Once an infestation has been identified it is useful to determine if it is active, in which case it should be dealt with promptly to prevent its spread. This is easily done if you are actively monitoring pest activity levels in your institution’s storage and gallery areas - click here to view information on monitoring. It can sometimes be more challenging to determine if a particular object or specimen is actively infested or merely showing signs of a previous problem.
Active infestations will exhibit live adult or larval insects, fresh frass (insect excrement and debris), and damage. These signs can usually be seen without the aid of magnification. If no live insects are found and/or the signs of infestation appear to be old, the piece should be cleaned, placed in a clear, museum-quality polyethylene bag and set aside for two to three weeks, if possible. At the end of this period, if frass drifts from the piece, webbing appears visible, or live insects are seen – then the infestation is active. These signs can easily be detected by shining a flashlight through the plastic bag and onto the piece. If, after several weeks, no further signs of infestation are present, in all likelihood, the infestation is old and not active.
Identifying the pests involved in an infestation can play an important role in treatment. For more resources and information on the importance of identification click here.
There are numerous ways to treat an active pest infestation and the most appropriate method will depend upon a variety of factors such as:
Available treatment options include the following:
Some of these options can be easily done in-house with some training and investment in resources, others require trained professional assistance. Clicking on any of the above options will allow you to access additional resources designed to help clarify the treatments, allowing for an informed decision making process. While these resources are designed to assist institutions in deciding which remedial treatments may be appropriate for their collections, the IPM-WG cannot guarantee the appropriateness or efficacy of any of these methods.
Collections may also be treated ‘preventively’ to ensure there is no infestation. Examples of this include: moving collections into a new space or facility, accepting new acquisitions or reintegrating collections that have returned from loan into collections storage areas, bulk collections of material that cannot be individually inspected, etc. Associated materials
It cannot be stressed enough that treatment of an active pest infestation without getting to the root cause of the problem is of limited value. Museum personnel must determine the source of an infestation, the reasons an infestation exists, and then address permanent, non-chemical solutions to these problems – this is the basis for integrated pest management. Please check our prevention resources by clicking here.
The following documents were created by members of the Integrated Pest Management Working Group – Treatment committee to assist institutions in deciding which remedial treatments may be appropriate for their collections. The documents give a brief description of treatment and discuss what collections materials can be treated in this way, general procedures, pros and cons of treatment and touches on supplies needed, additional resources and health and safety concerns.
Controlled Atmosphere / CO2
Brief description of treatment
Controlled Atmosphere Treatment is sometimes inaccurately referred to as an anoxic or
fumigation treatment. Because CO2 is an inert, atmospheric gas the preferred term is Controlled
Atmosphere Treatment or CAT. Another associated term is hypercarbia which refers to excessive carbon dioxide as opposed to low oxygen. During the treatment process, carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is used to
displace oxygen within a sealed enclosure to a percentage low enough to kill all stages of the insect life-
cycle: adults, larvae, pupae and eggs. Oxygen deprivation (anoxia) leads to an increase in mortality rates, but it
is desiccation, or dehydration due to increased respiration which specifically accounts for physiological death. Treatment time is
typically four-weeks in the ‘kill zone’ range: 8.2%- 4.8% oxygen, 60% CO2 at 20-29ºC (68-84ºF). Updated
methods show that treatment times can be reduced by increasing the initial CO2 to 80% within the first
five days. From this point on, 14 days are necessary to kill all species. During this period it is imperative
that the CO2 does not fall below 60% and temperatures do not fall below 80º F
What materials can be treated this way?
This treatment is appropriate for all materials. Some concerns have been expressed about the
formation of carbonic acid- H2CO3 within higher concentrations of CO2, and the potential for damage to
sensitive surfaces, including some dyes and pigments. However this is very unlikely since carbonic acid
forms in water, not in moist air. Even in water the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into
carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules, as it requires a catalyst to reach equilibrium.
General procedures
Procedures vary depending upon the particular set-up and system. In general, the procedure entails
sealing collection objects within a proprietary vapor-proof enclosure. Air is evacuated from the
enclosure with a vacuum system, and then the enclosure is filled with CO2. The pressure of the entering gas is controlled
through a series of valves and meters. This process of vacuuming and filling is repeated until the CO2
level stabilizes at 60%. Typically, temperature and relative humidity inside the enclosure
are monitored throughout the process. After 3-4 weeks, the CO2 gas is evacuated from the enclosure.
(See Case Studies for examples).
Pros and Cons of this treatment
Pros
• Safe for all collection objects
• No ‘residual’ effects from treatment
• Highly effective at killing all museum pests at all stages of life cycle
• Cost effective once set up is in place
• Once the set up is in place there is no additional material waste
• Various sizes and types of enclosures can be created
• Can be set up in-house
Cons
• Long treatment times required - up to four weeks
• Large, sophisticated systems can be expensive to purchase
• May require a special permit or operator’s license, depending upon local regulations
• Requires additional, special equipment to safely operate and monitor - to provide for safe
evacuation of CO2 gas
• Although CO2 is an inert gas, it does pose human health hazards
• The treatment must be monitored requiring staff time (e.g. to check for leaks, CO2 levels and equipment malfunctions)
Selected web resources
Selwitz, Charles and Shin Maekawa. 1998. Research in conservation: Inert Gases in the Control of
Museum Insect Pests. The Getty Conservation Institute.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf
Product suppliers
Because of the specialized procedure involved with CAT systems, material suppliers and manufacturers
may also be the vendors.
• EXPM supplies "Anoxia De-Infestation Chambers" http://www.expm.com.pt/en/
• Maheu & Maheu Pest Management supplies and installs CAT systems
http://www.maheu-maheu.com
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS):
CO2 gas - http://www.ri-research.com/techinfo/prodsafe/pestcontrol/SDS473.pdf
Fumigation with Toxic Gases
Introduction:
Fumigation of infested cultural materials with toxic chemicals and gases should be used only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. collection items of massive size or large-scale or building wide infestations). This type of treatment should only be considered after other alternatives have been ruled out. The IPM-WG and Museumpests.net does not advocate the use of fumigants. This brief overview is intended to inform members of the museum, library, and archives communities about fumigants and to clarify frequently misunderstood terminology and concepts. This overview also serves as a cautionary statement, and to direct readers to further resources.
In practice, there are two groups of fumigants which kill as target pests inhale molecules of a toxic gas. The first group is considered mild fumigants, that is, they have poor penetrating properties and low to moderate toxicity. This group, which can be purchased and used legally by lay (unlicensed) people, includes dichlorvos, paradichlorobenzene, naphthalene, and oil of red cedar. The availability and legality of use will vary from place to place and does not necessarily mean the treatment is effective, safe or appropriate. The second group of fumigants is highly toxic and includes methyl bromide, ethylene oxide, sulfuryl fluoride, phosphine, and hydrogen cyanide. This group cannot be legally used by the general public and must only be used by licensed professional pest management personnel.
If after careful consideration the collecting institution decides to use a fumigant, it is essential to document this treatment. It should be possible to access the history of any one object related to both infestation and eradication. The IPM policy statements on this site give examples of the ways various museums carry out documentation. Click here to access the Procedures templates. It is recommended that all pest incidents and any treatment such as fumigation should be recorded, ideally in separate documentation (e.g. collection database, object treatment file), and in a note placed in the bag with the object or artifact.
Mild Fumigants
Dichlorvos (DDVP, NUVANÔ PROSTRIPSÔ, VaponaÔ)
Originally registered by Shell Chemical Corporation in 1948 as a liquid, residual insecticide, Shell formulated this chemical into an impregnated resin strip, known as the No-Pest StripÔ. This insecticide has a moderate amount of fumigant action. Sometime after Shell sold this product and the brand name No-Pest StripÔ to another company, it was removed from the marketplace due to misapplications of aerosol total-release bombs by lay people and professionals, and the use of various formulations in food handling and serving situations. After almost a 20-year review by EPA, it has now been re-registered for use in museum collections by AMVAC Chemical Corporation as a resin-impregnated pest strip. It is not registered for use in museums as a liquid spray or fog. Note that European Union regulations ban the use of Dichlorvos.
The current brand name of the large resin strip is NUVANÔ PROSTRIPSÔ+. The label reads, "Museum Collections Occupied by People for Less than 4 Hours Per Day … use PROSTRIP to protect museum collections and other similar materials from damaging pests when this is a concern. Place PROSTRIP in close proximity or within collection boxes using care to avoid contact with collectable and valuable items."
This product is currently registered in five sizes: 80, 65, 16, 10.5, and 5.25 grams. All sizes are to be used only by pest management professionals. Product labels are frequently unclear which serves to highlight concerns about the safety of this product. Labels indicate that the larger strips have a time limitation for human occupation of the space being treated while the smaller strips do not. See for example, the 65 and 80 gram sizes have an end use label, which states, "Also for use in boathouses, museum collections, or enclosed areas thereof, occupied for less than 4 hours per day." The other three sizes of pest strips have an end use label which reads, "Also for use in storage units, garages, attics, crawl spaces, boathouses, museum collections, garbage cans, trash dumpsters, storage bins." Another section of the label titled “Attics, Garages, and Enclosed Crawl Spaces” indicates that the strips can be used in areas where people will not be present for an extended period of time. The “Household Uses” section indicates that the strips can be used in closets, wardrobes, and cupboards. The labeling is unclear if these latter uses would be considered appropriate in a museum or historic house setting. For a full discussion of VaponaÔ and the current registration of the NUVANÔ PROSTRIPSÔ see the June 2006Environmental Protection Agency Interim Re-registration Eligibility Decision for Dichlorvos (DDVP), EPA 738-R-06-013.
