ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 2 / C&RL News Mass deacidification: The Wei T ’o understanding By Richard D. Smith President W ei T o Assodates * Deterioration of research materials in U.S. libraries is more expensive to ignore than fix. T his article will focus on how research libraries can apply mass deaciclification to solve the chal­ lenge of book deterioration. Libraries need to ex­ amine the ideas underlying mass preservation, con­ sider how these ideas were reached, w hat mass deacidification will and will not do, and the rela­ tionship of mass deacidification to mass preserva­ tion. These ideas and their implications will be considered by reporting on the condition of library collections, deacidification’s ability to meet library needs, deacidification program s in national li­ braries, the status of mass deacidification in North America, funding mass deacidification programs, and choice among mass deacidification systems. Additional information may be found in “Pres- * An earlier version of this paper was presented at Session G-4, “Mass Deacidification: Methods and Feasibility,’’ of the 79th Annual Meeting of Ameri­ can Association of Law Libraries, Sheraton W ash­ ington Hotel, Washington, D .C ., July 8,1986, and kindly released by the Law Library Journal for publication in C &RL News because of its general interest. The author is a lecturer in Conservation of Library Materials at the G raduate Library School of the University of Chicago, a registered profes­ sional engineer (State of Ohio), and a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemistry, the American In ­ stitute for Conservation, and the International In ­ stitute for Conservation. ervation: The Wei T’o W ay,” C&RL News, De­ cember 1984, and the follow-up articles appearing in the January and March 1985 issues; in Ron Che- pesiuk’s interview, “On Assignment: Preservation: The Wei T ’o W ay,” Wilson Library Bulletin (June 1986); and in “Answers to Frequent Questions Re­ garding the Wei T’o Nonaqueous Book Deacidifi­ cation System,” available from Wei T’o® Associ­ ates.1 The condition of library collections All librarians know th at the condition of books in research library collections is extremely poor. The paper in over 40 % of the books in some libraries is so brittle th at the books cannot be circulated.2 Con­ sider w hat th at statement implies. The purpose of libraries is to ensure th at books are available for ev- 1Send a stamped, self–addressed envelope to Wei T’o Associates, Inc., P.O. Rox 40, Matteson, IL 60443, for a free copy of “Answers to Frequent Questions R egarding the Wei T ’o Nonaqueous Book Deacidification System.” 2“Preservation: The Battle to Save the Nation’s Libraries, Research Libraries Group News 11 (Sep­ tem ber 1986):4-6, 11-16; “New Ways Developed to Preserve P ap er,” Chemical and Engineering News 57 (October 1, 1979):37, 42-43. January 1987 / 3 A not too extreme example of binding problems caused by acid paper. eryone who needs them; but 40% of the books in some libraries are so brittle th at they cannot be used. No one knows if America would have a civil w ar if censorship forced librarians to remove 40% of the books in their library collections, but there cer­ tainly would be civil unrest. There would be civil rights m arches, political campaigns, legislation from Congress, Supreme C ourt rulings, new ALA divisions, dynamic library schools, and an eleva­ tion in their professional and social status th at li­ brarians can only dimly imagine. But, with censor­ ship imposed by chemical attack, rather than by one group imposing its will upon another, librari­ ans make hardly a squeak—when they should be screaming th at a national scandal exists. American research library collections contain 300,000,000 books, and almost half of the books in some of these libraries cannot be used. The lowest estimates of brittle books in research library collec­ tions average about 9 %, the highest estimates aver­ age almost 50%. At an overall average of 30%, 90 million books standing on the shelves of American research libraries cannot be used because their leaves have become too brittle as a result of acid a t­ tack. W hy do librarians allow this situation to exist? Is it because papermakers deliberately m ade “bad” paper during the 19th century? We know this is not true. If paperm akers had not begun to use alum- rosin sizing and m anufacture chemical woodpulp paper, practically no libraries would exist today. D uring the 19th century paper changed from an unusual luxury to a very common commodity. There were no alternatives for paperm akers to choose. This revolution in paperm aking that li­ brarians complain about is one of the 19th-century advances th at enabled our society to flourish and led to all the benefits enjoyed today. For most readers, the real problem with paper is not its impermanence, but rather the fact th at p a ­ per lasts too long. Newsprint, the least stable paper produced, is far too perm anent for almost all news­ paper buyers. The same holds true for books. For example, how many books in your personal library are too brittle to read, one or two out of 500 or 1,000? No other commodity exceeds your needs so w ell. Your clo th es, y o u r a u to m o b ile , y our hom e…all need m aintenance and repair. W hy should books on library shelves be expected to meet a standard th at society asks no other commodity