Herbarium Library - Upcoming Eventssburns/content/pdf/herbarium_final.pdf · 1 Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Herbarium Library at the University of Texas at Austin Sam Burns

1

Preservation Needs Assessment Survey

Herbarium Library

at the

University of Texas at Austin

Sam Burns and Holly OvalleProfessor Ellen Cunningham-Kruppa

INF392GManagement of Preservation Activities

November 29, 2004

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................3

The Collection .....................................................................................................5

Project Goals .......................................................................................................7

Survey Design and Implementation......................................................................8

Survey Questions ...............................................................................................11Survey of Microfiche ................................................................................11Survey of Journals and Monographs..........................................................15

Findings Narrative .............................................................................................18Microfiche ................................................................................................18Monographs and Journals..........................................................................24Collection Availability ..............................................................................27Environment .............................................................................................27

Recommendations..............................................................................................28Microfiche ................................................................................................29Monographs and Journals..........................................................................31Environment .............................................................................................32

Appendix A. Survey Instruments ......................................................................33

Appendix B. Findings ........................................................................................36

Appendix C. Budget..........................................................................................42

Appendix D. Annotated Bibliography ...............................................................44

Appendix E. Random Number Generator ..........................................................45

Appendix F. Photographs of the Herbarium Library Collection.........................46

3

Executive Summary

This report documents the findings of a preservation needs assessment of the

Herbarium Library undertaken by two graduate students, Holly Ovalle and Sam Burns,

from the U.T. School of Information during the fall semester of 2004. Statistical

sampling was utilized to determine the overall preservation needs of the entire collection

based on a stratified sample of 149 entities of which 119 were microfiche, 16 were

monographs and 12 were journals.

Two separate survey forms were used to analyze and assess the preservation

needs of these materials. In addition, relevant descriptive data about the entities was

recorded for the purpose of correlational data analysis and reporting. The goal of this

project was to extrapolate findings from the sample to the population for the purpose of

defining and describing existing preservation needs and speculating as to their causes.

This report documents numerous findings from this comprehensive survey. A

summary of findings follows:

Microfiche

• A high percentage of the more than 28,200 microfiche exhibit potentially harmful

foreign debris, scratches and fingerprints caused by active use.

• The microfiche collections are, on average, available from only four institutions world-

wide, far fewer than the monographs and journals.

• Microfiche storage conditions were found to be inadequate for the long-term

preservation of the collection.

4

Monographs and Journals

• A small percentage of preservation needs were identified among the monographs and

journals and no systemic or unforeseen needs were found.

• Unlike the microfiche collection, ample evidence was found that preservation needs

among monographs and journals were being handled on an active and continuing

basis.

• Volumes published prior to 1970 showed expected indications of acidity and

brittleness.

Environment

• Potentially dangerous wiring and structural imperfections were discovered during the

preservation assessment.

Recommendations based on these findings include the following:

• The purchase of new storage cabinets and housings for the microfiche as well as the

formation of new handling and maintenance procedures and administrative policies.

• Conducting a more comprehensive survey of the monographs and journals in order to

assess whether or not our findings captured a statistically significant sample, and

• Monitoring environmental conditions regularly to gather data and repair any existing

conditions that may pose an important threat to the collections.

5

The Herbarium Library: A Preservation Needs Assessment

The Collection

The Herbarium Library serves the needs of researchers in systematic botany

from the main campus of the University of Texas at Austin. The library contains

approximately 11,600 separately cataloged titles and an estimated 35,400 total

microfiche, monographs, bound journals, and other materials. The collection is

currently housed in an historic reading room of the Main building that once served as a

reading room for the main library collection. The reading room appears much as it did

when the building was constructed in 1937, with twenty foot ceilings painted with a

unique Texana iconography, large windows high up on the walls, and furnished with

wooden shelving and tables. The collection shares this larger space with offices and

specimen storage space of the Plant Resource Center (PRC). The collection originated

to serve the research of systematic botany, and after its formation in the 1970s, the

PRC.

The materials of the Herbarium Library collection were originally part of the

Biology Library. The main biology collection was housed in the Biology Labs building

until 1967 when the collection moved to Patterson Hall. The biology collection moved

again in the mid-seventies as the collection grew larger and larger. Systematic botany

materials were separated from the general biology collection after the move, where they

were housed separately in Painter Hall, near the Herbarium Plant Specimen Collection.

In the mid-eighties, the collection was moved to its current location in the Main building.

The Herbarium Library is a separate subset of materials within the Life Science Library,

6

and maintained by Life Science Library staff. Prior to this move, the collection was

maintained by volunteers and underwent very little development.

After the collection moved to the Main building, Nancy Elder, the head librarian of

the Life Science Library, wrote a collection development policy. Under the purview of

that policy, the collection has grown gradually and steadily. Ms. Elder is particularly

sympathetic to the requests of the Plant Resource Center staff and their needs for

certain materials. Ms. Elder commented that the PRC’s heavy use of the collection

justified the occasional duplication of materials housed in limited circulating collections,

like the Benson Latin American Collection. The development and the care of the

collection are assisted by a special endowment which provides for botany research

materials. Recently, a notable collection of fragile materials once owned by Cyrus

Longworth Lundell, a famous Texas botanist, was acquired by the Herbarium Library

Collection. Other materials donated by Dr. Lundell from his collection are housed at the

Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center and in the Plant Resource Center.

Although the Herbarium Library is open to the general public, the collection is

most widely used by the Plant Resource Center staff and faculty for their research.

During an informal interview with Thomas Wendt, the director of the Plant Resource

Center, he described the Herbarium Collection as “essential” to the PRC’s research in

systematic botany. Mr. Wendt described the cumulative nature of the materials as the

strength of the Herbarium Library collection. The research of morphology within

systematic botany differs from other natural sciences in that all materials collected since

1750 and the study of Linneaus were valuable and necessary.

7

Mr. Wendt was also able to describe basic patterns in the use by PRC

researchers. The pattern of use is dependant on the type of material. Microfiche are

primarily used with in the Herbarium Library reading room or the copier lobby of the Life

Science library where a reader-printer is located. Books and journals are ordinarily

checked out by PRC staff and used in their labs where the information in those

materials can be referenced side-by-side with the PRC’s collection of plant specimens.