When should DDVP – Nuvan/VaponaÔ be used?
Although DDVP pest strips have been used for museum collections, they are rarely recommended. Long-term use of the strips can have deleterious effects on museum objects and artifacts. The 1993 National Park Service Conserve-O-Gram, No. 2/4 [link to http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publications/conserveogram/02-04.pdf], lists some of the problems with this mild fumigant if used for long periods of time, using data from the Carnegie Museum. The fumes were found to cause bleaching of color, corrosion of metals, weakness in the structure of cellulose materials, decrease in the pH of organic materials, movement of fats and oils to the surface of leather and skin objects causing a darkening and a greasy appearance, damage to paint surfaces, and tackiness of some adhesives.
If used in accordance with labeled directions, fumes of a NuvanÔ pest strip will kill all stages of insects (Williams and Walsh 1989). The pest strip should be used only for short-term eradication of a known infestation in an object or artifact or area in which it was housed. The cultural material should first be cleaned, if possible, and then treated with the proper dosage of pest strip in an enclosed area. Refer to the label on the product to determine the rate for the size of space being treated. The treatment should last no longer than one month. By then, if any eggs were to hatch, the larvae would be killed. The enclosure should then be properly aerated.
Paradichlorobenzene (PDB) - commonly called moth cakes, crystals, or nuggets
This mild fumigant is not labeled for use in museums or collections. Use of paradichlorobenzene in museums or collections is not recommended.
The fumes affect staff, causing watering eyes and nasal irritation. In 2004, New York State banned the use of PDB urinal cakes in schools. California introduced a similar bill in 2006.
Paradichlorobenzene has been known to cause softening of certain finishes, incorporation into waxed surfaces, damage to furniture finishes, fading of acetate dyes, disintegration of hard plastics, such as plastic buttons, ornamentation, styrene, and polystyrene foam, and may craze acrylic sheet. With heavy dosages, PDB may sublimate on objects and artifacts, causing crystal reformation on the piece (Parker, 1990). Special care should be taken to ensure that PDB is never used in conjunction with styrene storage boxes, such as those commonly used for sweater and clothing storage. PDB used in this way can melt the boxes and damage the material stored within.
Paradichlorobenzene fumes released into the air are much heavier than air and therefore will settle in a confined space. Heavy concentrations of this fumigant will kill larvae by preventing them from feeding, thus starving themselves to death. The fumes will also kill insect eggs and adult clothes moths, if confined in a tight-fitting space. This chemical does not repel clothes moths nor keep them from laying eggs.
The proper dosage of PDB to be an effective fumigant is 10 pounds/1,000 cubic feet of space, a very large amount. At this rate at room temperature, Frey (1939) found all stages to be killed in four days or less. Certain institutions have used this chemical by placing small amounts in cabinetry and ranges but these small amounts are ineffective as a fumigant. Billings (1934) and Abbott and Billings (1935) showed PDB, naphthalene, and the cedar oils do not repel moths from feasting on susceptible fabrics.
Naphthalene - commonly called moth flakes and balls
Naphthalene, a slowly volatilizing chemical, is a mild fumigant and a poor insect repellent. It is not labeled for use in museums or collections. Use of naphthalene in museums and collections is not recommended.
Naphthalene poisoning, particularly of infants and children, has been reported in the literature. Hayes (1982) notes that an inherited deficiency of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) in some males makes them particularly susceptible to naphthalene. Naphthalene is readily absorbed when inhaled or ingested.
At a rate of 15 ounces/100 cubic feet, at room temperature in a tight-fitting container, Frey (1939) found naphthalene flakes would kill adults, larvae, and eggs of webbing clothes moths in 2 to 3 weeks. As a repellent, webbing clothes moths will dive in and out of moth flakes sprinkled on susceptible fabrics in order to lay their eggs. Carpet beetles are much more resistant to the effects of naphthalene. The effectiveness of naphthalene depends on the temperature, the amount exposed for volatilization, and the tightness of the container. Although PDB kills insect stages more rapidly, naphthalene is considered more toxic to insects. The use of small amounts of naphthalene in museum cabinetry is not sufficient to act as a mild fumigant.
Cedar Oil
Cedar oil is not labeled for use in museums or collections and has little effectiveness. Use of cedar oil in museums and collections is not recommended.
The heartwood of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) contains two to four percent volatile oils, which will kill newly hatched clothes moth larvae if confined in a tight space. Back and Rabek (1923) found older larvae, eggs, and adult moths will not be killed by the vapors of oil of red cedar. Oil of red cedar is not an insect repellent.
Oil of red cedar may impart a pleasant fragrance to garments, but its effectiveness is limited in most situations. Cedar closets are not tight enough to allow the volatilized oil to reach an effective limit. After approximately three years, cedar chests will have volatilized so much red cedar oil out of the wood lining that they are no longer effective. Placing small slabs or balls of red cedar in garment bags is ineffective for killing or repelling any fabric pest.
Highly Toxic Fumigants
The following highly toxic fumigants can only be administered by pest management professionals trained and certified in the fumigation category of their respective states. The information provided here is given to assist preservation personnel in evaluating treatment options that may be recommended by qualified professionals.
Sulfuryl fluoride (VikaneÔ)
This fumigant is to be used by licensed professionals trained by the manufacturer Dow Chemical Company, primarily for the control of drywood termites, powderpost beetles, and old house borers. It is also labeled for the control of Formosan termites, clothes moths, carpet beetles, and cockroaches.
VikaneÔ fumigations can be applied at a building level and to smaller collections spaces and collections. The common method for building level fumigations with VikaneÔ is, in warm weather, to place a vinyl/fabric, sealed tent over a building to act as an enclosure for the toxic gas. Extensive preparations are required prior to tenting the building. Fans are set in place inside the structure and monitoring tubes are run outside the tent to a device that measures the concentration of the gas. In order to determine the seal is complete, tear gas is used inside the enclosure before the gas is introduced. Once all is in order, the gas is released from pressurized cylinders via shooting tubes into the structure. Warning placards are placed around the entire structure. Some states require a 24-hour guard while the structure is being fumigated. After the required time is met (usually 24 hours), the fans are turned on, the tent is opened and the gas is released to the atmosphere. Testing is then performed to insure the gas has completely disappeared from the building.
Another use for this fumigant is for furniture infestations, such as powderpost beetles or drywood termites. These types of fumigations are usually carried out in a chamber designed for such operations by a licensed professional.
VikaneÔ in its pure form is un-reactive to most museum pieces; however, as supplied by the manufacturer, the fumigant does contain some impurities, which may cause problems with objects or artifacts. Unprotected metals, especially silver, can be tarnished. This is especially true when a gas-fired furnace is left running during the fumigation. Condensation from improper application or from the liquid spurting out of a shooting tube may cause damage.
Methyl bromide
Methyl bromide is not currently registered for use for museum collections. Its use in museums and for collections is not recommended.
Methyl bromide is reactive with many materials commonly found in collections. It readily reacts with natural or latex rubber, cinder blocks, carbonless copy paper, and other sulfur-containing compounds to produce mercaptans, which have an odor of rotten eggs. It will tarnish metals, especially brass and copper.
Phosphine (aluminum phosphide, PhostoxinÔ)
Phosphine is not currently registered for use for museum collections. Use of phosphine in museums and for collections is not recommended.
Phosphine gas is highly corrosive to copper, copper alloys, brass, silver, and gold. It may affect nickel and ultramarine. It will also affect components of electric motors, sprinkler heads, batteries, battery chargers, communication devices, computers, and other devices, which might contain these metals.
Phospine is normally used for fumigation of stored grain. It comes in tablets or pellets, which are introduced into the space or onto the product. Phosphine gas is released into the ambient air and the tablet or pellet slowly crumbles into inert clay.
Sulfuryl fluoride (ProfumeÔ)
ProfumeÔ is not currently registered for use for museum collections. Its use in museums and for collections is not recommended.
This fumigant, manufactured by Dow Chemical Company, is restricted to non-residential use and used primarily for fumigation of stored grain.
Selected bibliography
Abbott, W. S. and S. C. Billings 1935. Further work showing that paradichlorobenzene; naphthalene, and cedar oils are ineffective as repellents against clothes moths. J. Econ. Entomol. 28:493-495.
Back, E. A. and F. Rabek 1923. Red cedar chests as protection against moth damage. USDA Bull. 1051.
Baker, M.T., H. D. Burgess, N.E. Binnie, M.R. Derrick and J. R. Druzik, 1990 Investigation of the Fumigant Vikane®, Preprints ICOM 9th Triennial Meeting Desden, German Democratic Republic 26-31 August 1990, Volume II, Working Group 25 – Control of Biodeterioration
Billings, S. C. 1934. Paradichlorobenzene, naphthalene and the cedar oils inefficient as repellents against clothes moth adult. J. E. Con. Entomol. 29:1014-1016.
Frey, W., 1939. Ueber die wirksamkeit von naphthalin, paradichlorobenzol and hexachlorathum als kliedermottenbekamp fungmitted. Arb. Physiol. Angew. Ent. Ber. 6:189-198.