to meet just because librarians would like library books to last longer than ordinary books? The fact is, most books in libraries are not m ade for library use. They are, w ith the exception of some reference books, m ade for individual readers to purchase and use.3 From this viewpoint, it is irrefutable th at the 3The forward-looking efforts, led by research li­ braries, to have publishers print books on stable al­ kaline paper will, at best, only provide libraries with a partial solution to deteriorating collections and, at worst, offer only another excuse for librari­ ans not taking action. Forty to sixty percent of the acquisitions of research libraries come either from 4 / C&RL News p u b lish in g and p a p e rm a k in g in d u stries have served their customers magnificently. Consequently, the questions librarians should ask are: 1) How well do the books which libraries buy serve the needs of library users? 2) If these books are not satisfactory, w hat steps can libraries take to improve the books? Almost tw enty years ago, an unpublished, scientific study was con- Collection values are moving backwards at $750 million per year. ducted on the condition of paper in 231 books ra n ­ domly selected from the General Collections of the Newberry Library in Chicago. The folding endur­ ance of paper in twenty of these 231 books was com pared to copies of identical books from the col­ lections of the Lawrence University Library and The Research Libraries of the New York Public Li­ brary. The results of this tri-library comparison were published by Restaurator in 1972.4 This data was used to calculate the folding en­ durance half-lives of paper in these libraries. The half-lives, i.e ., the time for the paper to lose half of its folding endurance, were and may still be ap­ proximately: Lawrence University (17.6 years) Newberry Library (16.8 years) New York Public Library (12.8 years) It was assumed that the shorter lifetime for NYPL books was caused by their far greater use and the ten times greater acidity of their paper caused by Lower M anhattan’s air pollution. These estimates can be expected to stand up under scrutiny. Stan­ dard statistical and laboratory testing procedures were used in this comparison of three library col­ lections. Moreover, similar results can be obtained by ap- countries or from publishers for whom the use of perm anent papers is a distant dream. Moreover, ei­ ther depression or w ar-tim e conditions will force publishers to produce most, if not all, books on im ­ perm anent papers. An alternate, more effective so­ lution, which lies within the grasp of librarians, is for libraries to continue to acquire the books they need and to convert, through deacidification, the acidic, unstable papers they receive to perm anent alkaline papers. 4Richard D. Smith, “A Comparison of Paper in Identical Copies of Books from the Lawrence Uni­ versity, the Newberry, and the New York Public Libraries,” Restaurator: International Journal fo r the Preservation of Library and Information M ate­ rial, suppl. no. 2 (1972), 84p. plying the same statistical techniques to data pro­ duced by other independent researchers. The fold­ ing endurance half-life of the paper in the 500 books th at the W .J. Barrow Research Laboratory examined in its landm ark study has, using the iden­ tical statistical procedure, been computed as 17.2 years.5 The 22-year-long use study of identical cop­ ies of the Dictionary of American Biography in li­ braries all over the United States and C anada de­ te rm in e d t h a t p a p e rs in th e copies stu d ie d deteriorated similarly at an em brittlem ent rate of 57 % in 15 years and 85% in 22 years.6 Based upon the above findings, an average half- life of 15 years is a reasonable assumption for the purpose of making estimates about the future con­ dition of library collections. For convenience, an average folding endurance deterioration rate of 4.8 % per year, which is identical to a half-life of 15 years, will be used. Given an unstable acid annual deterioration rate of 4.8% , w hat benefit can libraries expect using mass deacidification to convert acid-deteriorating collections into alkaline-stable collections? The Preservation Office of The Library of Congress re­ ports th at the DEZ deacidification treatm ent in­ creases the life of acidic paper three to five times. ‘ An increase of two to four times was found in stud­ ies at the University of Chicago.8 Using an average increase of four times, the rate of aging after de­ acidification drops to 1.2% per year, i.e., a half- life of 60 years. These acidic and deacidified an­ nual aging rates can be used as depreciation or negative compound interest rates to compute their negative effect on library collection values. If for com putational convenience we say the Li­ brary of Congress holds 13,000,000 books, and each book has a replacement cost of $100, the Li­ brary of Congress book collection has a cash value of $1,300,000,000. At 4.8% per year, American taxpayers lost $62,400,000 last year, $172,000 each day on books alone, at the Library of Congress. America’s research libraries hold over 300,000,000 books, twenty-three times as many as the Library of Congress; thus by extrapolation all the books lost to chem ical d eterio ratio n last year cost m ajor American libraries $1,440,000,000 in book avail­ ability. This $1.44 billion dollars is about four times the annual book budget ($330 million in FY 5William J. Barrow Research Laboratory, Per­ manence/Durability of the Book (Richmond, Va.: The Laboratory, 1964), vol. 2, Test Data o f N atu­ rally Aged Papers. 