Guidelines for Pollutant Concentrations in Museums

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

CCI Newsletter, No. 31, June 2003

Guidelines for Pollutant Concentrations in Museums

by Jean Tétreault, Conservation Scientist, Preventive Conservation Services

The application of concentration standards for pollutants in museums is not a new phenomenon. A number of major museums have already adopted their own standards, but it has been very difficult to determine whether or not the levels were truly attained/maintained or if they resulted in any real benefits. This situation can be explained by the fact that few quantitative data are available to demonstrate the magnitude of the effects of various pollutants on museum objects. In this article I will present a brief history of standards for pollutants in museums and provide some new guidelines proposed by CCI.

Garry Thomson of the National Gallery in London was a pioneer in the field of environmental standards in conservation. As early as 1965, he decried the lack of information on the adverse effects of air quality in museums and called for steps to remedy this deficiency.¹ Despite the paucity of data, many collection managers, architects, and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) engineers lobbied for reference values for the regulation of lighting, relative humidity (RH), and atmospheric pollutants in their institutions; they demanded standards! In 1978, Thomson, in his book The Museum Environment,² offered a good description of the nature of the damage caused by these three agents of deterioration, as well as a range of actions that can be taken to combat the problems. Only two pages of this book dealt with regulation of air quality, but these were promptly interpreted as standards. Given the lack of comparative data on the effect of pollutants on museum objects, Thomson based his observations on the condition of books stored in various locations. He noted that books in libraries located in the English countryside were in better condition than those in urban libraries. The damage suffered by books in urban environments was mainly associated with air pollution caused by burning coal (a primary source of energy in England at the beginning of the 20th century). Thomson therefore recommended that the levels of sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) measured in the countryside — i.e. 10 micrograms per cubic metre (µg m^-3) for both pollutants — should become the suggested maximum levels for museums.

During the 1980s, North American archivists became very interested in pollutants; it was also at this time that central ventilation systems began to offer better regulation of air quality.³ The list of controlled pollutants increased and even included substances produced within museums, such as acetic acid and formaldehyde. Standards based on technical performance proliferated: these standards prescribed the pollutant levels to be maintained by filtration systems, called for using the best available technology, or stipulated minimal pollutant levels. This encouraged a race to achieve the lowest pollutant levels. The lower the maximum allowable concentration of pollutants, the more prestigious the institution (to the great profit of the filtration industry!). This approach became increasingly removed from any correlation between pollutant levels and their impact on collections. In other words, the cost-benefit ratio became difficult to justify, indeed even to define.

In the meantime, a number of research projects throughout the 1980s and 1990s sought to better characterize the effects of pollutants on materials. All that remained was to analyse, standardize, and compile the data, and make use of them for the purpose of preserving collections. The approach that has been employed at CCI is similar to that used in risk management. It is based mainly on the concept of dose (the concentration of the pollutant multiplied by the duration of exposure) at which the first signs of deterioration caused by a pollutant are measurable in a material. In the jargon of risk management, this dose is called the "lowest observed adverse effect dose" (LOAED). In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, for a given dose of a pollutant on an object, it is possible to calculate the exposure time required before signs of damage appear. For example, basic fuchsin (a green dye) first begins to turn a lighter colour at a dose of 10 micrograms of sulphur dioxide per cubic metre for one year (10 µg m^-3 yr). Therefore, if we want to prevent this slight colour change for a period of 10 years, the average concentration of sulphur dioxide must be reduced to less than 1 µg m^-3 (1 µg m^-3 x 10 years = 10 µg m^-3 yr).

