Login      Join the PestList      Contact Us
MP Logo
get involved
SOLUTIONS

Access information on how to choose a treatment that will deal with infestations in a way that is appropriate for your collections and safe for your staff.
  • Introduction
  • Solution Fact Sheets
  • Case Studies
  • Additional Resource
  • Residual Pesticides
  • Web Resources
  • Bibliography

This portion of the site contains information and resources on how to treat infestations. If an infestation is identified, the first crucial step is to determine if it is active, in which case it should be dealt with promptly to prevent its spread. 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.

This portion of the site contains information and resources on how to treat infestations. If an infestation is identified, the first crucial step is to determine if it is active, in which case it should be dealt with promptly to prevent its spread. 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.

It can sometimes be challenging to determine if a particular object or specimen is actively infested or merely showing signs of a previous problem. For single items or groups of items (e.g. within a storage cabinet) 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 are old, the piece should be cleaned, sealed in a clear, museum-quality polyethylene bag and set aside for two to three weeks, in a quiet space. At the end of this period, if frass drifts from the piece, fresh webbing appears, 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.

Determining the age and extent of a room or building-level infestation is easily done if you are actively monitoring pest activity levels in your institution’s storage and exhibition areas – Visit this site’s Monitoring page for more information.

Treatment options for rooms and buildings will differ greatly from solutions for item level infestations.

The next step will be to identify the pest. Identifying the pests involved in an infestation can play an important role in choosing an appropriate treatment. Visit the site’s section on Identification [hotlink] for more resources and information.

There are several ways to treat an active pest infestation and the most appropriate method will depend upon a variety of factors such as:

  • Type of collection (mixed media, books and archival collections, ethnographic art, etc.)

  • Size of infestation (e.g. single object, storage cabinet or exhibit area)

  • Institutional capabilities (e.g. access to an appropriate freezer)

  • Budget

Treatment Fact Sheets for the various treatment options listed below are provided here on the site. The Fact Sheetsgive a brief description of the treatment, discuss what collections materials can be treated in this way, give general procedures guidelines, list pros and cons of treatment and touch on necessary supplies, additional resources and health and safety concerns.

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 the Fact Sheet which is 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. In addition there are related which expand on and complement the Fact Sheets:

  • Case Studies: The case studies give information on the experience of a specific institution and are designed to complement the Fact Sheets by providing more specific information on the institution made the choice it did. When appropriate detailed information on procedures and resources are given. Case studies have been provided by various members of the museum community reviewed and vetted by the IPM-WG. For more information please contact the institution directly.

  • Additional Resources: When available, additional resources provided by members the IPM-WG or members of the museum community have been provided here for your reference.

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.

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 for assistance.

 

Determining the age and extent of a room or building-level infestation is easily done if you are actively monitoring pest activity levels in your institution’s storage and exhibition areas – Visit this site’s Monitoring page for more information.

Treatment options for rooms and buildings will differ greatly from solutions for item level infestations.

The next step will be to identify the pest. Identifying the pests involved in an infestation can play an important role in choosing an appropriate treatment. Visit the site’s section on Identification [hotlink] for more resources and information.

There are several ways to treat an active pest infestation and the most appropriate method will depend upon a variety of factors such as:

  • Type of collection (mixed media, books and archival collections, ethnographic art, etc.)

  • Size of infestation (e.g. single object, storage cabinet or exhibit area)

  • Institutional capabilities (e.g. access to an appropriate freezer)

  • Budget

Treatment Fact Sheets for the various treatment options listed below are provided here on the site. The Fact Sheetsgive a brief description of the treatment, discuss what collections materials can be treated in this way, give general procedures guidelines, list pros and cons of treatment and touch on necessary supplies, additional resources and health and safety concerns.

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 the Fact Sheet which is 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. In addition there are related which expand on and complement the Fact Sheets:

  • Case Studies: The case studies give information on the experience of a specific institution and are designed to complement the Fact Sheets by providing more specific information on the institution made the choice it did. When appropriate detailed information on procedures and resources are given. Case studies have been provided by various members of the museum community reviewed and vetted by the IPM-WG. For more information please contact the institution directly.

