| PACIN
Archived ListServ Conversations: Non-traditional
materials
FROM: Daniel Neil <neildan@auburn.edu> SUBJECT:
non-traditional materials We've recently received an exhibition that contains
numerous pieces constructed of non-traditional materials ( beaver gnawed sticks,
raw wood, un-fired clay etc.) in some cases combined with acrylic or oil paint;
my concern is that these materials represent a substantial harborage opportunity
for insects. I have access to an Entomologist with a good deal of experience with
urban pests and wood borers. He has previously suggested the construction of a
"tent" that we can flood with CO2 to gas any hitch hikers. Does anyone
have any experience with this sort of thing?
Daniel S. Neil
Preparator
Jule
Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art
Auburn University
FROM: Stephen
Fixx <Stephen.Fixx@oberlin.edu> Subject: non-traditional materials Hi
Daniel, You might spend a moment researching "anoxic" treatments.
It's pretty much the same concept as the CO2 tent. As a conservation technician
I was previously involved in the treatment of a large contemporary sculpture using
this method. Here's a web link to the vendor: http://www.keepsafe.ca/museums.html Good
luck, Steve Stephen F. Fixx
Assistant Exhibit Preparator
Oberlin
College
Allen Memorial Art Museum
87 N. Main St.
Oberlin, OH 44074-1161
440/775-6201;
Fax: 440/775-6841
email: stephen.fixx@oberlin.edu
FROM: Matthew
Cox <matthew@arthopnw.com> Daniel, Methyl bromide is most commonly
used for this sort of thing. It is used to treat soft woods for international
trade and even agriculture. I personally have used it to treat a Richard Long
piece that consisted of 1200lbs of drift wood. Methyl Bromide is a toxic gas that
creates no residue and your local pest control company should be able to help
you find a solution. Here is the first thing a Google search pulled up on
our local company Paratex: http://www.pcc-cfs.com/fumigate.html
Best, matthew
FROM:
"Hinson, Richard" <rhinson@mfah.org> Daniel,
At
the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston we have a plastic bubble we use for fumigating
objects. It works quite well for small to medium sized objects. We began using
CO2, but after our Conservation Department did some research we began using Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen apparently penetrates the objects deeper and faster. It was taking
two weeks to fumigate with the CO2 and the Nitrogen takes less than a full week.
I will forward this email to our Conservation Department and ask someone
there to respond with more accurate information.
Richard Hinson
FROM:
Suzanne_Quigley@whitney.org During Whitney Biennials we often get non-traditional
materials. Not too long ago, a beach hut from Puerto Rico, We made arrangements
to have it fumigated locally - crate and all, before it came to the Museum. It
took 28 days.
We have had to do the same thing for several crates where
it was cheaper to fumigate the crates that we knew had been stored outside in
Florida for a year, than it was to build new ones. It took the same amount of
time.
We also recently acquired a work that was, essentially, a very large
manipulated log (surrounded by leaves from under the artist's mothers house in
Vermont). We persuaded the artist that we would get fresh dead leaves each time
we showed it. - But in the beginning he was insisting that it be his mothers leaves
that were saved.
Talking it out is important. Fumigation is not a bad
thing!
Hope this helps!
Suzanne
FROM: Suzanne_Quigley@whitney.org
Hi again, I would like to add, after seeing Steve's post, that in all instances
- where I refer to 'fumigation', I really mean an anoxic chamber. I guess I should
stop thinking of 'fumigation' as the generic term... But I still have Kleenex
in my desk drawer - that will never change.
Cheers from a chilly NYC...
suzanne
FROM: Wendy Claire Jessup <prevcon@earthlink.net>
Greetings: I
want to caution against using methyl bromide and urge you to look at the use of
least-toxic options such as oxygen scavengers, carbon dioxide or nitrogen. Methyl
bromide has been identified as an ozone-depleting chemical. Also, although Matthew
Cox is correct that it is very effective in fumigation of wooden materials because
it penetrates well. However, contrary to his posting, methyl bromide will react
to a range of materials and may leave a residue on certain types of materials.
This has been documented widely in both the pest management and museum conservation
literature. Materials containing sulfur (wool, hair, fur, foam rubbers); leather
and parchment; viscose rayon; sulphide-processed paper, newsprint, photographic
materials and many recent archival materials; natural resins and varnishes; and
lead pigments have all been found to be affected in some manner by fumigation
with methyl bromide. Granted, some of this damage may have been due to improper
fumigation practices and lack of appropriate post-treatment ventilation., there
have been reports of persistent odor problems with sulfur bearing materials, softening
of resins and varnishes and darkening of paper and lead pigments.. Here’s
the link to the Pest Management Resources section at Conservation On-Line: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/bytopic/pest/.
There’s a lot of information there about Integrated Pest Management as well
as least-toxic control methods. Good luck, Wendy Wendy Claire
Jessup
President and Conservator
Wendy Jessup and Associates, Inc.
1814
N. Stafford St,
Arlington, VA 22207
(703) 522-2801
FAX: (703) 522-2802
prevcon@earthlink.net | 