Determining an acceptable rate of deterioration due to pollutants is the responsibility of the collection manager. This is not a matter of adhering to strict standards, but rather using a set of guidelines to choose a suitable preservation level based on the objectives and resources of the institution. Each institution can then take into account the benefits and costs of a control strategy along with their other preservation priorities. A detailed list of acceptable doses for various pollutants and materials is provided in Airborne Pollutants in Museums, Galleries, and Archives: Risk Assessment, Control Strategies, and Preservation Management.⁴ Although it is possible to determine the acceptable concentration of each pollutant for each type of object, this approach can be time consuming and expensive. Therefore, many museums will prefer to establish the maximum concentrations of the most harmful pollutants for a collection of average sensitivity. Table 1 presents the maximum concentrations of key pollutants for various preservation targets (a similar version of this table will appear in the 2003 ASHRAE Handbook⁵). However, it must be noted that these guidelines are not appropriate for hypersensitive materials [e.g. cellulose acetate, cellulose nitrate, certain dyes (such as alizarin crimson, turmeric yellow and basic fuchsin), lead, natural rubbers, silver, and polyurethane magnetic tapes], which are very sensitive to certain pollutants and represent special cases.

Table 1. Air quality targets for museum, gallery, library, and archival collections

To assist in setting reasonable preservation targets, Table 2 provides targets that are attainable in various locations and under various conditions. This table is particularly useful when it is not possible to accurately measure pollutant levels, which often is the case. One of the greatest challenges in controlling pollutants is the high cost of pollutant concentration analyses; a complete program of analyses is often unaffordable for small or medium-sized institutions. Most of the published data dealing with pollutant levels in museums and archives were obtained with the help of government subsidies or with the collaboration of a conservation institute or a university with a scientific interest in the subject.

Table 2. Potential preservation targets for most collections

		Potential preservation targets (in years)a
		In enclosures  with EMb		In enclosures  without EM
Air quality control in building	In a room	Without ESc	With ES	Without ES	With ES
Natural ventilation or HVAC system with moderate-efficiency particle filter, no gas filter	1–10	1	10–100	10–100	100
HVAC system with gas and good-efficiency particle filtersd, building membranes that are good gas barriers, and basic control of visitor flow	10–100	10	10–100	100	100
HVAC system with gas and high-efficiency particle filtersd, building membranes that are good to very good gas barriers, and limited access	100	10	10–100	100	100
Notes: a: Adverse effects of water vapour and hypersensitive materials are excluded. b: Emissive materials (products and objects). c: Efficient sorbent (enclosures are assumed to have an air exchange rate of once per day). d: Assumes periodic replacement of filters.

To attain a given preservation target — e.g. a 10-year period without evidence of damage for most of the items in a collection in a given location — it will be necessary to devise a strategy aimed at reducing the concentration of each pollutant and maintaining it at the designated level. Often, the museum will have to develop a series of specifications, i.e. a list of specific descriptions in terms of the performance requirements of the building's structural elements, equipment, materials, and steps to be taken. It will always be easier to comply with a set of specifications than to meet either a preservation target for a collection or a maximum pollutant level. With respect to enclosures (such as display cases and storage cabinets), the specifications are generally easy to apply and effective; for example, "Substances used for the manufacture of the display case must be sulphur-free (according to the lead acetate test)" or "No oil-based paint (oxidative polymerization)." For rooms, the specifications may include stipulations for such things as the type of filter with which the ventilation system should be equipped. However, with rooms it is much more difficult to predict the effectiveness of the specifications. This is due to the fact that pollutant levels in a room are affected by so many different parameters (such as the activities in the room, various sources of pollutants in the room, and infiltration of outdoor pollutants).

It is nearly 40 years since Garry Thomson first voiced his concern, but a better overall understanding of the effect of pollutants in museums is gradually becoming a reality.

1. Thomson, G. "Air Pollution: A Review for Conservation Chemists." Studies in Conservation 10 (1965), pp. 147–167.
   
2. Thomson, G. The Museum Environment. Second edition. London: Butterworths, 1986, pp. 268–269.
   
3. Wilhelm, H. The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures. Grinnell: Preservation Publishing Company, 1993, p. 563.
   
4. Tétreault, J. Airborne Pollutants in Museums, Galleries, and Archives: Risk Assessment, Control Strategies and Preservation Management. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute, 2003. [This book covers in detail the challenges of pollution control in museums.]
   
5. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). "Museums, Libraries, and Archives." Chapter 21 in Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning: Applications. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2003. [This handbook is a reference for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning engineers in North America and Europe.]