PRC staff are also instrumental in collection development, suggesting new materials to

be acquired. In addition to frequent use by PRC staff, Herbarium Library materials are

often requested by outside organizations through Interlibrary Loan.

Project Goals

Because the cumulative collection of materials represented by the Herbarium

Library is so essential to the research of the Plant Resource Center and other

researchers in the field of systematic botany, it is essential that it be preserved in good

condition. In order to describe a specific and appropriate course of action, we sought to

specify and operationalize a comprehensive list of potential preservation issues for use

in a survey instrument. The goal of this survey was to obtain findings from a sample that

we could extrapolate to gauge the overall preservation status of the entire collection,

both defining the types of damage and to speculate as to its cause. Further, we will

propose a prioritized course of action to be followed to assist in the continued care of

the Herbarium Library collection.

The specific goals of this survey are dependant on the physical format of the

materials being examined: microfiche, monographs, and journals.

8

Microfiche1. How common is the title?

2. Is the plastic film support and image material made of a stable material?

3. Is there any damage to the film support? What kind of damage is seen?

4. Is there any damage to the image? What kind of damage is seen?

5. How is the microfiche housed?

Monographs and Journals1. What is the age of the title?

2. How common is the title?

3. What type of binding does the title have? What is the condition of that binding?

4. How are the leaves attached? What is the condition of the leaf attachment?

5. What is the condition of the paper?

6. Does the book show damage from its environment?

7. What type of treatment would be necessary to prevent further damage?

Survey Design and Implementation

In order to define a representative sample of materials, it was decided that a

random sampling technique should be used. The collection, in terms of individual

entities, is roughly 80% microfiche and 20% books and bound journals. In order to be

sure that the final sample would include these materials in proportion to their population

within the collection, it was decided that stratified sampling should be employed. The

sample was further stratified to separate books and journals. This stratification was

made convenient by their separate shelving and will allow any extant important

differences of those collections to be understood separately.

9

To define the samples, it was first necessary to obtain accurate population

counts of each type of material to be sampled. According to a recent shelf list, the

Herbarium Library housed 11,600 individually coded items. Of those, 4,400 were

microfiche titles. It was discovered that each cataloged title might include between one

and several thousand cards housed in boxes and loose envelopes in three large vertical

cabinets. Those microfiche in labeled boxes were counted by their labels, which had

ordinal numbers in sequence. Those microfiche in envelopes, but otherwise loose,

were estimated by counting the number of microfiche within an inch and measuring the

number of inches in each drawer. In areas where the size of the fiche changed, a new

per inch count was obtained.

Using this method, it was estimated that the three cabinets contained 28,200

individual microfiche cards, raising the total population to 35,400 items.

It was impossible to ascertain via the shelf list which of the remaining 7,200 items

were monographs and which were journals, although we can be reasonably certain that

the numbers represented in the shelf list accurately represent the number of items on

the shelves, as it is policy to code monographs and journals individually within the shelf

list. Based on a count of journals, we determined that there were 3400 journals and

3800 monographs. Therefore, microfiche represent slightly less than 80% of the

collection, monographs represent slightly less than11%, and journals represent slightly

less than 10% of the collection.

Within an estimated population of approximately 35,400 items, a sample of 149

items was chosen. This sample size represents a 95% confidence level with a

confidence interval of +/- 8 points. This sample size of 149 was then divided

10

proportionally to match that of the population: 119 microfiche, 16 monographs, and 14

journals. These samples each represent 0.4% of each sample strata.

This survey gives equal weight to each separate entity regardless of its physical

format. It should be noted that considering the microfiche, monographs and journals as

three separate populations would yield considerably different sample sizes. Not having

the judgment to gauge the intellectual or economic importance of either the microfiche

or book collections in comparison to each other, it was decided that the collection

should be examined as a total collection of all materials regardless of physical format. It

was hoped that the process of stratifying the sample would guarantee the inclusion of

the book materials in the appropriate measure. The number of items sampled from

each collection is extremely small. However, the confidence interval is greater for

books if these same population and sample numbers are considered separate

populations.

Thus, we can extrapolate to the populations of books and journals with less

certainty based on our findings of these strata. However, as we will demonstrate in the

findings, there are mitigating factors related to the respective preservation treatments of

these populations that we believe support our methods at least for this initial

comprehensive preservation assessment survey. In any case, this review should be

seen as a general review of the total condition of the collection as a whole. Any

decisions based on this data should be understood within the context of this problematic

choice.

The items representing each sample were chosen randomly using a random

number generator designed by a project team member. Because counting each

11

microfiche in a drawer holding several thousand cards was prohibitively labor intensive,

it was decided that the sample would be chosen physically. A random drawer, then a

random side, then a random inch, and finally a random 16th of an inch was located. A

card marker was inserted at that point and the fiche in front of the card marker was

pulled. If there was no microfiche at the chosen location, a new number was calculated.

Microfiche in boxes were pulled with their boxes. Books and journals were chosen by

locating a random range, a random shelf, and then a random book, by counting.

Survey Questions

Because of their different physical characteristics, a separate survey instrument

was created for the microfiche and the books. The survey questions were formulated

after a review of preservation literature concerning the physical materials, a review of

similar preservation surveys, and a brief sampling of the Herbarium Library materials.

SURVEY OF MICROFICHE

Bibliographic informationCall number and title information were collected so that a particular microfiche

might be retrieved for further testing. OCLC numbers were retrieved via the library

catalog, and searched in Connexion or WorldCat to find the number of holdings. Items

with fewer holdings are more likely to be borrowed through Interlibrary Loan. Publisher

information was collected from either the microfiche itself or its housing. Publishers

were then contacted to confirm the identity of the physical materials of the microfiche.

12

Support MaterialEach microfiche is composed of a plastic film support and an image layer. If the

materials of these two components are stable, the microfiche ages with little

degradation. Each microfiche was examined to determine if the support material was

polyester, cellulose acetate, or cellulose nitrate.1 Polyester is an accepted archival film

which remains stable for more than 500 years in proper environmental conditions.2

Polyester appears clear, but under fluorescent lights, polyester film may also reflect

interference colors of pink and green. Cellulose acetate is an unstable film that

becomes brittle, yellow, warped, and smells of vinegar as it ages. Cellulose nitrate is

another unstable film that, in addition to becoming brittle, yellow and warped, becomes

dangerously flammable as it ages. Various methods were employed to determine which

film was used. The microfiche supports were examined by the two project members for

their flexibility, color, interference colors, and smell. Outside data was also sought.

