• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Survey forms
 Main
 Report






Title: University of Florida Libraries Physical Condition Survey of 1989-1990
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077414/00001
 Material Information
Title: University of Florida Libraries Physical Condition Survey of 1989-1990
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Kesse, Erich
Publisher: University of Florida Libraries
Publication Date: 1990
 Subjects
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077414
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

BrittleBooks2 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Survey forms
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Main
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
    Report
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
Full Text









Memorandum


to: Frank DiTrolio, Chair, Physical Condition Task Force.
from: Erich Kesse, Preservation Officer
cc: Martha Hruska, Acting Director for Technical Services.
Sam Gowan, Acting Director for Collection Management.
re: PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
date: 1 October 1990.



Attached you'll find my analysis and recommendations re. the physical
condition survey, which I have also tabulated.

Forgive my delay. After our long initial quandry as to who would do the
analysis, Bill Covey and I struggled with the data to get the tables that we
wanted and to get consistent data in them. As I noted earlier, two sets of
tables meant to confirm one another's findings did not match and had to be
retabulated, with some delay. Finally, the secretarial assistance I had had
in the Director's Office "disappeared", leaving me to straighten the data out
on my own time -- the tables came to me as a jumble when formatted to IBM MS-
DOS. In relation to that work, analysis of the tables went quickly.

The task remaining is this:
a Call your group back together, make sure that each has a copy of my
report to you. They should be familiar, even intimate with it before
they meet.
a Write a report which states what you did, when and how you did it, its
results and their meaning and recommendations. You may wish to just use
the recommendations I've suggested and add to them.
As far as you are able, each recommendation should contain:
The recommendation;
Statement of rationale;
Statement of responsibility (i.e., person who shall be considered
responsible for carrying out the recommendation); and
Associated Costs (if you can list exact costs, please list the
items, supplies, staff time, etc. that will cost something).

If the group accepts my report to you as basically all that needs to be done,
we still need a few pages on the basic information with title page,
formalities, etc.

The PPP Committee, meanwhile, is ready to go. All we need are your Task
Force's report and recommendations. This will allow us to put the final
report together and finally get this thing done.


P.S. When you set dates let me know. Thanks.












THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY
OF 19809--1 990


Report of the Preservation Officer, Erich Kesse
to the Physical Condition Task Force, Frank DiTrolio, chair.












THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION
OF 1989-1 990


SURVEY


Contents.


Compiled comments, analyses, etc.
Compiled recommendations.
Tables.
"Report of the condition survey of master microfilm negatives..."









THE UN DIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES




PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
CIRCULATING AND GENERAL COLLECTIONS MATERIALS




S1. Holding Library:

2. Call Number: _Copy No.:___

3. Date of Publication:

4. Place of Publication:


5. Describe any enclosure (check one) l
SONone. OBox. OEnvelope. 0Encapsulation. OOther.

6. Describe type of book (check one).
0 Paperback. OHardcover.

7. Describe the material covering the joint (check one):
OCloth. OLeather. OPaper. OOther.

8. Describe type of leaf attachment (check one):
OThrough the fold. 0 Adhesive.
OThrough the side. 0 Spiral/VeloBinder/RingBinder.
SOUnbound loose leaves. 0 Other.


9. Does the CASE need treatment?
OYes. ONo.

10. Does the TEXT-BLOCK need treatment?
OYes. ONo.


11. Double fold test measure (circle one):
0 1 2 3 4 5 NB (Not Brittle)

12. REMOVE A CORNER of any page other than the title page.
Place it in an envelope and attach to this form.



RETURN THIS FORM TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR TESTING AND DATA ENTRY.










THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIBRARY IES


FLORIDA


PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
CIRCULATING AND GENERAL COLLECTIONS MATERIALS




S1. Holding Library: j ___

2. Call Number: PR 3321I.MP32 1982 Copy No.: 2

S3. Date of Publication: _~1-__ ___

4. Place of Publication: eo ______


5. Describe any enclosure (check one)
II XNone. OBox. OEnvelope. 0 Encapsulation. OOther.

6. Describe type of book (check one).
0 Paperback. )(Hardcover.

7. Describe the material covering the joint (check one):
SCloth. OLeather. O Paper. OOther.

8. Describe type of leaf attachment (check one):
OThrough the fold. W Adhesive.
0 Through the side. 0 Spiral/VeloBinder/RingBinder.
OUnbound loose leaves. 0 Other.


9. Does the CASE need treatment?
Yes. 0 ONo.

10. Does the TEXT-BLOCK need treatment?
O Yes. XNo.


11. Double fold test measure (circle one):
0 1 2 3 4 5 (D(Not Brittle)

12. REMOVE A CORNER of any page other than the title page.
Place it in an envelope and attach to this form.



RETURN THIS FORM TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR TESTING AND DATA ENTRY.












INSTRUCTIONS
FOR USE OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY FORM
Circulating and General Collections Materials


1. Holding Library.
Record the name of the library or collection; e.g., Science.

2. Call Number. Copy No.
Record the call number and copy number as found on the item.

3. Date of Publication.
Record the date of publication as found on the title page, verso of the
title page or elsewhere.
Record the latest date when there is more than one date.
Use "ND" or "no date" when there is no date. Do not leave blank.

4. Place of Publication.
Record the state or country of publication as found on the title page, verso
of the title page or elsewhere.
Record the place of printing (usually found on the verso) when there is more
than one place listed. Record the first named if place of printing can
not be determined.
Use "NA" or "not applicable" when there is no place listed.

5. Enclosure. (check one)
None. The book is not in a box, envelope, encapsulation, or other enclosure.
Box. The book is in a box (phase box, clam-shell box, etc.).
Envelope. The book is in an envelope.
Encapsulation. All of the pages of the book are encapsulated between two
sheets of Mylar".
Other. The book is housed within an enclosure other than those listed
above; e.g., plastic bag.

6. Type of Book. (check one)
Paperback. The book has a paper or thin card covering.
Hardcover. The book has thick, hard boards.

7. Material Covering the Joint. (check one)
Cloth. Covering is cloth.
Leather. Covering is leather.
Paper. Covering is paper.
Other. Covering is other than the above OR cannot be determined.

8. Leaf Attachment. Binding Method. (check one)
Through the fold. Pages, gathered into signatures, have been sewn through a
fold.
Through the side. Pages have been sewn or stabled through the side.
Includes: oversewing, stab-sewing, staple binding.
Unbound loose leaves. Pages are loose. Unbound.
Adhesive. Pages are held together only with adhesive.
Spiral/VeloBinder/RingBinder. Pages are in a metal or plastic spiral
binder, plastic spiral binder, or a ring binder.
Other. Binding is other than the above OR cannot be determined.











9. Does the CASE need treatment?
The CASE is that part of a book comprised of its boards, spine coverings and
joint coverings.
The case needs treatment when damaged. Damage includes: red rot (i.e.,
reddish, powdery leather); detached, missing or taped spine covering;
broken joints; loose or missing boards; torn or missing head or tail
caps; frayed corners; noticeable abrasion; mold/mildew, water, fire,
insect damage or other damage to the case.

10. Does the TEXT-BLOCK need treatment?
The TEXT-BLOCK is that part of book which is found within the case, and
comprises the block of the text.
The text-block needs treatment when damaged. Damage includes: loose, torn
or missing pages; loose or broken binding; loose or missing signatures;
text-block is not tight in its case or is sagging; marginalia or
obliterated text; mold/mildew, water, fire, insect damage or other damage
to or inside the text-block.

11. Double Fold Test Measure.
To perform the test, fold the corner of any page other than the title page
back and crease, then fold forward and crease; give a gentle tug. Do
this up to five times.
Circle the number which represents the double fold test measure.
Circle "0" when the corner comes off before the first tug.
Circle "NB" when the page is not brittle.
IF PRINTED BEFORE 1850, DO NOT PERFORM THIS TEST. Preservation Office staff
will perform a flex test.

12. Removing Corner.
Remove a corner of any page other than the title page. Place it in an
envelope and attach it to this form.
The corner will be tested by the Conservation Unit of the Preservation
Office for pH (i.e., acidity), wood-pulp, and other symptoms of chemical
decay.






Parts
of a
Bound
Volume


For definition of terms see Glossary.
Illustrations by Gary Frost





BASIC BOOKBINDING STRUCTURES.


SEWN-THROUGH-THE-FOLD. (Smythe Sewn)


Pages gathered in
signatures.




ADHESIVE BINDING.








Pages attached
using glue.


Single signature
sewn-through-the-fold.


Sewing can be seen at
center of fold.


Book opens up to glued
spine.


SEWN THROUGH THE SIDE. (Oversewing; Stapled;








Pages attached using thread, staple, etc.
Book opens to thread, staple, etc.


Pages appear to have no
noticeable means of
attachment when opened.


Thread, staples, etc.
can be seen in the gutter
margin.













THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY
OF 1989-1990.


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.








General Comments.
v Statistical information is meaningful only when count exceeds 100. The
larger the count, the more meaningful and reliable the information. A
count of 400 produces information within a +5% confidence level.

Alum Rosin Sizing.
a Each item surveyed was tested by Conservation Unit staff for alum rosin
sizing using commercially available test kits.
a Alum rosin contributes to the deterioration of paper.
No evidence of alum rosin found prior to 1851.
a 69.2% of all materials surveyed, including pre-1851 materials, were made
with alum rosin.
Incidence of alum rosin increases steadily in UFL collections from 1851
and appears to be increasing through 1989.
Incidence of alum rosin in European and the United States groups is
slightly below the average for all collections. The population of
materials in the United States group, however, is larger than that of the
European group and, taken separately, represents a larger problem.
a Incidence of alum rosin in the Latin American group is significantly
higher than the average.

Case Treatment Needs and Joint Covering Materials.
a Approximately 18.6% of all collections require case treatments.
a In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States and
South America have the greatest need for case treatment. In the latter,
binding is often poor as a result of economic factors. Items published in
the United States (and possibly those from South America) show up in this
category due to the great number of USA (and South American) imprint in
the collections.
In the individual imprint groups, items published in South America, the
Caribbean basin and Central America, and Australasia exceed the average
need. Items published in these areas are often substandard.
a Cases (i.e., covers and spine) generally deteriorate at the head-caps
(along the top of the spine) and along the joints. The joint covering
material covers both locations.
a The average rate of deterioration (i.e., case treatment need) is 18.6%
of all collections. Joint covering materials which exceed this average
include leather and paper. Cloth and other covering materials (e.g.,
plastic) approximate the average.
a 28.2% of leather materials require case treatment. Most leather materials
were issued prior to 1910. It is conceivable that leather has either












aged, losing it natural oils or, because of the tanning process, has
suffered leather or red rot. Rates of publication and acquisition of
leather bound materials has dropped significantly since 1910. Statistics,
therefore, could be said to document a rather static problem.
24.6% of paper materials require case treatment.
a The percentage of paper materials in the collections (26.8%) roughly
equals the percentage of paperback books (26.3%) reported in the type of
books tables. It is conceivable that 0.5% of collections are hardbound
materials covered and jointed with paper or cloth textured paper. It
appears that @ 75% of paper jointed materials do not require case
treatment. Chronological analysis in type of book tables indicates that
the majority (65%) of paperback were published in the last thirty years.
* The Preservation Office has suggested a policy of binding paperback
monographs only after initial circulation. It is hoped that, since cloth
cover treatment needs approximate the treatment need average, this policy
will allow paperback case to take the brunt of initial mistreatment,
eventually reducing cloth cover treatment need percentage. It is assumed
that cloth covering is a more permanent form of covering.
* Examining column statistics for treatment need, the majority (57.9%) of
need and conservation queue is cloth covered material. Paper covered
material represents 35.4% of need and queue. Conservation work will be
concentrated on cloth materials. Again, the suggestion that paper covered
material should be commercially bound (lacking structural damage to the
textblock) will reduce conservation queues to handle this and other
problems. Placing this problem in perspective however, the table
indicates that only 11% of all collections are cloth covered materials
needing case treatment. This figure suggests that well managed
conservation queues should allow the Conservation Unit to perform
additional pamphlet binding, boxing, encapsulation, and textblock repair.
Figures for this and other types of conservation treatments should be
compiled and time studies performed to determine adequacy of present
staffing levels.
v In the collections as a whole, only materials published after 1960 require
immediate case treatment. Need among items in this group is more than
two times greater than the average need.
a In individual imprint groups, need for case treatment is almost
universally apparent. The bulk of imprint group items needing treatment
most in relation to their numbers were published between 1851 and 1920.
* Because of the degree of the problem among recent imprints, it may be
possible to conjecture that contemporary case (i.e., publisher's) bindings
fail at rates far greater than those of early periods either because of
greater and poorer use or poorer manufacture if not both.
* 18.6% of all materials require case treatment. Of material needing case
treatment: 64.6% are hardcover books, 34.9% are paperback books, and
0.576% are of unspecified type.
m Data indicates that 83.6% of hardcover books and 74.9% of paperback books
do not require case treatment.
a Approximately 67% of materials are cloth covered, while 27% are paper
covered. Cloth covered books, often hardbound books, are often more
durable and offer more protection to the textblock than paperbacks.
a Incidence of joint covering materials is not consistent through time.
Neither cloth or paper covering material seems to have gained or to be
gaining ascendancy in the modern period.













a Paper has, statistically, "replaced" the use of leather as a joint
covering material since 1900.
Approximately 67% of materials are cloth covered, while 27% are paper
covered. Cloth covered books, often hardbound books, are often more
durable and offer more protection to the textblock than paperbacks.
n The incidence of cloth covering as a joint material is relatively
consistent throughout the Libraries, with two exceptions. At the high
end, the Price Library of Judaica has consistently purchase cloth covered
materials or had them bound in cloth. At the low end, the Government
Documents Library appears to receive most items in paper cover and has
traditionally left them in original covers.
a The incidence of paper covers is not consistent through out the two
exceptions above remain at the extreme, however, branch libraries also
appear to have a higher incidence of paper covers. Historically,
retrospective binding has missed branch libraries.

Collections/Holding Libraries.
a In the collections as a whole, materials in the Latin American Collection
and Humanities/Social Science and Marston Science Libraries approximate or
exceed the average need for case treatment.
a In individual collections, case treatment need exceeds the average need in
the Judaica, Education, Latin American, Architecture/Fine Arts Libraries.
This is to say that in these libraries, case treatment needs are excessive
and immediate.
Material held by the following locations have minimal embrittlement and
appear to not to be at risk overall: Belknap Collection, Government
Documents Library, Journalism Reading Room, and the University Collection
within the Archives.
CONJECTURE: The Journalism Reading Room may represent minimal risk due to
its weeding and transfer policies which were established to assist the
Reading Room in management of its limited space.
CONJECTURE: The Government Documents Library may represent minimal risk
due to factors of previous use, relatively good environmental storage
control, and conversion or purchase of documents to/in microform. [NOTE:
The current physical condition survey did not examine the condition of
microforms in this location.)
CONJECTURE: The Archives may represent minimal risk because materials held
in the University Collection are published by university presses which,
largely, have converted to use of paper meeting the requirements of ANSI
239.48, "...Permanence of paper for printed library materials".
v The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 5 but fall
significantly below the average: Education Library and Music Library.
Brittle materials held in these libraries are likely to need increasing
attention, but do not now warrant immediate attention.
a The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 5, falling just
below the average: Humanities/Social Sciences Library and the Marston
Science Library. Brittle materials held in these collections may preclude
retrospective binding or rebinding, and may eventually require
reformatting.
* The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft < 5
(ranked list beginning with most endangered): P.K.Y. Library of Florida
History, Price Library of Judaica, Latin American Library, and the
Architecture & Fine Arts Library. Brittle materials held in all of these












collections may preclude retrospective binding or rebinding, and may
eventually require reformatting.
a The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 3, falling just
below the average: Architecture & Fine Arts Library, Humanities/Social
Sciences Library and the Marston Science Library. Brittle materials in
these locations may not withstand additional use and should be targeted
for reformatting.
* The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft < 3
(ranked list beginning with most endangered): P.K.Y. Library of Florida
History, Latin American Collection, and the Price Library of Judaica.
Brittle materials in these locations may not withstand additional use and
should be targeted for reformatting as soon as possible. Embrittlement in
Florida History and the Latin American Collection are more than twice the
average. Reformatting funded through NEH/RLG Great Collections
Microfilming Project (Phase 2) grant has already begun work on Caribbean
Basin materials held in both Florida History and the Latin American
Collection. Reformatting funded through NEH/SOLINET grant has already
targeted Brazilian materials held in the Latin American Collection.
Reformatting funded through NEH/RLG Archives and Manuscripts Microfilming
Project has already begun work on one archival collection in Florida
History. Additional grants for collections in these areas and Judaica
need to be develop.
a The average dft measure at dft = 0 is 1.39%; and at dft < 1 is 6.43.
Additional use of materials which fall at or below the average when dft <
1 are at definite risk of text loss. ANY additional use of materials
which have dft = 0 (i.e., are not able to withstand one double fold) are
at severe risk and should not be used until reformatted.
a The following collections fall into these extreme categories (i.e., dft <
1 is at or above average) (ranked list beginning with most endangered):
Price Library of Judaica, Latin American Collection, P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History, Marston Science Library, and the Humanities/Social
Science Library. Materials held in Judaica should be given first
priority, embrittlement is nearly three times the average. Materials in
the Latin American Collection and Florida History are twice the average.
a The average percentage of flexible papers in all collections is 79.154%.
a The following collections have percentages of flexible papers above or
near the average (ranked list beginning with the highest percentage):
Journalism Reading Room, Government Documents Library, Belknap Collection,
Education Library, Marston Science Library, Music Library, and
Humanities/Social Science Library. Note that the Science and
Humanities/Social Science libraries contain both some of the most
embrittled and most flexible papers.
* In addition to information tabulated above, the following information was
compiled as the result of survey of materials held by the Baldwin Library
of Juvenilia. The survey was conducted in November of 1988 and was
limited to 100 volumes.