Getty Conservation Institute. Insect Control with the Fumigant Vikane (1986-1990). http://www.getty.edu/conservation/science/insect_control/index.html
Hayes, W. J. 1982. Pesticides Studied in Man. Waverly Press, Baltimore, MD. Chapter 5, 3.3, pp. 135-137.
National Parks Service. 1993. Conserv-O-Gram 2/4 Dichlorvos/Vapona Update
http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publications/conserveogram/cons_toc.html
Parker, Thomas A., 1990. The Handbook of Pest Control, 7th Edition, ed. K. Story, Chapter 10, pp. 346-375.
Williams S. L. and E. A. Walsh, 1989. Developing Chemical Pest Control Strategies for Museums. Amer. Museum of Nat. History.
Brief description of treatment
Bagging and monitoring objects suspected of being infested is not, strictly speaking, an IPM treatment as
it does not eradicate insects. However, it can indicate the presence of an active infestation and is an
important part of an IPM program. Bagging and monitoring a collections item or items serves to
quarantine the item, so that other items will not be affected.
What collections materials can be treated this way?
Many collecting institutions routinely quarantine, inspect, and clean items entering the museum to avoid
introducing insect pests to the rest of the collection. Some items are relatively easy to inspect, and may
not need quarantining. Others, such as those with complex structures with hidden areas, are difficult to
thoroughly inspect. In these cases, isolating by bagging and monitoring is a useful procedure.
General procedures
• Typically, the item is placed on a white sheet – blotter paper, paper board, or tissue, or foam –
and then sealed in a polyethylene bag.
• Over a period of several weeks or months, the item can be monitored for signs of infestation,
which will be more visible on the white sheet. These signs can include the presence of live adults,
cast-off larvae skins, or deposits of frass, webbing or casings.
• If the type of insect is known, then refer to the literature and determine the life cycle and ensure
that the amount of isolation time covers the time needed for adults to hatch.
Brief description of treatment
By depleting atmospheric oxygen levels to very low levels using reactive oxygen scavengers within an
impermeable enclosure, a modified atmosphere composed almost entirely of nitrogen can be created. All
developmental stages of insect pests can be eradicated if atmospheric oxygen levels within such an
enclosure are maintained below 0.5% for a period of 21 days.
What collections materials can be treated this way?
Most collections can be treated in this manner with the notable exception of materials containing Prussian
blue dyes or pigments. Prussian blue is highly susceptible to fading and irreversible chemical change
when placed in anoxic environments.
General procedures
1. Construct an enclosure using a low-permeability barrier film such as Marvelseal 360, Aclar, Film-
Pak, or Escal. All seams should be heat sealed and checked for leakage. The enclosure should
be made large enough to accommodate a 20% reduction in volume of the enclosed air without
damaging the object being treated. Care should be taken not to make the enclosure too large, as
this may cause an undesired increase in the equilibrium moisture content of the enclosed object
during treatment.
2. Place the object within the barrier film enclosure along with enough oxygen scavenger (Ageless
or RP) to deplete the oxygen contained within the enclosure and to account for any additional
oxygen which may permeate the enclosure during treatment. It is common practice to double or
even triple the calculated amount of oxygen scavenger required to ensure effective treatment.
Some practitioners recommend loosely wrapping the object to be treated in either washed muslin
or acid-free unbuffered tissue. Some heat is generated as the oxygen scavenger reacts with
oxygen, depending on the rate of the reaction. Care must be taken to spread the packets out and
not to place them directly on or next to collections items.
3. Carefully pull air out of the enclosure with a vacuum. Seal the final seam of the enclosure. Check
the enclosure periodically for shrinkage during the first few days of treatment. If the enclosure
has been constructed and sealed properly, a 20% reduction in the volume of the enclosed air
mass should be observable by the third to fifth day.
4. Keep the enclosure sealed for 21 days. After 21 days the enclosure may be opened, and the
object can be removed.
Pros and Cons of this treatment
• Pros
o Relatively simple and inexpensive.
o Appropriate for a wide variety of collection materials.
o Oxygen scavengers are not registered pesticides; no licensing is required.
• Cons
o Requires a relatively long period for treatment.
o Care must be taken to properly construct and seal the enclosure.
o Care must be taken to select the proper oxygen scavenger. Some oxygen scavengers
contain an added desiccant (e.g. RP Type A), which could decrease the equilibrium
Integrated Pest Management Working Group 2
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
moisture content of objects during treatment.
o Not appropriate for use on materials containing Prussian blue pigments or dyes
Supplies needed
• Oxygen scavenger such as Ageless or RP Systems.
o Note that while the manufacturer suggests using Ageless Eye as an indicator for oxygen
levels, results are variable and it may be more practical to use an excess of scavenger
for the recommended 21 days.
• Low-permeability barrier film such as Marvelseal 360, Aclar, or Escal.
o There are pros and cons with each of these materials: Marvelseal is not transparent, so
the object is not visible within the enclosure, but it is easier to evaluate the quality of the
seal. With the transparent films Aclar, and Escal, the object is visible in the enclosure but
it is more difficult to evaluate the quality of the seal because pinholes and gaps are not as
visible. Finally, it takes longer to create a seal with Marvelseal than with the transparent
films. Some users choose to use two barrier films: a clear film such as Aclar or Escal for
the front side so that items and monitors inside the enclosure will be visible during
treatment, and an aluminum barrier foil such as Marvelseal 360 for the back side.
Selected bibliography
Brandon, J. and G. Hanlon. 2003. A low tech method for insect eradication using Ageless. Wooden
Artifact Specialty Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation 31st
Annual Meeting, Arlington
VA. http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2003/brandon_hanlon_03.pdf
Burke, J. 1996. Anoxic Microenvironments: a simple guide, SPNHC leaflet 1(1): 1-4.
http://www.keepsafe.ca/jburke.shtml
Burke, J. 1992. Vapor Barrier Films. WAAC Newsletter. Volume 14, Number 2, May 1992, pp.13-17
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn14/wn14-2/wn14-204.html
Daniel, V. and F. L. Lambert. Ageless Oxygen Scavenger: Practical Applications. WAAC Newsletter.
Volume 15, Number 2, May 1993, pp. 12-14 http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn15/wn15-2/wn15-
206.html
National Park Service, May 1999. Conserve O Gram Number 3/9: Anoxic Environments: A Treatment For
Pest Control. http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publications/conserveogram/03-09.pdf
Product suppliers
Ageless oxygen absorber, manufactured by Mitsubishi http://www.mgc-a.com/ageless/ageless.html is
available from several museum supply companies (check the internet for availability.)
RP system scavengers manufactured by Mitsubishi, http://www.mgc-a.com/rpsystem/mgca.html is
available from several museum supply companies (check the internet for availability.)
Escal film is manufactured by Mitsubishi RP system http://www.mgc-a.com/rpsystem/bags.html and is
available from several museum supply companies (check the internet for availability.)
Marvelseal is manufactured by Berry Plastics/Covalence Coated Products (formerly Ludlow Corp),
http://www.covalencecoatedproducts.com/en-US/default.aspx and is available from many museum supply
companies (check the internet for availability.)
Aclar film is manufactured by and available from Honeywell International, Inc., Specialty Films
http://www.honeywell.com/ and it is also available from Keepsafe Systems Inc. http://www.keepsafe.ca/
Pest Treatment Case Study: Carbon Dioxide Treatments at Historic New England-
Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities
Overview
Originally developed for the food and grain industry, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) treatments
(sometimes also referred to as either modified or controlled atmosphere treatments) have been
safely adapted into the museum environment. Historic New England-Society for the
Preservation of New England Antiquities (HNE-SPNEA) continues to use other forms of
treatments like low temperature/freezing, and low-tech heat treatments; but the use of CO2
remains the preferred choice for the following reasons:
• Existing in-house system.
• Unit is able to accommodate large objects, up to 9’ w x 11’ h.
• Gas is inert with no residue or carryover effects on collections.
• Lower cost, per large-volume operations and lesser need for auxiliary humidification
compared to nitrogen.
• objects can be safely and immediately returned to storage following treatment
• Cost effective. Equipment and initial set up is expensive, but price of gas is quite
reasonable and equipment needs little maintenance. In-house staff time is minimal
during treatment cycle.
• With proper training, treatments can be done by staff without need for special permit or
license depending on local and federal regulations.
Background
HNE-SPNEA follows guidelines for using CO2 to treat pest infested collections based on
material found in the Getty Conservation Institute’s 1998 publication Inert Cases in the Control
of Museum Pests, which includes detailed technical data and information on mortality rates,
personal research and studies, and 15 years experience using the system. . Generally
speaking, the length of treatment time inside of the unit is largely dependent upon temperature
(25-30ºC), species vs. time (days), and a consistent oxygen level of 4.9- 8.4%, corresponding to
a CO2 range of 75-60%. During the process, the CO2 levels drop to 60% over a 7 week period
and then maintained at this level for an additional 21 days. This is to ensure mortality for more
resistant species and heavy infestations.
Treating collections with carbon dioxide
HNE- SPNEA has over 37 primary historic house sites, and a collection of more than 80,000
oversized objects, for example, furniture, architectural fragments, and large rugs. After a bad
infestation of webbing clothes moths and furniture beetles at one of its sites and a moth
infestation in a storage area at the facility, the museum chose to purchase a standard Rentokil
bubble unit in 1992. A new membrane was installed in 2000 by the Maheu & Maheu Company.