6H arry F. Lewis, “The Deterioration of Book Paper in Library Use,” American Archivist 22 (July 1959):309-22. 7Peter G. Sparks, “Mass Deacidification” (pre­ sentation to the Fall Technology Workshop, Li­ brary Binding Institute, at The Library of Con­ gress, W ashington, D .C ., October 27, 1986). 8Richard D. Smith, “The Nonaqueous Deacidi­ fication of Paper and Books” (Ph.D. diss., Univer­ sity of Chicago, 1970). January 1987 / 5 Poor mending practices can intensify acid attack. 1984/85) of ARL libraries, and suggests that, al­ lowing for acquisition costs, the value of American research library collections is moving backwards at about three-quarters of a billion dollars per year. W hether evaluated against a $750 million negative capital flow each year or against an almost $4 mil­ lion loss every day ($1,440,000,000 ÷ 365) in book collections alone, the preservation efforts of re­ search libraries, although very laudable, are barely scratching the surface of a gigantic problem . These efforts by dedicated preservation librarians hardly qualify as an incoherent hiccup in terms of the col­ lection management attention that losses of this m agnitude assert is needed. If this assessment of past practice makes you un­ comfortable, contrast the restraint of these com­ ments to the headlines and outrage that follow the theft of a few hundred books from a major research lib rary . H ere, acid attack is “stealing” 40,000 ($4,000,000 ÷ $100/book) books every day of the year! The difference between the unstable acid aging rate of 4.8% and the deacidified aging rate of 1.2% can be used to establish the benefit from de­ acidification. The savings of 3.6% per year ($3.60 per book), th a t is, $46,800,000 ($1.3 billion × 3.6 %) when the entire LC collection is deacidified, puts the originally projected cost of $11,500,000 for the LC Mass Deacidification Facility into appro­ priate perspective. Any effective mass deacidifica­ tion system, the LC DEZ System at $11,500,000 or the Wei T ’o equivalent production scale system at $1,000,000, represents an excellent bargain for li­ braries. H ow deacidification meets library needs The assumptions are th at libraries w ant books to rem ain in usable condition for 400 years and th at everything which could go wrong during this 400 years will go wrong. Many books may age more rapidly than accelerated aging tests estimate. Bad storage conditions may develop; and together with floods, fires, and other unanticipated events may reduce the benefit from deacidification by 50%. Consequently, as prudent professional managers, librarians must include a safety factor in their long range preservation plans. This need for a safety factor led to the develop­ ment of the Wei T’o Mass Preservation System. It is self-evident th at both strengthening of weakened papers and protection against oxidative and biolog­ ical attack are essential in the mass preservation programs th at research libraries need; and th at mass deacidification systems should be selected as only one component of a complete mass preserva­ tion program. At best, even at the minimal costs of mass de­ acidification treatm ents, librarians will have no more than one–opportunity every 100 or 200 years to protect the average book in a research library collection. Libraries have no choice but to establish 6 / C&RL News low-cost mass preservation treatments that both deacidify and strengthen each book treated. In other words, deacidification treatments should be selected, not only on the basis of how well they de­ acidify, but also on how compatible they are with treatments that provide the additional preserva­ tion protection needed in the future. The type of mass preservation system foreseen by Wei T’o is estimated to extend the potential life of unstable acidic books by perhaps ten times. The concept of a mass preservation system was first put forw ard in 1968.9 At that time only a proposed mass deacidification process existed, but today a proven mass deacidification process is available for use as the keystone in a mass preservation process.10 Deacidification programs of national libraries The mass deacidification programs of four na­ tional libraries (the British Library, Bibliothèque Nationale in France, National Library and Public Archives of Canada, and the Library of Congress) illustrate three of the five mass trea tm en t ap ­ proaches to collection management. The British Library research program empha­ sizes strengthening, with mass deacidification as a secondary priority. Consideration is being given to including an amine in their strengthening agent so deacidification and strengthening can occur simul­ taneously. Unfortunately, in addition to having potentially hazardous physiological effects, amine deacidification agents discolor paper and react with nitrates and sulfates to produce acids.11 The National Library and Public Archives of Canada and Bibliothèque Nationale are applying the mass deacidification approach that was devel­ oped as one component in an all-round mass pres­ ervation program. This perspective, which is essen­ tial in the long run, is also the Wei T’o approach. It uses the organic solvent (liquified gas solution) technology to dissolve, transport, and impregnate the stabilizing alkaline deacidification chemicals. Using the same equipment used for mass deacidifi­ cation, this liquified gas technique can be used to strengthen bound books and documents by impreg­ 9Richard D. Smith, “Guidelines for Preserva­ t i o n ,” Special L ib ra ries 59 (M ay-June 1968):346-52. 