How accurate are Baker's claims about the durability of paper?

The durability of paper is affected by how it is manufactured and how it is stored. Paper made by hand from cotton or linen rags is strong and durable. Paper was made this way from about the 12th to the middle of the 19th century, and, if stored properly, is still likely to be in excellent or good physical condition. In the middle of the 19th century, processes and materials were introduced into the manufacturing process that resulted in paper containing acids. Over time, acids destroy the cellulose fibers in paper, causing it to darken and turn brittle. A shortage of rags led to the use of woodpulp as the primary ingredient in paper. If the pulp is not fully purified (as is particularly the case in newspapers), the remaining lignin degrades to form acids and peroxides that promote the aging process. In addition, alum-rosin compounds were used as sizing agents to improve the printing characteristics of the paper. In the presence of moisture, the sizing agent generates sulfuric acid that destroys the paper. The problems caused by inherent acidity are compounded by air pollution, improper storage conditions (including high temperature and humidity or wide fluctuations in either), poor binding methods, and heavy or careless use. Most books and newspapers printed since 1850 are acidic.

Some paper - stored under ideal conditions and seldom used - may be in surprisingly good shape, considering its age. There is a commonly held view that paper deterioration slows over time and highly acidic paper, properly stored and handled, will remain in usable condition indefinitely. Research, however, does not support this view. Studies at the Library of Congress and at other institutions clearly demonstrate that the degradation and embrittlement of paper may slow but does not stop. The accumulation of acids within closed books continues inexorably and is the basis of a continuous paper degradation.

Why do libraries use the double-fold test to measure a paper's strength and durability?

Libraries needed a practical efficient test that could be performed in the stacks on large numbers of volumes to determine which materials were most in need of preservation. The double-fold test, consistently applied, provides one such method. An early use of the double-fold test was reported by Yale in the late 1970s when the University Library undertook an extensive survey of its collections.

Are books and newspapers still printed on acidic paper?

Some are, but not all. Working with scientists and the paper industry, a national coalition of library organizations, government agencies, librarians and archivists worked to find an alternative to acidic paper. Using the results of scientific paper research, standards for permanent and durable alkaline paper were developed. The North American and European publishing communities responded to the call for the use of permanent paper, and most scholarly monographs and journals have been printed on permanent paper for the past 15 years. In 1990, the federal government took the important step of requiring permanent paper in all government publications of enduring value. Ultimately, the paper industry changed to production of primarily alkaline paper which turned out to be more economical. Taken together, these developments have halted the use of acidic paper for most scholarly texts in North America and Europe, but newspapers and publications from other countries continue to be printed on acidic paper. Nicholson Baker's book, Double-Fold, is printed on acid-free paper.

Can anything be done to save books printed on acidic paper?

Yes. Books printed on acidic paper that are not already brittle, can be saved through a process known as deacidification. Deterioration of paper due to its chemical composition and other factors can be dramatically minimized by treating the paper with a process that neutralizes the acids. For example, deacidification has allowed the Library of Congress to treat over one-third of a million books thus far.

Didn't Baker contend that deacidification is dangerous?

The deacidification process that Baker describes in his book was experimental and is no longer used. Newer, safe, and cost-effective processes (BookKeeper and Wei 'To) have been developed. In the BookKeeper process, paper can be deacidified by immersion in a dispersion of extremely fine magnesium oxide suspended in a fluid. In the Wei T'o process, a nonaqueous deacidification solution can be applied to paper by immersion, spraying, or brushing. These processes enable libraries and archives today to treat books and manuscripts so they will remain in usable condition for several centuries rather than becoming brittle and unusable in only a few decades.

Can anything be done to save books that are already brittle?

Yes, but restoration of the book to its original form is so expensive and time-consuming that the process is reserved for the truly rare and unique items. Under ordinary circumstances, when books are already brittle, libraries copy the works onto acid-free paper or onto microfilm to save the intellectual content and ensure access to that content beyond the individual institution. The printed artifact may then be boxed or wrapped after filming and returned to the stacks or placed in storage.