When queried, Ms. Elder believed that the microfiche were made of stable materials like

polyester. The publisher Mindata replied to email indicating their microfiche was

polyester. After examining the sample in situ, two boxes and five envelopes of

microfiche from each of the most common titles and common publishers were tested by

a professional materials conservator, Ms. Karen Pavelka. After performing an

examination of the materials and a burn test, Ms. Pavelka concluded that all of the

tested supports were probably polyester.

1 Microfilm and Microfiche. Dalton, Steve. 14 July 2004. Northeast Document Conservation Center. 26Nov. 2004. <http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf51.htm>.2 Microfilm and Microfiche.

13

Image MaterialThe most common image layers are silver halide, diazo, and vesicular.3 Silver

halide images are the most stable of the three types, lasting for more than 100 years in

good environmental conditions.4 Silver halide is characterized by its dark black color,

but it may also demonstrate a silvery appearance with age, called “mirroring.” The

emulsion side of a silver halide film will appear matte; whereas diazo and vesicular films

are glossy on both sides. Diazo images are less stable, with an approximate life of 50

years.5 Diazo images may be many colors, but they are light fugitive.6 In vesicular film

the image is formed from small bubbles formed with heat. Vesicular images are even

less stable, with a life of less than 20 years. Vesicular images are easily damaged by

mechanical abrasion and the high temperatures of a microfiche reader lamp.7

Support: Colorless and FlatAfter determining the potential stability of the support, it was important to gauge

the current level of damage to the support material. A change in the color of the support

can be indicative of damage to the film caused by age. Cellulose-derived films are

particularly likely to yellow and darken with age. Over time these films warp and

become brittle as plasticizers migrate out of the support. Poor housing and pollutants

may also cause the support to warp.

3 Microfilm and Microfiche.4 Supplies Section – Diazo & Silver Film. Undated. The Microfilm Shop. 26 Nov. 2004.<http://www.microfilm.com/film.htm>.5 Supplies Section – Diazo & Silver Film.6 Microfilm and Microfiche.7 Microfilm and Microfiche.

14

Image: Distortion FreeThe image material can also be damaged by a variety of causes including age,

poor storage and exposure to pollutants. Damage to the image manifests itself as an

image distortion or a change of color. Distortions due to poor filming were not

documented.

Image: Foreign Debris, Scratches, and FingerprintsForeign debris, scratches, and fingerprints were recorded where they appeared

on the image; although they were not recorded when found along the upper edge.

Foreign debris included solid particles such as dust, or spots caused by liquids.8 Solid

particles are deposited on the film due to poor storage and handling. Scratches occur

when foreign debris abrades the film’s surface. These scratches often occur when the

film is slid between the glass surfaces of the reader. Spots from dried liquids may result

from hazardous developing chemicals or condensation, indicating high humidity.

Fingerprints indicate poor handling. Oils and acids from fingerprints can damage the

film or image.9 Fingerprints were only recorded as such when they were identifiable.

Small, unpatterned droplets of oils were recorded as foreign debris.

Housing: Envelopes and BoxesTo protect the film and the image, it is important that all microfiche be properly

housed. Envelopes should be free from damaging acids.10 The adhesive of the

envelope should not face the emulsion side of the microfiche, as chemicals migrating

out of the adhesive may cause the image to deteriorate. The edges of the envelope

8Microforms Collection Preservation Plan. Ed. Vidos, Tamara. 6 Aug. 2003. University of OregonLibraries. 26 Nov. 2004. <http://libweb.uoregon.edu/govdocs/micro/presplan.html>.9Microforms Collection Preservation Plan.

15

may also abrade the image layer.11 Boxes can prevent damage to microfiche due to

shifting or pollutants; however, it is important that box materials should not damage the

film.

SURVEY OF JOURNALS AND MONOGRAPHS

Bibliographic InformationThe same survey instrument was used to assess both the monographs and the

journals. The title, author, call number, and publisher were recorded so that any volume

could be recalled for further examination. To understand the age of the collection, the

published year of each item was recorded. Papers made before the seventies are likely

to be acidic. With time, acidic paper becomes increasingly brittle, until it breaks with

even gentle handling. Bibliographic information was used to determine the OCLC

number from the library catalog. The OCLC number was then used to obtain the

number of holdings in libraries within the OCLC network. A title with fewer holdings

might be considered rarer.

Size The height, width and thickness of each item were measured in inches. Taller

items are damaged by inadequate shelf height. Thicker books have heavy text blocks

which may detach from the book’s spine.

Binding: Origination and MaterialsThe binding of each item was examined to determine its origin and materials.

Publishers’ bindings are the original bindings of paper, cloth or leather. Acidic paper

10Microforms Collection Preservation Plan.

16

covers may exacerbate an item’s brittleness. Leather undergoes a similar dry, flakey

degradation known as “red rot.” Commercial bindings are added by the library to

improve the attachment of the text block and its leaves. Commercially bound

publications are typically bound in buckram cloth. A pamphlet binding is attached to

publications with soft covers that offer inadequate protection to the text block. Pamphlet

bindings are made of paper covered boards, laced or stapled on.

Binding: ConditionThe condition of the binding was diagnosed for various maladies. Loose hinges

occurred on items where the endpapers separated from the boards. If the interior hinge

was broken to expose the boards or their text block attachment, it was recorded as a

“broken joint.” Detached boards or a detached spine occurred if the boards or spine

were completely separated from the text block. Damage to the headcap, due to poor

handling, was recorded separately from all other types of damage to the cover,

including stains, tears, “red rot,” etc.

Text Block: Leaf Attachment MethodThe method by which the pages of each book were attached to the each other

was noted as sewn, stapled, or glued/taped. If the item was pamphlet bound, both the

original attachment method and the pamphlet folder attachment were noted. Items

sewn through the fold and lace-on pamphlet folders were both recorded as sewn

volumes.

11Microfilm and Microfiche.

17

Text Block: ConditionThe condition of the text block was examined to determine if the leaves were

completely intact. Any page tears were noted, as well as any intentional mutilation,

such as highlighting, marginalia, defaced images, etc.