  • Additional Resources: When available, additional resources provided by members the IPM-WG or members of the museum community have been provided here for your reference.

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.

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 for assistance.

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 Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Controlled Atmosphere/CO2 Treatment

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 most materials. Foams such as polyurethane and polyethylene have exhibited dimensional changes and distortion following treatment. This is likely caused by changes in atmospheric pressure inside the chamber. Therefore foams should not be treated using this method. 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


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Isolation/Bagging Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Isolation/Bagging Treatment

 
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.
 
 
 


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Low Temperature Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Low Temperature Treatment
Low Temperature Treatment of Infested Cultural Materials
 
Brief description of treatment
 
Controlled low temperature treatment, also known as "freezing", has become a routine pest management and eradication method for museums, following the research and guidelines established, notably, by Strang and by Florian. The guidelines that follow are based on technical research in entomology and also on successful treatments performed in a number of major museums.
 
Freezing an object or artifact in a standard freezer should not be confused with vacuum freeze drying, which is used for reclaiming materials that are wet, often after a fire or flood. Freeze drying is a two-step process. The freezing stops mold formation and prevents deterioration until further action be taken. Vacuum drying then removes the water directly from the frozen state.
 
What collections materials can be treated this way?
  • The literature on freezing includes many warnings about types of objects or materials that could be damaged from freezing. However, the staff of institutions that have frozen literally thousands of objects report no damage on most of the types of objects for which there are published warnings.
  • Material that should not be frozen, based on specific examples in the published literature and the collective experience of members of the IPM-WG includes:
    • oil and acrylic paintings on canvas
    • plant specimens that are not completely dried
    • photographic materials other than acetate film and modern photographic prints
    • audio-visual items: check carefully for the following materials, they may not be at risk for infestation, and freezing may cause damage and permanent loss of information. These materials include:
      • computer media (tapes, discs, optical)
      • magnetic media (reel to reel, cassettes, VHS, Beta)
      • audio grooved media (cylinders, discs)
      • cased photographs (daguerreotypes, ambrotypes [pannotypes], tintypes [ferrotypes])
      • glass archival materials including plates negatives (collodion and gelatin [wet and dry plate methods]), glass color transparencies (autochromes), lantern slides, mounted glass slides
 
In general, freezing is considered so safe that some institutions freeze collections ‘preventatively’ to ensure that there is no infestation.  
Examples of this include:
  • Moving collections into a new space or facility from one that was known or suspected to have been infested.
  • Processing new acquisitions, or reintegrating collections that have returned from loan into collections storage areas
  • Bulk collections of material that cannot be individually inspected.
 
General procedures
Standard freezing of room-temperature cultural materials can be accomplished by using a chest-type, upright, walk-in freezer, or freezer truck. Whichever kind is used, a good rule of thumb is that it should be capable of maintaining minus 20 degrees F (minus 29 degrees C). Ultimately the appropriate exposure period for insect eradication will depend on both the minimum operating temperature of  the freezer as well as the type of insect. For more on insect identification and why this is important click here [link to ID page]. For more specifics on freezer types see the “Materials and supplies” section below.
 
A freezer that maintains this temperature will sufficiently lower the materials to the freezing point within four hours, which kills adult insects as well as their eggs. If the temperature drop takes much longer, some varieties of insect are capable of producing an ‘anti-freeze’ that allows them to survive freezing. With wood pests such as powderpost beetles, a second treatment may be necessary to insure complete kill. This is particularly important forlarge wooden objects, where temperature change may take longer then four hours to penetrate to the core.
 
In order to avoid damage from ice build-up in the freezer or from condensation after removal, artifacts should not be put into freezers directly. They should be sealed in plastic either using re-sealable plastic bags or polyethylene plastic sheet sealed with tape that will not fail in low temperatures. If a number of objects are being treated at once, objects in bags should be put in trays or boxes for easier handling. Items may also be placed in boxes and the boxes wrapped. 
 
Typical low-temperature treatment for infestation involves freezing for a minimum of 48 hours, although many museums leave objects in freezers for longer; some, particularly when freezing wooden objects or tightly-packed paper in boxes, leave them for a week. Several older publications recommend repeated freeze/thaw cycle(s) as a precaution, but recent work indicates that one longer treatment at a low enough temperature should suffice.
 