Purchasing an in-house CO2 bubble unit made it possible to treat oversized collections on a
regular, monthly cycle. It also proved to be cost-efficient in terms of seeking alternative
treatment methods and outside service vendors. The museum currently offers treatment
services to outside clients including neighboring museums, galleries, and private clients. Once
objects have been treated, they can be safely and immediately returned to storage areas.
The museum has treated many different types of collection items including: organic, inorganic,
and composites. Thus far, there has been no damage to collections, as each treatment run is
monitored daily for temperature, relative humidity (RH), oxygen and CO2 levels.
There has been some discussion about the risk of the formation of carbonic acid when carbon
dioxide encounters water during treatment, particularly at higher relative humidity levels
(Reichmuth 1987). However, the formation of carbonic acid is unlikely: it is a two step process
and requires liquid water, not moist air. Furthermore, the reaction is endothermic, meaning that
an input of energy is required to break some stable CO2 bonds, so it does not spontaneously.
Therefore there is little possibility of damage to objects with sensitive surfaces; however users
should avoid treating anything that is wet or saturated.
Another reason for favoring CO2 for large-volume operations is its lesser need for auxiliary
humidification. At a 60% CO2 level, 40% of the original water vapor remains, in addition to
additional moisture buffering by wooden and paper collections in the treatment chamber
(Selwitz, Maekawa 1998, chapter 8).
Procedures
The unit consists of a large plastic membrane that is closed and sealed by a zip strip. An inner
framework of wood supports the unit and acts as a ‘skeleton’ for the membrane. Auxiliary
heating and humidification should be done prior to loading the unit, making sure to give
collections ample time to slowly adjust to changing conditions. The room that the unit is in has
an overhead heating system with a thermostat and a fan-driven humidification system. Overall
conditions within the room and inside of the unit are monitored with LCD data loggers.
Collections are loaded into the unit and arranged for an even balance, allowing the CO2 gas to
easily permeate through the objects within the unit. The unit is then zipped closed and a
motorized vacuum system draws residual air out of the bubble creating a vacuum. The gas is
now pumped into the unit at a rate of 5psi. Once the gas inside of the bubble reaches the
maximum capacity volume, the unit is drawn creating another vacuum. The gas is once again
pumped into the unit until the ideal oxygen/ CO2 levels are reached, within a 7-day period (25-
30ºC; 60% CO2). From this point on, the unit is maintained at the ideal levels and temperature
and RH are regulated throughout the cycle, or about 21 days.
Once the cycle is complete the unit is vacuum drawn, the ventilation system is turned on, and
the unit is opened. Once the CO2 levels within the room have returned to normal levels (.040%)
the collections can be returned to their respective locations.
Technical Information
• The original unit was purchased through Rentokil in 1992 and a new membrane was
purchased through Maheu & Maheu in 2000. The motorized vacuum unit was part of the
original unit.
• There is a CEI Instruments CO2 analyzer, which is hard wired to a powerful ventilation
system which automatically runs when CO2 levels exceed .10%. The monitor has a
digital display reading and it monitors the level by taking a gas sample every two
minutes.
• An overhead heating unit, with digital thermostat allows the museum to run the unit
through the colder winter months month’s while maintaining the ideal temperature.
Integrated Pest Management Working Group 3
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
• An OXOR II oxygen monitor is used during the treatment cycle to monitor the O2 levels
inside of the unit.
• The humidification system, which is used primarily during the winter months, is a
portable, commercial fan-driven model.
• The museum uses size 200 T-cylinders of bone-dry grade CO2 gas. There is a gas
regulator unit that has a built-in heater to prevent freezing. En-route to the unit, the gas
passes through a three-jar humidification system which allows the gas to be humidified
as it enters the unit.
• A digital hygrothermograph monitors the temperature and RH of the gas entering the
bubble.
Equipment
The unit is located in a secure room location, separate and away from permanent storage
areas. The room is across from the freight elevator for easy access and loading. While all of the
Collections staff has access to the room, only the Collections Technician is allowed to operate
the unit, and has sole responsibility of its use and safety.
Systems and specs:
• The original unit was a Rentokil system, which included membrane- 2 parts, motorized
vacuum system, and spring-valve accessories. The new membrane was purchased
through Maheu & Maheu.
http://www.maheu-maheu.com/Fiche.aspx?Page=BulleFumigation
• OXOR II O2- Single gas analyzer. Connects to unit through spring-valve and draws gas
sample, and gives LCD readout of oxygen percentage
http://www.bacharach-inc.com/single_gas_analyzers.htm
• CEI- Instruments CO2 analyzer, model 266. Wall mounted unit which has an infra-red
sensor that draws a gas sample every two seconds, displays through LCD readout.
Normal atmospheric CO2 levels are .040% and set to trip alarm at .10%, which sends an
automatic signal to the operation of the exhaust fan.
www.ceainstr.com/pdf_datasheets/266_Info.pdf
Issues concerning treatments, health, and safety of staff and collections
Precautions for unit set up and CO2 usage should always be followed. The usage and
classification of CO2 vary from state to state in the U.S., and within other regions, countries, and
continents, so classification and use should be researched. HNE-SPNEA operates within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts which does not list CO2 as a fumigant. Therefore it is not
required to have a special permit or license to buy, own, or use. However, the potential dangers
and risks of its usage should not be ignored. It is an inert gas but does pose human health risks.
See MSDS: www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/1013.pdf
The museum operates the unit in an area that is not occupied or crossed through by staff, and
utilizes the CO2 analyzer to monitor the levels along with an exhaust fan.
References
Selwitz, Charles and Maekawa, Shin. 1988. Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests,
Getty Conservation Institute.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf
Integrated Pest Management Working Group 4
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Reichmuth, C. 1987. Low oxygen content to control stored product insects. In: Donahaye, E.,
and Navarro, S., ed., Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Stored-
Product Protection. Tel Aviv, Israel, September 1986. 194-207.
Pest Treatment Case Study: Low Temperature Pest Management Treatment at the
Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian
Controlled low temperature has become a routine pest management and eradication method for
museums because of concerns about the safety of chemical fumigation. The Smithsonian National
Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) has used other forms of treatment for pest eradication in the past;
including CO2, sulfuryl fluoride and low oxygen with scavengers, but low temperature is now the preferred
treatment for several reasons:
• it is inert and non-toxic and thus safe for staff
• treatment time is much quicker than other methods
• it requires relatively little staff time
• although running the freezers does entail energy costs, overall the method is cost-efficient,
especially because the museum made the initial cost outlay to install walk-in freezers at two of
the museum’s three facilities. Inevitably, there are some costs associated with upkeep.
Background
The NMAI follows the guidelines for freezing for pest eradication based on recent research on time and
temperature exposures required to achieve 100 percent mortality for particular insects as described by
Strang at the Canadian Conservation Institute (1997). These guidelines are based on the lethal
temperatures and exposure times published in the entomological literature, on the knowledge of how
insects survive cold, and on successful treatment over past decades at various institutions. In general, the
length of time that objects are placed in a freezer depends on the temperature the freezer is capable of
reaching. It is recommended that insect pests be exposed to the lowest possible temperatures for the
longest possible time.
Collections materials treated with low temperature
During the recent five-year move of collections from New York to Maryland (completed in 2004), NMAI
chose to use low temperature treatment for the majority of the large collection of organic or composite
organic and inorganic archaeological and ethnographic objects – tens of thousands of items. Most of the
collections items are composite and many include materials previously thought to be damaged by low
temperature treatment, including restrained hide, material with propagating cracks, painted wood, and
lamellar material. The museum has experienced virtually no damage to these materials, despite early
apprehensions, and continues to use this method for nearly all organic and composite organic/inorganic
objects. Currently the only materials not treated with low temperature are oil and acrylic paintings on
panels or canvas.
Research on the safety of freezing museum materials has identified several areas of concern (Carrlee
2003.) Embrittlement, shrinkage, thermal shock, phase changes, and molecular alteration may pose
threats and must be considered when determining if a material is appropriate to freeze. However,
condensation, freeze-thaw cycles, dehydration, and swelling do not significantly affect objects properly
prepared in sealed plastic bags with buffering material. Furthermore, practically speaking, the museum
must balance the risks involved with potential wide-spread infestations caused by bringing infested
material in contact with other collections items.
Procedures
Conservation staff work with Registration and Collections Management to determine which objects are
appropriate to freeze. Typically, all organic materials or composite organic/inorganic items are treated
Integrated Pest Management Working Group 2
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
before being catalogued and brought into collections or exhibitions areas. This includes new accessions,
props, items returning from loan, non-accessioned educational materials and personal materials which
may be kept in staff offices or cubicles. This is done as a preventive measure even if no signs of
infestation are evident. Objects are sealed in self-closing polyethylene bags or in cardboard boxes
wrapped with polyethylene sheeting and sealed on all seams with tape that will not fail in low
temperatures. Lightweight bagged objects are also placed in boxes so they are not subject to air
movement within the freezer.
The boxes are placed on carts for loading into the freezer. After 5-7 days, the boxes are removed from
the freezer. Until they return to room temperature, objects are extremely fragile. Handling is kept to a
minimum and done very carefully during this time. Before being unwrapped and handled, items are given
at least 24 hours to return to room temperature. This protects against any potential condensation onto the
surface of the object itself.
