacenamiento, es difícil determinar los
factores detonantes y la idoneidad de las acciones de conservación.
En este artículo esbozamos una agenda de investigación que seguiría
una estrategia firme para la realización de la conservación preventiva
de colecciones de minerales. Esto incluye definir qué tipo de cambio
material constituye daño en los minerales, desarrollar un protocolo
para el monitoreo rutinario de daños potenciales en las colecciones
geológicas de museos, y así, establecer óptimos y mínimos ambien-
tales y de calidad de aire para los diferentes tipos de minerales; así
como comprobar rigurosamente la idoneidad de los tratamientos
de conservación actualmente disponibles.
Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018
 Storage and conservation of geological collections—a research agenda 15

摘要 preparator before managing a programme of collection reviews

‘“地质藏品的存储与保护—一项研究议程” in 18 Welsh museums to improve the usability, visibility and con-
尽管对黄铁矿腐化的研究已有数百年，但我们仍然缺乏有助于博物 servation of their collections. He now coordinates the care of three
馆改善其地质藏品保护的有效性的学科知识，这些科目包括矿物标 million objects across five collection disciplines at NMC as Senior
本损伤的表征和分类、客观的日常状态评估方法、适合的存储环境 Preventive Conservator. His research interests lie in using multi-
定义和有效的保护措施。现在已有足够多的证据可以推翻之前的观 disciplinary scientific enquiry to develop improvements for the
点：地质藏品本质上就很稳定，并不需要像博物馆其他藏品那样使 care of collections, and enhancing the public profile of heritage
用很多的资源来保护它们。实际上，一部分地质标本需要有考古金 preservation.
属藏品保护所需相当的关注和维护水平，以及相似环境和污染相关
因素的考量。目前人们可用的方法并不适合常规藏品监测，结果不 Jana Horak, BSc, PhD, CSci, CGeol, Head of Mineralogy & Petrology
具有可复制性，并且在缺乏合适存储条件的指导下，人们难以确定 at the National Museum Wales has more than 30 years’ experience of
保护措施的时机和适用性。本文概述了一个研究议程，这个议程将 managing and researching mineralogy and petrology collections. She
可为达成矿物质藏品预防性保护目的最可靠方法提供基础，它包括 has published on the management and use of mineralogy and rock
矿物结构损伤中物质改变的解析、博物馆地质藏品潜在损伤的常规 collections, including issues presented by hazardous and delicate
监测制度制定、不同矿物质类型最佳环境和最低空气质量标准的建 specimens, and evaluating the risks to, and presented by, such collec-
立，以及目前可用保护措施适用性的严格测试。 tions. Her scientific research focusses on the provenance of rocks and
minerals and encompasses studies of the Neoproterozoic and Cam-
Biographies brian geology of Southern Britain, the provenancing of stone in
Christian Baars, BSc, MSc, PhD, AMA, studied Geology, Environ- archaeological contexts, and contributing to a better understanding
mental Biology, Palaeontology/Geochemistry and Care of Collec- of the sources of building stone in Wales. Jana is General Secretary
tions, with the result that he is especially good at asking questions. of the Mineralogical Society of Great Britain & Ireland, and Secretary
He worked at National Museum Cardiff as a palaeontological of the Welsh Stone Forum.

Contact address
Dr Christian Baars Dr Jana Horak
Department of Conservation Department of Natural Sciences
National Museum Cardiff National Museum Cardiff
Cathays Park Cathays Park
Cardiff CF10 3NP Cardiff CF10 3NP
UK UK
Email: christian.baars@museumwales.ac.uk Email: jana.horak@museumwales.ac.uk

Journal of the Institute of Conservation 2018

View publication stats