Paper ConditionThe condition of individual pages was assessed. Brittle paper, caused by acidity,

was of particular concern.12 A single corner from the approximate center of the

publication was folded forward and back twice, and given a light tug. If the corner

detached, the paper was deemed brittle. Discolored paper can also indicate poor paper

quality and high acidity. Papers that appeared darker around the edges than the center

of the page were considered discolored. Glossy publications were marked as coated

paper. Coated paper is not easily treated for acidity, and easily damaged by water.

Foxing is yet another type of discolored spotting. Caused by fungus, foxing may

indicate poor environmental conditions and high humidity. Other types of environmental

damage, caused by water, insects, etc., were recorded separately as they occurred.

Suggested TreatmentAn effort was made to diagnose what needed to be done to bring the sampled

items to a condition which would not be damaged by further use.13 Recasing was

recommended for items with loose hinges or intact text blocks that had detached from

intact boards and spine. Rebinding was suggested for items with broken joints,

12Library Preservation at Harvard: Conservation Resources. Oct. 2004. . President and Fellows ofHarvard College. 26 Nov. 2004. <http://preserve.harvard.edu/resources/conservation.html>.

13Cornell University Department of Preservation and Conservation. Mar. 2004. Cornell University Library.26 Nov. 2004. <http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/laptop.html>

18

detached boards or spines. Rebinding was also recommended for pamphlet bound

items with acidic boards. Resewing was recommended for items where a sewn text

block had broken. Items with extremely brittle pages were recommended for

reformatting. Previous preservation treatments were also recorded, including

commercial binding, pamphlet binding, phase boxes, page mends, etc.

Findings Narrative

MICROFICHEThe microfiche collection contains approximately 80% of the entities maintained

by the Herbarium Library. Three eight-drawer metal file cabinets hold an estimated

28,200 microfiche in both loose envelopes and envelopes in boxes. Most of the

drawers are filled to capacity with cards occupying two rows in each drawer. The cards

themselves vary in width with some cards fitting comfortably within the drawer while

others are too wide for the drawer when they are within their envelope enclosure.

The microfiche cabinets had stains on the bottom drawers apparently from

cleaning solutions or wax used for the floors. Although the cabinets function reasonably

well, they are older model microfilm cabinets lacking some of the organizational and

protective qualities such as wider drawers, non-slip dividers and non-tip drawer locks

found in newer cabinets. The microfiche reader available in the Herbarium Library

reading room is an old model machine that works correctly, although the glass plates

and lenses are quite dirty. There is currently no schedule for reader maintenance. It is

unknown if the temperature from the lamp of this older reader is safe for microfiche. A

19

second newer microfiche reader with scanning and printing capabilities is available

outside the Herbarium Library reading room, in the Life Science Library lobby.

A cabinet drawer splashed with floorwax and cleaning fluids

An open cabinet drawer showingmicrofiche in envelopes and boxes

A larger card that is too wide for thecabinet drawer

Support and Image MaterialsOf the 119 microfiche sampled, all used polyester supports as opposed to the

older and more volatile cellulose acetate or cellulose nitrate supports. All but one of our

sample microfiche was produced with silver halide film. The one card not made with

silver halide film was made with diazo film. The use of these stable materials bodes

well for the longevity of the microfiche collection. We have a high degree of confidence

in these findings due to the fact that production methods are consistent throughout titles

and from particular publishers. The table below shows the numbers of items sampled

from each collection, the corresponding publisher and the number of samples obtained

from each collection.

20

Collection Title Publisher Number

Plant Taxonomic Literature Microfiche Collection Meckler 49

Candolle: Prodromi Herbarium IDC 21

Thunberg, CP Herbarium IDC 6

Linnaean Herbarium IDC 5

Journal of Botany, The Brittish and Foreign Ed. IDC 5

Index Kewenis Mindata 5

Herbarium Jussieu IDC 5

Willdenow Herbarium IDC 4Wallich Herbarium (Royal Botanical Gardens,Kew) IDC 3

Smith Herbarium IDC 3

Annales du Museum d'Historire Naturalle IDC 3

Herbarium Lamark IDC 1

Flora of Panama ? 1

Annals of the Lyceum IDC 1

Linnaeus C. Species Planatarumr IDC 1

Jacquin, N.J. Enumeratio IDC 1

Sloane, H. Catalogue Planatarum IDC 1

HERBARIUM HUMBOLDT, BONPLAND ET KUNTH IDC 1

Archives du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle IDC 1

von Schlechtendal IDC 1

Herbarium Michaux IDC 1

Grand Total 119

HousingAll of the microfiche sampled were housed in paper envelopes. Thirty-four

percent of our sample were also housed in either plastic boxes (12%, ~=3,384 pop.) or

plasticized paper and board boxes (22%, ~=6,204 pop.). Both types of boxes were

examined by Ms. Pavelka. The plastic boxes were tested to determine their plastic

content. The results of a Beilstein test indicated that the boxes are not made of the

damaging plastic polyvinyl chloride. Ms. Pavelka thought that those boxes might be

polystyrene, and in her opinion posed a low risk to the collection. The boxes made of

21

board covered in plasticized paper were determined to be acidic, however, and

researchers noted that the envelopes in these boxes were discolored where they

contacted the boxes.

microfiche housing %

None 0 0%

envelope only 78 66%

Plastic box 15 12%

Plastic and board box 26 22%

We are confident that our findings are consistent with the distributions of housings for

the entire population. Visually estimating the housing types by drawer bear this out.

Also, because housing is consistent across collection titles and because our sample

was proportionally consistent based on collection size, we can be confident that our

results closely match the population.

Numerous problems related to microfiche housings were identified. Twenty-two

percent of the sample (~=6,204 pop.) were housed in acidic board boxes with a

plasticized paper covering. Thirty percent of the sample cards (~=8,460 pop.) were

housed in envelopes where the emulsion side faced the envelope adhesive. Nearly

one-third of our sample (~=7,896 pop.) were not housed in acid-free envelopes. This

22

number is probably much larger throughout the population as we were unable to

adequately identify the acidity of the envelopes for more than half of the sample.

DamageAssessment of the microfiche supports revealed that all were colorless. We

found that 8% (~=2,256 pop.) of the supports sampled were bent, sometimes severely.