Staff track objects undergoing freezing treatment in several ways. First, a hand-written log is kept next to
the freezer. Second, a system of labels indicating objects to be frozen and those which have been frozen
is used. Labels reading “freeze” are affixed to polyethylene wrapping or bags before objects are placed in
the freezer. Upon removal from the freezer, labels reading “frozen” are associated with the items. Finally,
barcode scanning is used to record the process and the information, including date of treatment, and that
information is attached to accessioned object records in the museum’s collections database.
Equipment
The NMAI has walk-in freezers built into the Cultural Resources Center storage facility in Suitland,
Maryland, and the Mall Museum facility on the National Mall in Washington DC. These facilities regularly
receive collections materials and non-accessioned props and educational material that may come into
contact with accessioned collections materials on exhibit or in storage. Both freezers were included in
original building designs. Each freezer reaches a low temperature of minus 40 degrees centigrade
(equivalent to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit). Based on this, 72 hours is probably adequate for treatment
but the museum usually keeps materials in the freezer for about one week.
• Mall Museum freezer
o Located in secure collections workroom, adjacent to loading dock and freight elevator. Internal
lock in door handle, only Collections Manager has access.
o Low velocity unit coolers Century Refrigeration Series FV
o “FV units are a blow through design with two-way air throw, designed for flush ceiling mounting
with no surfaces above the unit to be cleaned. The FV Series also has a hinged drain pan
arrangement. Units are constructed of a heavy gauge smooth finish aluminum cabinet with
copper tube, aluminum plate fin coil, and permanently lubricated fan motors with inherent thermal
protection.” http://www.rae-corp.com/fv.htm
o Two automatically rotating systems alternate during 6 hour cycle for redundancy/backup.
o Honeywell DR4300 Circular Chart Recorder on exterior of box provides continuous recording of
internal box temperatures.
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/printfriendly.asp?FAM=rda&PN=DR4300%20Basic
o Box manufactured by Elliot Williams Co. LLC walk-in coolers and freezers
www.elliottwilliams.com
o Dimensions: 7’8” wide, 10’ 7” long, 8’ 10” high. Door Dimensions: 4’4” wide, 8’ high.
• Cultural Resources Center freezer
o Located in secure hallway adjacent to loading dock, collections processing workrooms, and
freight elevator. Secured with padlock, limited staff access.
o Two-stage 10 HP refrigeration system with a 45 minute defrost cycle every 6 hours. Rooftop
outdoor air cooled condensing units
o Bohn Medium Profile, reaches minus 40 degrees Centigrade.
o Walk-in box manufactured by Bally www.ballyrefboxes.com/products/coolerfreezer.htm
o Internal dimensions: 8' wide, 16'5" deep, and 7’10" high (except where fans are)
Integrated Pest Management Working Group 3
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
o External dimensions: 15'5" x 9'8" x 9'6"
Points of caution, notes, and recommended features:
• Alarm system for problems with temperature controls.
• External chart recorder (on the outside of the unit)
• Double check rolling load capabilities with manufacturer. If freezing very heavy items and/or use of
pallet jacks is anticipated, make sure the floor inside the freezer box is reinforced. NMAI had to retrofit
one freezer with a ¼” - 3/16” aluminum diamond tread plate.
• Ensure that controls are easily accessible.
• If the freezer has heating strips around the door, make sure controls for these are accessible and will
be turned off if the freezer is turned off or power goes out. Otherwise, if the heating strips are left on
inadvertently while the freezer is off, the freezer box becomes a heating box, can cause damage to
collections, and the heating strips will eventually burn out.
Pros and Cons
• Pros:
o Almost all materials can be treated with this method; relatively fast; relatively easy; requires
relatively little staff time and oversight; relatively inexpensive after initial outlay for freezer unit.
• Cons:
o Some confusion and difference of opinion about low temperature treatment remains in the
museum field, particularly about what items can be treated, and “cycling.” In recent years,
research has shown that low temperature treatment does not damage most materials previously
thought to be vulnerable. Freezers of relatively recent manufacture can achieve lower
temperatures than previously, obviating the need for cycling (see especially Florian 1997, chapter
12.)
o More research is needed on some questions such as possible micro-structural damage caused
by repeated freezing treatments.
o Some maintenance required.
o Freezing, like all non-chemical treatments, provides no residual protection against future
infestations, so standard preventive policies including housekeeping, food policies, and
monitoring must be in place as part of a successful integrated pest management policy.
Costs
TBD
References
Strang, Tom “Controlling Insect Pests with Low Temperature” Canadian Conservation Institute
Note 3/3, 1997. http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/publications/ccinotes/pdf-documents/n3-3_e.pdf
Strang T.J.K. 1992. A Review of Published Temperatures for the Control of Pest Insects in
Museums. Collection Forum 8(2) (Fall 1992):41-67.
Carrlee, Ellen “Does Low-Temperature Pest Management Cause Damage? Literature Review
and Observational Study of Ethnographic Artifacts” Journal of the American Institute for
Conservation 42 (2003):141-166.
Florian, Mary-Lou. Heritage Eaters: Insects and Fungi in Heritage Collections. James & James
Publishers; 1997.
Baker, M. T., H. D. Burgess, N. E. Binnie, M. R. Derrick, and J. R. Druzik. "Investigation of the Fumigant Vikane." in ICOM 9th Triennial Meeting.
Dawson, J. "The Effects of Insecticides on Museum Artefacts and Materials." A Guide To Museum Pest Control. eds L. A. Zycherman, and JR SchrockWashington DC: Association of Systematic Collections, 1988.
Strang, Thomas J. K. "Framework for Integrated Pest Management: A Systematic Approach ." Research on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, 2001-2003. (2002): 107-28.
The website for Insects Limited which specializes in non-toxic pest control methods. There is a section of the site that offers images and information to identify common museum pests and offers tips on monitoring collections. They webpublish the Fumigants & Pheromones Newsletter.
http://www.insectslimited.com/
http://www.insectslimited.com/Fumigants%20&%20Pheromones%20Newsletter.htm
This website is provided by an alliance of four pest control organizations (Fumigation Services and Supply, Insects Limited, Food Safety Specialists, and the Food Protection Alliance to provide updates on fumigants and their registration status. Also a source for material safety data sheets for lots of pesticides.
http://www.fumigationzone.com/
Bell Environmental, a national pest control company website.
http://www.bell-environmental.com/
Do-It Yourself Pest Control Inc., a resource for supplies for residential and commercial control of pests.
http://www.doyourownpestcontrol.com/
http://www.epestsupply.com/pest_information.htm
Degesh America Inc. is a company that produces the aluminum phosphide product Phostoxin®.
http://www.degeschamerica.com
The website of the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials provides a directory of pest control officials by state.
http://aapco.ceris.purdue.edu/index.html
Information on pesticides and alternatives to their use.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
The Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard provides information on pollution-related issues. It’s search engine gives chemical profiles on specific chemicals as well as pesticide formulations.
http://www.scorecard.org/
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site gives information on pesticides, pollutants and legislation. The Office of Pesticide Programs offers an immense amount of information on pesticides.
www.epa.gov
www.epa.gov/pesticides
The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Poison Programs provides an online version of their handbook “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisons”. Information on toxicology, signs and symptoms of poisoning and treatment is given.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/handbook/handbook.htm
Extension Toxicology Network “Extoxnet” offers a search engine and extensive literature on pesticides including pesticide information profiles and toxicology information.
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/
PANNA (Pesticide Action Network North America) works to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. The goal is to local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens' action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to insure the transition to a just and viable society.
www.panna.org
PESTICIDE.NET is a source of news, analysis and regulatory information on conventional, biological and antimicrobial pesticides. It is also the home to the “Insider eJournal”, devoted to pesticide-related developments at the state and federal level.
www.pesticide.net
The National Pesticide Information Center provides information on pesticide products, toxicology and environmental chemistry with MSDS database and more.
http://npic.orst.edu/index.html
The University of Nebraska Pesticide Education Resources page offers general pesticide-oriented literature plus links to numerous other sites.
http://pested.unl.edu/pesticide/pages/index.jsp
Article from Smithsonian Institution Museum Conservation Institute (MC) on detecting arsenic on collections
http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/reports/Arsenic2005.pdf
The National Pesticide Information Center provides information on pesticide products, toxicology and environmental chemistry with MSDS database and more.
http://npic.orst.edu/index.html
Downloadable Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets and pesticide labels from on-line retailer E-PestSupply.com
http://www.epestsupply.com/pesticide_labels.htm
The University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences Cooperative Extension Service. Information on safe handling, storage and use of pesticides as well as first aid for pesticide exposure. http://www.ent.uga.edu/ipm/homeowner_ipm.htm#basics
Searchable database on specific chemicals, including many used in pesticide formulations. Links to other sites with health and safety, and regulatory information.
http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/
“Recognition and Management of Acute Pesticide Poisoning” by William M. Simpson, Jr., M.D., and Stanley H. Schuman, M.D., DrPH is available on the American Academy of Family Physicians News & Publications webpage.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020415/1599.html
Crop Data Management Systems Inc. website with pesticide label and MSDS resources. It is organized by crop/noncrop pesticide and manufacturer. Good for those familiar with manufacturers.
http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp
Kelly Solutions is used for a few different pesticide related matters. Contains information on state registrations of pesticides.
http://www.kellysolutions.com/
This site is operated by Univar, one of the largest suppliers of equipment and chemicals to the pest control industry. Some areas require free registration. They have a comprehensive pest ID and Label/MSDS facility.
http://www.pestweb.com/
The Entomological Society of America (ESA) serves the professional and scientific needs of entomologists and colleagues in related disciplines. Members include educators, extension personnel, consultants, students, researchers, and scientists from agricultural departments, health agencies, private industries, colleges and universities, and state and federal governments. The organization publishes four journals and the website allows members to search for research articles. Entomology Buyers' Guide is a portal to businesses and organizations that serve the entomological community. The directory can be used to find suppliers of products and services frequently used in entomology and related biological sciences. The Buyer's Guide is organized by functional categories with a useful search function.
http://www.entsoc.org/
http://www.entsoc.org/Pubs/Buyers_Guide/
Arney, J. S., A. J. Jacobs, and R. Newman. "Influence of Oxygen on the Fading of Organic Colourants." Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 18 (1979): 108-17.