DFT Measure 0 1 2 3 4 5 Not Brittle Total

% TOTAL 11 32 14 11 5 8 19 100

CUM % 11 43 57 68 73 81 19 100

The average dft measure of brittle materials was 2.3. Compared to













materials surveyed as part of the recent physical condition survey,
Baldwin materials are:
8 times more brittle at dft = 0;
7 times more brittle at dft < 1;
6 times more brittle at dft < 2;
5 times more brittle at dft < 3;
5 times more brittle at dft < 4;
4 times more brittle at dft < 5; and
4 times less likely to be flexible.

This data indicates that the Baldwin Library, even at its best, is far
more endangered than the worst of recently surveyed collections at its
worst. Because of its nature, uniqueness and completeness, it represents
the UFL's best grant opportunity.
NOTE: An additional survey of Baldwin Library materials is scheduled for
fall 1990, using the RLG Preservation Assessment Survey tool. This survey
is planned to yield information with a 95% confidence level +5%.
a Random physical condition survey of master microfilm reels held in the
P.K.Y. Library of Florida History was conducted in February 1988. Cf,
Appendix to the table for survey procedure and tabulated results.
Approximately 80% of master negatives were in a state of deterioration
resultant from problems in original processing, storage materials, storage
climate, and acetate film base which has proven unstable. Actions taken
following survey include:
(1) Regeneration project to create security copies on polyester based
film, and to store film to American National Standards and Research
Libraries guidelines. Project cost to date (95% completion of 7,000
reels): @ $185,000. NOTE: UFL microfilm masters (@ 13,000 reels) stored
at University Microfilms have been ordered back to the Libraries and may
require remastering.
(2) Replacement of metal containers and reels, as well as contaminated
paper boxes with materials meeting the American National Standards.
(3) Establishment of procedures for shipping film to storage.
(Regenerated film is just now returning and will be shipping immediately
following inventory quality control.)
This project was the impetus for the creation of FILMLOG, an interactive
database programmed by Erich Kesse. FILMLOG tracks materials, perform a
variety of activities such as targeting, limited cataloging, and of
packing lists, union catalogs and statistical information.
a If the UFL collections include 2,700,000 volumes then, excluding
continuing embrittlement, and at a processing rate of @ 2,500 vol.:

@ dft = 0 .............. 37,530 vol. embrittled ........ 15 years
@ dft < 1 ............. 173,610 vol. embrittled ........ 69 years
@ dft < 2 ............. 264,870 vol. embrittled ....... 106 years
@ dft < 3 ............. 348,840 vol. embrittled ....... 140 years
@ dft < 4 ............. 409,590 vol. embrittled ....... 164 years
@ dft < 5 ............. 528,390 vol. embrittled ....... 211 years

Other data in this and other tables indicates that as UFL collections age,
embrittlement will dramatically increase.
a Materials in the Archives' University (i.e., print) Collection should
remain unbound to preserve integrity of the original, and boxed if
necessary. Generally, another copy of the item exists within the













Libraries' circulating collections. Use of the University Collection is
minimal.
a Paperback count in the Belknap Collection may be high due to the
predominance of unbound playbills, periodicals, etc., as well as the lack
of a binding policy and binding preparations staff in the Collection.
Data does not indicate classes of materials within this Collection that
may be bound or those which may require protective enclose. Limited hours
and access reduce use of materials in the Collection.
a Of materials in collections which now circulate, those in the Government
Documents Library should receive the most immediate consideration for
binding. This Library was previously non-circulating.
Though there are some bound volumes in this Library, the survey detected
none. This is either the result of fault in the survey or overwhelming
predominance of paperbacks in the Library.
Materials in the Science Library, the Humanities & Social Science
Libraries, and the Latin American Collection also require consideration.
The high level of paperbacks in the Science Library may be due to the
number of serials in the collection.
Binding considerations should also take chronology into account (cf,
Chronological Analysis).
* The level of paperbacks in the Science Library is nearly equivalent to the
average level of paperbacks system-wide. Analysis of condition of
materials in this Library may provide information regarding condition of
and causes for state of materials throughout the Libraries.
a The high level of hardcopy materials in the Price Library of Judaica may
represent the age of the collection or reflect the nature of collected
materials rather than an aggressive binding program. The Librarian should
provide a history of collecting and binding programs.
n The average rate of enclosure for all collections is 4.49%. The number of
enclosures in the Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, and
the University Archive are three to five times greater than the average.
Again, the quality of enclosures is not assessed in the table.
a The average rate of boxing for all collections is 1.82%. This rate is
exceeded in the Government Documents Library, Marston Science Library,
P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, and the University Archives. Boxing in
Archives is nearly eight times the average.
n The average incidence of envelopes for all collections is 0.27%. This
rate is exceeded in the Belknap Collection and the P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History. Incidence of envelopes in Belknap is sixteen times the
average. While this data does not indicate the quality of envelopes,
examination of envelopes reveals that poor quality, high acid products are
used.
a The average incidence of other unspecified enclosures for all collections
is 2.41%. This rate is exceeded in the Architecture & Fine Arts Library,
Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, Humanities/Social
Science Library, Marston Science Library, Music Library, and the
University Archives. Data does not provide information on type or quality
of enclosure. Enclosure tabulated here include portfolios, half-boxes,
etc.
a The incidence of cloth covering as a joint material is relatively
consistent throughout the Libraries, with two exceptions. At the high
end, the Price Library of Judaica has consistently purchase cloth covered
materials or had them bound in cloth. At the low end, the Government













Documents Library appears to receive most items in paper cover and has
traditionally left them in original covers.
a The incidence of paper covers is not consistent through out the two
exceptions above remain at the extreme, however, branch libraries also
appear to have a higher incidence of paper covers. Historically,
retrospective binding has missed branch libraries.
* Figures in Protective Enclosure tables do not include Rare Books. The
Preservation Office has just concluded the an enclosure project in this
location. Over 2000 phase boxes and rare book (i.e., drop spine; clam
shell) boxes have been completed. A policy has been set forth which
states that materials held in special collections shall receive protective
enclosures when they have suffered either text-block or case deterioration
and the Conservation Unit can not schedule repair or restoration for any
reason within one year.

Embrittlement and Hydrogen-Ion Concentrations.
* Embrittlement was measured using a double fold test. This test was done
in accordance with standard accepted preservation practice, and as defined
by the Brittle Books Program of the Preservation Office (cf, attachment).
* Hydrogen-Ion concentrations (i.e., pH) was measured using pH indicator
pencils. Pencils were pretested and gauged before use to assure accuracy.
pH indicator pens were not used because literature has indicated that felt
tips of pens are quickly contaminated and thrown out of miscalibration.
* Embrittlement has a number of causes: acids in paper fiber, acids used in
paper manufacture, acids in atmospheric contaminants, short paper fibers
such as wood fiber, use, temperature and humidity of storage locations,
cycling of temperature and humidity both in storage and use locations.
Simply removing a volume from a library building's air conditioned
environment to Florida's external climate, and back into the library
patron's home air conditioned environment may represent a violent act. No
single factor works alone to result in embrittlement.
a When pH is <7, paper is considered to be acidic.
* Summaries at various double fold test (dft) levels is given to make data
more explicit and more readily comparable to data compiled in other
institutions. The University of Florida Libraries used dft = 5 as a
standard measure; items with dft < 5 will not be commercially bound.
Items with dft < 3 will be considered for microfilming regardless of
physical condition. A majority of institutions use dft = 3 as a standard
measure.
a Not less than 12.9% and not more than 19.6% of all collections are
currently embrittled. These findings are significantly lower than those
of Yale University Libraries and other, primarily northeastern libraries
which have reported embrittlement to represent between 25% and 35% of
collections. Current UFL figures do not significantly differ from
findings of 1985 physical condition survey which found between 10% and 17%
embrittlement for collections.
a Averages: dft < 3 average is 12.92%; dft < 4 average is 15.17%; and dft <
5 average is 15.17%.
a When double fold test measure is <5, paper may be considered brittle (or
not brittle, but too weak for binding).
a When double fold test measure is (4, paper may be considered brittle (or
not brittle, but too weak for binding).
v When double fold test measure is <3, paper may be considered brittle.













a DFT < 3 indicates need to reformat and definite risk of text loss; dft < 5
indicates inability to bind and potential risk of test loss.
v The average percentage of flexible materials in collections is 79.1%.
Materials which show more flexibility have pH > 4. If on average
materials with pH > 4 are largely still flexible, then these materials
need not be considered for reformating at this time. pH is not now a
deciding factor in the Brittle Books Program.
a The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft < 3, the
criteria currently used for reformatting, is 12.92%. Materials which
exceed the average have pH < 3. This finding is consistent with the
finding directly above. THIS INFORMATION IS CONSISTENT WITH TWO PREVIOUS
RANDOM SURVEYS OF UFL COLLECTIONS.
a The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft < 5, the
criteria currently used for decision not to bind (i.e., decision to box),
is 19.57%. Materials which exceed the average have pH < 4. This finding
is consistent with the finding above. Moreover, however, it suggests that
deacidification and alkalinization processes, recommended else where in
these physical condition survey tables, should be conducted first on
materials with pH > 4. This is supported by other survey data which
suggests that even current publications with pH > 7 will become acidic and
embrittled. Second priority for this process should be given to materials
with pH > 3.
a The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft = 0, the
criteria currently used for protective removal of volumes from circulation
(and placement in the Brittle Books Program backlog for most immediate
attention, is 1.39%. Materials which exceed the average have pH < 3.
When pH = 1, materials exceed the average 18.6 times.
a The tables give some idea of the effect of acid and the lack of acid on
paper strength and embrittlement.
* Tables indicate that regardless of dft measure the ratio of acidic to non-
acidic materials remains relatively constant at approximately 25% to 75%
(25:75). Alkalinity (i.e., higher pH), however, does appear to reduce
rates of embrittlement slightly, by approximately one tenth of a percent.
This is neither a new or unexpected finding. It may be conjectured that
conditions which slow the process of acid hydrolysis and migration
contribute in some small way to extending the life of brittle materials.
a This data is insufficient to formulate conclusions regarding the effect of
pH on non-brittle materials.
a pH of 7.0 is neutral. The pH scale is logarithmic. pH of 6.0 is 10 times
more acidic than pH of 7.0. pH of 5.0 is 10 times more acidic than pH of
6.0, or 100 times more acidic than pH of 7.0.
a The American National Standard 239.48-1984, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials", states that paper used for printed library
materials shall have minimum pH (i.e., hydrogen-ion concentration) of 7.5.
a 89.77 % of materials in the collections are acidic, calling below the
requirements of ANSI 239.48-1984.
I Data in pH tables reaches a confidence level near +5% at the level of pH
>3.
a The bulk of acidic materials in the UFL collections have pH between 4.0
and 6.0.
a An average of 8.2% of all materials in the collections is acid neutral or
alkaline buffered. Data indicates that, among neutral and alkaline
materials (pH > 7), pH decreases with time. 10% of materials with current
imprints (1960-1989) has pH > 7, while only 4.55% of materials imprinted













in the 1930s remains pH > 7. Data in other pH columns seems to bear this
out. Data does not allow conjecture as to comparative chronological
analysis of alkaline materials entering the collections.
Of current imprints (1960-1989), 90% of materials are already acidic. The
average pH for current imprints is 4.6. This indicates that most recent
acquisitions are either acidic or lack sufficient alkaline reserve/buffer
to protect them.
* The following table compiles information not included in the table above,
and represents a break down of pH averages for current imprints. Table
shows that publication of materials with pH > 7 remains static at 10%,
more or less equal to figures
Period Average pH % pH > 7 commonly cited in studies on newly
published materials. The table
1960-1989 4.60 10% continues to support the
1960-1969 4.28 10% hypothesis that pH decreased over
1970-1979 4.52 10% time. However, because acids in
1980-1989 4.89 10% these materials probably have not
1980-1985 4.77 10% yet had time to effect pH
1986-1989 5.08 10% readings, table may also
suggest that pH of recent
publications, while still very acidic, is improving slightly. Table
indicates that, should this rate of improvement remain constant, pH of
paper will not comply with ANSI 239.48, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials", until sometime after the year 2190.
* Average pH for all materials tested is 4.5.
* Material held by the following locations have minimal embrittlement and
appear to not to be at risk overall: Belknap Collection, Government
Documents Library, Journalism Reading Room, and the University Collection
within the Archives.
CONJECTURE: The Journalism Reading Room may represent minimal risk due to
its weeding and transfer policies which were established to assist the
Reading Room in management of its limited space.
CONJECTURE: The Government Documents Library may represent minimal risk
due to factors of previous use, relatively good environmental storage
control, and conversion or purchase of documents to/in microform. [NOTE:
The current physical condition survey did not examine the condition of
microforms in this location.]
CONJECTURE: The Archives may represent minimal risk because materials held
in the University Collection are published by university presses which,
largely, have converted to use of paper meeting the requirements of ANSI
239.48, "...Permanence of paper for printed library materials".
* The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 5 but fall
significantly below the average: Education Library and Music Library.
Brittle materials held in these libraries are likely to need increasing
attention, but do not now warrant immediate attention.
* The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 5, falling just
below the average: Humanities/Social Sciences Library and the Marston
Science Library. Brittle materials held in these collections may preclude
retrospective binding or rebinding, and may eventually require
reformatting.
* The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft < 5
(ranked list beginning with most endangered): P.K.Y. Library of Florida
History, Price Library of Judaica, Latin American Library, and the
Architecture & Fine Arts Library. Brittle materials held in all of these












collections may preclude retrospective binding or rebinding, and may
eventually require reformatting.
The following collections have high dft measures at dft < 3, falling just
below the average: Architecture & Fine Arts Library, Humanities/Social
Sciences Library and the Marston Science Library. Brittle materials in
these locations may not withstand additional use and should be targeted
for reformating.
The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft < 3
(ranked list beginning with most endangered): P.K.Y. Library of Florida
History, Latin American Collection, and the Price Library of Judaica.
Brittle materials in these locations may not withstand additional use and
should be targeted for reformating as soon as possible. Embrittlement in
Florida History and the Latin American Collection are more than twice the
average. Reformatting funded through NEH/RLG Great Collections
Microfilming Project (Phase 2) grant has already begun work on Caribbean
Basin materials held in both Florida History and the Latin American
Collection. Reformatting funded through NEH/SOLINET grant has already
targeted Brazilian materials held in the Latin American Collection.
Reformatting funded through NEH/RLG Archives and Manuscripts Microfilming
Project has already begun work on one archival collection in Florida
History. Additional grants for collections in these areas and Judaica
need to be develop.
* The average dft measure at dft = 0 is 1.39%; and at dft < 1 is 6.43.
Additional use of materials which fall at or below the average when dft <
1 are at definite risk of text loss. ANY additional use of materials
which have dft = 0 (i.e., are not able to withstand one double fold) are
at severe risk and should not be used until reformatted.
The following collections fall into these extreme categories (i.e., dft <
1 is at or above average) (ranked list beginning with most endangered):
Price Library of Judaica, Latin American Collection, P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History, Marston Science Library, and the Humanities/Social
Science Library. Materials held in Judaica should be given first
priority, embrittlement is nearly three times the average. Materials in
the Latin American Collection and Florida History are twice the average.
* The average percentage of flexible papers in all collections is 79.154%.
* The following collections have percentages of flexible papers above or
near the average (ranked list beginning with the highest percentage):
Journalism Reading Room, Government Documents Library, Belknap Collection,
Education Library, Marston Science Library, Music Library, and
Humanities/Social Science Library. Note that the Science and
Humanities/Social Science libraries contain both some of the most
embrittled and most flexible papers.
* In addition to information tabulated above, the following information was
compiled as the result of survey of materials held by the Baldwin Library
of Juvenilia. The survey was conducted in November of 1988 and was
limited to 100 volumes.

DFT Measure 0 1 2 3 4 5 Not Brittle Total

% TOTAL 11 32 14 11 5 8 19 100

CUM % 11 43 57 68 73 81 19 100

The average dft measure of brittle materials was 2.3. Compared to












materials surveyed as part of the recent physical condition survey,
Baldwin materials are:
8 times more brittle at dft = 0;
7 times more brittle at dft < 1;
6 times more brittle at dft < 2;
5 times more brittle at dft < 3;
5 times more brittle at dft < 4;
4 times more brittle at dft < 5; and
4 times less likely to be flexible.

This data indicates that the Baldwin Library, even at its best, is far
more endangered than the worst of recently surveyed collections at its
worst. Because of its nature, uniqueness and completeness, it represents
the UFL's best grant opportunity.
NOTE: An additional survey of Baldwin Library materials is scheduled for
fall 1990, using the RLG Preservation Assessment Survey tool. This survey
is planned to yield information with a 95% confidence level +5%.
* Random physical condition survey of master microfilm reels held in the
P.K.Y. Library of Florida History was conducted in February 1988. Cf,
Appendix to the table for survey procedure and tabulated results.
Approximately 80% of master negatives were in a state of deterioration
resultant from problems in original processing, storage materials, storage
climate, and acetate film base which has proven unstable. Actions taken
following survey include:
(1) Regeneration project to create security copies on polyester based
film, and to store film to American National Standards and Research
Libraries guidelines. Project cost to date (95% completion of 7,000
reels): @ $185,000. NOTE: UFL microfilm masters (@ 13,000 reels) stored
at University Microfilms have been ordered back to the Libraries and may
require remastering.
(2) Replacement of metal containers and reels, as well as contaminated
paper boxes with materials meeting the American National Standards.
(3) Establishment of procedures for shipping film to storage.
(Regenerated film is just now returning and will be shipping immediately
following inventory quality control.)
This project was the impetus for the creation of FILMLOG, an interactive
database programmed by Erich Kesse. FILMLOG tracks materials, perform a
variety of activities such as targeting, limited cataloging, and of
packing lists, union catalogs and statistical information.
* If the UFL collections include 2,700,000 volumes then, excluding
continuing embrittlement, and at a processing rate of @ 2,500 vol.:

@ dft = 0 .............. 37,530 vol. embrittled ........ 15 years
@ dft < 1 ............. 173,610 vol. embrittled ........ 69 years
@ dft < 2 ............. 264,870 vol. embrittled ....... 106 years
@ dft < 3 ............. 348,840 vol. embrittled ....... 140 years
@ dft < 4 ............. 409,590 vol. embrittled ....... 164 years
@ dft < 5 ............. 528,390 vol. embrittled ....... 211 years

Other data in this and other tables indicates that as UFL collections age,
embrittlement will dramatically increase.
* Information in these tables do not include data gathered from independent
surveys of embrittlement in the Baldwin Library of Juvenilia and the Price
Library of Judaica.












a Much of the information gathered by this survey was already known. Not
too surprisingly, there is little deviation from pre-existing information.
* Embrittlement is above the average for all collections at every level of
dft measurement from 1851 through 1960. The table indicates that the
older the item, the more likely it is to be embrittled.
a The most severely embrittled materials were published between 1851 and
1920. Embrittlement of materials from this period ranges from 3 to over
16 times more brittle than the average. Nineteenth century materials and
collections, such as those held by the Baldwin Library are at extreme
risk.
a Embrittlement of current (i.e., 1960-1989) materials is already one third
the average.
* Baldwin survey shows that 8% of items are available in reprint or
microform. Coincidentally, Brittle Books Program data for the NEH/RLG
Great Collections Microfilming Grant (Phase 2) indicates that availability
of reprint and microforms for Caribbean materials hovers between 8% and
10%. Availability rates differ from collection area to collection area.
They should not be taken as constants.