In many cases, the bending appeared to be caused by the plasticized paper and board

boxes. It is unclear whether this damage was caused by the size or the poor materials

of the box; however, it was apparent that the red plasticized paper and board boxes

were too small for the microfiche inside. Microfiche housed in gray plasticized paper

and board boxes had a tendency to bend backwards at the top of the microfiche.

Larger cards that were bent within the drawers tended to spring back once they were

removed. It is unclear, however, whether long-term storage in this environment might

cause the loose fiche deform permanently and loose elasticity.

Example of microfiche cardsbending at the top in a box.

Example of cards unable to fitwithin the microfilm drawer

without bending.

The damage assessment of the images on each card revealed a high percentage

of potential problems throughout our sample strata. Of the 119 microfiche sampled,

81% (~=22,842 pop.) were found to have some kind of foreign debris, 75% (~= 21,150

pop.) of the microfiche cards sampled were found to have scratches and 25% (~=7,050

23

pop.) were found to have fingerprints on the images. Four percent of the sample

(~=1,128 pop.) had distortions or color changes visible in the images.

114

5

23

96

30

89

89

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

free ofdistortions

free of debris free ofscratches

free offingerprints

No

Yes

Damage to the images and associated with housing problems provide evidence

that the current care and handling of these microfiche have caused problems that will

continue to endanger the microfiche collection over time. While we have explained how

the findings regarding housing extrapolate to the population, we can also be confident

that the damages identified extrapolate to the population as whole for the same

reasons. The percentage of damage found in our sample was consistent with the

proportional size differences of collection titles within the collection. Those titles that

make up a larger percentage of the entire collection had proportionately higher

incidences of damage; therefore, we found no evidence that damage to the microfiche

was limited to some smaller population within the collection.

24

MONOGRAPHS AND JOURNALSThe remaining 20% of the Herbarium Library collection consists of monographs

and bound journals. Of the 3800 monographs and 3400 serials in the entire population,

we sampled 16 and 12 respectively. Shelving for the monographs and journals is made

of wood. Monographs are shelved along the walls of the reading room, while the

journals are shelved in stand-alone bookshelves. The shelves are generally full, and

occasionally tightly packed. The high incidence of worn heacaps gives evidence of full

shelves and poor handling. It was noted that a few shelves contained items tall enough

that they were difficult to remove. The general condition of the shelving, however, was

clean, and loose shelves were propped up with bookends.

The average publication year of monographs sampled was 1962 and for serials

was 1965. The earliest monograph sampled was published in 1902 and the earliest

journal in the sample strata was published in 1904.

DamageFor both monographs and journals we found very little evidence of systemic

preservation needs. In the case of monographs, most damage tended to be minor

damage to the binding and included damage such as loose hinges, worn headcaps and

discoloration. In nearly all cases, the condition of the text block and leaf attachment

was found to be quite good. The condition of the paper was quite good overall except

we found that about one-third (~=1254 pop.) of our monograph sample had discolored,

and/or brittle paper. All of the discolored and brittle paper was found in monographs

and journals published prior to 1970. Both monographs and journals showed some kind

of previous treatment for a preservation need. Nearly forty percent of monographs

25

(~=1406) had previously been treated for a preservation need and all of the journals in

our sampled had been previously treated.

26

Monograph/binding Yes No yes%

no %

loose hinges 4 12 25% 75%

Broken joints 0 16 0% 100%

detached boards 0 16 0% 100%

damaged cover 2 14 13% 88%

detached spine 4 12 25% 75%

worn headcap 5 11 31% 69%

Other 8 8 50% 50%

Monograph/block Yes No yes%

no%

Not Intact 1 15 6% 94%

Tears 1 15 6% 94%

Mutilation 1 15 6% 94%

The findings for the journals demonstrated even fewer issues. For each of our

preservation needs assessments related to binding, text block and paper categories, we

never found any more than two representatives from our sample (17%, ~=578 pop.) that

exhibited the condition. In fact, we found no instances of problems in nearly half of the

assessments we made in these three categories. For both monographs and journals

we suggested treatment for fewer than one-third of our sampled items. Additionally, we

found no significant links between preservation needs and particular binding origination,

dimensions, bibliographic information and/or leaf attachment types.

serials/binding Yes No Yes % no %


broken joints 0 12 0% 100%





Other 2 10 17% 83%

27

serials/block Yes No Yes % no%

Not intact 0 12 0% 100%

Tears 2 10 17% 83%


COLLECTION AVAILABILITYA review of OCLC holdings via WorldCat and Connexion found that titles in the

microfiche collection are available on average from four other institutions while the

average journal or monograph was available in approximately 58 other institutions. It is

revealing that the titles that make up such a large portion of the Herbarium Library

collection are available in so few institutions in the OCLC network.

Availability inother institutions

Median number ofinstitutions

Mean number ofinstitutions

Microfiche 4 6.159664

Monographs 58 88.73333

Serials 59.5 102.9167

This finding reinforces our belief that an emphasis should be placed on meeting the

preservation needs of the microfiche collection at a level that is at least commensurate

with both its size relative to other Herbarium Library materials as well as its limited

availability.

ENVIRONMENTEnvironmental data for the Herbarium Library was collected through informal

interviews with Ms. Elder and Mr. Wendt and observations made by the researchers

during the period of this survey. Before moving to the Main building, the collection was

not maintained in optimal temperature and humidity conditions; however, since the mid-

28

eighties the temperature and humidity levels within the Herbarium Library have been

stable in large part to protect plant specimens kept by the PRC, which share space with

the library collection. During our work in the building we found no evidence to suggest

that the temperature and humidity levels were subject to fluctuations.

Exposed wiring above and below sections of the shelving around the perimeter of

the room causes concern for potential electrocution and fire risks. In some cases this

wiring appeared to protruding out of defunct electrical sockets. Blue sparks issued from

three separate outlets, including the outlet powering the microfiche reader, when

researchers attempted to plug in laptop computers. Cracks visible in the walls above

the built-in shelving may represent structural damage or a potential for water leakage.