Are there any positive effects from microfilming books and journals?

Resources that have been microfilmed for preservation purposes can be more accessible. A microfilm copy of the resource can be found in global library databases and borrowed through interlibrary loan or, in some cases, purchased from the filming library. In many instances, filming has made it possible for scholars to access unique material that distant libraries would not loan. In addition, during the microfilming process, every effort is made to fill in missing issues of journals and newspapers, creating complete runs on film of these publications.

Why did libraries "guillotine" books in order to microfilm them?

Removing the bindings from materials enabled clearer page images to be made in the copying process and made the process more efficient. In many projects, the guillotined pages were discarded. Over the last decade, however, better cameras and improvements in the design of book cradles resulted in more detailed images and eliminated the need for disbinding most volumes. Most libraries now preserve the paper copies, if they are not embrittled beyond hope. This preservation may take the form of being reshelved, or being boxed, tied, or shrink-wrapped and sent back to the stacks or to storage.

What are the present standards for microfilming documents for preservation?

As librarians began to depend on microfilming, they became aware of the problems it created. They worked hard with vendors and within the community to develop standards and new equipment that would make film a reliable and usable preservation medium. Despite this progress, not every library has had the funds to provide the best microfilm readers.

Today's accepted microfilming standards were established in the late 1970s under the leadership of the Research Libraries Group. These standards provide guidance on ensuring the completeness of the item to be filmed and the technical standards by which the film is processed and stored. The National Endowment for the Humanities requires strict adherence to these standards for any project receiving federal funding.

Preservation microfilming involves the creation of multiple products. The "master negative" (the film that is exposed in the camera) is used only once, to make a "printing negative." The master negative should be housed permanently in a repository with optimal storage conditions. From the printing negative, a "service copy" is produced for use by readers. Should the service copy become lost or damaged, a new one can be made from the printing negative.

No standards exist for how the original volume being copied should be treated after filming. As noted in the previous question, however, most libraries are now preserving the paper.

Why are research libraries concerned about storage space?

Research libraries in North America have amassed almost 500 million print volumes and add another 10 million volumes each year. On average an individual library adds over 67,000 new volumes a year. One university library, whose recent request for a new storage facility was rejected, noted that they are acquiring 1.5 miles of materials annually. Fewer than half of ARL member libraries have or are planning to construct a remote storage facility. Competing demands and (on some campuses) shortage of available space make new library buildings controversial. Most requests for more physical space must first address the common misperception that "all new information is available electronically."

Should libraries collect and save everything published?

Research libraries build their collections based on both current and anticipated use. Not every item ever published can be collected and not every item collected can be saved.

What steps are being taken by the library community to preserve print artifacts?

Libraries have made major strides in preservation in recent decades. The modern preservation profession grew out of an understanding of the acidic nature of paper and the problems with some accepted storage and binding practices. An early focus on conservation treatments evolved into the development of a broad array of preservation strategies. In a recent year, ARL member libraries spent over $83 million on preservation activities.

The most effective preservation measure is to control temperature and humidity levels in library stacks. Almost 50% of ARL's 123 member libraries report significant improvements in environmental conditions in their buildings over the past three years.

Recognition of the inevitability of natural disasters has led to disaster preparedness work and training in disaster recovery in almost every major research library. Libraries are better able to prevent some disasters. Books and journals that might have been lost through unpreventable floods or fires are now routinely recovered through swift and effective staff action.

Accepted binding practices such as oversewing, that exacerbated the problems with brittle paper, have been replaced by more durable and sustainable binding standards.

In a recent year, research libraries bound almost 3.5 million volumes, restored through conservation treatment 1 million volumes, deacidified 115,000 items, and placed 156,000 items in protective enclosures. In addition, 110,000 volumes were reformatted through microfilming or photocopying.