10Marianne Scott (National Librarian of C an­ ada), “Mass Deacidification at the National Li­ brary of C anada,” in Proceedings of the Confer­ ence on Preservation o f L ib ra ry M aterials, sponsored by the Conference of Directors of Na­ tional Libraries, April 7-10,1986, Vienna, Austria (New York: K.G. Saur), in press. See also Restaura­ tor, vol. 8, no. 1-2, in press. 11Richard D. Smith, “New Approaches to Pres­ e r v a tio n ,” L ib ra ry Q u a rterly 40 (Jan u a ry 1970): 139—71; Richard D. Smith, “Saving Our Books: A Chemical Problem,” ChemTech 11 (July 1981):414-17. nating an acrylic resin. Magnesium alkoxides, after impregnation and before being modified into mag­ nesium carbonate deacidification agents, can be used to catalyze-fast reactions of gaseous alkene ox­ ides with unstable components in paper libers. This treatment, together with magnesium’s sequester­ ing effect on trace metals, would greatly reduce oxidative attack and take only a few minutes. In addition, the impregnation of a nonharmful fungi- stat with the strengthening agent can be expected to prevent biological attack for at least fifty years, even in bad storage conditions. The Library of Congress mass deacidification program using diethyl zinc (DEZ) is based upon the belief that the deterioration caused by acid at­ tack is so overwhelming that the necessity for de­ acidification outweighs all other considerations. Peter Sparks, director of LC ’s Preservation Office, has stated th at LC will look into mass gaseous strengthening after their diethyl zinc facility is op­ e ra tin g .12 Gaseous strengthening is a possibility, but I predict the economic and engineering prob­ lems of impregnating a vapor strengthening agent will eventually force the Library of Congress to consider the Wei T’o liquified gas strengthening approach mentioned above.13 The inherent prob­ lems of vapor phase strengthening are: 1) books must be fully opened so all the leaves are separated about one millimeter apart during impregnation; and 2) the treatm ent cycle time is long because va­ por phase im pregnation of the large molecule strengthening agents is a slow, costly process when contrasted with transfer by liquid phase. These are the three approaches to deacidifica­ tion found in National Library preservation pro­ grams. A fourth and fifth approach should also be considered in addition to the use of microfilm, mi­ crofiche, optical discs, photocopying, and mag­ netic media in the place of unusable books. The fourth approach is emphasized by all the li­ braries which you, the readers of this article, repre­ sent. That approach is one of active consideration and planning for the future. These libraries recog­ nize that a terribly serious problem exists, and all libraries must help seek a practical solution. The fifth approach is represented by all the li­ braries not practicing or considering mass deacidi­ fication. These libraries believe that deacidifica­ tion is not important or that it is totally impossible to obtain funding for conservation work. These li­ braries must be recruited to help solve this problem whose pervasive implications are beginning to be understood by all other libraries. 12Peter G. Sparks and Richard D. Smith, “De­ acidification Dialogue,” C L R L News 46 (January 1985):9-11. 13B ruce J. Humphrey, “Vapor Phase Consolida­ tion of Books with the Parylene Polymers,” Journal of the Am erican Institute fo r Conservation 25 (Spring 1986): 15-29. January 1987 / 7 The state of mass deacidification in North America The mass deacidification systems most familia to American librarians are the functioning syste in the National L ibrary and Public Archives o C anada and the system proposed by the Library o Congress. C anada uses the Wei T ’o Mass Deacidifi cation System based upon chemical processing in dustry methods and technology. A pilot plant We T ’o System has been in operation at the Nationa Library and Public Archives of C anada for fiv years. This plant was originally built to obtain pro duction data and it has worked very well. The full scale system originally planned to follow it has no been built only because of financial retrenchm en by the C anadian Government. The two staff members who operate the pilo plant system in the National Library/Public Ar chives Building could deacidify 40,000 to 50,00 books per year during their 7½ -hour day, five-da week work schedule. (A larger staff, perhaps seve persons, will be required each shift for a full-scal facility treating 1,000,000 books per year.) The books, delivered by the National Librar staff on book trucks, are double-checked for suit ability for deacidification while being placed i baskets prior to vacuum drying. The baskets o bone-dry books are loaded, two baskets at a time into the pressure chamber for the fifty-minute de acidification cycle. The liquified gas solution i forced into the books. Then they are vacuum drie to remove the liquified gas solvent and deposit th deaeidification agent throughout each book. At th end of the cycle, the baskets of books are placed in side boxes overnight