After removal from the freezer, objects should be allowed to acclimate to room temperature, still completely wrapped, until they are at room temperature, at least 24 hours. Because many materials become temporarily brittle at low temperatures, post-freezing handling should be minimized until the objects return to room temperature.
 
There is no harm in leaving the objects in the plastic bags after treatment.  On the contrary, it will prevent future infestation. 
 
While infested items can be placed in a refrigerator to halt activity (most museum pest activity will stop at 5 degrees C but insects will not be killed at this temperature), it is important that these items be allowed to acclimatize back to room temperature before freezing.
 
An important part of any treatment of collection material is documentation. 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 that various museums carry out documentation. Click here to access the Policy and Procedures templates. It is recommended that all pest incidents and any treatment such as freezing 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.
 
 
Pros and Cons of this treatment
Pros
  • Procedure is non-toxic to humans
  • Safe for almost all organic and composite materials
  • Relatively time-efficient
  • Low cost after initial investment for freezer
  • Some freezers can be modified to reach appropriate low temperatures
  • Does not entail extensive staff training or staff time for maintenance during procedure
 
Cons
  • Requires initial financial investment
  • Some smaller freezers are not large enough for oversized items
  • Walk-in freezers require space planning and setup
  • Some maintenance is often required for large walk-in freezers
  • Not appropriate for all materials
  • Temperatures that do not fall fast or low enough will not achieve a good kill rate and treatment will not be fully effective.
 
Materials and supplies
 
The success of freezing treatments, as mentioned above, depends greatly on the ability to quickly drop the temperature and sustain it through the length of the treatment. As a result, choosing the appropriate freezer is essential. According to Strang (2008) in practice, the most effective freezer systems for killing insect pests operate between minus 22 degrees F (minus 30 degrees C) and minus 40 degrees F (minus 40 degrees C). Institutions must choose a freezer setup based on these requirements as well as the costs and practical needs of the collection.
 
 
The information below on freezers is drawn primarily from Strang’s “Controlling Insect Pests with Low Temperature” (1997, updated 2008). The full text should be consulted for details. Click here to access the Bibliography [link to general bibliography]. 
 
Household Deep-Freezers:
Household deep-freezers that operate between minus 4 degrees F (-minus 20 degrees C) and minus 13 degrees F (minus 25 degrees C) can be very effective, and are usually less expensive than commercial freezers. Most household freezers are “frost free” which is acceptable. While there has been some anecdotal concern about the defrost 'warming' cycles, these are of relatively short duration, and the general response time of bagged materials commonly 'frozen' is comparatively longer than the warming phase. The target insects will generally be kept cold though the cycle by the cooling or cold object and will experience the lowest temperatures the freezer can offer. They will have been immobilized early in the cooling.
 
Commercial freezers and Chest Freezers:
Commercial freezers and “top of the line” household chest freezers can usually achieve the necessary temperatures to ensure kill rates. Commercial “ice-cream hardening” freezers in vertical or horizontal configurations are designed to operate at minus 44 degrees F (minus 42 degrees C) and may not be much more expensive than standard commercial freezers. It is recommended that performance be monitored with a separate thermometer. Ensure that the freezer is well insulated, and provide for adequate air circulation inside the freezer around collections materials. Click here to access two published references on how to modify modifications to chest freezers to achieve colder temperatures if necessary [link to WAAC and SPNHC tips on Additional Resources page].
 
 
Walk-in Freezers:
Some walk-in laboratory freezers allow users to set the operating temperature. “Air-blast” freezers are preferable because their forced air circulation increases the cooling rate. It is not necessary to set temperatures below minus 40 degrees F (minus 40 degrees C) to increase the effectiveness of using freezing to kill insects.”
Check local vendors and manufacturers for “off the shelf” and custom-designed units. Thermometers on outside of freezer to monitor interior temperature are recommended.
 
Freezer Trucks:
More information coming.
 
 
Selected bibliography

Bergh, Jan-Erik, Karl-Martin V. Jensen, Monika Åkerlund, Lise S. Hansen, and Martin Andrén “A Contribution to Standards for Freezing as a Pest Control Method for Museums” Collection Forum 21(1-2) (Fall 2006): 117-125.
 