Recommendations

The preservation needs of the Herbarium Library book collection are currently

addressed in both a proactive and a reactive way by the University Libraries’

preservation department. Items entering the collection may be commercial or pamphlet

bound based on their need. Selection for preservation treatment by the preservation

department is largely dependant on need; items which are currently damaged or in

fragile condition are repaired or boxed. Unfortunately, these types of care are focused

on book-type items and do not address the needs of microfiche. Although service

microfiche are considered a replaceable resource, the economic investment in replacing

28,200 microfiche is prohibitive. As the titles age, it may become difficult to obtain

replacements from the original publishers. The care of the microfiche collection is better

addressed through a proactive preservation program geared towards preventing

damage.

29

MICROFICHEThe support and image materials of the microfiche collection are chemically

stable. Our findings describe damage that is related to the poor housing and handling

of the fiche. These issued can be easily addressed by improving the individual and

collection housing of the microfiche collection, and implementing new handling policies

proscribing correct microfiche use. The following recommendations are listed in order

of their suggested priority.

• Write and implement a policy of maintenance for the microfiche reader and microfiche

cabinets. This policy should include a schedule for cleaning the microfiche readers

and vacuuming the microfiche cabinets to prevent damage from foreign debris.

• Write and implement a policy for the proper care and handling of microfiche. This

policy should reflect use by Life Science Library staff, Interlibrary Loan staff, PRC

staff, and the general public. Signs proscribing proper handling techniques should be

created and placed near the microfiche cabinets and readers. Cotton gloves should

be procured for staff and patrons for use when handling microfiche. Although all

patrons may be unlikely to use gloves, this preventative measure would dramatically

reduce the amount of foreign debris and skin oils found on images. Additionally, we

would advise that an active contact list of microfiche publishers and instructions be

maintained for the replacement of lost or damaged cards.

• Purchase a modern storage cabinet designed to hold microfiche. Chose a steel

cabinet with drawers large enough to hold the largest microfiche in the collection. The

new cabinet should also have a storage system more amenable to browsing and

retrieving items from large microfiche collections. We advise selecting any lateral

30

drawer filing system that allows only one drawer to open at once and uses control

plates to prevent microfiche from slipping and abrading against each other. Control

plates also allow for more convenient browsing of the collection. To prevent floor

cleaning chemicals from entering the lower drawers, the lowest drawers should be

raised one foot from the ground.

• Replace the plasticized paper and board boxes. The smaller, red colored boxes

should be replaced first, as they are physically warping the microfiche within. All of

these boxes are acidic and may cause damage to the support and image. The

Northeast Document Conservation Center suggests that chemically stable boxes can

serve as protective microclimates where humidity and temperature are uncertain.14

• Replace all microfiche envelopes, aside from those marked acid-free, with acid-free

envelopes. Although recently acquired microfiche are housed in marked, acid-free

envelopes, many of the older fiche are not. Envelopes showing discoloration or

darkened adhesives should be replaced first, as these are likely to be more damaging

than white envelopes with clear adhesives at this time. It is important that emulsion

side of microfiche not come in contact with the adhesive side of the envelope, to

prevent abrasion and chemical damage to the image.

• Write and implement a policy of annual review for the microfiche collection. Materials

should be examined yearly for damage to the supports and images.

• Replace the microfiche reader with a modern reader-printer. The glass surface of the

plates should remain cool enough to avoid damaging the film.

14 Microfilm and Microfiche.

31

MONOGRAPHS AND JOURNALSOur findings showed the wear and tear that is expected given the age and limited

but intensive use of these materials. Provided that this collection continues to receive

active preservation care from the University Libraries’ preservation department, we

advise the following prioritized actions be taken:

• Review our detailed findings of binding, text block, and paper preservation needs to

determine if a more vigilant effort is needed to address the needs of the collection.

You should determine if the current level of damage will endanger the collection and

prevent its further use, or if you are satisfied with the current level of preservation care

offered by library preservation staff. If even minor damage is unacceptable, a plan for

preservation selection should be drafted.

• Conduct a more thorough evaluation of your journal and monograph collection. A

more detailed survey for these strata would require sampling monographs and

journals separately from the microfiche collection to determine if our preliminary

assessment did not uncover more systemic preservation needs issues within the

collection.

• Replace the brown, acidic pamphlet bindings with acid-free, alkaline-buffered

pamphlet binders.

• Review materials published before 1923 for preservation reformatting. Especially

brittle materials should be reformatted to prevent damage to the information during

regular use. According to Mr. Wendt, the books and journals are used inside of the

PRC laboratories, away from microfilm readers and computers. This pattern of use

suggests that preservation photocopying would be preferable to digitization or

32

microfilming. PRC staff should be enlisted to identify damaged or brittle materials for

preservation reformatting.

ENVIRONMENTBased on our experiences and observations of the Herbarium Library

environment, we recommend that you:

• Assess the wiring issues in and around the collection. Although our team lacks the

expertise to ascertain the exact nature of these problems, we reasonably believe that

open wiring and ungrounded plugs represent an electrocution risk to patrons and a

fire risk to collection materials and shelving.

• Begin logging the humidity and temperature of the Herbarium Library. Close

monitoring of the Herbarium Library reading room will also be valuable in assessing

the conditions of the PRC plant specimens housed in that room. Silver halide

microfiche can develop “measles” at a RH above 40%,15 and books kept at an RH of

40% suffer less from acidity, brittleness, mold, and foxing.

• Undertake, if possible, an annual review of the structural condition of the building to

ascertain any current or potential problems related to leaks, structural cracking, or

other conditions that could result in a catastrophic loss of materials.

• Test for insect or other vermin in the collection. Although no vermin were observed in

the collection, traps should be placed and checked for pests. These creatures can

damage paper and endanger the health of patrons using the collection.