to return to room conditions Then they are inspected and returned to the Li brary. The cost of deaeidification, including labor chemicals, and m aintenance, for this system wa reported as US$3.27 per book in April 1986 by th Public Archives of C an ad a .14 The reuse of recov ered solvents, projected to begin in 1987, is ex pected to reduce the treatm ent cost per book abou $0.75, i.e., to less than $2.50 each. This projecte low-unit-cost in the pilot-scale Wei T’o System rep resents a tremendous achievement, unthinkabl only a few years ago. The Library of Congress deaeidification syste of choice is the vapor phase diethyl zinc (DEZ) pro cess. DEZ, though under severe review, still has great potential when measured against the losses li braries are suffering in deteriorating books. Since early 1986 various institutions, e.g., th U.S. Congress, Library Journal, and NASA, hav 14Geoffrey Morrow, “Mass Deaeidification: O p­ rational Experience at the Public Archives and the ational Library of C an ad a,” in Proceedings of ew Directions in Paper Conservation, 10th A n n i­ ersary Conference of The Institute of Paper Con­ ervation, April 14-18,1986, at Oxford University. ngland, in press. r m f f ­ ­ i l e ­ - t t t ­ 0 y n e y ­ n f , ­ s d e e ­ . ­ , s e ­ ­ t d ­ e m ­ a ­ e e e N N v s E requested information and/or sought my counsel as a consequence of the mishaps at the DEZ Test F a­ cility of the Library of Congress at NASA’s God­ dard Space Flight Center. This paper, originally presented in July 1986, has been revised at the re­ quest of C&RL News to include a summary of my conclusions about the DEZ Process based upon the information th at has been published.15 The well Preservation must be justified as protection of public property. prepared and most detailed document, the NASA Goddard Space Flight C enter’s Accident Investiga­ tion Board Report of Mishaps at the Deacidifica- tion Pilot Plant, Building 306 on December 5, 1985, and February 14, 1986, alone contains first­ hand information on the mishaps.16 Wide differ- 15“Engineering Problems Experienced at D e­ acidification Test Facility,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin, March 17, 1986, p. 87; Jo­ seph Palca, “Book Conservation: Red Faces Over US Pilot P la n t,” N ature 320 (1986):203; Karl Nyren, “Demolition Team Knocks O ut LC De­ acidification Plant: NASA Acts to Remove Danger Seen After Two Accidents Involving Library of Congress D EZ P rocess,” L ib ra ry Journal 111 (April 1, 1986): 12-13; “Library’s Book Deacidifi­ cation Program Moves Forw ard Following Review of Incidents at Pilot P lant,” Library of Congress In ­ formation Bulletin, July 7, 1986, pp. 255-56, 260; Peter G. Sparks, “E C ’s Mass Deaeidification,” let­ ter to th e editor, L ibrary Journal 111 (August 1986): 10, 14; Karl Nyren, “LC Reports Flaws in D EZ Process, W ill C o n tra c t W ith C hem ical F irm ,” Library Journal 111 (August 1986):22; “Book D eaeidification Program Update: NASA Completes Accident Investigation,” Library of Congress In fo rm a tio n B u lle tin , S eptem ber 8, 1986, pp. 310-11; Karl Nyren, “It’s Time to Dump D E Z ,” L ib ra r y Jo u rn a l 111 (S ep tem b er 15, 1986) :4; Karl Nyren, “The DEZ Process and The Library of Congress,” Library Journal 111 (Sep­ tem ber 1 5 ,1986):33-35; and “Deaeidification Pro­ gram U pdate,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin, November 17, 1986, pp. 378-79. 16James H. Robinson Jr., et ah, National Aero­ nautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Accident Investigation Board Re­ port at the Deaeidification Pilot Plant, Building 306 on December 5, 1985 and February 14, 1986 (Washington, D .C .: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, September 4, 1986). Note: This report has not been widely distributed to date; the edition cited here was routed from NASA to the Library of Congress to the U.S. Congress to the author, who received it on October 6, 1986. 8 / C&RL News ences of opinion regarding the im plication of these mishaps are reported in articles in Library o f Con­ gress Inform ation Bulletin, Library Journal, and Nature. Concerned librarians should examine all eleven of these publications, plus any other infor­ m ation which m ay later become available, and reach their own conclusions regarding the causes of the mishaps and their im pact on library preserva­ tion. My personal im pression, from reading state­ ments of individuals involved, is th a t the NASA re­ port clearly suggests personnel at all three organi­ zations, th e L ib ra ry of Congress, NASA, and N orthrop Services, Inc., were delinquent in fulfill­ ing their responsibilities. Three basic signs of in­ adequacy are repeatedly evident: 1) a pervasive low quality of technical and engineering work; 2) a systemic deficiency in adm inistrative control and leadership; and 3) in all three parties a lack of u n ­ d e rsta n d in g re g a rd in g th e in h e re n t h a z a rd s of working w ith D EZ. Karl Nyren, senior editor at Library Journal, m ay have erred in equating the mishaps w ith the Challenger disaster.18 However, the NASA report does indicate th a t the overall cali­ ber of work in the DEZ project was not up to ac­ cepted professional standards.18 O n one h an d , the L ibrary of Congress has criti­ cized the other parties, especially N orthrop Ser­ vices, and has oriented attention tow ards the DEZ Test Facility