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. Chapter 12.
 
Mibach, Lisa. Modifications to Home Freezers for Pest Control. WAAC Newsletter. 1994 Jan; pp. 26-27. Article included in page 11 http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/articles/pests9.pdf
 
Strang, Tom and Rika Kigawa.  Combatting Pests of Cultural Property. Canadian Conservation Institute
http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/crc/articles/mcpm/chap06-eng.aspx
 
Strang, Tom “Controlling Insect Pests with Low Temperature” Canadian Conservation Institute Note 3/3, 1997, updated 2008.http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/crc/notes/pdf-documents/3-3_e.aspx
 
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.

 


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup February 2010
Nitrogen/Argon Gas Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Nitrogen/Argon Gas Treatment
Nitrogen/Argon Gas Treatment
 
Brief description of treatment
 
Nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) gas used in controlled atmospheres are effective in causing insect death within 2-6 weeks, as shown by measuring insect respiration before and after treatment providing the oxygen levels are reduced to 0.1-0.3%.The oxygen deprivation causes a disruption in the glucose production within insect bodies, and weight loss resulting in death of the insect. Rates of death vary with temperature, relative humidity, exposure time, and species type. Increasing the temperature helps reduce the exposure time for both gases because insect respiration is increased with higher temperature, causing rapid water loss. (Valentín 1993). Argon is 25-50% faster than nitrogen at killing insects. Additionally, argon kills some fungal tissue while nitrogen permits the same fungi to survive anoxia (Koestler, Tavzes, Pohleven 2004)
 
Modified atmospheres using nitrogen and argon are usually continuous-flow systems with soft or hard walled, vapor impermeable chambers. The continuous flow of gas initially purges the chamber of oxygen, and then maintains low oxygen levels to compensate for leaks.
 
What collections materials can be treated this way?
 
Almost all collections can be treated with nitrogen or argon.
 
Exceptions include:
  • One study showed that minerals such as litharge (PbO), cinnabar (HgS), and sienna (mostly Fe2O3) do experience color change in the absence of oxygen (Arney, Jacobs, and Newman 1979), so care must be taken if this is a concern with artifacts or pigments. Prussian blue and ultramarine change but the color comes back. Changes are not noted when pigments are in mixtures, e.g., in paint films. Textiles may be the most likely to change (temporarily).
  • Wet artifacts have the potential to reduce the effectiveness of treatment due to insect adaptation to use anaerobic respiration, although this is generally unlikely for the types of pests typically encountered for museum and library pests (Selwitz 1998).
 
General procedures
 
An anoxic atmosphere requires an enclosure, gas, and gas monitoring devices. Uses low-oxygen gas (less then 1000ppm of O2). Enclosures must be constructed of vapor impermeable materials such as steel or aluminized polyethylene and polypropylene films. There are several types of enclosures: hard-wall, soft-wall, and mobile chambers (see below.)
 
Procedures vary by chamber type, but all include:
1.Load the chamber so artifacts cannot crush each other, accidentally shift, or be crushed by the walls of a soft chamber.
2.Seal the chamber (heat-seal for soft wall chambers, zipping shut for retrofitted fumigation soft wall chambers, and closing the door on a hard wall chamber ensuring the gasketry is in good alignment and condition).
3.Purge ambient air and oxygen from the chamber. Sometimes this is a two-step procedure; first, introduction of nitrogen to push out the oxygen, followed by the secondary anoxia gas like argon or nitrogen. However, in larger chambers, this additional step has not proven to be necessary since many larger chambers have constant positive pressure to maintain low oxygen levels.  
4.Monitor and maintain constant gas flow for the duration of the treatment, which depends on gas type and species of insect if known. 
5.Evacuate the anoxic gas from the chamber and returning ambient air, while observing proper safety protocols to maintain safe levels for humans.
6.Examine artifacts followed by removal of dead insect debris by low suction HEPA vacuuming or using tweezers.
 