Arnold, William J. "Fumigation for Insect Control: Sensitive Structures, Museums and Art and Vauluables Repositories." WAAC Newsletter 7, no. 1 (1985): 6-7.
Bailey, SW, and HJ Banks. A Review of Recent Studies of the Effects of Controlled Atmospheres on Stored Product Pests, Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grains. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1980.
Baker, J. The Effect of Freezing on Ethnographic Materials: A Study Using SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) . Chicago, USA: Department of Anthropology, Field Museum of Natural History.
Baskin, B. "Solar Bagging: Putting Sunlight to Work to Eliminate Insect Infestations in Mere Hours." WAAC Newsletter 23, no. 2 (2001): 20-21.
Bennett, G., J. Owens, and R. Corrigan. Truman's Scientific Guide to Pest Management Operations. 6th ed. Cleveland, Ohio: Advanstar Communications Inc., 2003.
Bergh, J. E., and M. Akerlund. "Anoxic Treatment of Insect Collections and Impact of Drawer Designs." Collection Forum 22, no. 1-2 (2007): 10-22.
Bergh, J. E., Karl-Martin Jensen, M. Akerlund, L. Hansen Stengard, and Martin Andren. "A Contribution to Standards for Freezing As a Pest Control Method for Museums." Collection Forum 21, no. 1-2 (2006): 117-25.
Bergh, J. E., L. Stenglrd Hansen, K.-M. Vagn Jensen, and P. Vaeggemose Nielsen. "The Effect of Anoxic Treatment on the Larvae of Six Species of Dermestids (Coleoptera)." Journal of Applied Entomology 127, no. 6 (2003): 317-21.
Blyth, Valerie. "The Indian Vase Carpet Fragment, Decisions and Discussions Prior to Conservation." Victoria and Albert Conservation Journal 31 (1999).
———. "Pest Management at the Victoria and Albert Museum." in Post Prints, UKIC Furniture Section, Pest Control in Organic Materials1996.
Blyth, Valerie, and L Hillyer. "Beating Unwanted Guests." Victoria and Albert Conservation Journal 10 (1994).
Blyth, Valerie, and Lynda Hillyer. "Carpet Beetle: A Pilot Study in Detection and Control." The Conservator 16 (1992).
Burke, J. "Anoxic Microenvironments: a Simple Guide."1, no. 1 (1996): 1-4.
Burke, J. "Vapour Barrier Films." WAAC Newsletter 14, no. 2 (1992): 13-17.
Burke, John. Materials and Equipment for Anoxic Fumigation.
Busvine, JR. Insects and Hygene. The Biology and Control of Insect Pests of Medical and Domestic Importance. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.
Carrlee, Ellen. "Does Low Temperature Pest Management Cause Damage? Literature Review and Observational Study of Ethnographic Artifacts." Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 42 (2003): 141-66.
Corey, Peter, Curator of Collections. "Alaska Stae Museums Bulletin Newsletters - How to Deal With Mold in Baskets." Web page, Available at http://www.museums.state.ak.us/Bulletin/basketmold.html.
Cushing, Paula E., Vivian Pliler, and C. S. Ware . "Potential Effect of Residual Anti-Parasitic Compound in Muscle Tissue on a Museum Dermestid Colony." Collection Forum 22, no. 1-2 (2007): 45-52.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, and S Maekawa. "Eradication of Insect Pests in Museums Using Nitrogen." WAAC Newsletter 15, no. 3 (1993): 15-19.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, and S Maekawa. "Non-Toxic Fumigation of Large Objects."21st Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Conservation1993.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, S Maekawa, and F Preusser. "Nitrogen Fumigation: a Viable Alternative ."International Council of Museums, 14th Triennial Meeting.
Daniel, V, and Lambert FL. "Ageless Oxygen Scavanger: Practical Applications." WAAC Newsletter 15, no. 2 (1993): 12-14.
Dawson, J. "The Effects of Insecticides on Museum Artefacts and Materials." A Guide To Museum Pest Control. eds L. A. Zycherman, and JR SchrockWashington DC: Association of Systematic Collections, 1988.
Florian, M. L. "Ethylene Oxide Fumigation: A Literature Review of the Problems and Interactions With Materials and Substances in Artefacts." A Guide To Museum Pest Control. eds L. A. Zycherman, and JR SchrockWashington DC: Association of Systematic Collections, 1988.
Florian, ML. "The Effect on Artefact Materials of the Fumigant Ethylene Oxide and Freezing Used in Insect Control."ICOM Committee for Conservation, 8th Triennial Meeting.
———. "The Freezing Process-Effect on Insects and Artefact Materials." Leather Conservation News 3, no. 1 (1986).
Gagelmann, M. First Results of a Pilot Decontamination in a PCP Polluted Building by Means of a Humidity Controlled Thermal Process.
Gilberg, M. "Inert Atmosphere Fumigation of Museum Objects." Studies in Conservation 34 (1989).
Gilberg, Mark. "The Effects of Low Oxygen Atmospheres on Museum Pests." Studies in Conservation 36 (1991): 93-98.
Hadlington, PW. A Guide to Pest Control in Australia. Sydney, Australia: NSW University Press, 1976.
Hanlon, G, V Daniel, N Ravenel, and S Maekawa. "Dynamic System for Nitrogen Anoxia of Large Museum Objects: A Pest Eradication Case Study."Second International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property.
Hedges, Stoy, and Mark Lacey. Field Guide for the Management of Structure Infesting Beetles, Vol. 2. Cleveland: Franzak and Foster Co..
Hillyer, L, and V Blyth. "Carpet Beetles A Pilot Study in Detection and Control." The Conservator 16 (1992): 65-77.
Kesse, Erich. Letter About Fumigation.
Kigawa, R., H. Nochide, Y. Miyazawa, S. Miura, and Thomas J. K. Strang. "Carbon Dioxide Adsorption by Various Kinds of Materials in the Eradication of Museum Pest Insects. " Science for Conservation 42, no. 79-86.
Kingsley, Helen, David Pinninger, Amber Xavier-Rowe, and Peter Winsor. Integrated Pest Management for Collections, Proceedings of 2001: A Pest OdysseyEnglish Heritage.
Koestler, R. "Practical Application of Nitrogen and Argon Fumigation Procedures for Insect Control in Museum Objects." in International Conference of Bio Deterioration of Cultural Property, 96-981992.
Linnie, Martyn J. "Intergrated Pest Management: A Proposed Strategy for Natural History Museums." Museum Management and Curatorship 15 , no. 2 (1996): 133-43.
Maekawa, Shin, and Kerstin Elert. The Use of Oxygen-Free Environments in the Control of Museum Insect Pests. Studies in Coervation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2003.
Mallis, Arnold. Handbook of Pest ControlMallis Handbook and Technical Training Company, 1997.
———. Handbook of Pest Control : the Behavior, Life History, and Control of Household Pests by Arnold Mallis. 9 ed. Cleveland, OH: GIE Media Inc., 2004.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Submitted by Laura Smyk
Mibach, Lisa. "Modifications to Home Freezers for Pest Control." WAAC Newsletter (1994): 26-27.
Motylewsky, Karen. "Pest, Insect & Fungus Management - Conference Notes." .
National Park Service. " Annox Environments: A Treatment for Pest Control." (1999).
Nicholson, Mark, and Werner von Rotberg. "Controlled Environment Heat Treatment As a Safe and Efficient Method of Pest Control."The 2nd International Conferecne on Insect Pests in the Urban Environment.
Pinniger, David. "Insect Control with the Thermo Lignum Treatment." Web page, Available at http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/preservation/training/pests/bibliog/thermo.htm.
Pinniger, David. Insect Pests in MuseumsInstitue of Archaeology Publications, 1989.
Pinniger, David, Adrian Meyer, and Annette Townsend. Pest Management in Museums, Archives and Historic Houses. London: Archetype Publications Ltd., 2001.
Pinzl, Ann. "Modifying a Freezer for Pest Control." SPNHC Newsletter 7 (2), no. 4 (1993).
———. "Modifying a Freezer for Pest Control." in Modifications to Home Freezers for Pest Control. WAAC Newsletter. Lisa Mibach, 26-27. Vol. 16. 1994.