mishaps. O n the other hand, the spec­ ifications and draw ings d istrib u te d by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers w ith its Solicitation for bids, supposedly present comprehensive engineer­ ing inform ation for construction of the full-scale DEZ F acility .19 This Solicitation, prepared with instruction from the L ib rary itself and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is evidence th at the L ibrary was a full party. Moreover, as one ex­ am ple, the definition (p. 13A-8) for diethyl zinc ("DEZ, a clear, colorless liquid at atmospheric and am bient conditions, igniting on contact w ith air, reacting violently on contact w ith w ater, but does not re act w ith carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or he­ lium ”) falls woefully short of the chemical engi­ neering d a ta essential to prepare reliable bids. This incompleteness also extends to the lack of appreciation in fully understanding the inherent hazards of w orking w ith D EZ (a conclusion of the NASA re p o rt) by U.S. A rm y personnel. W ith ­ draw al of this Solicitation indicates the Library desperately needs unbiased, independent advice. It is possible the Flouse A ppropriations Com m ittee 17Nyren, “I t ’s Tim e to D um p D E Z ,” 4. 18Robinson, et ah , A ccident Investigation Board Report. 19Solicitation for The L ibrary of Congress Book D eacidification Facility, F ort Detrick, M aryland (Invitation No. DACA31-8-0013), issued January 15,1986, by the D epartm ent of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore D istrict, Corps of Baltimore, Room 1231, 31 Hopkins P laza, B altim ore, MD 21201-1715. m ay renew its interest in this project and provide the L ibrary of Congress w ith such advice during the next Session of Congress. If hearings take place, interested librarians should follow th em .20 Funding mass deacidification programs The books we have placed in libraries are essen­ tial in this, the Inform ation Age. In most eases, these books are public property w hich m ust be p re­ served by law. In order to carry out this responsi­ bility, most libraries will require additional funds. To obtain increased funding, libraries must show greater public benefit w hen they compete w ith po­ lice, highway, welfare, education, and other civic services. L ibrary preservation funding requests to date have dem onstrated th a t preservation work cannot be funded simply to preserve ideas w ritten dow n in books. Librarians must use the same successful tech­ niques th at police and firemen use; th a t is, justify preservation to protect the public and public p rop­ erty. U nintentionally in their funding requests, li­ brarians have pu t the cart in front of the horse. For example, roads and bridges are not m aintained be­ cause we drive over them . H ighw ay systems are m aintained because they are public property and elected officials w ould be replaced if the roads w ithin their jurisdiction becam e unusable. The benefit, not the funding legality of protecting p u b ­ lic property, is th a t we can visit a friend or receive a delivery. Analogously, a researcher obtains a new idea or insight from reading a book. L ibrarians hould use these same argum ents w hen seeking unds to preserve the books, th a t is, the public roperty for which they are responsible. The library cost/benefit ratio or rate of payback, f m easured by W all Street standards, makes mass eacidification so inexpensive th a t the absence of ts use in libraries seems absurd. For example, the resent deacidification cost in the Wei T ’o Pilot lant in C anada can be independently verified at S$3.27 p e r b o o k .21 As ca lc u la te d above, th e early savings from deacidification of US$3.60 per ook produce a payback under one year. The pro­ ected, direct costs for treatm ent in full-scale Wei ’o Systems are even less—under US$2.00 per book n a w ell-run not-for-profit operation. Such bene­ its are simply unheard of in present day society extending an object’s life by four times for a one­ im e charge of 2-3 % of its replacem ent cost. Given th a t libraries desire mass deacidification, unds for the deacidification of new acquisitions hould be requested as a regular budget item. This s the same w ay libraries request funds for tele­ hones, bookm obiles, book th eft detection sys- 20Transcripts of Congressional hearings m ay be rdered from the Miller Reporting C om pany Inc., 07 C Street, N .E ., W ashington, D .C . 20002, 202) 545-6666; or from CIS. 21M orrow, “Mass D eacidification.” s f p i d i p P U y b j T i f … t f s i p o 5 ( January 1987 / 9 terns, cooperative com puterized cataloging, d a ta ­ base searching, online circulation control systems including in terlib rary loan services, all unknow n until the 20th century. T he solicitation of funding for the mass deacidi­ fication of retrospective book collections should be directed tow ards supplem entary one-tim e ap p ro ­ priations. It is tru e the funding needed does appear larg e u n til a review of th e value to research li­ braries puts the dollar am ount into perspective. T hen mass deacidification becomes, not only an ex­ trao rd in a ry bargain, b u t an essential public service th a t is m an d ated by law . Choosing a mass deacidification system: A personal perspective Nonaqueous (gaseous or solvent) deacidification has come of age. From virtually no choices 25 years ago, librarians today can select betw een gaseous and liquid systems, betw een a variety of large and small-scale techniques, and betw een a variety of application m ethods and chem icals.22 This a b u n ­ dance of choice is even m ore startling if one re ­ m em bers th a t less th a n 20 years ago, the C om m it­ tee for P aper Problem s, In tern atio n al Institute for C o n s e rv a tio n -A m e ric a n G ro u p , fo rm a lly r e ­ ported: “A nonaqueous m eans of deacidification th a t w ould not be h arm ful to paper, pigm ents, and the various m edia m ust be developed.” 