Pros of this treatment
 
·            No chemical residue on artifacts.
·            Appropriate for a wide variety of collection materials.
·            Argon gas has the additional benefit of preventing biodeterioration by microorganisms like fungi and bacteria (Valentín 1990).
·            More time-efficient than CO2 gas.
·            The EPA does not currently list argon and nitrogen as a registered pesticide, so users must research and follow state guidelines for the determinations and requirements for defining what gases are pesticides and if applicator licenses are necessary. This is based on the applicator’s residency and the entity that needs to perform the treatment. For the most up to date information, refer to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) on http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/index.htm 
 
Cons of this treatment
 
·         Generally, treatment with argon or nitrogen gas is more costly than treatment with CO2 gas, depending on regional rates for gas acquisition
·         Nitrogen can in some cases contribute to growth of microorganisms with nitrogenase enzymes that help fix nitrogen as a fuel source. More research is needed in this area to clarify this potential issue.
 
Materials, supplies, product manufacturers
 
Hard wall chambers:
·         Typically steel shell chambers or rooms hard-wired into building electrical and HVAC systems.
·         Include a sealable door in which shelves or carts of infested materials can be inserted.
·         Suppliers:
 
Hard wall chambers with steel outer shell custom built to size. Chambers usually utilize nitrogen or CO2. Chambers become a permanent fixture of the internal building and are hard-wired into existing systems. Doors can be secured.
 
 
Soft wall chambers:
·         Constructed of a vapor impermeable film (also referred to as a barrier film) that is heat set together at the seams.
·         Very large soft-walled chambers may have an internal frame support of wood or PVC piping to prevent collapse on the artifact(s).
·         Can be made to any specific size or shape in-situ, which is helpful for odd-shaped or large objects.
·         Reusable soft wall chambers are usually chambers previously manufactured for chemical fumigation techniques that are no longer used or permitted by law (such as methy bromide) and retrofitted for other gases like nitrogen, argon or CO2.
·         Suppliers:
o   Art Care International http://artcareinternational.net
o   Maheu & Maheu Pest Management www.maheu-maheu.com
 
Soft wall chambers constructed of vapor barrier film and internal support structure such as wood or PVC pipe, built to custom size. Chambers accommodate nitrogen, or argon or CO2. External gas supply. 
 
Mobile chambers:
At least one institution has investigated the possibility of developing a mobile self-contained custom-sized trailer system. The system as proposed would have had the following capabilities:
·         8’ x 8’ x 14’ Trailer chamber with trailer door that can be secured and sealed airtight.
·         Both a generator and capacity for a building power source connection
·         Electrical, temperature and relative humidity monitoring
·         Loading ramp
·         Auto-injection and recycle of Argon gas
·         Maintain 0.1 – 0.5% O2 level
·         External monitoring panels.
The system as proposed was not fully developed but any institution interested in pursuing this idea can contact the vendor - Lee Standard or Vanessa O’Neil, Cedar Spring, Inc., tel: 949-725-1775 lee@cspring.com    http://cspring.com/
 
Additional Supplies
 
Barrier films for chambers (available from several vendors, search internet for the following products):
  • Aclar, Marvelseal, and Escal are available from numerous preservation and commercial vendors.
 
Heat sealers for vapor barrier film (available from several vendors, search internet for the following products):
  • constant heat hand sealers
o   Futura Cello Model Sealer, 6" long, top and bottom heated hand sealer with 3 temperature settings.
  • Heat spatulas
o   21st Century Tacking Iron
o   Coverite Trim Sealing Iron
 
 
 
Selected bibliography
Arney, J. S., A. J. Jacobs, and R. Newman. 1979. Influence of oxygen on the fading of organic colourants. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 18:108-17. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-004_indx.html
 
Burke, J. 1996. Anoxic Microenvironments: a simple guide, Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC) leaflet 1(1): 1-4. Available from www.spnhc.org http://140.247.98.87/files/leaflet1.pdf
 
Daniel, V., Hanlon, G., and S. Maekawa, 1993. Eradication of Insect Pests in Museums Using Nitrogen. WAAC Newsletter 15(3):15-19. Western Association for Art Conservation.
 
Gilberg, Mark, 1991,The Effects of Low Oxygen Atmospheres on Museum Pests, Studies in Conservation (36):93-98.
 