15 Microfilm and Microfiche.

33

Appendix A. Survey InstrumentsMicrofilm Data Collection SheetPreservation Needs Assessment SurveyUniversity of Austin Texas: Herbarium Library

Bibliographic Information

Call number________________________________________________

Title: ____________________________________________________

Publisher: ________________________________________________

OCLC number: ______________________________________________

Number of Holdings: _______________________________________

Microformat

Type of support:

polyester [ ] cellulose acetate [ ] cellulose nitrate [ ]

Type of image: silver halide [ ] diazo [ ]

Is the support colorless? Yes [ ] No [ ]Is the support flat? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Is the image free of:Distortions or color change? Yes [ ] No [ ]Foreign debris? Yes [ ] No [ ]Scratches? Yes [ ] No [ ]Fingerprints? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Housing

None [ ]

Envelope [ ] Acid free? Yes [ ] No [ ] ? [ ]

Box [ ] Hard Plastic [ ] Plastic and Board [ ]

Emulsion side facing envelope adhesive? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Other notes

34

Data Collection Sheet [ Serial ] [ Monograph ]Preservation Needs Assessment SurveyUniversity of Austin Texas: Herbarium Library

Bibliographic Information

Title: _________________________________________________________

Author: ________________________________________________________

Call number: ___________________________________________________

Publisher: _____________________________________________________

Year of Publication: ___________________________________________

OCLC number: _________________ Holdings: _______________________

Dimensions

Height: __________in Width: __________in Depth: __________in

Binding Origination

Publisher [ ] Commercial [ ] Pamphlet Binding [ ]

Paper [ ] Cloth [ ] Leather [ ]

Binding Condition(Mark all that apply.)

Loose Hinges [ ] Detached Boards [ ] Detached Spine [ ]

Broken Joint(s) [ ] Damaged Cover [ ] Worn Headcap [ ]

Other: _________________________________________________________

Leaf Attachment(If pamphlet bound, note original (O) and folder attachment (F).)

Sewn [ ] Stapled [ ] Glued/Taped [ ] Other [ ] Unknown [ ]

Text Block Condition (Mark all that apply.)

Leaf Attachment: Intact [ ] Not Intact [ ]

Page Tears [ ] Mutilation [ ]

35

Paper Condition (Mark all that apply.)

Brittle Paper [ ] Foxing [ ]

Coated Paper [ ] Discolored Paper [ ]

Other: _________________________________________________________

Environmental Damage

Yes [ ] Description: _________________________________________

Treatment Suggested(Mark all that apply.)

None [ ] Recase [ ] Rebind [ ] Resew [ ] Reformat [ ]

Previously treated [ ] How? __________________________________

Other: _________________________________________________________

Additional notes

36

Appendix B. Findings

Number ofItems

PercentageSample

SizeMicrofiche 28200 79.6610% 119Monographs 3800 10.7345% 16Serials 3400 9.6045% 14Film 52 Total 35452 100.00% 149

Sample Size Calculation

z (95%) p c ss ss (rev)1.9600 0.5400 0.0800 149 149

Count of Microfiche

Title Total

Plant Taxonomic Literature Microfiche Collection 49

Candolle: Prodromi Herbarium 21

Thunberg, CP Herbarium 6

Linnaean Herbarium 5

Journal of Botany, The Brittish and Foreign Ed. 5

Index Kewenis 5

Herbarium Jussieu 5

Willdenow Herbarium 4Wallich Herbarium (Royal Botanical Gardens,Kew) 3

Smith Herbarium 3

Annales du Museum d'Historire Naturalle 3

Herbarium Lamark 1

Annals of the Lyceum 1

Archives du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle 1

Linnaeus C. Species Planatarum 1

Jacquin, N.J. Enumeratio 1

Sloane, H. Catalogue Planatarum 1

Herbarium Humboldt, Bonpland Et leunth 1

Araceae Bromeliaceae 1

von Schlechtendal 1

Herbarium Michaux 1

37

Grand Total 119

Count of Emulsion Facing Adhesive Emulsion

Title no yes

Plant Taxonomic Literature Microfiche Collection 44 5

Candolle: Prodromi Herbarium 3 18

Thunberg, CP Herbarium 5 1

Linnaean Herbarium 1 4

Journal of Botany, The Brittish and Foreign Ed. 4 1

Index Kewenis 2 3

Herbarium Jussieu 4 1

Willdenow Herbarium 4 Wallich Herbarium (Royal Botanical Gardens,Kew) 3

Smith Herbarium 3


Herbarium Lamark 1








von Schlechtendal 1

Herbarium Michaux 1

Grand Total 84 35

38

Count of Acid-Free EnvelopesAcidFree?