Geographic Regions.
a Statistical information is meaningful only when count exceeds 100. The
larger the count, the more meaningful and reliable the information. A
count of 400 produces information within a +5% confidence level. The
following outlines order of reliability. Reliability is expressed in
descending order both among and within groups.

AMONG GROUP.

United States Group (1096)
European Group (368)
South/Latin American Group & Mexico (206)

WITH-IN GROUP.

New York (356)
District of Columbia (175)
Florida (165)
United Kingdom (147)


Counts totals for other groups do not reach adequate levels.
* Insufficient information regarding African imprints was collected.
a Groupings within the table do not always agree with geographic groupings
in other tables. Discrepancies in data manipulation resulted in incon-
sistencies. Central American countries were occasional considered to be
within the Latin American Group and at other times within the Caribbean
Basin Group, or were counted within both Groups. A similar situation
exists for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands which were counted
within the Caribbean Basin Group, the United States Group, or both groups.
Slight tabulation errors may exist within other groups.
* Because meaningful results for geographic analyses were not produced by
random survey, extrapolation of geographic data cannot be made to the
collections, but must be made on a comparative basis only among those
groups, countries or states which produced meaningful results.













Comparative analyses are tenuous at best due to varying count levels.
* In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States and
South America have the greatest need for case treatment. In the latter,
binding is often poor as a result of economic factors. Items published in
the United States (and possibly those from South America) show up in this
category due to the great number of USA (and South American) imprint in
the collections.
a In the individual imprint groups, items published in South America, the
Caribbean basin and Central America, and Australasia exceed the average
need for case treatment. Items published in these areas are often
substandard.
a Average pH for materials published in Europe is 4.7.
a Average pH for materials published in the United States is 4.6.
* Average pH for materials published in Latin America is 3.7. This figure
is approximately 8 times worse than the average for all materials.
a European imprints are twice as likely as United States imprints to comply
with the American National Standard 239.48, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials. United States imprints are three times as
likely as Latin American imprints to comply with ANSI Z39.48.
* In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States, Latin
American and the Caribbean basin represent the bulk of items containing
ground wood pulp.
* In individual imprint groups however, the areas with the most ground wood
pulp per number of items from that group are Latin American and the
Caribbean, Europe and Australasia. For the most part, new processes of
papermaking which remove most of the lignin from ground wood pulp have
been slowly introduced into the United States.
, The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%
Materials published in the following (most meaningful) areas exceed this
average: South American and United States. South American materials
exceed the average nearly four times. It is probable that these materials
are dimensionally, structurally, or inherently unstable. This conjecture
is supported by data in other tables which suggests that South American
imprints are exceptionally poor in manufacture, durability, etc.
a European imprints tend to require less enclosure than other imprints.
This finding supports findings of other tables which indicate that
European titles are less acidic, less brittle, require less structural
repair, etc. than other imprints.

Ground Wood Pulp and Lignin.
v Ground wood pulp contains fibers which are much shorter than other fibers
used in paper manufacture. As a result, papers made from ground wood
pulp, are more likely to suffer greater and more rapid embrittlement.
a The ground wood pulping process, as opposed to other wood pulping
processes, does not neutralize, buffer or entirely remove lignin from
fibers. Lignin contributes to the deterioration of paper.
a The presence of ground wood pulp should be considered an indicator of
possible future embrittlement.
a 14.5% of all materials surveyed, including pre-1851 materials, were made
with ground wood pulp.
a In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States, Latin
American and the Caribbean basin represent the bulk of items containing
ground wood pulp.
a In individual imprint groups however, the areas with the most ground wood













pulp per number of items from that group are Latin American and the
Caribbean, Europe and Australasia. For the most part, new processes of
papermaking which remove most of the lignin from ground wood pulp have
been slowly introduced into the United States.
a In the collections as a whole, items published after 1960 represent, by
far, the bulk of materials containing ground wood pulp.
a In individual imprint groups however, nearly every imprint group after
1940 contains as much or slightly more ground wood pulp than the average.

Imprint Dates.
x 10% of materials with current imprints (1960-1989) has pH > 7, while only
4.55% of materials imprinted in the 1930s remains pH > 7. Data in other
pH columns seems to bear this out. Data does not allow conjecture as to
comparative chronological analysis of alkaline materials entering the
collections.
a Of current imprints (1960-1989), 90% of materials are already acidic. The
average pH for current imprints is 4.6. This indicates that most recent
acquisitions are either acidic or lack sufficient alkaline reserve/buffer
to protect them.
s The following table compiles information not included in the table above,
and represents a break down of pH averages for current imprints. Table
shows that publication of materials with pH > 7 remains static at 10%,
more or less equal to figures
Period Average pH % pH > 7 commonly cited in studies on newly
published materials. The table
1960-1989 4.60 10% continues to support the
1960-1969 4.28 10% hypothesis that pH decreased over
1970-1979 4.52 10% time. However, because acids in
1980-1989 4.89 10% these materials probably have not
1980-1985 4.77 10% yet had time to effect pH
1986-1989 5.08 10% readings, table may also
suggest that pH of recent
publications, while still very acidic, is improving slightly. Table
indicates that, should this rate of improvement remain constant, pH of
paper will not comply with ANSI 239.48, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials", until sometime after the year 2190.
a In the collections as a whole, only materials published after 1960 require
immediate case treatment. Need among items in this group is more than
two times greater than the average need.
a In individual imprint groups, need for case treatment is almost
universally apparent. The bulk of imprint group items needing treatment
most in relation to their numbers were published between 1851 and 1920.
a Because of the degree of the problem among recent imprints, it may be
possible to conjecture that contemporary case (i.e., publisher's) bindings
fail at rates far greater than those of early periods either because of
greater and poorer use or poorer manufacture if not both.
a The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%.
Materials published in the following periods exceed this average:
Pre-1851, 1851-1959. It may be conjectured that pre-1851 imprints have
been enclosed due to value, rarity, etc. rather than condition. Data in
the table does allow validation of the conjecture.
Data indicates that recent publications (1950 present) have less need
for enclosure. It may be conjectured that the older materials become, the













more need of protection they require. Unfortunately, data does not entire
support this hypothesis. Further investigation is required.
a Much of the information gathered by this survey was already known. Not
too surprisingly, there is little deviation from pre-existing information.
* Embrittlement is above the average for all collections at every level of
dft measurement from 1851 through 1960. The table indicates that the
quickly Ider the item, the more likely it is to be embrittled.
* The most severely embrittled materials were published between 1851 and
1920. Embrittlement of materials from this period ranges from 3 to over
16 times more brittle than the average. Nineteenth century materials and
collections, such as those held by the Baldwin Library are at extreme
risk.
a Embrittlement of current (i.e., 1960-1989) materials is already one third
the average.
v In the collections as a whole, items published after 1960 represent, by
far, the bulk of materials containing ground wood pulp.
I In individual imprint groups however, nearly every imprint group after
1940 contains as much or slightly more ground wood pulp than the average.
a Approximately 40% of all items are side-sewn, oversewn, etc. This rate
remain relatively consistent throughout publishing history, but is most
evident among items with pre 1900 imprints. Tables show a very slight
decrease in the popularity of this style of binding.
a Approximately 33% of all items are sewn through the fold. This rate of
evidence for this style of leaf attachment remains constant throughout
publishing history.
* Approximately 13% of all items are adhesive bound. This rate of evidence
is seen only in the modern era and, particularly, after 1960. The first
modern mass marketed adhesive bound books appeared after 1950. Tables
show a steady increase which doubles in the modern period. Increasing
popularity of this style of binding can be expected.
a Paper has, statistically, "replaced" the use of leather as a joint
covering material since 1900.
a Of total items needing text block treatment, need increases the younger
the volume. This may be due to poorer manufacture, greater use and
changed research patterns, poorer handling techniques perhaps related to
the increase of the consume/dispose economy, etc.
Of total items needing text block treatment, greatest need is for items
with imprints between 1920 and 1960.
a Need for text block treatment dramatically increases after the 1850
publication date, the date after which ground wood pulp and other
detrimental processes were introduced.
a Publication groups, relative to their size in the collections, in greatest
need of text block treatment are in pre-1920 imprint groups.
a Pre-1851 imprints have greatest need relative to their size in the
collection.

Leaf Attachment Methods and Binding.
a Approximately 40% of all items are side-sewn, oversewn, etc. This rate
remain relatively consistent throughout publishing history, but is most
evident among items with pre 1900 imprints. Tables show a very slight
decrease in the popularity of this style of binding.
a Approximately 33% of all items are sewn through the fold. This rate of
evidence for this style of leaf attachment remains constant throughout
publishing history.












* Approximately 13% of all items are adhesive bound. This rate of evidence
is seen only in the modern era and, particularly, after 1960. The first
modern mass marketed adhesive bound books appeared after 1950. Tables
show a steady increase which doubles in the modern period. Increasing
popularity of this style of binding can be expected.
a the table does not contain sufficient information or cross tabulations
necessary to make recommendations. However, it is generally accepted that
the most "sympathetic" style of secondary (i.e., library) binding is one
which is consistent with publisher's issue. (This "wisdom" generally
excludes side-sewn/oversewn/side-stitched items.)
a A higher incidence than expected was found for materials bound through the
side. The frequency of this method should probably/ideally be lower since
most books published in Europe and the United States are either adhesive
bound or sewn/stapled through the fold in their published state. High
frequency of this method in UFL collections is probably the result of
binding standards prior to the current, revised standards. Previously,
library, or "Class A", binding called for oversewing. Oversewing, the
sturdiest form of leaf attachment, it was thought, would protect materials
during use. Unfortunately, this presupposed continued flexibility of
bound papers. With embrittlement and weakening of those papers, this too
sturdy, inflexible method of leaf attachment begins to harm materials.
This knowledge and changes in the ways in which materials were used, most
notably due to the introduction of photocopying, led to revision of the
standards. The latest edition of the Library Binding Institute's Standard
emphasizes volume openability, flexibility of binding, and compatibility
of leaf attachment method both with materials and with attachment method
used for publication. Volumes bound according to the new standard may
require rebinding, but do not harm the textblock or risk text loss.
* Since 1987, the Preservation Office has been bringing UFL commercial
binding operations into line with the standard. (Cf, Commercial Binding
Preparations Committee charge, attached as appendix to the table.)
m Because most libraries still request oversewing and library binders are
still primarily geared toward "Class A" binding, binding services which
meet the Library Binding Institute Standard are more costly than
substandard services would be.
* Binding costs have risen a between 5% and 8% annually since 1987.

Protective Enclosures.
a Many of the following comments are built upon the assumption that,
generally, only materials which need protection are enclosed.
* Another assumption of these comments is that enclosed materials have
greater conservation needs than other materials.
m Figures in Protective Enclosure tables do not include Rare Books. The
Preservation Office has just concluded the an enclosure project in this
location. Over 2000 phase boxes and rare book (i.e., drop spine; clam
shell) boxes have been completed. A policy has been set forth which
states that materials held in special collections shall receive protective
enclosures when they have suffered either text-block or case deterioration
and the Conservation Unit can not schedule repair or restoration for any
reason within one year.
a The table shows the extent to which UFL staff, not necessarily
Preservation Office staff, have considered materials to need protection.
* Data in the table does not suggest reasons for enclosure, but examines
enclosure in relation to date of publication.













n Information regarding specific publication periods may allow conjecture
regarding the quality of publications in those periods.
* The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%.
Materials published in the following periods exceed this average:
Pre-1851, 1851-1959. It may be conjectured that pre-1851 imprints have
been enclosed due to value, rarity, etc. rather than condition. Data in
the table does allow validation of the conjecture.
a Data indicates that recent publications (1950 present) have less need
for enclosure. It may be conjectured that the older materials become, the
more need of protection they require. Unfortunately, data does not entire
support this hypothesis. Further investigation is required.
a Materials held by Rare Books are not included in the table. Rare book
holdings include the greatest number of enclosed materials system-wide.
a General Summary: 95.5% of all items are not enclosed; 4.49% of all items
are enclosed. Of enclosures: 18.2% are boxes (e.g., phase box, rare book
box, slip case, etc.), 2.68% are envelopes, and 24.1% are other types of
unidentified enclosures.
a This data does not indicate quality of enclosures, or condition or
enclosed materials.
a The average rate of enclosure for all collections is 4.49%. The number of
enclosures in the Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, and
the University Archive are three to five times greater than the average.
Again, the quality of enclosures is not assessed in the table.
* The average rate of boxing for all collections is 1.82%. This rate is
exceeded in the Government Documents Library, Marston Science Library,
P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, and the University Archives. Boxing in
Archives is nearly eight times the average.
* The average incidence of envelopes for all collections is 0.27%. This
rate is exceeded in the Belknap Collection and the P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History. Incidence of envelopes in Belknap is sixteen times the
average. While this data does not indicate the quality of envelopes,
examination of envelopes reveals that poor quality, high acid products are
used.
a The average incidence of other unspecified enclosures for all collections
is 2.41%. This rate is exceeded in the Architecture & Fine Arts Library,
Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, Humanities/Social
Science Library, Marston Science Library, Music Library, and the
University Archives. Data does not provide information on type or quality
of enclosure. Enclosure tabulated here include portfolios, half-boxes,
etc.
a Tables show the extent to which UFL staff, not necessarily Preservation
Office staff, have considered materials to need protective enclosure.
a Data in the table does not suggest reasons for enclosure.
a Information regarding individual regions may allow conjecture regarding
the quality of publications originating from those regions.
a The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%
Materials published in the following (most meaningful) areas exceed this
average: South American and United States. South American materials
exceed the average nearly four times. It is probable that these materials
are dimensionally, structurally, or inherently unstable. This conjecture
is supported by data in other tables which suggests that South American
imprints are exceptionally poor in manufacture, durability, etc.
European imprints tend to require less enclosure than other imprints.
This finding supports findings of other tables which indicate that













European titles are less acidic, less brittle, require less structural
repair, etc. than other imprints.

Text-block Treatment Needs.
* Of total items needing text block treatment, need increases the younger
the volume. This may be due to poorer manufacture, greater use and
changed research patterns, poorer handling techniques perhaps related to
the increase of the consume/dispose economy, etc.
* Of total items needing text block treatment, greatest need is for items
with imprints between 1920 and 1960.
n Need for text block treatment dramatically increases after the 1850
publication date, the date after which ground wood pulp and other
detrimental processes were introduced.
* Publication groups, relative to their size in the collections, in greatest
need of text block treatment are in pre-1920 imprint groups.
a Pre-1851 imprints have greatest need relative to their size in the
collection.
a Approximately 12% of the collections, overall, need treatment.

Type of Book.
a Confidence level of data relating to the type of book, "Other", is not
adequate to allow analyses.
* The percentage of paperbacks in the collections has steadily increased
since the 1930s. Data does not suggest reasons for which they remain
in the collections without hardcover.
a The rate at which paperbacks are being added to the collections in the
current period, 1960-1989, is equal to the incidence of paperbacks in the
collections regardless of period/imprint.
a Paperback count in the Belknap Collection may be high due to the
predominance of unbound playbills, periodicals, etc., as well as the lack
of a binding policy and binding preparations staff in the Collection.
Data does not indicate classes of materials within this Collection that
may be bound or those which may require protective enclose. Limited hours
and access reduce use of materials in the Collection.
* Though there are some bound volumes in the Government Documents Library,
the survey detected none. This is either the result of fault in the
survey or overwhelming predominance of paperbacks in the Library.
Materials in the Science Library, the Humanities & Social Science
Libraries, and the Latin American Collection also require consideration.
The high level of paperbacks in the Science Library may be due to the
number of serials in the collection.
Binding considerations should also take chronology into account (cf,
Chronological Analysis).
a The level of paperbacks in the Science Library is nearly equivalent to the
average level of paperbacks system-wide. Analysis of condition of
materials in this Library may provide information regarding condition of
and causes for state of materials throughout the Libraries.
* The high level of hardcopy materials in the Price Library of Judaica may
represent the age of the collection or reflect the nature of collected
materials rather than an aggressive binding program. The Librarian should
provide a history of collecting and binding programs.
* 18.6% of all materials require case treatment. Of material needing case
treatment: 64.6% are hardcover books, 34.9% are paperback books, and
0.576% are of unspecified type.












@ Data indicates that 83.6% of hardcover books and 74.9% of paperback books
do not require case treatment.
a Not unlike findings in the table relating case treatment need to joint
covering material, the percentage of paperbacks requiring case treatment
roughly equals the percentage of paper joints requiring case treatment.
Recommendations in that table should be considered here.
a Counts of paperbacks and hardcovers exceed 400 items, assuring that
information about these types of books has a +5% confidence level.
a Information in other tables relating to the condition of paperback should
give some indication of the need to binding new paperback acquisitions.
* Information in other tables relating to the condition of hardcovers should
give some indication of the extent to which this portion of the collection
requires conservation, as well as of the effectiveness of binding
programs.













THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY
OF 1989- I 990


RECOMMENDATIONS.




Acquisitions.
The libraries should endeavor to purchase materials which have been
manufactured in compliance with American National Standard 239.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials."
Whenever possible, books should be purchased in paperback and given
traditional library bindings. Such bindings tend to be more durable than
publisher's case bindings. Implementation of this practice will require
rethinking of allocations for commercial binding.

Automation.
Develop automated resources to better manage information, queues and other
activities, which in turn free staff to perform other duties and allows
the Preservation Office to expand its range of services and quantity of
work performed. (This may be possible through Title II-D in collaboration
with FCLA, RLIN, OCLC, or NOTIS.) Work should first concentrate on the
internally developed FILMLOG system.
Records established and automated through this physical condition survey
should be maintained either in a stand-alone database or in the 583 field
of USMARC records. Information pertaining to the condition of materials
should be considered part of "medical" files for individual volumes.
Information, once gathered, should not be discarded. Had automated
information been kept from the 1985 survey, more comparative analyses
might have been performed, and a larger pool of data established.

Binding.
a Should retrospective binding again become possible, branch libraries
should be targeted.
a Before efforts are made to increase the amount of commercial binding,
something must be learned of the condition of paper and cloth covered
materials (cf, other tables).
Because so little of the Government Documents Library appears to have been
bound and because documents now circulate, damage to these materials is to
be expected. A program of retrospective binding should begin immediately
for this Library. It may be possible to suggest that materials be
targeted for retrospective binding here through circulation. Circulating
materials will probably experience continued use and are at most risk of
damage.
a Binding considerations should take chronology into account.
Materials in the Archives' University (i.e., print) Collection should
remain unbound to preserve integrity of the original, and boxed if
necessary. Generally, another copy of the item exists within the
Libraries' circulating collections. Use of the University Collection is
minimal.
a Make pH one factor in selection for commercial binding and enclosure.













Materials with pH < 4 should not be bound but rather considered for boxing
and possibly left unbound. (Conservation considerations should also be
factored into decision to bind.)
* Paperbacks with pre-1950 imprints should remain without hard cover if any
of the following are true:
A. Pre-1850 imprint (Rationale: possible rarity, etc.);
B. Double fold test measure equal to or less than 5 (Rationale:
embrittlement disallows binding);
C. Contains both ground wood pulp and alum rosin (Rationale: associated
acids are likely to cause embrittlement and deterioration, rendering
binding/casing useless); or
D. pH is equal to or less than 6.0 (Rationale: associated acids are likely
to cause embrittlement and deterioration, rendering binding/casing
useless).
a A greater number of current paperback acquisitions should enter the
collections unbound, and remain unbound until after first use. Since
damage generally occurs only in association with use this procedure will
allow funds reserved for the primary protection (i.e., binding) of books
to be deferred to conservation and reprographic services where it is
currently more in need. *Consolidation of the Catalog Department's
Processing Unit with the Preservation Office's Binding Unit would
facilitate this end.
a A review of condition of paperbacks in the Libraries should be conducted
to assertain results of leaving monographs in the collection unbound.
a The consolidated Special Collections Department should have a single
person responsible for binding. Traditionally, the P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History has had the strongest binding program among Special
Collections libraries. The Department should collaborate with the
Preservation Office to define a binding and enclosure program suitable to
the needs and use of materials.
n The Government Documents Library and the Preservation Office should
collaborate to plan necessary retrospective binding based on expected use,
value, need to gather materials, etc.
* Binding policies should be reviewed through-out the Libraries, with
concentration of policies in the Government Documents, Science and
Humanities & Social Sciences Libraries and in the Latin American
Collection. Wherever possible policies should be consistent within the
system.
a Centralized binding operations should be explored to ensure greater
consistency of bound products at less expense. Consistency and quality of
products should reduce need for future conservation of hardcover
materials. Binding statistics indicate that costs can be reduced with
increased centralization.
a The Libraries should adopt the Preservation Office recommendation to
enact a policy of commercial binding for monographs only after initial
circulation. This policy reduces conservation and commercial binding
queues to allow other vital work, and serves to allow more equitable use
of funds for preservation within a static funding situation. The proposal
incorrectly states that 85% of materials could go unbound, the correct
figure is 75%. Since circulation statistics are unknown, the proposal
should be modified to provide review after circulation. The decision to
bind should be founded in this review and based on case and textblock
condition after circulation. This would still require circulation staff
to route paperbacks to the Preservation Office.













This proposal ignores the benefit of binding in case of disaster.
Disasters elsewhere have shown that hardcovers protect materials from
water and smoke damage. This should be taken into consideration.
a The Preservation Office should provide training to circulation staff to
identify paperback materials which may be in need of binding.
The Preservation Office should seek bids for competitive, quality binding
services at affordable rates. (This was last done for serials in 1985/86.
The Preservation Office is in process of preparing bid specification based
on University of Virginia Libraries specification.)
v Binding operations should reconsolidate monographs and serials with one
bindery. Currently separate binders handle the different materials.
Reconsolidation should save funds through bulk.
The Libraries should increase the amount of funds available for commercial
binding to allow purchase of quality binding services.
a The Preservation Office should restructure itself and the division of
funds to various preservation activities to mitigate the cost of
commercial binding. (Some of this work has already begun. The
Conservation Unit now binds a portion of new monographs in-house.)

Brittle Books Program.
a pH as well as double fold test measure should be a factor in
prioritization of materials in the Brittle Books Program backlog.
Items in this backlog with pH = 1 should be given priority treatment.
Materials which have dft = 0 should be removed from circulating
collections, and placed under inventory control by the Brittle Books
Program of the Preservation Office.
a Attempts should be made to flag brittle materials which continue to reside
in circulating collections. The flag, as that currently in use, warns the
patron of material condition and requests for gentle treatment during use.
The Preservation Office should again attempt to bring collection managers
(i.e., bibliographers and selectors) into the brittle books process.
The Libraries should assign an additional 1.0 FTE to the Brittle Books
Program. Current staffing is insufficient to handle grant and non-grant
work-flow.

Conservation Treatments.
a The consolidated Special Collections Department should have a single
person responsible for selecting materials for conservation.
Priority for case treatment should be given individual collections which
exceed the average. These collections should be actively targeted, by
means of shelf survey, to identify materials in need. Work should be
prioritized according to greatest need as state above. A survey staff
dedicated to shelf survey should do this work.
Secondary priority for case treatment should be given to the circulating
collections of the Latin American Collection, Humanities/Social Sciences
and Marston Science Libraries. However, targeting should not be as
deliberate as for individual collections as recommended above, rather it
should occur through circulation only. Individuals responsible for
circulation in these libraries should be trained to identify materials in
need.
n Figures for case treatment repair and other types of conservation
treatments should be compiled and time studies performed to determine
adequacy of present staffing levels.
a Priority for case treatment should be given modern imprints. These












imprints should be targeted at point of circulation.
a A retrospective project, beginning with Rare Books and Special
Collections, should be undertaken to conservatively oil leather bound
volumes which do not suffer red rot. Special Collections staff, with
annual training in the Preservation Office and with periodic, random
evaluations, should be able to perform much of this activity.
NOTE: Recent studies have indicated that even conservative leather oiling
may eventually damage textblocks. The Preservation Office ceased oiling
operations in 1987 until further scientific information could be
released; studies have not been completed to date. The problem of leather
deterioration represents only 0.6% of all collections (16,200 volumes).
While this figure might be significant for larger libraries, without
further assessment of salvageability of leather and value of leather bound
items, it may not be significant for a collection of a reported 2,700,00
volumes.
a The Preservation Office should compile information regarding the
salvageability of damaged leather materials. In particular, it should
keep statistics of location and type of leather damage, and should perform
a survey on materials in the current survey registered as in need of case
treatment to ascertain the extent of red rot in collections. Red rot is a
condition which is currently considered unsalvageable.
a Pritority for identification of items needing text block treatment should
be given to items with pre-1851 imprints. However, priority for actual
treatment should be given only to those that are rare, valuable or unique,
and cannot be replaced.
a Priority for actual text block treatment should be given to circulating
collections of the modern period.

Cooperative Action.
n The Libraries, in collaboration with other libraries, professional and
scholarly associations, and government bodies, should promote the use of
paper which complies with American National Standard Z39.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials".
a The promotion of 239.48 should concentrate upon publishers in Latin
American and the United States, and particularly in the latter where
economic factors may effect more immediate change.
a The Libraries should, in collaboration with other libraries, support
research into emerging paper strengthening technologies, and vigorously
petition corporations developing these technologies to become a test cite.
a The Libraries should encourage the Music Library Association to develop
preservation projects which meet the needs of music materials and are
forward thinking. Development of affordable facsimile reproduction
techniques, suited to music, perhaps as off-prints from microform, digital
or optical media would should be encouraged. And, the Libraries should
seek cooperative grant (NEH Preservation or Title II-D) for this
development.
a The Libraries should encourage other libraries to meet the requirements of
the Library Binding Institue Standard. Doing so may eventually lower the
cost of quality binding.
a The Libraries, through its Preservation Office, should seek to establish,
perhaps through the Commission on Preservation and Access, the Association
of Research Libraries, or another body, a registry of physical condition
information.
I The Libraries' representatives should continue to promote standards,













primarily reprographic and imaging standards, in the American Library
Association, the Association for Information and Image Management, the
Research Libraries Group, and the Society of American Archivists.

Deacidification.
x Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and
alkalinization to buffer materials against the effects of alum rosin, to
remove acids (ligninase) and buffer materials against the effects of
acids. Mass treatment methods are still undergoing testing. Approximate
average cost of mass treatment may be between $3.00 and $5.00 per volume,
excluding personnel, tracking, shipping, materials, and insurance costs.
(Cost state above assume very large mass treatment. Cost for smaller
shipments for mass treatment are @ $6.00 to $12.00 per volume.)
a The deacidification & alkalinization processes should concentrate on
materials which are not yet significantly embrittled (dft > 4) and which
have pH > 4.0.
* This treatment should begin with current imprints. This technology
does not strengthen or restore paper, it mere halts the advance of
embrittlement. Paper in current imprints has not yet suffered
embrittlement, while older materials will remain embrittled. Treatment of
current imprints ensures greatest extension of book life per dollar.
Current imprints represent the bulk of materials (79.7%) surveyed. Bulk
implies that, as newer materials become more acidic and embrittled,
current imprints shall represent a far greater problem than that currently
experienced for older imprints.
a Because of their great number in the collection, should the ability to
mass deacidify materials become affordable, materials from the North and
South America should be targeted first. European materials should be
targeted second.
n Deacidification and alkalinization should begin with and concentrate upon
Latin American materials. Materials printed in the United States and
Europe should be given secondary consideration. [This recommendation does
is valid only for larger geographic collections, and does not account for
value, rarity and scarcity, and date of publication.]
I Because of their great number in the collection, materials published after
1960 should be given first priority should mass deacidification become
affordable. These materials left untreated will eventually represent a
more significant problem than imprint groups with higher per count
occurence of ground wood pulp.
* Second priority for future mass deacidification should be given materials
published after 1940. Tables containing pH values under chronological
analysis should be consulted to determine the wisdom of mass deacidifying
these materials. As a general rule older materials have lower pH.
Deacidification, while it raises pH, cannot neutralize or buffer materials
which have pH lower than @ 4.0.

Future Surveys.
a A simplified physical condition survey tool such as the RLG Preservation
Assessment Survey tool should be used for future surveys. This tool
requires less analysis, is easily automated to reduce labor, and provides
results consistent with those of other institutions.
a Where more explicit, meaningful and valid information is required for
specific geographic areas, surveys should be readministered to meet a
+5% confidence level. E.g., if information were required for purposes of













grant application to microfilm Brazilian materials, a survey of not less
than 400 Brazilian imprints should be administered.
a A review of condition of paperbacks in the Libraries should be conducted
to assertain results of leaving monographs in the collection unbound.
a Physical condition surveys should be conducted on (1) archives and
manuscripts (book and paper materials), (2) microforms, slides and
photonegatives, (3) photographic prints (particularly in the Architecture
& Fine Arts Library, Map Library and University Archives), (4) magnetic
media, and (5) cartographic materials.
* Materials held by the Education and Music Libraries should be surveyed not
less than every 10 years to ascertain states of physical condition. Of
collections not yet endangered, these are most likely to become
endangered.
* Embrittlement and pH in relation to ground wood pulp should be
periodically and regularly measured on a control group to determine future
need for preservation in materials.
* The Preservation Office should continue to monitor the level of
embrittlement in collections. On-going studies should be devised to test
materials for embrittlement, alum rosin and ground wood pulp content, and
pH at the point of acquisition or processing, and when materials are
routed to the Office for binding, conservation or reprographic treatment.
Reports of findings should be issued annually to the Collection Management
Division and, in annual reports, to the Director of Libraries. Reports
should be made available to other libraries and organizations upon
request.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems.
a Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units in storage
locations should filter air to remove atmospheric contaminants.
Contaminants contribute to chemical deterioration of materials.
a Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units in storage
locations should regulated humidity to prevent conditions resulting in
acid hydrolysis. High temperature and relative humidity contribute to the
chemical and material deterioration of library materials.

Internal funding of Preservation.
a The Collection Management Division should arrive at an equitable and
workable means of funding preservation, particularly: commercial binding,
conservation, and reprographic services. NOTE: funding currently
originates from the library materials budget.
a The Library Management Group or the Directors should arrive at an
equitable and workable means of funding preservation OPS to meet grant
cost share requirements. Currently, the Libraries have commitments with
NEH to do so but have not made provision for adequate support.

Processing Materials.
a Inserts (e.g., date due slips, book plates, etc.) should be pH neutral at
a minimum. (Few library inserts meet this criteria.) Book plates, date
due slips, whenever possible, should be produced on the most affordable pH
neutral or alkaline paper stock available, particularly when production is
done in-house. Inserts meeting this criteria prevent introduction of
alien acids and contaminants into the item.


Protective Enclosure.













a Make pH one factor in selection for commercial binding and enclosure.
Materials with pH < 4 should not be bound but rather considered for boxing
and possibly left unbound.
* Enclosures (e.g., envelopes, portfolios, phaseboxes, rare book boxes,
etc.) should be pH neutral at a minimum. (Most library enclosures meet
this criteria.) Whenever possible, they should be produced with the most
affordable pH neutral or alkaline stock available, particularly when
production is done in-house. The Preservation Office, in it
specifications to commercial suppliers, demand use of materials meeting
this criteria. Enclosures meeting this criteria prevent acid migration of
atmospheric contaminants, as well as protect the structural stability of
the item.
a Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with Circulation and Rare Books &
Special Collections Department governing the decision to enclose
materials, and serving as a guide in the choice of enclosure.
a Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with geographic area bibliographers
governing the decision to enclose materials, and serving as a guide in the
choice of enclosure.
* South American materials should be given special consideration in the
definition of enclosure policies, and their conservation needs examined
closely.
a Future directions in protective enclosure should concentrate upon phased
enclosure, and conservation needs of enclosed materials recorded and
queued for future work.
* Age (and other rare book selection criteria as formulated by the American
Library Association's Rare Books and Manuscripts Section) should be given
special consideration in the definition of enclosure policies.
* Criteria for the decision to enclose materials in rare book boxes (i.e.,
drop spine or clam shell boxes) should be based, in part, upon age and
value.
a The Preservation Office should compile data indicating the quality of
enclosures.
a Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with holding locations governing the
decision to enclose materials, and serving as a guide in the choice of
enclosure. Locations which tend to enclose materials should be consulted
in the process of writing these policies.
* Only materials which are acid neutral or alkaline buffered, or meet the
requirements for paper in American National Standards Z39.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials", which requires
minimum pH of 7.5, OR, IT9.2-1988, "...Imaging media -- Photographic
processed films, plates and papers -- Filing enclosures and storage
containers", which requires pH within a range of 7.2 and 9.5 should be
used for enclosures for books, microfilms and other library materials.

Reformatting.
n The Libraries should pursue any and all means of moving toward optical and
digital imaging through the assistance of granting agencies and
corporations.
I Make pH a deciding factor in selection for reformatting. Materials with
pH < 3 should be given priority.
a Make grant application (NEH Preservation) for funds needed to continue













film regeneration project to assure the quality of stored master
microforms.
a Make grant application (NEH Preservation) or seek commercial source for
funds needed to conserve and microfilm materials in the Baldwin Library.
This should be an immediate priority for book and paper materials. This
grant will also require resources for cataloging.
a Seek cooperative grant application (NEH Preservation) to microfilm Judaica
materials.
* Seek cooperative grant application (NEH Preservation) to microfilm Florida
History materials.
* Make grant application (NEH Preservation) to microfilm imprints of
additional geographic regions represented in the Latin American Library.
The Preservation Office has targeted Argentine and Chilean materials
because of size and condition of collection. This should come in the
planned continuation of the NEH/SOLINET microfilming grant currently in
place for Brazilian materials.
* Seek cooperative grant application (NEH Preservation or other) to
microfilm materials in Humanities, Social Sciences and hard Sciences.
Data suggests that this application will be least successful of those
suggested and will require increased internal funding as embrittlement
continues.
a Portions of the collections should be microfilmed or reproduced in optimal
quality facsimile. These efforts should concentrate on materials
published between 1851 and 1920, but not exclude materials published as
late as 1960.
a The Libraries, through its Preservation Office, and in collaboration with
the Commission on Preservation and Access, the Association of Research
Libraries, and the Research Libraries Group, should lobby the National
Endowment for the Humanities to extend its publication date parameters
(currently: 1850 to 1950; proposal: 1800 to 1960) for funding of
reformatting projects.

Weeding and Retention Periods.
* Materials which are unwanted or have served their usefulness and lived out
their research-life, should be weeded from the collections, so as not skew
future survey results and conservation work queues. Criteria for weeding
should be explicit before this project is begun.
The Collection Management Division in collaboration with the Acquisitions
Department should consider including recommended retention periods on
order records. The Preservation Office now has no criteria from
Collection Management staff for binding, conservation or reproduction of
materials. Recommended retention periods would assist Preservation Office
staff in decision making. Retention information could be keyed into a 583
field on the bibliographic or holdings record for consideration.













THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES.
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION SURVEY
OF 1989-1-990 l





THE
TABLES .













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
pH OF PAPER-

pH MEASURE COUNT CUM. % TOTAL % CUM.
TOTAL COUNT TOTAL

Acidic Materials (pH <7)
1 27 27 1.45 1.45
2 34 61 1.82 3.27
3 281 342 15.10 18.37
4 654 996 35.10 53.47
5 457 1453 24.50 77.97
6 220 1673 11.80 89.77
Neutral/Alkaline Materials (pH >7)
7 153 1826 8.20 8.20
Rare Books, etc. : Not Tested
Iot Tested 39 1865 2.09 2.09

TOTAL 1865 1865 100.00 100.00



COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a pH of 7.0 is neutral. The pH scale is logarithmic. pH of 6.0 is 10 times
more acidic than pH of 7.0. pH of 5.0 is 10 times more acidic than pH of
6.0, or 100 times more acidic than pH of 7.0.
The American National Standard 239.48-1984, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials", states that paper used for printed library
materials shall have minimum pH (i.e., hydrogen-ion concentration) of 7.5.
a 89.77 % of materials in the collections are acidic, calling below the
requirements of ANSI 239.48-1984.
Data in pH tables reaches a confidence level near +5% at the level of pH
23.
The bulk of acidic materials in the UFL collections have pH between 4.0
and 6.0.

POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

a Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and
aalkalinization to remove acids and buffer materials against the effects of
acids. Mass treatment methods are still undergoing testing. Approxi mate
average cost of mass treatment may be between $3.00 and $5.00 per volume,
excluding personnel, tracking, shipping, materials, and insurance costs.
v The deacidification & alkalinization processes should concentrate on
materials which are not yet significantly embrittled (dft > 4) and which
have pH 1 4.0.
a The Libraries should endeavor to purchase materials which have been
manufactured in compliance with American National Standard Z39.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials".
a The Libraries, in collaboration with other libraries, professional and
scholarly associations, and government bodies, should promote the use of
paper which complies with American National Standard Z39.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials".














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
pH OF PAPER
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY COLUMN pH OF PAPER
DESIGNATION 1 2


NO DATE







Pre-1851







1851-1899







1900-1909







1910-1919







1920-1929


count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table

count
cum count

cum row
% column
% table

count
cumn count
'4 row
cum row
% column
% table

count
cum count
X row
cum row
% column
X tGble

count
cum count
7 row
cum royw
% column
i table

count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table


3
3
6.38
6.38
11.1!


ii.
0.2

0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0'
0
0


0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
3.17
3.17
7.41
0. I


1
4
2.13
8.51
2.94
0.1

0
0
0
0
0
C)




2
2
6.45
6.45
5.88
0.1

3
3
9.68
9.68
8.82


0
0
0.




0(
0
0


1





0.1


* pH
3


8
12
17
25.51
2.85
0.4 1

0
0I
0
0
0
0

6
8
19.4
25.85
2..14
0.3

5
8
16.1
25.78
1.78
0.3

!2
12
31.6
31.6
4.27
0.6

14
17
22.2
26.96
4.98
0.8


OF PAPER *


pH OF PAPER


4 5 6


25
37
53.2
78.71
3.82
0.3

1
1
16.7
16.7
0.15


16
24
51.6
77.45
2.45
0.9

16
24
51.6
77.38
2.45
0.9

15
27
39.5
71.1

0.8

18
35
28.6
55.56
2.75
1
4,: =:


6
43
12.8
91.51
1.31
0.2

1
2
16.7
33.4
0.219
0.1

6
30
9.4
86.85
1.31


4
28
12.9
90.2
'0.875
0. 2

6
33
15.-.

1 01
1.31
0.3

14
49
22.2
77.76
3.06
0.8


3
46
6.38
97.89
1.36
0.1

0
.4
2
0
33.4
0
I)
0

0
30
0
86.85
f)
0

!1
29
3.23
93.51
0.455
0.1

3
36
7.89
94.79
1.36
0.2

9
58
14.3
92.06
4,09
0.5


7 TESTED


1
1
2.13
2.13
0.654
0





0
0
0


0
0
0




1
1
3.23
3.23
0.654
0.1


I
1
1
2.63
2.63
0.654
0.1

3
3
4.76
4.76
1.96
0 *C)


46
46
66.7
66.7
10.3
60.2

1


3 2.:
1
3.23




3.23
2 ,.56
1
















.2
2.56








3.1




3.17
5.13
0.1




3.17


* .1


__ I_ ~ __~_
__













CHRONOLOGY


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


pH OF PAPER
1 2


* pH
3


OF PAPER pH OF PAPER NOT
4 5 6 7 TESTED


1930-1939







1940-1949







1950-1959







1960-1989













CHRONOLOGY


count
cum count
r row
cumi row
% column
% table

count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
X table

count
cum count
Srow
cumli row
% column
% table

count
cum count
X row
cum row
% column
% table







COLUMN
DESIGNATION


0
0
0
0
0
0

11
11

9.24
40.7
0.6

3
3
1.33
1.33
11.1
0.2

8
8
0.657
0.657
29.6
0.4


3
3
3.41
3.41
8.82
0.2

2
13
1.68
10.92
5.88
0.1

4
7
1.78
3.11
11.8
0.2

18
26
1.48
2.137
52.9
1


17
20
19.3
22.71
6.05
0.9

31
44
26.1
37.02
11.0
2

39
46
17.3
20.41
13.9
2

149
175
!2.2
14.337
53.0
8


31
51
35.2
57.91
4.74
2

44
88
37
74.02
6.73
2

79
125
35.1
55.51
12.1
4

409
584
33.6
49.937
62.5
22


18
69
20.5
78.41
3.94
1

21
101
17.6
91.62
4.60
1

62
187
27.6
83.11
13.6
3


13
82
14.8
93.21
5.91
0.7

5
106
4.2
95.82
2.27
0.3

21
208
9.33
92.44"
9.55
1


319 165


903
26.2
74.13
69.8
17


!0:68
13.6
7 87.737
75
9


4
2
4.55
4.55
2.61
0.2

5
5
4.2
4.2
3.27
0.3

16
16
7.11
7.11
10.5
0.9

122
122
10
10
79.7
7
$7C '.
Ii.


pH OF PAPER pH OF PAPER pH OF PAPER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7


2

2.27
2.27
5.13
0.1

0
0
0
0

0

1
S1
0.444
0.444
2.56
0.1

27
27
2.22
2.22
69.2
1







NOT
TESTED


TOTAL~_ COLli 27


count 27
Cum count 27
% row 1.45
cum row 1.45
% column 100
X table 1


34
61
1.82
3.27
100
2


281 654
342 996
15.1 35.1
18.37 53.47
100 100
15 35


457
1453
24.5
77.97
100
25


220
1673
11.8
89.77
100
12


153
153
8.2
8.2
100
8


39

2.09
2.09
100
2


____________II________________ ___~


TOTAL













COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

i An average of 8.2% of all.materials in the collections is acid neutral or
alkaline buffered. Data indicates that, among neutral and alkaline materials
(pH 1 7), pH decreases with time. 10% of materials with current imprints
(1960-1989) has pH L 7, while only 4.55% of materials imprinted in the 1930s
remains pH 1 7. Data in other pH columns seems to bear this out. Data does
not allow conjecture as to comparative chronological analysis of alkaline
materials entering the collections.
Of current imprints (1960-1989), 90% of materials are already acidic. The
average pH for current imprints is 4.6. This indicates that most recent
acquisitions are either acidic or lack sufficient alkaline reserve/buffer to
protect them.
The following table compiles information not included in the table above, and
represents a break down of pH averages for current imprints. Table shows that
i ----- publication of materials with pH L 7
Period Average pH % pH > 7 remains static at 10%, more or less
Equal to figures commonly cited in
1960-1989 4.60 10% studies of newly published materials.
1960-1969 4.28 10% Table continues to support hypothesis
S1970-1979 4.52 10% that pH decreases over time. However,
1980-1989 4.89 10% because acids in these materials
S1980-1985 4.77 10% probably have not yet had time to
1986-1989 5.08 10% effect pH readings, table may also
--- suggest that pH of recent publications,
while still very acidic, is improving slightly. Table indicates that, should
this rate of improvement remain constant, pH of paper will not comply with ANSI
Z39.48, ". .Permanence of paper for printed library materials", until sometime
after the year 2190.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

v Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and alkalinization
to remove acids and buffer materials against the effects of acids.
I The deacidification & alkalinization processes should concentrate on materials
published in the current period. These materials represent the bulk of materials
(79.7%) surveyed. Bulk implies that, as newer materials become more acidic and
embrittled, current imprints shall represent a far greater problem than that
currently experienced for older imprints. (Cf, also, Embrittlement & pH table.)
v The Libraries should endeavor to purchase materials which have been manufactured
in compliance with American National Standard 239.49, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials".
The Libraries, in collaboration with other libraries, professional and scholarly
associations, and government bodies, should promote the use of paper which
complies with American National Standard 239.49, "...permanence of paper for
printed library materials".














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
pH OF PAPER.
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.


GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


pH HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION pH NOT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TESTED


UNKNOWN
PLACE OF
PUBLICATION





AFRICAN
GROUP






AUSRALASIAN
GROUP






CANADA







CARIBBEAN
& CENTRAL
AMERICAN
GROUP



EUROPEAN
GROUP


count
cumf count
% row
cum row
% column
I table

count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table

count
cum count
% row,
cum row
% column
% table

count
cum count
X row
cum row
% column
% table


cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table


CLPoui nt
cum count
% row
cuLm row
% column
' table


1
1
1.85
1.55
3.70
0. 1

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
3.39
3.39
7.41
0.1

0

0
0

0
0



1
4.35
4.35
3.7
0.1

3
3
0.826
0. 826
11.1
0.2


0
1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1i


1.69
5.08
2.94
0.1

1
1
I.)







8.33

1



0

4.35
0
0

11
14
3.03
3.856
32.4
0.6


14 23
15 38
25.9 42.6
27.75 70.35
4.98 3.52
0.8 1

0 2
0 2
0 100
0 100
0 0.30C)
0 0.1

19 16
22 38
32.2 27.1
37.28 64.38
6.76 2.45
1 0.9

1 6
2 8
8.33 50
16.66 66.66
0.356 0.91'
0.1 0.3

6 14
7 21
26.1 60.9
30.45 91.35
2.14 2.14
0.3 0.8

44 115
58 175
12.1 31.7
15.956 47.65
15.7 17.6
2 6


10
48
18.5
88.85
2.19
0.5

0
2
0
I00
6 0
0

9
47
15.3
79.68
1.97
0.5

3
11
25
91.66
S0.65,
0.2

2
23
8.7
100.05
0.43
0.1

85
258
23.4
6 71.056
18.6
5


4
52
7.41
96.26
1.82
0.2

0
2
0
100
0
0'

4
51
6.73
86.46
1.82
0.2

0
11
0
91.66
0 0
0

0
1.1

23
0
100.05
0
0

51

14.0
85.06
23.2
3


2
2
3.7
3.7
1.31
0. 1

0
0
0
0
0
0

8
8
13.6
13.6
5.23
0.4

1
1
8.33
8.33
0.654
0.1

0

0
0
0
04

49
49
13.5
13.5
32.0
3


0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0


0
IJ






























0
0
0
0
0


5
5
1.38
1.38
12.8
0.3
LI3
(I.


I
_ __













GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


pH HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION pH NOT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TESTED


LATIN
AMERICAN
GROUP
(& Mexico)



USA
GROUP


count
cum count
% row
cum row
I column
% table

count
cum count
;* i O K
cum row
X column
% table


13
13
5.24
5.24

0.7

7
7
0.634
0.634
25.9
0.4


1 0 88
23 111
4.03 35.5
9.27 44.77
29.4 31.3
0.5 5

11 i 109
18 127
0.996 9.87
1.63 11.5
32.4 38.8
0.6 6


GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP


TOTAL


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table


pH HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION pH
1 2 3 4 5 6


27
27
1.45
1.45
100
1


34
61
1.82
3.27
100
2


281
342
15.1
18.37
100
15


654
996
35.1
53.47
100
35


457
1453
24.5
77.97
100
25


220
1673
11.8
89.77
100
12


NOT
7 TESTED


153
153
8,2
8.2
100
8


39
39
2.09
2.09
100
S2


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Statistical information is meaningful only for the United. States, European and
Latin American groups. (Cf Place of Publication ablee)
a Average pH for all materials tested is 4.5.
Average pH for materials published in Europe is 4.7.
a Average pH for materials published in the United States is 4.6.
Average pH for materials published in Latin America is 3.7. This figure is
approximately 8 times worse than the average for all materials.
a European imprints are twice as likely as United States imprints to comply with
the American National Standard 239.48, "...Permanence of paper for printed
library materials. United States imprints are three times as likely as Latin
American imprints to comply with ANSI Z39.48.


86
197
34.7
79.47
13.1
5

392
519
35.5
47
59.9
21


35
232
14.1
93.57
7.66
2

313
832
28.4
75.4
68.5
17


9
241
3.63
97.2
4.09
0.5

152
984
13.8
89.2
69.1
8


6
6
2.42
2.42
3.92
0.3

87
87
7.88
7.88
56.9
5


1
1
0.403
0.403
2.56
0.1

33
33
2.99
2.99
84.6
2


. _


____I


_ _______I_______I~_I___
_ _I












POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

W Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and alkalinization
to remove acids and buffer materials against the effects of acids.
The deacidification & alkalinization processes should concentrate on materials
with Latin American imprints. Secondary consideration should be given to United
States imprints which, while not as acidic as Latin American imprints, are held
by the Libraries in greater bulk.
The Libraries should endeavor to purchase materials which have been manufactured
in compliance with American National Standard 239.49, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials".
The Libraries, in collaboration with other libraries, professional and scholarly
associations, and government bodies, should promote the use of paper which
complies with American National Standard 239.49, "...Permanence of paper for
printed library materials".
The promotion of 239.48 should concentrate upon publishers in Latin American and
the United States, and particularly in the latter where economic factors may
effect more immediate change.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF ENCLOSURE-


ENCLOSED? COUNT % TOTAL
No 1781 95.50
Yes 84 4.50

TOTAL 1865 100.00




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Figures above do not include Rare Books. The Preservation Office has
just concluded the an enclosure project in this location. Over 2000
phase boxes and rare book (i.e., drop spine; clam shell) boxes have been
completed.
Other tables break down data in this table.
a Data in this table is insufficient to make recommendations.














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF ENCLOSURE.
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY


NO DATE





Pre-1851


1851-1899





1900-1909





1910-1919





1920-1929





1930-1939





1940-1949





1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


1 row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


count.
% row
X column
'X table

county
: row
% column
% table

count
% row,
X column
% table


count

o column
X table

count
% row
% column:
% table

count
% i-rOW
c Co lum n t


% table

count
X row
% column
% table


NOT TYPE OF ENCLOSURE
ENCLOSED BOX ENVELOPE


2.36
2

5
83.3
0.281
0.3

29
93.5
1.63
2

28
90.3
1.57
2

36
94.7
2.


60
95.2
3.37
3

76
86.4
4.27
4

113
95.0
6.34
6

217
96.4
12.2
12


4
8.51
11.8
0.2

0
0
0
0
f-f


1
2.63;
2.94
0. 1



5.88
0.1

2
2.27
5.88






0.2

3
1.33

0.2


1
2.13
20
0.1

0
0
0
0
C)
f-f


1
2.63
20
0.1






i



0'
0


0
01



0

0


OTHER

0
0
0
0

1
16.7
2.22
0.1

2
6.45
4.44
0. 1

3
9.68
6.67
0.2

0
0




1.59
2. 22
0. 1
9
o
S0.2
20
0.5

3
2.52
6.67
0.2

5
2.22
11.1
0.3


TOTAL
ENCLOSED

5
10.64
5.95
0.3

1
16.7
1.19
0.1


2
6.45
2.38
0.1

3
9.68
3.57
0.2

2
5.26
2.38
2


4.76
3.57


12
13.61
14.29
0.7



7.14
0.4

5
3.55
5. 95
0.5













CHRONOLOGY COLUMN NOT TYPE OF ENCLOSURE TOTAL
DESIGNATION ENCLOSED BOX ENVELOPE OTHER ENCLOSED

1960-1989 count 1175 19 2 21 42
% row 96.5 1.56 0.164 1.73 3.454
% column 66.0 55.9 40 46.7 50
% table 63 1 0.1 1 2.1

TOTAL count 1781 34 5 45 84
% row 95.5 1.82 0.268 2.41 4.498
% column 100 100 100 100 100
% table 95 2 0.3 2 4.3




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Many of the following comments are built upon the assumption that,
generally, only materials which need protection are enclosed.
Another assumption of these comments is that enclosed materials have
greater conservation needs than other materials.
This table shows the extent to which UFL staff, not necessarily
Preservation Office staff, have considered materials to need protection.
Data in this table does not suggest reasons for enclosure, but examines
enclosure in relation to date of publication.
Information regarding specific publication periods may allow conjecture
regarding the quality of publications in those periods.
a The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%.
Materials published in the following periods exceed this average:
Pre-1851, 1851-1959. It may be conjectured that pre-1851 imprints have
been enclosed due to value, rarity, etc. rather than condition. Data in
this table does allow validation of the conjecture.
Data indicates that recent publications (1950 present) have less need
for enclosure. It may be conjectured that the older materials become, the
more need of protection they require. Unfortunately, data does not entire
support this hypothesis. Further investigation is required.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with Circulation and Rare Books &
Special Collections Department governing the decision to enclose
materials, and serving as a guide in the choice of enclosure.
Age (and other rare bock selection criteria as formulated by the American
Library Association's Rare Books and Manuscripts Section) should be given
special consideration in the definition of enclosure policies.
Criteria for the decision to enclose materials in rare book boxes (i.e.,
drop spine or clam shell boxes) should be based, in part, upon age and
value.


I I












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF ENCLOSURE
ANALYSIS BY HOLDING LIBRARY.



