Paper Conservation: Decisions & Compromises

Fig. 4: The Rebound manuscript with the antioxidant impregnated interleaving
samples, the addition of antioxidants showed no
improvement in paper strength over deacidification
alone. The addition of antioxidants did not
influence the pH before or after aging.
Verdigris Samples:
Deacidification alone resulted in a slight improvement
of paper strength and the addition
of an antioxidant did not affect the pH of the
samples. WT deacidification, followed by an antioxidant,
did not improve paper strength substantially,
though the antioxidant and Bookkeeper
treated samples showed some improvements,
especially with EMIMBr.
Atacamite Samples:
The antioxidant treated samples showed a
marked improvement over just deacidification
alone. Though both antioxidants were effective,
the antioxidant/Bookkeeper combinations gave
the best results for this sample group.
Research Project Conclusions:
This study indicates that the benefits of the two
antioxidants are not evident when the inks are
still acidic. Deacidification treatments do not
automatically ensure neutralization of all the
acids, so it is important to verify the pH of the
ink lines on the manuscript, not just of the surrounding
paper (Tse et al 2012).
Past WeiT’o treatment of the Haggadah improved
the pH of the paper and though the ink is
still acidic, we believe that the WeiT’o treatment
has delayed corrosion. Deacidification was necessary
but not sufficient by itself.
Though this study has added to the body of
knowledge available on antioxidant treatments,
we hope to gain confirmation of our results
through current and future studies, including
similar work being done at the Austrian National
Library, for example, before committing to a specific
antioxidant treatment for the Haggadah.
Re-binding the Haggadah
As the Haggadah at this point remained disbound
and antioxidant treatment possibilities
required further confirmation before being considered,
discussions took place regarding the rebinding
of the manuscript. In the end, it was decided
to rebind the manuscript and that the contemporary
cover boards would not be re-used for
two reasons. First, the valuable evidence of past
bindings and repairs would need to be removed,
in order to improve flexibility and allow reattachment
of the cover. Second, reusing the covers
would limit the board re-attachment methods to
those using sewn supports, either laced or cased.
These traditional structures can cause compression
of the spine during opening, resulting in
arching of the pages, which places the manuscript
support and media at serious risk.
The condition of the Haggadah, combined
with other important factors, defined the requirements
for a new binding structure. Also,
to prevent the spread of copper and iron II ions
further into the paper, only non-aqueous adhesives
could be used for spine linings and other
binding procedures. A second requirement was
the inclusion of interleaving. The type of paper,
method of attachment and whether to add an
alkaline reserve to the interleaving, with or without
an anti-oxidant buffer, were all taken into
consideration.
To prevent physical damage to the fragile
ICOM-CC Graphic Documents Working Group Interim Meeting | Vienna 17 – 19 April 2013
19