Title ? no yes

Plant Taxonomic Literature Microfiche Collection 40 1 8

Candolle: Prodromi Herbarium 4 17

Thunberg, CP Herbarium 4 2

Linnaean Herbarium 5

Journal of Botany, The Brittish and Foreign Ed. 1 4

Index Kewenis 4 1

Herbarium Jussieu 4 1

Willdenow Herbarium 2 2 Wallich Herbarium (Royal Botanical Gardens,Kew) 1 2

Smith Herbarium 3


Herbarium Lamark 1








von Schlechtendal 1

Herbarium Michaux 1

Grand Total 65 33 21

39

Count ofTitle/Monograph

Count ofTitle/Monograph

Binding org. Total Binding Type Total

Commercial 3 Cloth 7

Pamphlet 4 Cloth (Plasticized) 1

Publisher 9 Paper 6

Grand Total 16Paper ; Cloth(spine) 1

(blank) 1

Grand Total 16

Count ofTitle/Journal

Count ofTitle/Journal

Binding org. Total Binding Type Total

Commercial 8 Cloth 8PamphletBinding 4 Paper 3

Grand Total 12 Paper ; Spiral 1

Grand Total 12

Count ofTitle/Monograph Treatment

non-acidbinder None recase reformat

GrandTotal

Total 1 11 3 1 16

Count of Title/Journal Treatment

None rebind reformat Grand Total

Total 9 2 1 12

Availability in OCLCMedianAvailability

Mean

Microfiche 4 6.159664

Monographs 58 88.73333

Serials 59.5 102.9167

40

average age

Monographs 1962

Serials 1965

monograph/binding Yes No yes % no %







Other 8 8 50% 50%

monograph/block Yes No yes % no%

Intact 15 1 94% 6%

Tears 1 15 6% 94%


monograph/paper Yes No yes % no%

Brittle 5 11 31% 69%

Foxing 1 15 6% 94%

Coated 5 11 31% 69%

Discolored 5 11 31% 69%

Other 0 16 0% 100%

serials/binding Yes No yes % no %







Other 2 10 17% 83%

serials/block Yes No yes % no%

Intact 12 0 100% 0%

Tears 2 10 17% 83%

41


serials/paper Yes No yes % no%

Brittle 2 10 17% 83%

Foxing 0 12 0% 100%

Coated 7 5 58% 42%

Discolored 2 10 17% 83%

Other 0 12 0% 100%

microfiche housing % acid free

None 0 0% yes 21

Envelope 78 66% no 33

Box 41 34% ? 65

Plastic 15 13% 119

plastic and board 26 22%

42

Appendix C. Budget

Microfiche Cost Units Total Product Source

Signs$30.19 2 $60.38

DEMCO® 12"HCustom EngravedSigns

http://www.demco.com

Cotton Gloves$63.60 3 $190.80

837-712M CottonGloves Medium12PR/PK

http://www.archivalsuppliers.com

Cotton FlannelCleaning Cloth $37.50 1 $37.50

Cotton Flannel,Unbleached, 5meters

http://www.gaylordmart.com/

Glass Cleaner$8.95 1 $8.95

Plexiglass Cleaner,16 Oz. http://www.gaylordmart.c

om/

VacuumCleaner withSoft BrushAttachment $26.80 1 $26.80

Vacuum Cleaners,Handheld,Fiberglass Filter,Data-Vac


MicroficheCabinets

$1,701.95 1 $1,701.95

Russ BassettMicrofiche CabinetsLateral – 7 Drawers


Platform forMicroficheCabinet

$200 1 $200

One foot, hardwoodplatform bolted tothe floor andcabinet

Construction andInstallation ContractedOut to UniversityFacilities Staff

GraduateAssistant forRehousingProject $3,600 1 $3,600

6 months x 25% @$10/hour, including50% fringe benefits

ChemicallyStableMicrofilmBoxes

$3.75 200 $750.00

Unbuffered boxsized for microfiche;choose insidedimensions from 6-1/4W x 2"D or 6-1/4W x 4"D


Acid FreeEnvelopes

$14.25 30 $427.50

500 Acid FreeMicroficheEnvelopes 4-1/4" X6-1/8"

http://www.archivalsuppliers.com

MicroficheReader

$4,079.95 1 $4,079.95

MicroficheReader/Plain PaperPrinter, Alos, ModelZ40


total $11,083.83

43

Monographs andJournals

Lace-on PamphletBinding

$40.70 40 $1,628

Multi BinderDuraCoat Classic8 x 11" Pkg 12

Labor and MaterialsContracted throughUniversity Libraries,Preservation Department

Reformatting:PreservationPhotocopy

$75.00 480 $36,000

Commercialbound volume anddigital version(CD)

Heckman Bindery,Contracted throughUniversity Libraries

total $37,628

GeneralEnvironment

EnvironmentalMonitoring $168.9

5 1 $168.95

Data Logger forTemperature andHumidity, DockingStation, andSoftware Interface

http://www.talasonline.com

Building StructuralReview

$5,000 1 $5,000

IndependentAustin HistoricBuilding Inspector,Consulting Fee

Insect & VerminTesting $86.95 1 $86.95

Pest MonitoringKits, for Museums

http://www.gaylordmart.com

total $5,255.90 Microfiche,Monographs,Journals andEnvironmentalRecommendations total $53,967.73

44

Appendix D. Annotated Bibliography

Cornell University Department of Preservation and Conservation. Mar. 2004. CornellUniversity Library. 26 Nov. 2004.<http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/laptop.html> This survey containedpreservation treatment definitions and criteria that we used to define ourassessment survey of monographs and journals.

Library Preservation at Harvard: Conservation Resources. Oct. 2004. . President andFellows of Harvard College. 26 Nov. 2004.<http://preserve.harvard.edu/resources/conservation.html>. The "PreservationFacsimiles in Widener Library" and "Transfer of Library Materials to the HarvardDepository" contain selection criteria, which helped to inform some of the thingswe specified on our assessment survey of monographs and journals.

Microfilm and Microfiche. Dalton, Steve. 14 July 2004. Northeast DocumentConservation Center. 26 Nov. 2004. <http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf51.htm>.This resource clearly outlines several factors, including support and imagematerials, which predict the longevity of different microfiche. The characteristicsof good housing are also described.

Microforms Collection Preservation Plan. Ed. Vidos, Tamara. 6 Aug. 2003. University ofOregon Libraries. 26 Nov. 2004.<http://libweb.uoregon.edu/govdocs/micro/presplan.html>. This resource givesinformation particular to the care, environment, and proper housing ofmicroformat materials.

Supplies Section – Diazo & Silver Film. Undated. The Microfilm Shop. 26 Nov. 2004.<http://www.microfilm.com/film.htm>. This commercial site gives approximatelifespans for the different imaging materials.

45

Appendix E. Random Number Generator

The following is a screen shot of the scripting application used to create the random

numbers generated for our assessment. The script was written in PHP and would

generate three separate random number strings for each strata of our sample. The

illustration explains how our random numbers were seeded and why.

46

Appendix F. Photographs of the Herbarium Library Collection

An Overview of the Collection

Monographs are shelved along the wall, while journals are shelved in free standingwooden shelves. The height of the ceilings can be seen in this image.

Concerns about the Environment

Wiring is the most immediate environmental concern. Exposed wiring is visible aboveand below the book shelves. Blue sparks were emitted from three electrical outlets to

the left of the outlet visible in the left picture.

47

The Microfiche Collection

The microfiche collection is housed in three steel cabinets. The microfiche reader isvisible in the left picture. A reader-copier is available in the lobby of the Life Science

Library.

These boxes of microfilm, though discolored, were determined to present a lowimmediate risk to the collection.

48

The Monographs

The monographs include a separate reference collection. All the items in the Herbarium

are marked with an “Herbarium” sticker just under the headcap.

Publisher, commercial and pamphlet bindings can be seen.

49

The Journals

All journals are bound and coded before being placed in the Herbarium Library.Complete journals are bound commercially, while incomplete volumes are pamphlet

bound.

Sampling

A team member records data on journal volumes. Two team members worked to pullthe items. After pulling items, the volumes were compared to the survey instruments.

50

Three sessions of several hours each were necessary to pull and record all items in thesample.

A brittle and discolored journal volume from Russia.

Brown pamphlet binders are acidic. The volume on the right is brittle. At some point, it

was repaired with book cloth tape on the spine. The darkened area of the cover iscaused by adhesives from the call number label protector.

Documents

Herbarium Library - Upcoming Eventssburns/content/pdf/herbarium_final.pdf · 1 Preservation Needs Assessment Survey Herbarium Library at the University of Texas at Austin Sam Burns