HOLDING COLUMN NONE TYPE OR ENCLOSURE USED TOTAL
LIBRARY DESIGNATION N/A BOX ENVELOPE OTHER ENCLOSED

ARCHITECTURE count 75 1 0 2 3
& FINE ARTS % row 96.2 1.23 0 2.56 3.84
LIBRARY % column 4.21 2.94 0 4.44 4.57
% table 4 0.1 0 0.1 0.2

BELKNAP count 81 1 4 6 11
COLLECTION %i row 8 1.09 4.35 6.52 11.96
Column 4.551 2.94 o 13.3 14.24
X table 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6

EDUCATION count 81 0 0 0 0
LIBRARY % row 100 0 0 0
% column 4.55 0 0 0 0
% table 4 0 0 0 0

.E T count 72 6 0 4 10
DOCUMENTS % row 87. 7.32 0 4.88 12.2
LIBRARY % column 4.04 17.6 0 8.89 14.52
% table 4 0.3 0 0.2 0.5

HUMANITIES count 377 2 0 18 20
SOCIAL % row 95.0 .504 0 4.53 5.34
SCIENCES % column 21.2 5.88 0 40 6.36
LIBRARY % table 20 0.1 0 1 1.1

JOURNALISM count 97 0 0 0
READ I NG % row 100 0 0 0 0
ROOM column 5.4511 0 0 0 0
% table 5 0 0 0 0

LATIN count 340 0 0 2 2
AMERICAN; % rowi 99.4 0 0 0.535 0.,585
COLLECTION % column 19.1 0 0 4.44 0.7
% table 18 i 0 0 0.1 0.1

MARSTON count 330 I 13 4 17
SCIENCE % row 95.1 3.75 0 1.15 4.9
LIBRARY % column 18.5 38.2 0 8.89 5.83
table 18 0.7 0 0.2 0.9

MUSIC count 93 1 0 4 5
LIBRARY % row 94.9 1.02 4.08 5.1
% column 5.22 2.94 0 8.89 6.07
% table 5 1I 0.1 0 0.2 1 0.3















HOLDING COLUMN


DESIGNATION


NONE TYPE OR ENCLOSURE USED


N/A


BOX ENVELOPE OTHER


P.K. YONGE
LIBRARY OF
FLORIDA
HISTORY

PRICE
LIBRARY OF
JUDAICA


UNIVERSITY
ARCHIVES


count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
X table

count
% row
% column
% table


1
0.943
20
0.1


1
1.11
2.22
0. 1

4
7.27
8.89
0.2


HOLDING
LIBRARY


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


TOTAL count 1781
% row 95.5
% column 100
% table 95


NONE TYPE OR ENCLOSURE USED
N/A BOX ENVELOPE OTHER


34 5 45
1.82 0.268 2.41
100 100 100
2 0.3 2


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Materials held by Rare Books are not included in this table. Rare book
holdings include the greatest number of enclosed materials system-wide.
a General Summary: 95.5% of all items are not enclosed; 4.49% of all items
are enclosed. Of enclosures: 18.2% are boxes (e.g., phase box, rare book
box, slip case, etc.), 2.68% are envelopes, and 24.1% are other types of
unidentified enclosures.
This data does not indicate quality of enclosures, or condition or
enclosed materials.
The average rate of enclosure for all collections is 4.49%. The number of
enclosures in the Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, and
the University Archive are three to five times greater than the average.
Again, the quality of enclosures is not assessed in this table.
a The average rate of boxing for all collections is 1.82%. This rate is
exceeded in the Government Documents Library, Marston Science Library,
P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, and the University Archives. Boxing in
Archives is nearly eight times the average.