Rust, Michael K., and Janice M. Kennedy. The Feasibility of Using Modified Atmospheres to Control Insect Pests in Museums.Getty Conservation Institue, 1993.
Schwartz, P. H. Guidelines for the Control of Insect and Mite Pests of Food, Fibers, Feeds, Ornamentals, Livestock, and Households. USDA-ARS Handbook, 584. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1982.
Selwitz, Charles and Shin Maekawa. "Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests." Web page, Available at http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf.
Strang, Thomas J. K. " A Brief Guide to Thermal and Controlled Atmosphere Treatments for Insect Eradication." Preventive Conservation Working Group Letter 1:4 (1995).
———. "Controlling Insect Pests With Low Temperature." CCI Note 3/3, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1997.
———. "The Effects of Thermal Methods of Pest Control on Museum Collections." in Preprints of the 3rd International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property, pp 199-212.
———. "Framework for Integrated Pest Management: A Systematic Approach ." Research on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, 2001-2003. (2002): 107-28.
———. "A Healthy Dose of the Past? A Future Direction in Herbarium Pest Control." in Managing the Modern Herbarium, An Interdisciplinary Approach. eds D. A. Metsger, and S. C. ByersVancouver: Elton-Wolf, 1999.
———. "I'Ve Got Bugs in My Pockets and I Dont Know What to Do With Them." AAM Museum News 84, no. 4 (2005): 46-47.
———. "Moth Eaten." in Fur Trade Legacy, the Preservation of Organic Materials. Preprints From the Workshop at the 31st Annual ConferenceCanadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property.
———. "Principles of Heat Disinfestation." in Integrated Pest Management for Collections, Proceedings of 2001: A Pest Odyssey, eds Helen Kingsley, David Pinninger, Amber Xavier-Rowe, and Peter Winsor, Chapter 18, pp 114-29London: James and James.
———. "A Review of Published Temperatures for the Control of Pest Insects in Museums." Collection Forum 8, no. 2 (1992): 41-67.
———. "Thermal Control of Museum Insect Pests: Basic Principles and Practical Examples Worldwide." Research on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, 2001-2003. (2002).
Strang, Thomas J. K., and John E. Dawson. "Solving Museum Insect Problems: Chemical Control." Canadian Conservation Institute Technical Bulletin, Canadian Conservation Institute, 2000.
Strang, Thomas J. K., and R. Kigawa. "Levels of IPM Control, Matching Conditions to Performance and Effort. " in SPNHC, 20th Cfoerence PostprintCollection Forum.
The Chicora Foundation. Managing: Pests in Your Collections.
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) Entomological Sciences Division. "Pest Management Bulletin - Heat and Cockroaches." Web page, Available at http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/ento/bulmar94.htm#HEAT AND COCKROACHES.
Valentin, N. "Insect Eradication in Museums and Archives by Oxygen Replacement, a Pilot Project." in ICOM Committee for Conservation 9th Triennial MeetingLos Angeles: ICOM Committee for Conservation, 1990.
Williams, S., and S. McLaren. "Modification of Storage Design to Mitigate Insect Problems." Collection Forum 6, no. 1 (1990): :27-32.
Zycherman, Lynda, and JR Schrock, ed. A Guide to Museum Pest Control. Washington: Association of Systematics Collections, 1988.
Arney, J. S., A. J. Jacobs, and R. Newman. "Influence of Oxygen on the Fading of Organic Colourants." Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 18 (1979): 108-17.
Arnold, William J. "Fumigation for Insect Control: Sensitive Structures, Museums and Art and Vauluables Repositories." WAAC Newsletter 7, no. 1 (1985): 6-7.
Bailey, SW, and HJ Banks. A Review of Recent Studies of the Effects of Controlled Atmospheres on Stored Product Pests, Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grains. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1980.
Baker, J. The Effect of Freezing on Ethnographic Materials: A Study Using SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) . Chicago, USA: Department of Anthropology, Field Museum of Natural History.
Baker, M. T., H. D. Burgess, N. E. Binnie, M. R. Derrick, and J. R. Druzik. "Investigation of the Fumigant Vikane." in ICOM 9th Triennial Meeting.
Baskin, B. "Solar Bagging: Putting Sunlight to Work to Eliminate Insect Infestations in Mere Hours." WAAC Newsletter 23, no. 2 (2001): 20-21.
Bergh, J. E., Karl-Martin Jensen, M. Akerlund, L. Hansen Stengard, and Martin Andren. "A Contribution to Standards for Freezing As a Pest Control Method for Museums." Collection Forum 21, no. 1-2 (2006): 117-25.
Bergh, J. E., L. Stenglrd Hansen, K.-M. Vagn Jensen, and P. Vaeggemose Nielsen. "The Effect of Anoxic Treatment on the Larvae of Six Species of Dermestids (Coleoptera)." Journal of Applied Entomology 127, no. 6 (2003): 317-21.
Blyth, Valerie. "The Indian Vase Carpet Fragment, Decisions and Discussions Prior to Conservation." Victoria and Albert Conservation Journal 31 (1999).
———. "Insect Trapping; The Key to Pest Management." in Pest Prints Nordic Symposium, eds David Pinninger, and Helen Kingsley.
———. "Three Methods of Washing Large Tapestry Hangings." The Conservator NO5 (1991).
Blyth, Valerie, and Lynda Hillyer. "Carpet Beetle: A Pilot Study in Detection and Control." The Conservator 16 (1992).
Blyth, Valerie, and Sandra Smith. "Prevention Is Better Than the Cure." Victoria and Albert Conservation Journal 50 (2005).
Burke, J. "Anoxic Microenvironments: a Simple Guide."1, no. 1 (1996): 1-4.
Burke, J. "Vapour Barrier Films." WAAC Newsletter 14, no. 2 (1992): 13-17.
Burke, John. Materials and Equipment for Anoxic Fumigation.
Busvine, JR. Insects and Hygene. The Biology and Control of Insect Pests of Medical and Domestic Importance. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.
Carrlee, Ellen. "Does Low Temperature Pest Management Cause Damage? Literature Review and Observational Study of Ethnographic Artifacts." Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 42 (2003): 141-66.
Chamberlain, William R. "A New Approach to Treating Fungus in Small Libraries." Abby Newsletter 15, no. 7 (1991): 109.
Notes: A practical article describing the response to a mould outbreak and the preventative measures that were subsequently undertaken at the Virginia State Library (USA).
Clarke, T. Pest Control Preventive Measures in StorageMuseum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 1993.
Conservation Online. "Pest Management - General References." Web page, Available at http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/bytopic/pest.
Corey, Peter, Curator of Collections. "Alaska Stae Museums Bulletin Newsletters - How to Deal With Mold in Baskets." Web page, Available at http://www.museums.state.ak.us/Bulletin/basketmold.html.
Corrigan, R. M. Rodent Control, A Practical Guide for Pest Management Professionals. Cleveland, Ohio: GIE Media Inc., 2001.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, and S Maekawa. "Eradication of Insect Pests in Museums Using Nitrogen." WAAC Newsletter 15, no. 3 (1993): 15-19.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, and S Maekawa. "Non-Toxic Fumigation of Large Objects."21st Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Conservation1993.
Daniel, V, G Hanlon, S Maekawa, and F Preusser. "Nitrogen Fumigation: a Viable Alternative ."International Council of Museums, 14th Triennial Meeting.
Daniel, V, and Lambert FL. "Ageless Oxygen Scavanger: Practical Applications." WAAC Newsletter 15, no. 2 (1993): 12-14.
Dawson, J. "The Effects of Insecticides on Museum Artefacts and Materials." A Guide To Museum Pest Control. eds L. A. Zycherman, and JR SchrockWashington DC: Association of Systematic Collections, 1988.
Florian, M. L. "Ethylene Oxide Fumigation: A Literature Review of the Problems and Interactions With Materials and Substances in Artefacts." A Guide To Museum Pest Control. eds L. A. Zycherman, and JR SchrockWashington DC: Association of Systematic Collections, 1988.
Florian, ML. "The Effect on Artefact Materials of the Fumigant Ethylene Oxide and Freezing Used in Insect Control."ICOM Committee for Conservation, 8th Triennial Meeting.
———. "The Freezing Process-Effect on Insects and Artefact Materials." Leather Conservation News 3, no. 1 (1986).
Gagelmann, M. First Results of a Pilot Decontamination in a PCP Polluted Building by Means of a Humidity Controlled Thermal Process.
Gilberg, M. "Inert Atmosphere Fumigation of Museum Objects." Studies in Conservation 34 (1989).
Gilberg, Mark. "The Effects of Low Oxygen Atmospheres on Museum Pests." Studies in Conservation 36 (1991): 93-98.
Hadlington, PW. A Guide to Pest Control in Australia. Sydney, Australia: NSW University Press, 1976.
Hanlon, G, V Daniel, N Ravenel, and S Maekawa. "Dynamic System for Nitrogen Anoxia of Large Museum Objects: A Pest Eradication Case Study."Second International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property.
Hedges, Stoy. Field Guide for the Management of Structure Infesting Flies. Cleveland: G.I.E. Inc., 1998.
Hedges, Stoy, and Mark Lacey. Field Guide for the Management of Structure Infesting Beetles, Vol. 2. Cleveland: Franzak and Foster Co..
Hillyer, L, and V Blyth. "Carpet Beetles A Pilot Study in Detection and Control." The Conservator 16 (1992): 65-77.
