Defending the Use of (Recycled) Materials by Christian Hernandez
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•633 views
"Defending the Use of (Recycled) Materials" was a narrated powerpoint slide presentation presented at the American Institute for Conservation's 2014 Conferences in the STASH Flash pre-conference session. This presentation explored Oddy Testing materials traditionally used in collections management and possible sustainable alternatives. See the youtube video for the presentation with narration. http://youtu.be/Xch9vGR0ejQ
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Defending the Use of (Recycled) Materials by Christian Hernandez
- 1. Christian Hernandez - Contributor for Plinth Magazine Textile Conservation Graduate, Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) AIC Sustainability Committee Member Defending the Use of (Recycled) Materials Presented at STASH Flash Pre-Meeting Session AIC’s 42th Meeting, San Francisco, CA Wednesday, May 28, 2014 Derived from: The Green Challenge: Incorporating Sustainable Materials and Practices into Collections Care https://independent.academia.edu/HernandezChristian
- 2. Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014 Raw Material Manufacturing, Packaging, Transportation UseDisposal Are there any sustainable museum-quality materials? Focus of Research
- 3. Boards by Corpolast: (L-R) Coroplast® Archival and Corogreen™ Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014 Materials Tested Foams by Sealed Air: (L-R) Ethafoam® 220®, Ethafoam® HRC® (High Recycled Content), Ethafoam® MRC® (Maximum Recycled Content), Stratocell® RC® (Recycled Content) 65% + 100% 60%+ Cellulose Boards: (L-R): Corrugated Board (Lineco), Multiuse Board (Archivart®), EcopHant™ (Conservation By Design)
- 4. Control - Results EcopHant - Results Control: No change, Pass EcopHant: Corrosion, Fail All other materials: Pass Oddy Test Results – Test 1 Faulty sample on left, Proper sample on right Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014
- 5. Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014 Oddy Test Results – Test 2
- 6. Foams by Sealed Air: (L-R) Ethafoam® 220®, Ethafoam® HRC® (High Recycled Content), Ethafoam® MRC® (Maximum Recycled Content), Stratocell® RC® (Recycled Content) Boards: (L-R) Coroplast® Archival and Corogreen™ (Coroplast®), Corrugated Board (Lineco), Multiuse Board (Archivart®), EcopHant™ (Conservation By Design) Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014 Materials Tested
- 7. I. The conservation professional shall strive to attain the highest possible standards in all aspects of conservation. VI. The conservation professional must strive to select methods and materials that, to the best of current knowledge, do not adversely affect cultural property or its future examination, scientific investigation, treatment, or function. XII. The conservation professional shall practice in a manner that minimizes personal risks and hazards to co- workers, the public and the environment. Where do we go from here? Thank you. AIC Code of Ethics Christian Hernandez – May 28, 2014
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon. My name is Christian Hernandez and my presentation, “Defending the Use of Recycled Materials,” is a brief summary of my research in sustainable collections care. If you would like to know more you can download my graduate thesis or a condensed version of it on academia.edu
- A part of my research tried to answer the question “are there any sustainable museum-quality materials?” I went into this not knowing what I would find. [click] Although a material can be sustainable in any stage of it’s life cycle [click] I focused on materials made with recycled content from known closed loop sources, thus the brackets in the presentation title. I decide to focus on a comparative test between materials traditionally used in collections care and their sustainable alternatives, of which I focused on foams and boards because of the finite number available to choose from.
- [Click] For polyethylene foams I tested Ethafoam 220, made from a virgin resin and compared it to Ethafoam HRC, which uses a minimum of 65% recycled resin; Ethafoam MRC, which is 100% recycled resin; and Stratocell RC, which uses a minimum of 60% recycled resin. All of these foams are made by Sealed Air and the source material for the recycled-resin foams is from their closed-loop recycling program. [click] For boards I tested Coroplast Archival, a virgin polypropylene corrugated board and Corogreen, a polypropylene corrugated board made with [quote] the highest amount of post-consumer/post-industrial material in the industry [end quote], both manufactured by Coroplast. [click] I also tested cellulose boards from Lineco and Archivart, which are common acid-free museum boards. The final material I tested was EcopHant, a millboard made by Conservation by Design exclusively from their manufacturing waste of archival quality paper and boxboard. It is dyed green. Looking back I wish I had compared EcopHant to a different pressed millboard. If you would like to see some of the materials there are samples of the recycled foams and EcopHant at the Sustainablity Committee booth.
- In March 2012 these nine materials, along with one control, were subjected to an Oddy Test following the procedures laid out in the seminal 1995 article by Green and Thickett “Materials for use in the storage and display of antiquities: A revised methodology” which aimed to standardize the subjective and irregular test. [click] All materials passed except for EcopHant, whose three coupons showed tarnish. [click] The manufacturer was contacted and after showing them the sample they explained it was from a known faulty batch, identifiable by its color and density.
- In May 2012 I retested Ethafoam MRC, Corogreen, the original EcoPhant,a newly acquired EcopHant sample, and the control. [click] They all passed except for the original EcopHant sample, which failed again.
- These results may come as a surprise because there is an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality to materials as ordinary as cardboard and foam. This lackadaisical view is preventing innovations in sustainability from entering the conservation community, as well as the world at large. [click] As it stands right now the foams and boards I tested meet the same basic criteria as traditionally used materials for use with collections. While I know there isn’t going to be a sudden shift in how we buy conservation materials I hope to have sparked some interest and shed light into some of the beliefs we think are indisputable. There are materials better than what we currently use, but we do not trust them yet so we should investigate further into whether they are suitable. We should not assume we have reached the pinnacle of innovation.
- So where do we go from here? Using the tenants of AIC’s Codes of Ethics as parameters we must continue to question and look for better options in what we do, including materials that are better for the environment. I know that many institutions do not have the resources to conduct their own Oddy Testing, but I hope that next time someone listening to this has the opportunity to innovate, they look into sustainable alternatives to what we believe to be “museum-quality”. As Sarah Brophy and Elizabeth Wiley, authors of the book The Green Museum, have stated “how can something be high-quality if it destroys the planet or makes people sick?” Thank you.