Hanlon, G. Daniel, V. & Ravenel, N. "Dynamic System for Nitrogen Anoxia of Large Museum Objects: A Pest Eradication Case Study", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property, Oct 5-8, 1992, Yokohama, Japan.
 
Koestler, R.J., 1992. Practical application of nitrogen and argon fumigation procedures for insect control in museum objects. Toishi, K., Arai, H., Kenjo, T., Yamano, K. (eds.) 2nd International Conference on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property, Yokohama, Japan, 5-8 Oct 1992, preprints pp 94-96.
 
Koestler, R.J., 1993. Insect eradication using controlled atmospheres, and FTIR measurement for insect activity. ICOM 10th Triennial Meeting, Washington, D.C. Vol. II, 882-886.
 
Koestler, R.J., 1996. Anoxic treatment for insect control in panel paintings and frames with argon gas. American Institute of Conservation Paintings Specialty Group, Postprints. AIC, 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 301, Washington DC 20006, 61-72.
 
Koestler, R.J., Sardjono, S., and Koestler, D.L., 2000. Detection of insect infestation in museum objects by carbon dioxide measurement using FTIR. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 46, 285-292.
 
Sardjono, S., Koestler, D.L., and Koestler, R.J., 2000. Detection of hidden insects in museum objects by carbon dioxide measurement using FTIR. Student papers: 26th conference of the Association of North American Graduate Programs in Conservation. Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education. Washington, D.C., 72-76.
 
Koestler, R.J., C. Tavzes, and F. Pohleven, 2004, A New Approach on the Conservation of Wooden Heritage, International Research Group on Wood Preservation, Paper prepared for the 35th Annual Meeting, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6-10 June, 2004, available through IRG Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden.
 
Koestler, R.J., Parreira, E, Santoro, E.D., and Noble, P., 1993. Visual effects of selected biocides on easel painting materials. Studies in Conservation, 38, 265-273.
 
Suzuki, J., and Koestler, R.J., 2003. Visual assessment of biocide effects on Japanese paint materials. In: Koestler, R.J., Koestler, V.R., Charola, A.E., and Nieto-Fernandez, F.E., (Eds.), Art, Biology, and Conservation: Biodeterioration of Works of Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Yale University Press, New Haven, 410-425.
 
Met Objectives. 2002. “Biodeterioration in Museum Collections” Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 3(2). 
 
Selwitz, C. and S. Maekawa 1998. Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf
 
Valentín, N. 1990. Insect eradication in museums and archives by oxygen replacement, a pilot project. ICOM Committee for Conservation 9th Triennial Meeting, Dresden, German Democratic Republic, 26-31 August 1990, Preprints, vol. 2, ed. K. Grimstad. Los Angeles: ICOM Committee for Conservation. 821-23.
 
Valentín, N. 1993. Comparative analysis of insect control by nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide in museum, archive, and herbarium collections. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 32:263-78.
 
 
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
 
 

Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Oxygen Scavenger Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Oxygen Scavenger Treatment

Brief description of treatment 
By depleting atmospheric oxygen 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

  • Relatively simple and inexpensive.
  • Appropriate for a wide variety of collection materials. 
  • 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 
  • 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. 

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. 

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.

Burke, J. 1996. Anoxic Microenvironments: a simple guide, SPNHC leaflet 1(1): 1-4.

Burke, J. 1992. Vapor Barrier Films. WAAC Newsletter. Volume 14, Number 2, May 1992, pp.13-17

Daniel, V. and F. L. Lambert.  Ageless Oxygen Scavenger: Practical Applications. WAAC Newsletter. Volume 15, Number 2, May 1993, pp. 12-14

National Park Service, May 1999. Conserve O Gram Number 3/9: Anoxic Environments: A Treatment For Pest Control.
 
Product suppliers 
Ageless oxygen absorber, manufactured by Mitsubishi , is available from several museum supply companies (check the internet for availability.)
 
RP system scavengers manufactured by Mitsubishi, is available from several museum supply companies (check the internet for availability.)
 
Escal film is manufactured by Mitsubishi and is available from Conservation by Design Limited.
 
Marvelseal is manufactured by Berry Plastics/Covalence Coated Products (formerly Ludlow Corp), 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 and it is also available from Keepsafe Systems Inc.