23 Perhaps it is in ap p ro p riate, as an involved p arty, for me to use the W ei T ’o System as an example of the state of the mass deacidification a rt, b u t its evo­ lution does dem onstrate several critical aspects for successful developm ent projects. These aspects in­ clude m ain tain in g scrupulous scientific rigor and objectivity; choosing a lead person or group whose p rim a ry q ualifications are b re a d th of technical knowledge and industrial chem ical engineering ex­ perience in developing an d installing new technol­ ogy; thoroughly involving librarians, engineers, and operating personnel in the decision making; using specially selected team s of experts for specific tasks; and delegating overall adm inistrative con­ trol an d /o r review to independent decision m ak ers, e .g ., preferably to the preservation librarians who m ust m ake the end p ro d u ct of the developm ent project work. The W ei T ’o technology was originally devel­ oped as p a rt of m y Ph.D . research at the G ra d u ate L ib rary School of the University of Chicago. This research was supervised by an unparalleled team of “ R ichard D. Sm ith, “Nonaqueous D eaeiditica­ tion: Its Philosophies, O rigin, D evelopm ent, and S tatus,” in Proceedings o f N ew Directions in Paper Conservation, 10th A n n u a l Conference o f The I n ­ stitute o f Paper Conservation, A pril 14-18, 1986, at O xford University, England, in press. 23“R eport of th e C om m ittee for P ap er P ro b ­ lem s,” Bulletin o f the A m erican Group, The In ter­ national In stitu te fo r Conservation o f Historic and A rtistic W orks 9 (October 1968):30. , engineers, scientists, and librarians from industry, the University of C hicago, and the In stitu te of P a­ per C hem istry. T he developm ent and installation of the pilot p lan t scale W ei T ’o N onaqueous Rook D eacidification System in C an ad a also brought to ­ gether an extraordinary group. M ajor corporations like D uP ont and York Division, Rorg–W a rn er, to ­ gether w ith sm aller vendors and builders, shared their technologies to m eet previously unknow n en­ gineering requirem ents. My first deacidifieation agent, m agnesium m ethoxide, was im proved by George R. Kelly J r., chemist at the Preservation Office of the L ib rary of Congress.24 M any W ei T ’o im provem ents have followed since th a t tim e, and the W ei T ’o process is used by the N ational L ibrary an d P ublic Archives of C a n a d a , th e R ritish L i­ b rary , and the R ibliothèque N ationale in France. T he general acceptance of this technology by m u ­ seum and book conservation laboratories th ro u g h ­ out N orth Am erica underscores its versatility and applicability. N ational TV news releases on library preserva­ tion and mass deacidification directly recognize the im portance of libraries to society. T he “Science Notes” educational presentation (A utum n 1986) by P u b lic b r o a d c a s tin g S ystem ’s K Q E D -T V San Francisco Station explains the W ei T ’o System and provides general background on book deterio ra­ tion. The “H ow A bout Saving O ld Rooks” news re­ lease (April 1986), sponsored by the N ational Sci­ ence F o u n d a tio n an d G eneral M otors R esearch L aboratories, recognizes the System as an advance­ m en t in science an d technology. T he A m erican C hem ical Society’s “F o u n ta in of Youth F o r L i­ b ra ry Rooks” news release (May 1984) uses W ei T ’o as an exam ple of good chem istry and chem ical en­ gineering. Videotapes of these three news releases are available from W ei T ’o Associates for educa­ tional use by libraries. T he W ei T ’o liquified gas mass deacidification approach has been identified before Congress as unsuitable for use at th e L ib rary of Congress. The reasons given were: 1) the W ei T ’o process requires a pre-selection of books because some books m ay be defaced by the trea tm en t; and 2) the production potential is insufficient to m eet the L ib rary ’s needs. D u rin g five years of operating experience, the need to identify and protect the few books w ith sensitive inks has not been found either excessive or expen­ sive a t the N ational L ib rary and Public Archives of C a n a d a . P erhaps m ore im p o rta n tly , som e new chemicals and technology th a t W ei T ’o will in tro ­ duce shortly, m ay provide a basis on w hich to lay this pre-selection fallacy to rest. * W ith reference to the potential capacity of the W ei T ’o System, the L ib rary of Congress has al­ ways quoted to Congress the originally specified 24“L ib rary Licensed to M ake D eacidification So­ lu tio n ,” Library o f Congress Inform ation Bulletin, April 9, 1982, pp. 110-12. *See the “New Technology” colum n in this issue of C & R L N ew s for m ore in fo rm atio n .