LIBRARY


TOTAL
ENCLOSED


103
97.2
5.78
6

89
98.9
5
5

43
78.2
2.41
2


2
1.89
5.88
0.1

0
0
0
0


8
14.5
23.5
0.4


3
2.83
3.37
0.2

1
1.11
1.32
0.1

12
21.77
25.92
0.6


TOTAL
ENCLOSED


84
4.49
100
4.3


~~~
I













a The average incidence of envelopes for all collections is 0.27%. This
rate is exceeded in the Belknap Collection and the P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History. Incidence of envelopes in Belknap is sixteen times the
average. While this data does not indicate the quality of envelopes,
examination of envelopes reveals that poor quality, high acid products are
used.
The average incidence of other unspecified enclosures for all collections
is 2.41%. This rate is exceeded in the Architecture & Fine Arts Library,
Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, Humanities/Social
Science Library, Marston Science Library, Music Library, and the
University Archives. Data does not provide information on type or quality
of enclosure. Enclosure tabulated here include portfolios, half-boxes,
etc.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

a The Preservation Office should compile data indicating the quality of
enclosures.
Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with holding locations governing the
decision to enclose materials, and serving as a guide in the choice of
enclosure. Locations which tend to enclose materials should be consulted
in the process of writing these policies.
Only materials which are acid neutral or alkaline buffered, or meet the
requirements for paper in American National Standards Z39.48?
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials". which requires
minimum pH of 7.5, OR, IT?.2-1988, "...Imaging media -- Photographic
processed films, plates and papers -- Filing enclosures and storage
containers", which requires pH within a range of 7.E and 9.5.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF ENCLOSURE.
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.


GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP

UNKNOWN
PLACE OF
PUBLICATION


AFRICAN
GROUP



AUSTRALASIAN
GROUP



CANADA





CARIBBEAN
& CENTRAL
AMERICAN
GROUP

EUROPEAN
GROUP


SOUTH
AMERICAN
GROUP
(& Mexico)


USA
GROUP


TOTAL


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


count
% rOW
% column
,. COl1LlTiW)
% table

count
% row,
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
. row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
. table


NOT
ENCLOSED

51
94.4
2.86
3

2
100
0.112
0.1

55
93.2
3.09
3

12
100
0.674
0.6

22
95.7
1.24
1

352
97.0
19.8
19

244
98.4
13.7
13

1043
94.5
58.6
56

1781
95.5
100
95


TYPE OF ENCLOSURE


BOX


1
1.85
2.94
0.

0
0
0
0

1
1.69
2.94
0.1

0
0
0
0


ENVELOPE


1
1.85
20
0.1


5
1.38
14.7
0.3


2
0.806
5.88
0.1

25
2.26
73.5
1

34
1.82
100
2


0
0
0
0

4
0.362
80
0.2

5
0.268
100
0.3


USED
OTHER


1
1.85
2.22
0.1


3
5.08
6.67
0.2


1
4.35
2.22
0.1

6
1.65
13.3
0.:3


TOTAL
ENCLOSED


3
5.55
3.57
0.3


4
6.77
4.76
0.3


1
4.35
1.19
0.1

11
3.03
13.10
0.6


4
16.12
4.76
0.2

61
5.522
72.62
3.2

84
4.498
100
4.3


2
0.806
4.44
0.1

32
2.90
71.1
2

45
2.41
100
2













COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Many of the following comments are built upon the assumption that,
generally, only materials which need protection are enclosed.
a Another assumption of these comments is that enclosed materials have
greater conservation needs than other materials.
Because of limited counts in particular geographic regions, information
for individual regions may not be valid. Most meaningful and valid
information is limited to the European, South American and United States
groups.
I This table shows the extent to which UFL staff? not necessarily
Preservation Office staff, have considered materials to need protective
enclosure.
Data in this table does not suggest reasons for enclosure.
Information regarding individual regions may allow conjecture regarding
the quality of publications originating from those regions.
I The average percentage of enclosure for all collections is 4.498%
Materials published in the following (most meaningful) areas exceed this
average: South American and United States. South American materials
exceed the a :<-.- nearly four times. It is probable that these materials
are dimensionally, structurally, or inherently unstable. This conjecture
is supported by data in other tables which suggests that South American
imprints are exceptionally poor in manufacture, durability etc.
European imprints tend to require less enclosure than other imprints.
This finding supports findings of other tables which indicate that
European titles are less acidic, less brittle, require less structural
repair, etc. than other imprints.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Conservation and storage policies should be established by the
Preservation Office in collaboration with geographic area bibliographers
governing the decision to enclose materials, and serving as a guide in the
choice of enclosure.
South American materials should be given special consideration in the
definition of enclosure policies, and their conservation needs examined
closely.
Future directions in protective enclosure should concentrate upon phased
enclosure, and conservation needs of enclosed materials recorded and
queued for future work.











FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
ALUM ROSIN CONTENT-


PRESENCE COUNT % TOTAL


40
534
1891

1865


2.14
2S.60
69.20

100.00


ANALYSES, ETC.


* 69.2% of all materials
with alum rosin.
a Alum rosin contributes


surveyed, including pre-1851, materials were made

to the deterioration of paper.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

a Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and
alkalinization to remove acids and buffer materials against the effects of
acids. Mass treatment methods are still undergoing testing. Approximate
average cost of mass treatment may be between $3.00 and $5.00 per volume,
excluding personnel, tracking, shipping, materials, and insurance costs.
The libraries should endeavor to purchase materials which have beer
manufactured in compliance with American National Standard 239.48,
"...Permanence of paper for printed library materials."


Unknown
No
Yes

TOTAL


COMMENTS,













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
ALUM ROSIN CONTENT
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY


NO DATE





Pre-1851


1851-1899





1900-1909





1910-1919





1920-1929





1930-1939





1940-1949





1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
% rowv
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


count

, column
I table


% row
C!' Ui1 t

% column
X table

count
4 row
% column
% table


% r0o
% column
% table

count
% =o4,
% column
% table

count
% row-
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


NOT
TESTED

0
0
0
0

5
83.3
12.5
0.3

1
3.23
2.50
0.1

1
3.23
2.50
0. i

1
2.63
2.50
0.1

2
3.17
5


2
2.27
5


0
0.
0
0

1
0.444
2.50
0.1i


ALUM ROSIN
NO

8
17
1.50
0.4

1
16.7
0.187
0.1


12
38.7
2.25
0.6

6
19.4
1.12
0.3

9
23.7
1.6?
0.5

22
34.9
4.12


28
31.8
5.24
2

36
30.3
6.74
2

51
22.7
9.55
3


CONTENT TOTAL
YES COUNT


39
83
3.06
2


!8
58.1
1.41
1

24
77.4
1.88
1

28
73.7
2.19
2

39
61.9
3.06
2

58
65.9
4.55
3

83
69.7
6.50
4

173
76.9
13.6
9


69
100





100



119
100














DESIGNATION TESTED NO YES COUNT

1960-1989 count 27 361 829 1217
% row 2.22 29.7 66.9 100
i, column 67.5 67.6 63.8
X table 1 19 44

TOTAL count 40 534 1291 1865
X row 2.14 28.6 69.2 100
% column 100 100 100 100
% table 2 29 69 100




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a No evidence of alum rosin found prior to 1851.
a 69.2% of all materials surveyed, including pre-1851 materials, were made
with alum rosin.
Incedence of alum rosin increases steadily in UFL collections from 1851
and appears to be increasing through 1939.
a Alum rosin contributes to the deterioration of paper.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and
alkalinization to buffer materials against the effects of alum rosin.
Mass treatment methods are still undergoing testing. Approximate average
cost of mass treatment may be between $3.00 and $5.00 per volume,
excluding personnel, tracking, shipping, materials, and insurance costs.
a This treatment should begin with current imprints. This technology
does not strengthen or restore paper, it mere halts the advance of
embrittlement. Paper in current imprints has not yet suffered
embrittlement, while older materials will remain embrittled. d Treatment of
current imprints ensures greatest extension of book life per dollar.


NOT ALUM ROSIN CONTENT


TOTAL


CHRONOLOGY COLUMN












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
PLACE OF PUBL I CAT I ON .


COUNTRY NAME

NOT AVAILABLE


UNITED
AL
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
MI
MN
MO
MS
NC
NE
NJ
NM
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
Tx
VA
VT
WA
lWS
WV


COUNT % TOTAL

54 2.90%


STATES GROUP.
4
6
44
17
13
175
1
165
7
2
8
45
10
3
3
8
35

11
4
8
7
12
2
31
2
356
21
2




1

3
1

5
!10
6
2
11
9
3


TOTAL 1096 3.77


0.214
0.322
2.364
0.912
0.697
9.380
0.054
8.850
0.375
0.107
0.429
2.410
0.536
0.161
0.161
0.429
1.880
0.643
0.590
0.214
0.429
0.375
0.643
0.107
1.66!0
0.107
19.100
1. 130
0.107
0.161
1.550
0.107
0.054
0.054
0.268
0.536
0.322
0.107
0.590
0. 483
,::. 5


TOTAL


1096


58 T77t-
-.JL 1 .



















COUNT % TOTAL


CANADA 12 0.64%

MEXICO 35 1.8,*

CARIBBEAN & CENTRAL AMERICAN GROUP.
(NEH/RLG Grant Area)
Barbados 1 0.054
Costa Rica 10 0.536
Cuba 19 1.020
Dominica 2 0.107
Dominican Rep. 9 0.483
El Salvador 8 0.429
Guatemala 9 0.483
Haiti 5 0.268
Honduras 2 0.107
Jamaica 5 0.263
Nicaragua 2 0.107
Panama 5 0.268
Puerto Rico 8 0.429
Trinidad & Tobago 1 0.054
US Virgin Islands 1 0.054

TOTAL 87 4.66%

SOUTH AMERICAN GROUP.
Argentina 41 2.200
Bolivia 15 0.804
Brazil 40 2.140
Chile 17 0.912
Colombia 1 0.054
Guyana 1 0.054
Paraouav 3 0.161
Peru 7 0.375
Uruguay 12 0.643
Venezuela 15 0.804

TOTAL 152 8.15%

AFRICAN GROUP.
Angola 1 0.054
Senegal 1 0.054


COUNTRY NAME


TOTAL


2 0. 11 %











ACCOUNT % TOTAL


EUROPEAN GROUP.
Austria 3 0.161
Belgium 6 0.322
Bulgaria 1 0.054
Czechoslovakia 1 0.054
Denmark 1 0.054
Ecuador 4 0.214
Finland 1 0.054
France 59 3.160
Germany 50 2.680
Hungary 6 0.322
Ireland 4 0.214
Italy 13 0.697
Liechtenstein 2 0.107
Monaco 1 0.054
Netherlands 25 1.340
Norway 1 0.054
Poland 3 0.161
Romania 1 0.054
Spain 10 0.536
Sweden 6 0.322
Switzerland 17 0.912
UK 147 7.880
USSR 5 0.268
Yugoslavia 1 0.054

TOTAL 368 19.73%

AUSTRALASIAN GROUP.
Australia 2 0.107
China 7 0.375
India 4 0.214
Iran 1 0.054
Israel 29 1.55
Japan 5 0.268
Korea 1 0.054
New Zealand 4 0.214
Pakistan 2 0.107
Philippines 1 0.054
Singapore 1 0.054
Turkey 2 0.107

TOTAL 59 3.000


COUNTRY NAME


TOTAL


1865 100.000













COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Statistical information is meaningful only when count exceeds 100. The
larger the count, the more meaningful and reliable the information. A
count of 400 produces information within a +5 confidence level. The
following outlines order of reliability. Reliability is expressed in
descending order both among and within groups.

AMONG GROUP.

SUnited States Group (1096)
European Group (368)
SSouth/Latin American Group & Mexico (206)

WITH-IN GROUP.

New York (356)
District of Columbia (175)
Florida (165)
United Kingdom (147)


a Groupings within this table do not always agree with geographic groupings
in other tables. Discrepancies in data manipulation resulted in incon-
sistencies. Central American countries were occasional considered to be
within the Latin American Group and at other times within the Caribbean
Basin Group, or were counted within both Groups. A similar situation
exists for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands which were counted
within the Caribbean Basin Group, the United States Group, or both groups.
Slight tabulation errors may exist within other groups.
Because meaningful results for geographic analyses were not produced by
random survey, extrapolation of geographic data cannot be made to the
collections, but must be made on a comparative basis only among those
groups, countries or states which produced meaningful results. Comparative
analyses are tenuous at best due to varying count levels.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Where more explicit, meaningful and valid information is required for
specific geographic areas, surveys should be readministered to meet a
+5% confidence level. E.g., if information were required for purposes of
grant application to microfilm Brazilian materials, a survey of not less
than 400 Brazilian imprints should be administered.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN :
TYPE OF BOOK


TYPE COUNT % TOTAL

Other 9 0.48
Paperback 490 26.30
Hardcover 1366 73.20

TOTAL 1865 100.00




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Counts of paperbacks and hardcovers exceed 400 items, assuring that
information about these types of books has a +5% confidence level.
a Information in other tables relating to the condition of paperback should
give some indication of the need to binding new paperback acquisitions.
Information in other tables relating to the condition of hardcovers should
give some indication of the extent to which this portion of the collection
requires conservation, as well as of the effectiveness of binding
programs.
This data alone is insufficient to formulate recommendations.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF BOOK-
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY


NO DATE





Pre-1851


1851-1899





1900-1909





1910-1919





1920-1929





1930-1939





1940-1949





1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
% row
% co'lumni
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


count
% row
A column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
COiJtI
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row -
X column




% Cro -
% column
% table

count

X column
% table


TYPE OF BOOK
OTHER PAPERBACK


2
4.26
22.2
0.1

1
16.7
11.1
0i. I


1
i
3.23
11.1
0.1

1
2,,63
11 .
0.1


!
0.444
11.1
0.1


11
23.4
2.24
0.6
i
1
16.7
0.204
0.1

4
12.9
0.816
0.2

1
3.23
0.204
0.1

5
13.2
1.02
0.3

7
11.1
1.43
0.4

27
30.7
5.51
41

41
34.5
8.37
2


73
32.4
14.9
4


TOTAL
COUNT

4?
100




6
100


HARDCOVER

34
72.3
2.49
2

4
66.7
0.293
0.2


27
87.1
1.98
1

29
93.5
2.12
2

32
34.2
2.34
2



i_
85.9
4.10
3

61
69.3
4.47
3

78
65.5
,
5.71
4

151
67.1
11.1
-4.













CHRONOLOGY COLUMN TYPE OF BOOK TOTAL
DESIGNATION OTHER PAPERBACK HARDCOVER COUNT

1960-1989 count 3 320 394 1217
% row 0.247 26.3 73.5 100
% column 33.3 65.3 65.4
i table 0.2 17 48

TOTAL count 9 490 1366 1865
% row 0.483 26.3 73.2 100
% column 100 100 100 100
% table 0.5 26 73 100





COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Confidence level of data relating to the type of book, "Other", is not
adequate to allow analyses.
a The percentage of paperbacks in the collections has steadily increased
since the 1930s. Data does not :-. -st reasons for which they remain
in the collections without hardcover.
a The rate at which paperbacks are being added to the collections in the
current period, 1960-1989, is equal to the incidence of paperbacks in the
collections regardless of period/imprint.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

a Paperbacks with pre-1950 imprints should remain without hard cover if any
of the following are true:
A. Pre-150 imprint (Rationale: possible rarity, etc.);
B. Double fold test measure equal to or less than 5 (Ratio.nale:
embrittleent disal lows binding)
C. Contains both ground wood pulp and alum rosin (Rationale: associated
acids are likely to cause embrittlement and deterioration, rend-ring
binding/casing useless); or
D. pHi is equal to or less than 6.0 (Rationale: associated acids are like l
to cause emibrittlement and deterioration, rendering binding/casing
useless).
a A greater number of current paperback acquisitions should enter the
collections unbound, and remain unbound until after first use. Since
damage generally occurs only in association with use this procedure will
allow funds reserved for the primary p protection (i.e., binding) of books
to be defer-red to conervai a reprographic service where it is
currently more in need.
aA review of condition of paperbacks in the Libraries should be conducted
to assertain results of the practice. Materials which are unwanted or
hve served their usefulness and lived out their reearch-life, should
be weeded from the collections, so as not skew survey results and
conservation work queues. Criteria for weeding should be explicit before
this poecis c bagun.











FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TYPE OF BOOK.
ANALYSIS BY HOLDING LIBRARY.


HOLDING
LIBRARY


ARCHITECTURE
& FINE ARTS
LIBRARY


BELKNAP
COLLECTION



EDUCATION
LIBRARY


GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS
LIBRARY


HUMANITIES
SOCIAL
SCIENCES
LIBRARY

JOURNALISM
READING
ROOM


LATIN
AMERICAN
COLLECTION


MARSTON
SCIENCE
LIBRARY


MUSIC
LIBRARY


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
% of row
% of column
% of table

count
% of row
X of column
% of table

count
Sof row,
% of column
% of table

count
% of row
X of column
% of table

count
% of row
% of column
% of table

count
% of row
% of column
% of table

count
X of row
% of column
% of table

count
% of row
% of column
% of table

count
% of row
% cf column
% of table


OTHER/
NONE


'-C
0



3
0.756
33.3
0.2

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
i-


2
0.576
22.2
0.1


PAPER- HARD- TOTAL
BACK COVER COUNT


7
8.97
1.43
0.4

42
45.7
8.57
2


28
34.6
5.71
2

82
100
16.7
4

84
21.2
17.1
5

23
23.7
4.69
1

71
20.8
14.5
4


32.6
23.1
6

14
!4.3
2.86
0.8


71
91.0
5.20
4

50
54.3
3.66
3


I:

0
0


310
78.1
22.7
17

74
76.3
5.42
4

271
79.2
19.8
15

232
66.9
17.0
12

84
85.7
6.15
5


78
100
4.18
4

92
100
4.93
5

81
100
4.34
4

82
100
4.40
4

397
100
21.3
21

97
100
5.20
5

342
100
18.3
183

347
100
!5.6
19

98
100
5.25
5













HOLDING COLUMN OTHER/ PAPER- HARD- TOTAL
LIBRARY DESIGNATION NONE BACK COVER COUNT

P.K. YONGE count 1 11 94 106
LIBRARY OF % of row 0.943 10.4 88.7 100
FLORIDA X of column 11.1 2.24 6.88 5.68
HISTORY % of table 0.1 0.6 5 6

PRICE count 2 1 87 90
LIBRARY OF % of row 2.22 1.11 96.7 100
JUDAICA of column 22.2 0.204 6.37 4.83
% of table 0.1 0.1 5 5

UNIVERSITY count 1 14 40 55
ARCHIVES % of row 1.82 25.5 72.7 100
% of column 11.1 2.86 2.93 2.95
% of table 0.1 0.8 2 3

TOTAL count 9 490 1366 1865
% of row 0.483 26.3 73.2 100
% of column 100 100 100 100
% of table 0.5 26 73 100



COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Confidence level of data relating to the type of book, "Other", is not
adequate to allow analyses.
Materials in the Archives' University (i.e., print) Collection should
remain unbound to preserve integrity of the original, and boxed if
necessary. Generally, another copy of the item exists within the
Libraries' circulating collections. Use of the University Collection is
minimal.
Paperba~ ck cut in the Belknap C election may be high due to the
Sredominance of unbound playbills, periodicals, etc., S .1 as the lack
of a binding policy and binding preparations staff in the Collection.
Data does not indicate classes of m trialss within this Cllection that
may be bound or those which may require protective enclose. Limited -ours
and access reduce use of materialss in the Collection.
Of materials in collections which now circulate,; those in the Government
Documents Library should receive the most immediate consideration for
binding. Tis Library was previously non-circulating.
Though there are some bound volumes in this Library, the survey detected
none. This is either the result of fault in the survey or over helmingi
predominance of paperbacks in the Library.
Materials in the Sience Library, the Humanities & Social Science
Libraries, and the Latin American Collection also require consideration.
The high level of paperbacks in the Science Library may be du to the
number of serials in the collection.
Binding consi-de rations should also take chronology into account -cf&
Chroi-olooical Analysis).












a The level of paperbacks in the Science Library is nearly equivalent to the
average level of paperbacks system-wide. Analysis of condition of
materials in this Library may provide information regarding condition of
and causes for state of materials throughout the Libraries.
The high level of hardcopy materials in the Price Library of Judaica may
represent the age of the collection or reflect the nature of collected
materials rather than an aggressive binding program. The Librarian should
provide a history of collecting and binding programs.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

The consolidated Special Collections Department should have a single
person responsible for binding. Traditionally, the P.K.Y. Library of
Florida History has had the strongest binding program among Special
Collections libraries. The Department should collaborate with the
Preservation Office to define a binding and enclosure program suitable to
the needs and use of materials.
The Government Documents Library and the Preservation Office should
collaborate to plan necessary retrospective binding based on expected use,
value, need to gather materials, etc.
a Binding policies should be reviewed through-out the Libraries, with
concentration of policies in the Government Documents, Science and
Humanities ;: Social Sciences Libraries and in the Latin American
Collection. Wherever possible policies should be consistent within the
system.
Centralized binding operations should be explored to ensure greater
consistency of bound products. Consistency and quality of products should
reduce need for future conservation of hardcover materials.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
EMBR I TTLEMENT & pH OF
CROSS TABULATIONS.


PAPER .


pH COLUMN
LEVEL DESIGNATION

pH <7 count
% row
X column
X table

pH >7 count
% row
% column
% table


TOTAL
OF
COLUMN


count
% row
% column
% table


pH COLUMN
LEVEL DESIGNATION

pH <7 count
% row
% column
table

pH >7 count
A row
V column
X table


TOTAL
OF
COLUMN


count
% row
% column
% table


DFT
(5

384
93.2
25.6
21

1116
76.8
74.4
60

1500
80.4
100
80




DFT
<4

390
94.7
24.7
21

1192
82.0
75.3
64

1582
84.8
100
85
1-U U
I-'..J


DFT TOTAL
>5 OF ROW


28
6.80
7.67
2

337
23.2
92.3
18

365
19.6
100
20


412
100
22.1
22

1453
100
77.9
78

1865
100
100
100


DFT TOTAL
>4 OF ROW


22
5.34
7.77
1

261
18.0
92.2
14

283
15.2
100
15


412
100
22.1
22

1453
100
77.9
78

1865
100
100
100


NOTE: When pH is <7, paper is
considered to be acidic.
NOTE: When double fold test
measure is J5, paper miay
be considered brittle
(or not brittle, but too
weak for binding).
IL -


NOTE: When pH is <7? paper is
considered to be acidic.
NOTE: When double fold test
measure is Q4, paper may
be considered brittle
(or not brittle, but too
weak for binding).
_______________












pH COLUMN DFT DFT TOTAL __
LEVEL DESIGNATION (3 >3 OF ROW NOTE: When pH is <7, paper is
considered to be acidic.
pH <7 count 393 19 412 NOTE: When double fold test
% row 95.4 4.61 100 measure is. 3, paper may
% column 24.2 7.88 22.1 be considered brittle.
% table 21 1 22

pH >7 count 1231 222 1453
% row 84.7 15.3 100
ScolumTn 75.8 92.1 77.9
% table 66 12 78

TOTAL count 1624 241 1865
OF % row 87.1 12.9 100
COLUMN % column 100 100 100
% table 87 13 100




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

These tables give some idea of the effect of acid and the lack of acid on
paper strength and embrittlement.
a Tables indicate that regardless of dft measure the ratio of acidic to non-
acidic materials remains relatively constant at approximately 25% to 75%
(25:75). Alkalinity (i.e., higher pH), however, does appear to reduce
rates of embrittlem.ent slightly, by approximately one tenth of a percent,.
This is neither a new or unexpected finding. It may be conjectured that
conditions which slow the process of acid hydrolysis and migration
contribute in some small way to extending the life of brittle materials.
a This data is insufficient to formulate conclusions regarding the effect of
pH on non brittle materials.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SInserts (e.a., date due slips ,book. plates, etc.) suld be pH neutral at
a minimum. (Few library inserts meet this criteria..' B'ok plates, data
due slips, whenever possible, should be produced on the most affo rdabs pH
neutral or alkaline paper stock available particularly when production is
done in-.hoise. Inserts meeting this criteria pre'-ent introduction of
alien acids and contaminants into the item.
Enclosures (e.g., envelope, portfolios phaseboxes, rare book boxes
etc.) should be pH neutral at a minimum. (Most library e closures meet
this criteria.) Whenever possible, they should be produced with the most
affordable pH neutral or a alkaline stock available particularly when
production is done in-house. The Preservation Office, in it
spEcificaticns to commercial suppli-ers, demand use of materials meatinc
this criteria. Enclosures meeting this criteria prevent acid mnigratioi of
atmospheric contaminants, as well as protect the structural stability of
the item.












* Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units in storage
locations should filter air to remove atmospheric contaminants.
* Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units in storage