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Pesticide Treatment
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Pesticide Treatment
Pesticides
 
Introduction:
 
Since the advent of DDT in the late 1940's, it has been a common belief that insect infestations can easily be eliminated with the application of pesticides. In fact, relying on pesticides to solve insect problems in museum settings is limited at best. Insecticides are a short-term "fix" for most insect infestations in a collection storage and exhibition setting. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was developed to avoid the use of pesticides, instead using a variety of strategies to determine the source of an infestation, the reasons an infestation exists, and then address permanent, non-chemical solutions to these problems.
 
Chemical pesticides can be distinguished from chemical fumigants. Click here for more information on fumigants.
 
The IPM-WG and Museumpests.net does not advocate the use of pesticides or fumigants . This brief overview is intended to inform members of the museum, library, and archives communities about pesticides and to clarify frequently misunderstood terminology and concepts. The information provided here is given to assist preservation personnel in evaluating treatment options that may be recommended by qualified professionals. This overview also serves as a cautionary statement, and to direct readers to further resources.
 
Can collection materials be treated with pesticides?
 
Cultural materials should NEVER be treated with direct pesticide treatment by space fogging, direct spraying or dusting. Any direct application of a pesticide will inalterably change the chemical make-up of an object or artifact. 
 
Treatment of building cracks and crevices
However, residual or contact pesticide application to cracks and crevices of collection storage areas or exhibit spaces can be an effective tool to help eliminate certain types of localized infestations. These may only be applied by licensed individuals. The information provided here is intended to assist preservation personnel in evaluating treatment options that may be recommended by qualified professionals. Care must be taken not to expose the collection materials to the pesticides during the application process.
 
If after careful consideration the collecting institution decides to consult with hire a licensed pest management contractor to use a pesticide in the building, it is recommended that all pest incidents and any treatment be recorded. If a pest management professional proposes to use a pesticide in a facility, they should supply institution staff with a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each pesticide. The MSDS should be retained according to building safety procedures in an easily accessible place for future reference. A detailed, written plan of application should be offered by the professional to museum management to insure collections are not exposed to pesticides. A staff member should accompany the professional on each visit.
 
 
Even though such pesticides should never be applied directly to collections items, the use of any chemical treatment in a building should be documented and it should be possible to access the history of infestation and eradication procedures. The IPM policy statements on this site give examples of the ways that various museums carry out documentation. Click here to access the Policy and Procedures templates.,
 
General procedures for pesticide application to building cracks and crevices:
 
Residual pesticides are those which, after having been applied, remain effective for at least a week or more. Contact insecticides, as implied by the term, kill insects on contact. Most residual or contact pesticide applications, performed by a pest management contractor, entail the use of concentrated pesticides diluted in water and applied with a pressurized hand sprayer. Some pesticides are available in pressurized, aerosol formulations, which use solvents and hydrocarbon-based propellants to carry the pesticide droplets into cracks and crevices. Pesticide dusts are applied with a hand-duster or aerosol formulation and are applied to voids, cracks, and crevices. Pesticide fogs are contact insecticides and are designed to treat an entire space. They are usually generated with some type of mechanical device. The droplets of fog contain solvents and oils, which remain suspended in the air for a period of several hours until finally settling out on everything in the treated space.
 
 
Pros and Cons of these types of treatment:
 
Cons:
  • Any pesticide residue directly or inadvertently deposited on collection materials is unacceptable. These residues will inalterably change the object or artifact. Adverse chemical reactions between the pesticide or its carriers and the collection materials can occur and cause irreversible damage to the object or artifact. Staining can occur during the application process from the water, solvents, or pesticide as it comes in contact with the collection material.
 
  • Museum personnel or others may handle the treated collections and thus expose themselves to pesticide residues, which may be toxic to humans. This was especially evident when many mammalogy, ornithology, herpetology, and anthropology collections were treated with arsenic soap or powders in the 1800's and early 1900's. Staff and researchers today must be careful when handling older artifacts or taxidermy mounts because of these applications.
 
Pros:
  • Careful crack and crevice application of pesticides by a licensed pest management professional can assist in controlling certain pest populations. Endemic, area-wide infestations of carpet beetles, silverfish, ants, cockroaches, and booklice (psocids) may be at least partially controlled with residual pesticide applications. Note, however, that clothes moth and carpet beetle infestations entrenched in susceptible objects and artifacts cannot be controlled with these types of applications.
 