–Ed. 10 / C &RL News output of the Wei T o “pilot plant” System of 30 books per cycle, five cycles per 7.5 hour shift, one shift per day, five workdays per week. This state­ ment is misleading because it compares an existing reality with a possible future. On one hand, an ex­ isting, actually operating W ei T ’o pilot plant is be­ ing compared with a non-operating, full-scale plant, whose production is projected by LC with an operation running 24 hours per day, seven days per week. On the other hand, the scaling up to 645,000 books per year in the Wei T ’o System stan­ dard unit: 1) involves only doubling the size of the treatment chamber and adjusting the size of pe­ ripheral components, and 2) is on a scale where fu­ ture operational results are literally guaranteed from past operating experience. (These standard units may be replicated when greater production capacity is desired because duplication, in this in­ stance, is more effective than building bigger.) By comparison, scaling-up at the Library’s Fort Detrick facility is projected primarily based on a scaling-up factor of 50 to 75 times rather than two times, data from thirteen unpublished tests of up to 100 books each rather than five years of production experience,23 and changing from a laboratory “use once and discard” chemical test philosophy to a 25“ Book D e a cid ifica tio n Program U p d a te ,” 310-11; and Nyren, “The DEZ Process and the L i­ brary of Congress,” 33-35. The 5,000-book test was run but once and works against rather than provides justification for scaling up the DEZ System to pro­ duction operations for two reasons: 1) 2,000 (40%) of the books were incompletely or not at all deacidi­ fied; and 2) many of the remaining 3,000 were de­ faced by white deposits (named the Tiffany Effect at LC). The 13 tests of up to 100 books each are an ef­ fort to overcome these problems. See Sparks and Smith, “Deacidification Dialogue,” 11. “recapture and recycle” production scale opera­ tion. A cost comparison of the respective full-scale sys­ tems is difficult to make because only limited infor­ mation exists. My expectation is the installed cost of a Wei T ’o System of comparable production capac­ ity would be less than 15% of the projected in­ stalled cost of the upcoming LC DEZ facility at Fort Detrick. The unit-deacidification-costs per book for the Wei T ’o System have been estimated based on operational experience. At this time equivalent cost information does not exist for the DEZ System. Libraries should not take the emergence of Wei T ’o technology reported here as a guarantee that all of their mass preservation problems have been solved. W hat has occurred is that the door to solv­ ing these problems has been opened wide; but much remains to be done before the books in li­ brary collections reach the Promised Land. The recognition given Wei T ’o means that libraries are no longer standing alone and this problem is begin­ ning to achieve the visibility that it deserves. Signif­ icant understanding of the library preservation problem now exists within industry, science, and the general public. Librarians have a solid technol­ ogy as well as an economic justification with which to undertake planning of their strategies for pre­ serving their library collections. Detailed informa­ tion to help libraries choose between different mass deacidification systems will be published shortly in a critical study by George M. Cunha, “Mass D e­ acidification for Libraries.” This study has been commissioned by the American Library Associa­ tion’s L ibrary Technology R eports.26 ■ ■ 26George M. Cunha, “Mass Deacidification for Libraries,” Library Technology Reports, in prepa­ ration. Promotional materials for National Library Week The American Library Association’s Public In ­ formation Office has some new library promo­ tional products for this year’s National Library W eek, April 5 -1 1 . The theme, “Take Tim e to Read,” also fits in with 1987 as the Year of the Reader. Brand new this year is a 17" X 22" “Key into the Library” poster ($4). “When you absolutely posi­ tively have to know, ask a librarian” is the theme for several new items, including a banner (7" X 3 1 ", $3), bookmarks ($6 for 200), and memo pads (5" X 8 ", 100 pages/pad, $5 for 4 pads). Other theme products are a wristwatch, rubber stamp and stamp pad, television public service spot, and a Year of the Reader wall planner with ALA conference dates and other reading-related events. To order any promotional products or a catalog, contact: ALA Graphics, Public Informa­ tion Office, 50 E . Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611; (800) 545-2433, x235. ■ ■ NOTIS users’ meeting The first regional meeting of NOTIS users was held November 20-21 at Southwest Mis­ souri S tate U niversity’s Meyer L ib ra ry in Springfield, Missouri. John Meador J r ., dean of library services at Southwest, hosted the session for all seven Missouri NOTIS user institutions and NOTIS representatives, Jane Burke, Jorge Fernandez, and Mary Alice Ball. Discussions included applications updates and projections of statewide nmetworking. We Are Professionals We a t E B S a re d e d i c a t e d to providing libraries w ith th e f a s te s t service, th e b e st d is c o u n ts , b u t a b o v e all, th e accuracy a library demands. With all this in your favor you owe it to y o u r s e lf to try us … E.B.S. BOOK SERVICE THE BEST C H O IC E . ESTABLISHED 1949 E.B.S. INC. BOOK SERVICE ■ 290 BROADWAY, LYNBROOK, NEW YORK 11563 ■ 516-593-1207