Jessup, Wendy. Integrated Pest Management: A Selected Bibliography for Collections Care. Arlington, VA: 1997.
Kesse, Erich. Letter About Fumigation.
Kigawa, R., H. Nochide, Y. Miyazawa, S. Miura, and Thomas J. K. Strang. "Carbon Dioxide Adsorption by Various Kinds of Materials in the Eradication of Museum Pest Insects. " Science for Conservation 42, no. 79-86.
Koestler, R. "Practical Application of Nitrogen and Argon Fumigation Procedures for Insect Control in Museum Objects." in International Conference of Bio Deterioration of Cultural Property, 96-981992.
Linnie, Martyn J. "Intergrated Pest Management: A Proposed Strategy for Natural History Museums." Museum Management and Curatorship 15 , no. 2 (1996): 133-43.
Maekawa, Shin, and Kerstin Elert. The Use of Oxygen-Free Environments in the Control of Museum Insect Pests. Studies in Coervation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2003.
Mibach, Lisa. "Modifications to Home Freezers for Pest Control." WAAC Newsletter (1994): 26-27.
Mueller, D. Stored Product Protection...A Period of Transition. Indianapolis: Insects Limited, Inc., 1998.
National Park Service. " Annox Environments: A Treatment for Pest Control." (1999).
Nicholson, Mark, and Werner von Rotberg. "Controlled Environment Heat Treatment As a Safe and Efficient Method of Pest Control."The 2nd International Conferecne on Insect Pests in the Urban Environment.
Pinniger, David. "Insect Control with the Thermo Lignum Treatment." Web page, Available at http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/preservation/training/pests/bibliog/thermo.htm.
Pinzl, Ann. "Modifying a Freezer for Pest Control." SPNHC Newsletter 7 (2), no. 4 (1993).
———. "Modifying a Freezer for Pest Control." in Modifications to Home Freezers for Pest Control. WAAC Newsletter. Lisa Mibach, 26-27. Vol. 16. 1994.
Price, Lois Olcott. Managing a Mold Invasion: Guidelines For Disaster Response. CCAHA Technical Series, No. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Conservation Centre For Art and Historic Artifacts, 1996.
Notes: An excellent summary of response and recovery techniques. Includes a good bibliography that cites articles on the effects of fumigation on collections. Available from CCAHA . 264 South 23rd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 111119103; (215) 545-0613, fax (215) 735-9313, or email: CCAHA@shrsys.hslc.org
Rose, C. L. Storage of Natural History Collections: A Preventive Conservation Approach. SPNHC.., 1995.
Rust, Michael K., and Janice M. Kennedy. The Feasibility of Using Modified Atmospheres to Control Insect Pests in Museums.Getty Conservation Institue, 1993.
Schwartz, P. H. Guidelines for the Control of Insect and Mite Pests of Food, Fibers, Feeds, Ornamentals, Livestock, and Households. USDA-ARS Handbook, 584. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1982.
Selwitz, Charles and Shin Maekawa. "Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests." Web page, Available at http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf.
Strang, Thomas J. K. " A Brief Guide to Thermal and Controlled Atmosphere Treatments for Insect Eradication." Preventive Conservation Working Group Letter 1:4 (1995).
———. "Controlling Insect Pests With Low Temperature." CCI Note 3/3, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1997.
———. "Detecting Infestations: Facility Inspection Procedure and Checklist." CCI Note 3/2, Canadian Conservation Institute, Monitoring and Detection, 1996.
———. "The Effects of Thermal Methods of Pest Control on Museum Collections." in Preprints of the 3rd International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property, pp 199-212.
———. "A Healthy Dose of the Past? A Future Direction in Herbarium Pest Control." in Managing the Modern Herbarium, An Interdisciplinary Approach. eds D. A. Metsger, and S. C. ByersVancouver: Elton-Wolf, 1999.
———. "Preventing Infestations: Control Strategies and Detection Methods." CCI Note 3/1, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1996.
———. "Principles of Heat Disinfestation." in Integrated Pest Management for Collections, Proceedings of 2001: A Pest Odyssey, eds Helen Kingsley, David Pinninger, Amber Xavier-Rowe, and Peter Winsor, Chapter 18, pp 114-29London: James and James.
———. "Reducing the Risks to Collections From Pests." Canadian Conservation Institute Newsletter 14:8 (1994).
———. "A Review of Published Temperatures for the Control of Pest Insects in Museums." Collection Forum 8, no. 2 (1992): 41-67.
———. "Thermal Control of Museum Insect Pests: Basic Principles and Practical Examples Worldwide." Research on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, 2001-2003. (2002).
Strang, Thomas J. K., and John E. Dawson. "Controlling Museum Fungal Problems." Canadian Conservation Institute Technical Bulletin, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1991.
———. "Controlling Vertebrate Pests in Museums." Canadian Conservation Institute Technical Bulletin, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1991.
———. "Solving Museum Insect Problems: Chemical Control." Canadian Conservation Institute Technical Bulletin, Canadian Conservation Institute, 2000.
Strang, Thomas J. K., and R. Kigawa. "Levels of IPM Control, Matching Conditions to Performance and Effort. " in SPNHC, 20th Cfoerence PostprintCollection Forum.
The National Trust. Manual of Housekeeping: The Care and Collections in Historic Houses Open to the Public. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth and Heinemann, 2006.
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) Entomological Sciences Division. "Pest Management Bulletin - Heat and Cockroaches." Web page, Available at http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/ento/bulmar94.htm#HEAT AND COCKROACHES.
Valentin, N. "Insect Eradication in Museums and Archives by Oxygen Replacement, a Pilot Project." in ICOM Committee for Conservation 9th Triennial MeetingLos Angeles: ICOM Committee for Conservation, 1990.
Warscheid, Thomas. "Intergrated Concepts for the Protection of Cultural Artifacts Against Biodeterioration." Of Microbes and Art: The Role of Microbial Communities in the Degradation and Protection of Cultural Heritage (2000).
Williams, S., and S. McLaren. "Modification of Storage Design to Mitigate Insect Problems." Collection Forum 6, no. 1 (1990): :27-32.
Zycherman, Lynda, and JR Schrock, ed. A Guide to Museum Pest Control. Washington: Association of Systematics Collections, 1988.
Chamberlain, William R. "A New Approach to Treating Fungus in Small Libraries." Abby Newsletter 15, no. 7 (1991): 109.
Notes: A practical article describing the response to a mould outbreak and the preventative measures that were subsequently undertaken at the Virginia State Library (USA).
Corey, Peter, Curator of Collections. "Alaska Stae Museums Bulletin Newsletters - How to Deal With Mold in Baskets." Web page, Available at http://www.museums.state.ak.us/Bulletin/basketmold.html.
Florian, Mary-Lou. Heritage Eaters: Insects and Fungi in Heritage CollectionsJames & James Publishers, 1997.
McCrady, Ellen. "Mold As A Threat to Human Health." Abby Newsletter 18, no. 6 (1994).
Notes: A short article on mould as a workplace hazard for library and archival workers. Summarizes articles relevant to the subject and anecdotes from the field.
Motylewsky, Karen. "Pest, Insect & Fungus Management - Conference Notes." .
National Park Service. Causes, Detection, and Prevention of Mold and Mildew on Textiles . Conserve-O-Gram , 16/1.
National Park Service. " Conserve O Gram, Number 3/4 - Mold and Mildew: Prevention of Microorganism Growth in Museum Collections." Web page, Available at http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conservation/mold-prevention.html.
Nyberg, Sandra. Invasion of the Giant Spore. SOLINET Preservation Program , leaflet no. 5. Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Library Network, 1987.
Notes: An updated version of this leaflet (emphasizing preventive activities and non-chemical treatment is available from SOLINET on its web page at http://www.solinet.net/preservation/leaflets/leaflets-fs.cfm?leafletpgname=leaflets_templ.cfm?doc_id=122 or from Alicia Riley-Walden Preservation Administrative Assistant, SOLNET Preservation Services, 1438 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30309-2955 (email: Alicia_riley-walden@solnet.net or ariley@solnet.net . The older version of the leaflet gives a good summary of mould prevention and treatment, and also presents detailed information on various chemical treatment methods that in most cases would no longer be recommended.
Patkus, Beth Lindblom. " Preservation Leaflet 3.8: Emergency Salvage of Moldy Books and Paper." Web page, Available at http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/3Emergency_Management/08SalvageMoldyBooks.php .
Price, Lois Olcott. Managing a Mold Invasion: Guidelines For Disaster Response. CCAHA Technical Series, No. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Conservation Centre For Art and Historic Artifacts, 1996.
Notes: An excellent summary of response and recovery techniques. Includes a good bibliography that cites articles on the effects of fumigation on collections. Available from CCAHA . 264 South 23rd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 111119103; (215) 545-0613, fax (215) 735-9313, or email: CCAHA@shrsys.hslc.org
State Library of Victoria. "Information Sheet No. 3 Guidelines for Dealing With Mould." Web page, Available at http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/services/conservation/guides/mould.html.
Strang, Thomas J. K. "Psocids or "Book Lice": A Warning of Dampness." CCI Note 3/4, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1998.
Strang, Thomas J. K., and John E. Dawson. "Controlling Museum Fungal Problems." Canadian Conservation Institute Technical Bulletin, Canadian Conservation Institute, 1991.