  • In institutions with food serving and/or vending facilities, application of pesticide baits, sprays, and dusts may be warranted, if applied by a licensed pest management contractor. These types of applications are normally used for cockroach and ant control.
 
Resources
 
link to pesticide residue section



The case studies give information on the experience of a specific institution and are designed to complement the Fact Sheets by providing more specific information on the institution made the choice it did. When appropriate, detailed information on procedures and resources are given. Case studies have been provided by various members of the museum community, then reviewed and vetted by the IPM-WG. For more information please contact the institution directly.

Carbon Dioxide Treatments at Historic New England-SPNEA
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Carbon Dioxide Treatments at Historic New England-SPNEA

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.  
 


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Low Temperature Treatments at the National Museum of the American Indian
View as pdf Make PDF

Title: Low Temperature Treatments at the National Museum of the American Indian

Back to Case Studies Title: Author: Created: Ready for display ? NoYes Page footer line 1: Page footer line 2: Case Study Body: SourceFont Size Size Styles StylesFormat NormalFont Font 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 DR43


Integrated Pest Management Working Group
Treatment Subgroup March 2008
Freezer Information - Due to the layout of this fact sheet it is provded as a link that will open in a new web page.
Please click this link: Freezer Fact Sheet

Freezer Modifications for Museum Pest Control - This document contains an excerpt the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC) Newsletter and the Western Association for Art Conservation Newsletter (WAAC) on how to modify home and chest freezers for museum pest control.

The historical use of pesticides in museums (e.g. arsenic, mercuric chloride, etc.) creates an ongoing problem for many natural science, anthropology and herbaria collections. There are a number of resources available for further information in this area.

  • The ICOM Ethnographic Working Group has created Biocides in Museum Collections an excellent online bibliography.
  • The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian website hosts a page on Pesticides that gives a brief overview of the issue.
  •  As items are returned to tribal communities, exposure to chemicals and pesticides becomes an issue due to the health risks involved.  The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian document Pesticides and Repatriated Objects contains a 2005 bibliography of selected resources and presentations pertaining to the topic of pesticides and repatriated objects.

 

  • Hayes, W.J., Jr., and E.R. Laws, Jr. (eds.), 1991. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 3 volumes, Academic Press.
    • Covers general principles of pesticide toxicology, effects of pesticide classes, and data on 256 compounds that have documented human effects.
  • Linnie, M.J. 1990. "Conservation: Pest Control in Museums - The Use of Chemicals and Associated Health Problems,"  International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol 9. pp. 419 - 433.
    • Provides an overview to many of the chemicals currently used in museums and their documented health effects.
  • Rossol, M. and W.C. Jessup 1996. "No Magic Bullets: Ethical Considerations for Pest Management Strategies," International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 15. No. 2, pp. 145-168.
    • This paper provides a cohesive and authoritative understanding of the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects of pest management which must be considered when selecting treatments. Many biocides used in museums have been categorized by chemical class. Also included are some of the hazards associated with their use, the OSHA rules which must be followed, and the guarantees and assurances which should be written into contracts with commercial pest control operators.
  • Watterson, A., 1989, Pesticide Users' Health and Safety Handbook: An International Guide. Van Nostrand Reinhold. (out of print.)

Pest Control Companies

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

 

Information on Pesticides
 

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

Resources on health and safety concerns relating to pesticides and pest control treatments

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/

Information on professional pest control societies

The National Pest Management Association Inc. (NPMA), a non-profit organization, was established to support the pest management industry’s commitment to the protection of public health, food and property, reflected both in continuing education of pest management professionals and the dissemination of timely information to homeowners and businesses. The association strives to provide timely information on pests and potential health and property threats for consumers.  Sections for media, consumers and professionals.
http://www.pestworld.org/
http://www.npmapestworld.org/

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/

Bibliography - Treatment

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. Stengĺrd 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, updated 2008.

———. "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.

Bibliography - Control

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. Stengĺrd 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.

Bibliography - Mold

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.