locations should regulated humidity to prevent conditions resulting in
acid hydrolysis.











FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
EMBRITTLEMENT & pH OF PAPER.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.



pH COLUMN NOT DFT DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE DFT NOT
DESIGNATION TESTED 0 1 2 3 4 5 BRITTLE

pH count -7 5 2 1 0 1 11
1 cum count 7 12 14 15 15 16 11
% row 25.9 18.5 7.41 3.7 0 3.7 I 40.7
cum row 25.9 44.4 51.81 55.51 55.51 59.21 40.7
column 26.9 5.32 3.17 1.72 0 1.22 0.745
% table .4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.6

pH count f 2 8 4 0 5 4 11
2 cum count 2 10 14 14 19 23 II
row 5.88 23.5 11.3 0 14 11 32.
r4.7.5 4., 3.4
cum row i 5.88 29.38 41.18 41.18 55.88 67.68 32.4
% column 7.69 3.51 6.35 0 11.9 4.3 0.745
X table 0.1 0.4 0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0.6

pH count 12 29 17 23 11 20 16
3 cum count 12 41 58 I 92 112 166
Srow 4.32 10.43 6.16 8.27 3.96 7 19 59.71
cum row 4.32 14.75 20.91 29.18 33.14 40.33 5.71
Column 46.2 30.9 27.0 39.7 26.2 24.4 11.2
X table 0.6 2 0.9 1 0.6 1
iii
pH ount 4 36 25 14 19 28 521
4 cum count 4 40 65 79 98 126 521
% row 0.618 5.56 3.86 2.16 2.94 4.33 80.5
C'm row 0.618 6.178 10.036. 12.19 15.138 19. 46I8 0.5
% column 15.4 33.3 39.7 24.1 45.2 4.1 35.3
% table- i 0 .2 2 0. 1 2 i ,

pH count 1 10 12 10 4 394
5 cum count 1 11 23 33 37 60 3i4,
% row 20.2 2.2 2.64 2.2 0.831 5.07 36.78
cum r1u- 0.22 2.48 5.06 7.26 8.141 13.211H 86.78
Column 3.5 10.6 19.0 17.2 9.52 280 26.7
X table 0.1 0.5 0.6 .5 0.2 1 21

pH count I0 4 4 1 5 195
6 cun count 0 4 6 10 11 16 199
% rotw II 1.36 0.931 1.6 0.465 2.33 92,4
cum row 1.36 2.7911 4.651 5.116 7.44I 92.56
Scollumn -0 4.2 3.17 6.90 2.38 6.10 j13.5
Stable 0 0. 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 11













DFT DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE DFT


DESIGNATION


TESTED 0 1 2


4 5 BRITTLE


pH count 26 92 62 52 40 81 1302
<_ cum count 26 118 180 232 272 353 111302
% row 1.57 5.56 3.75 3.14 2.42 4.89 78.67
ACID cum row- 1.57 7.13 10.88 14.02 16.44 21.33 7.67
% column 100 97.87 98.41 89.66 95.24 98.7 8I8.21
% table 1.39 4.93 3.32 2.79 2.14 4.34 69.81

pH count 0 0 1 1 1 1 147
7 cum count 0 0 1 2 3 4 147
% row 0 0 0.654 0.654 0.654 0.654H 96.1
cum row o 0 0.6541 1.308 1.962 2.616! 96.1
X column 0 0 1.59 1.72 2.38 1.22 H1 9.96
% table 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 8
Ii
NOT count 24 0 2 0 5 1 0 I 27
TEST- cum count 24 0 2 2 7 8 0 I 27
ED % row 40.678 0 3.39 0 8.475 1.695 0 45.763
cum row 40.6781 0 3.39 3.39 11.865 13.56 13.56 45.763
% column 100 0 2.13 0 8.62 2.38 0 183
% table 100 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.1 0 1
I T 11


TOTAL count
cum count
% row
cum row
% column
% table


24
24
1.29
1.29
100
1


26
26
1.39
1.39
100
1


94
120
5.04
6.43
100
5


63
183
3.38
9.81
100
3


58
241
3.11
12.92
100
3


42
283
2.25
15.17
100
2


82
365
4.4
19.57
100
4


1476
1476
79.1
79.1
100
79


pH COLUMN NOT














COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a This table associates embrittlement (dft) with pH.
a The average percentage of fle::ible materials in collections is 79.1%. Materials
which show more flexibility have pH L 4. If on average materials with pH > 4 are
largely still flexible, then these materials need not be considered for
reformating at this time. pH is not now a deciding factor in the Brittle Books
Program.
The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft i 3, the
criteria currently used for reformatting, is 12.92%. Materials which exceed
the average have pH ( 3. This finding is consistent with the finding directly
above.
a The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft (5, the
criteria currently used for decision not to bind (i.e., decision to box), is
19.57%. Materials which exceed the average have pH < 4. This finding is
consistent with the finding above. Moreover, however, it suggests that
deacidification and alkalinization processes, recommended else where in these
physical condition survey tables, should be conducted first on materials with pH
4. This is supported by other survey data which suggests that even current
publications with pH Q 7 will become acidic and embrittled. Second priority for
this process should be given to materials with pH > 3.
a The average percentage of brittle materials in collections at dft = 0, the
criteria currently used for protective removal of volumes from circulation (and
placement in the Brittle Books Program backlog for most immediate attention, is
1.39%. Materials which exceed the average have pH 1 3. When pH = 1, materials
exceed the average 8.6 times.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Make pH a deciding factor in selection for reformatting. Materials with pH < 3
should be given priority.
a Make pH one factor in selection for commercial binding and enclosure. Materials
with pH K 4 should not be bound but rather considered for boxii;n and possibly. left
u-.bound. (Conservation c.nsiderat ions should also be factored into decision tro
bind.)
SSme or all of the cllections should Lundergo deacidification amnd lkal iniz in
to r-Emve acids and b ufer materials against the effects of acis. These
s-ocesses should begin with and concentrate upon new materials with pH 5.i
A factor in prioritization of materials in the Brittle Books Prog'ram bcklo.r
i.e., when dft = 0, should be pH. Items in this backlog with pH = 1 should b
given priority treatment.
a A method of economically ascertaining pH should be found.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN=
DOUBLE FOL=D TEST MEASURE.
SUMMARIES: ( 3, < 4. AND ( 5.


DFT COUNT % TOTAL

ii 3 1~34 37?.1
241 12 0

192 ED4.6




5 3h"5 I

o a 1 365 1010. 0







COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Summaries 8t vVIOUE double fold test (dft) levels is given to make datm
rmoij e>piicit 4-d more readily comrai-rble to datm cc noilied i t other
institttions. The Univermity of Florid- Librnries Lcd df = as
stiandrrd remasurc; items mwi th dit f w4ll not be rcc mm=rc a- 1 brund.
I toem with dft 3 will be ocnsiderod for micrsofi imin rdir-dlieos of
chvso-ic-al cind t iorn. A T o --t o'f ini titutio-s- um dft = 3 as a s:tand rd

Not ~loe then 12.7` ard -i-i more than 19.6" of al colle! tono are
caurrenit-ly emrb-F-3 tt 'led. Thes- findil-47- are cEi g ifirrtl lJly i;=i II I th.Rn th.oom
Uf rT'ale U-niversatvy L'bharres 'nd o bher, rimri ly northeeotern 1 ibrar i
t-Thich: heai~ w "it e + immeit-t to cepreeit 02L ,re~ -.i IriE -..~ or i c
re~c;re-prese el- ,
collectio-is. Cur-TCen1t UFL filqur- fo rot siUrifi i I.' daffer from
1,di795 Phyi'sical conditic.n =1b-vee 1@f Id 17,
E,,,Tib r t 1 c-f- 4 f ci- cl cI tocnS
ST1omti or, ar to- tabEles do not: i clud e d ta q_ Ithrod fr011- in-daendent
Of'irvee o m i t; men he i En t Ie d id-win Libr, c -! o17--ni1 L Pd Ehe -f4ci cJ
Lii bafr o f J7i C a
hsittlemet hec number of cous;em: acids in ooaper f-cr acids uzt= iudn
pnper mrn.ufcrt. p a~icido in m~ ic Lont-min i l-iot r~pperi ifber
as wood fib p uSe terpe- ati-t- and hum d tv K'nst m a ILoc t i ocnf
rCvcinc; Of te Moc'-nEt'Ure and iumi y both in -Ad us 1 I
b mpl r-- 1a- L t a 'ilIu I from 0 IT; 3 arT' build dilnqs'5 iC, d t l o d,
e--n.' r oinimen E t4o F1 0-a'o, e -nte-.l -id bac.-'. tc t a- libi-u
patr-orom's horn-' i i r od i bii _-! n e d ef -vco'nITe nt macr esetj %,;L1t a c t t -. o
ein2 10 facto works alone to + i. n embrnt ---it.em-en












POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.


a The Libraries should, in collaboration with other libraries, support
research into emerging paper strengthening technologies, and vigorously
petition corporations developing these technologies to become a test cite.
a The Preservation Office should continue to monitor the level of
embrittlement in collections. On-going studies should be devised to test
materials for embrittlement, alum rosin and ground wood pulp content, and
pH at the point of acquisition or processing, and when materials are
routed to the Office for binding, conservation or reprographic treatment.
Reports of findings should be issued annually to the Collection Management
Division and, in annual reports, to the Director of Libraries. Reports
should be made available to other libraries and organizations upon
request.
a The Libraries, through its Preservation Office, should seek to establish,
perhaps through the Commission on Preservation and Access, the Association
of Research Libraries, or another body, a registry of physical condition
information.
* Records established and automated through this physical condition survey
should be maintained either in a stand-alone database or in the 583 field
of USMARC records. Information pertaining to the condition of materials
should be considered part of "medical" files for individual volumes.
Information, once gathered, should not be discarded. Had automated
information been kept from the 1935 survey, more comparative analyses
might have been performed, and a larger pool of data established.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE.
ANALYSIS BY HOLDING LIBRARY.


COLUMN NOT DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE TOTAL
TESTED 0 1 2 3 4 5 6


ARCHITECTURE count 1
& FINE ARTS cum.count 1
LIBRARY X row 1.28S
cum.row 1.28
I column 4.171
H table 0.1

BELKNAP count 2
COLLECTION cum.count 2
X row 2.! ?
cum.row 2.!?
X column 8.331
table 0.1

EDUCATION count 0
LIBRARY cum.count 0
X row 0,
cus.row 0
A column 0
7 table 0

GOVERNMENT count 0
DOCUMENTS cum.count 0
LIBRARY A row 0
cua.row 0
X column 0
N table 0

'.":' Gl: count 13
SOCIAL cua.count 13 1


SCIENCES N row 3.2711 1
LIBRARY cus.ro, 3.27? 1
N column 54.2 26
Stable 0.7 0

:JiOr'L!I count 1 I 0
READING cum.count 1 0
ROOM C row l. i 0
cua .row 1.'.-!I 0
X column 4.17I 0
table 0.1 0!


1 2 1 5 0 10
1 3 4 9 9 19
1.28 2.53 1.28 6.41 0 12.8
1.28 3.84 5.12 11.53 11.53 24.33
3.85 2.13 1.59 8.62 0 12.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 0.5

0 3 1 0 0 2
0 3 4 4 4 6
0 3.26 1.09 0 0 2.17
0 3.26 4.35 4.35 4.35 6.52
0 3.19 1.59 0 0 2.44
0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1

0 0 3 1 1 5
0 0 3 4 5 10
0 0 3.7 1.23 1.23 6.17
0 0 3.7 4.93 6.16 12.31
0 0 4.76 1.72 2.38 6.10
0 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3


p 3 0
2 5 5
2.44 3.66 0
2.44 6.10 6.10
3.17 5.17 0
0.1 0.2 0


15 13 !0 11
22 35 45 56
.76 3.78 3.27 2.52 2.77
.76 5.54 8,81 11,33 14.10
.9 16.0 20.6 17.2 26.2
.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0


58
58
74.4
74.4
3.93
3

84
84
91.3
91.3
5.69
5


?8
78
100
100
4.18
4

92
92
100
100
4.93
5


71 81
S71 51
87.7 100
87.7 1 !00
I 4.1 4.3
1 4 4


1 76 1 82
S7I .?b 82
1.22 92.7 I 100
7.321 92.7 100
1.22 s 5.15 4.4
0.1 1 4 1 4
i I
I9 a 30. 397
75 301 i 3.
4. 79 7 .85EI 100
18.891 ??.7 ". 100
23.2 2.1 21.3
1 17.1 21

2 94 97

2-.06S 96.9 b 100
2.06 96.9 8 100
P.44d 6.37 5.2"
0.1 5 5


HOLDING
LIBRARY


0


- - - - - - - - - -- --


$I


--


0














HOLDING COLUMN NOT DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE TOTAL
LIBRARY TESTED 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1
II


LATIN count 0
AMERICAN cum.count 0
COLLECTION % row 0
cum.row 0
% column 0
X table 0


count 1
cum.count I
' rcw 0.29
cus.row 0.29
X column 4.17
% table 0.1


MUSIC count 4
LIBRARY cum.count 4
T row 4.08
cuM.row 4.08
X column 16.7
Y table 0.2


P.K. YONSE count 0
LIBRARY OF cum.count 0
FLORIDA X row 0
HISTORY cua.row 0
% column 0
table 0

PRICE count 0
LIBRARY OF cum.count 0
JUDAICA I row 0
cua.ro 0
I column 0
X table 0i

UNIVERSITY count 2
ARCHIVES cum.count 2
1 row 3.64
cua.row 3.64
% Column 8.33
table 0.1


11 31 !8 16 7 12
11 32 60 76 83 95
3.22 9.06 5.26 4.68 2.05 3.51
3.22 12.28 17.54 22.22 24.27 27.78
42.3 33.0 28.6 27.6 16.7 14.6
0.6 2 0.9 0.4 0.6


1 !9 13 9 11 14
1 20 33 42 53 67
0.289 5.48 3.75 2.59 3.17 4.03
0.288 5.768 9.518 12.108 15.278 19.31
3.85 20.2 20.6 15.5 26.2 17.1
0.1 1 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8

1 2 2 3 3 5
1 3 5 8 11 16
1.02 2.04 2.04 3.06 3.06 5.10
1.02 3.06 5.10 8.16 11.22 16.32
3.85 2.13 3.17 5.17 7.14 6.10
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3


1 12 7 8 6 4
1 13 20 28 34 38
0.943 11.3 6.60 7.55 5.66 3.77
0.943 12.243 18.843 26.393 32.053 35.82
3.85 .8 11.1 13.8 14.3 4.38
0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

4 10 2 2 3 8
4 14 16 18 21 29
S4.44 11.1 2.22 2.22 3.33 3.'
4.44 15.54 17.76 19.98 23.31 32.20
1 5.4 10.6 3.17 3.45 7.14 9.76
S0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4

0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 2 2 2
0 0 1.82 1.82 0 0
0 0 1.82 3.64 3.64 3.64
: 0 0 1.59 1.72 0 0
0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0


S247
247
72.2
72.2
16.7
13


279
279
I 80.4
S80.4
18.9
15

78

79.6
79.6
5.29
4


68
68
64.2
64.2
4.61
4

61
61
67.8
S67.8
4.!4
I 3

5!1
51
92.7
92.7
3.46
'"


----------------------_--llLI -----------------------------------
-----------------,------------- -- --Ir --


MARSTON
SCIENCE
LIBRARY


'--------


342
342
100
100
18.3
18


347
347
100
100
18.6
19

98

100
100
5.25



106
!06
100
100
5.68



.5
90
I 90

100
4.93
5




100
2.95












HOLDING COLUMN NOT DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE i DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE TOTAL
LIBRARY TESTED 0 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 I
------------------------ ----- --- -------- I----- ---
TOTAL count 24 26 94 63 58 42 82 1476 1 1865
cum.count 24 26 120 183 241 283 365 1 1476 1 1865
r row 1.292 1.39 5.04 3.38 3.11 2.25 4.40 79.1541 100
cum.row 1.29 1.39 6.43 9.81 12.92 15.17 19.57 7.1541 100
X column 100 100 100 100 !00 !00 100 1o00 100
table 1 1 5 3 3 2 4 79.18 100
aI a









COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

SAverages: dft ( 3 average is 12.92%; dft (4 average is 15.17?; and dft (5 average
is !5.17X.
a DFT 3 indicates need to reformat and definite risk of text loss; dft i5 indicates
inability to bind and potential risk of test loss.
M material held by the following locations have minimal embrittlement and appear to not
to be at risk overall: Belknap Collection, Government Documents Library, Journaliss
Reading Room, and the University Collection within the Archives.
I' Li wr e, -, 1 N I'.;
CONJECTURE: The Journalism Reading Room may represent minimal risk' due to its weeding
and transfer policies which were established to assist the Reading Roon in management
of its limited space.
CONJECTURE: The Government Documents Library may represent minimal risk due to factors
of previous use, relatively good environmental storage control, and conversion or
purchase of documents to/in microform. [NOTE: The current physical condition survey
did not examine the condition of microforas in this location.]
CONJECTURE: The Archives may represent minimal risk because materials held in the
University Collection are published by university presses which, largely, have
converted to use of paper meeting the requirements of ANSI 239.48, "...Permanence of
paper for printed library materials".
SThe following collections have high dft measures at dft 5 but fall significantly
bfelo the average: Education Library and Music Librar, Brittle materials held in
these libraries are likely, to need increasing attention, but do not now warrant
immediate attention.
v The following collections have high dft measures at dft (5, falling just below the
average: Humanities/Social Sciences Library and the Marston Science Library. Brittle
materials held in these collections may preclude retrospective binding er rebinding,
and may eventually require reformatting.
# The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft 5 (ranked list
beginning with most endangered): P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, Price Library of
Judaica, Latin American Library, and the Architecture & Fine Arts Library. Brittle
materials held in all of these collections may preclude retrospective binding or
rebinding, and may eventually require reformatting.
a The following collections have high dft measures at dft (3, falling just below the
average: Architecture & Fine Arts Library, Humanities/Socia! Sciences Library and the
Marston Science Library. Brittle materials in these locations may not withstand
additional use and should be targeted for rnformating.












v The following collections have exceedingly high dft measures at dft 13 (ranked list
beginning with most endangered!: P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, Latin American
Collection, and the Price Library of Judaica. Brittle materials in these locations may
not withstand additional use and should be targeted for reformating as soon as
possible. Embrittlement in Florida History and the Latin American Collection are moae
than twice the average. Reformatting funded through *:H'F.] Sreat Collections
Microfilirng Project (Phase 21 grant has already begun work on Caribtbean asin
materials held in both Florida History and the Latin American Collection. Reforn..tting
funded through NEH/SOLINET grant has already targeted Brazilian materials held in the
Latin American Collection. Reormatting funded through A12-cLS Archives and
Manuscripts Microfilming Project has already begun wort on one archival collection in
Florida History. Additional grants for collections in these areas and Judaica need to
be dev1:lop.n
a The average dft measure at dft = 0 is 1.395; and at dft i. is 6.43. A dditiona use of
materials which fall at or below the average when dft 1 are at definite risk of text
less. ANY additional use of materials which have dft = 0 (i.e., are not able to
withstand one double fold) are at severe risk and should not be used until reformatted.
a The following collections fall into these extreme categories (i.e., dft iI is at or
above average) (ranked list beginning with most endangered): Price Library of Judaica.
Latin Aserican Collection, P.K.Y. Library of Florida History, Marston Science Library,
and the Humanities/Social Science Library. Materials held in Judaica should be given
first priority, e brittlement is nearly three times the average. Materials in the
Latin Amiierican Collection and Florida History are twice the average.
* The average percentage of flex.:ible papers in all collections is 79.1-..
*The following collections have percentages of flexible papers above or near the average
ranked list beginning with the highest percentage): Journal ism Readinq Room,
Eovern.ent Documents Library, Belknap Collection, Education Library, Marston Science
Library, iusic Library, and Huainities/Social Science Library. Note that the Scie-ce
and Hu- aniies.Social Science libraries contain both some of the most e brittled and
most flexible papers.
, In addition to information tabulated above, the following information was compiled as
the reult of survey of materials held by the Baldwin Library of Juvenilia. The survey
was conducted in November of 1988 and ws liite-d to 100 volumes.

SFT Me a Sirel 1 2 3 5 No Brittle Total
.. _._I 1_._ l.. I -. --- .-- _-- I------
Ii IS 32 1 1 i 8 I I

SCUJM 11 i -3, 57 i -68 73 8 z' j 1 .0

The average dft measure cf brittle triall s Has.3. Compared to material surv eed
as part of the recent physical condition surey Bldwin rialss ar

8 times mor- brittle at dft=
7 ties more brittle a dft 1
6 ties sore brittle at dft 2;
5 times *ore brittle at dft 3;
5 t--es more britte at dft 4

4 t 1ices less likely to be flesibleb

This data indicates that the Baldwin Library, even at its best, is far macre endangered
than the worst of recently ureed collections t its worst. Because o its
uniqueness and cosMleteness, it represents the UFL's bCst grant opporturnit-,












a Random physical condition survey of master microfilm reels held in the P.K.Y. Library
of Florida History was conducted in February 1988. Cf, Appendix to this table for
survey procedure and tabulated results. Approximately 92% of master negatives were in
a state of deterioration resultant from problems in original processing, storage
materials, storage climate, and acetate film base which has proven unstable. Actions
taken following survey include:
()! Regeneration project to create security copies on polyester based filt, and to
store film to American National Standards and Research Libraries guidelines. Project
cost to date (951 completion of 7,000 reels): 3 $185,000. NOTE: UFL microfilm masters
(3 13,000 reels) stored at University Microfilms have been ordered back to the
Libraries and may require remastering.
(2) Replacement of metal containers and reels, as well as contaminated paper boxes with
materials meeting the American National Standards.
(3) Establishment of procedures for shipping film to storage. 'Regenerated film is
just now returning and will be shipping immediately following inventory quality
control.)
This project was the impetus for the creation of FILMLOG, an interactive database
programmed by Erich Kesse. FILMLOS tracks materials, perform a variety of activities
such as targeting, limited cataloging, and generation of packing lists, union catalogs
and statistical information.
a If the UFL collections include 2,700,000 volumes then, excluding continuing
embrittlement, and at current processing rate of 3 2,500 vol. by 1.0 FTE:

3 dft = 0 .............37530 vol. ebrittled ........ 15 years
3 dft i 1 ............. 173. 10 vol. embrittled ........ years
Sdft 2 ........... 26,870 vol. embrittied ....... 106 years
Sdft (3 ............. 4840 vol. eabrittled ....... 140 years
3 dft e 4 ............. 409,590 vol. embrittled ....... 164 years
S dft 5 ............. 523,390 vol embrittled ....... 211 years

Other data in this and other tables indicates that as UFL collections ace,
embrittlement will dramatically increase.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Physics! condition surveys should be conducted on (i' -chives and aanuscripts (b ok
and paper materials), (2) microforms, slides and phot'negstives, (3) photographic
prints (particularly in the Architecture I Fine Arts Lib ry Map Library and
-. s-;ity Archives)i, ) agne-tic media, and 5! cartographic trials.
i Make grant application (NEH Preservation) for funds needed to continue film
regeneration project.
a Develop automated resources to better manage information, queues and other activities,
which in turn free staff to perform other duties and allows the Preservation Office to
expand its range of services and quantity of work performed. (This may be possible
through Title II-D in collaboration with FCLA, RLN, OCLC, or NCTIS.)
a Make grant application (NEH Preservation) for funds needed to conserve and microfilm
materials in the Baldwin Library. This should be an immediate priority for book and
paper materials. This grant will also require resources for cataloging.
a Seek cooperative grant application (NEH Preservation) for Judaica materials. This
should be a secondary priority for book and paper materials.
a Seek cooperative grant application (NEH Preservation) for Florida History materials.
This should be a tertiary priority for book and paper materials.
SMRake grant application (NEH Preservation) for additional geographic regions represented













in the Latin American Library. The Preservation Office has targeted Argentine and
Chilean materials because of size and condition of collection. This should be a
fourth priority for book and paper materials.
i Seek cooperative grant application (MEH Preservation or other) for materials in
Humanities, Social Sciences and hard Sciences. This should be a fifth priority for
book and paper materials. Data suggests that this application 4ill be least successful
of those suggested and will require increased internal funding as embrittlement
continues.
a The Collection Management Division should arrive at an equitable and workable means of
funding preservation, particularly: commercial binding, conservation, and reprographic
services. NOTE: funding currently originates from the library materials budget.

t Materials held by the Education and Music Libraries should be surveyed not less than
every 10 years to ascertain states of physical condition. Of collections not yet
endangered, these are most likely to become endangered.
i The Libraries should encourage the Music Library Association to develop preservation
projects which meet the needs of music materials and are forward thinking. Development
of affordable facsimile reproduction techniques, suited to music, perhaps as
off-prints from microform, digital or optical media would should be encouraged. And,
the Libraries should seek cooperative grant (MEH Preservation or Title 1I-D) for this
development.
i Materials which have dft = 0 should be removed from circulating collections, and placed
under inventory control by the Brittle Books Program of the Preservation Office.
a Attempts should be made to flag brittle materials which continue to reside in
circulating collections. The flag, as that currently in use, warns the patron of
material condition and requests for gentle treat-ent during use.
a The Preservation Office should again attempt to bring collection i .ger 'i.e.,
bibliographers and selectors) into the brittle books process.
a The Libraries should assign ar additional 1.0 FTE to the BrittlE Boos. P-ogra.
tCrrint staffing is insufficient to handle grant and non-grant r--flow.
* Some or all of the collections should undrg: decidificatio and a l atin to
eove acids and buffr materials against the effects of acids. Because data indicate
that collections, including new publications which represent the bulk of collcti.ns
.il continue to become acidic d e brttled, these sroC:essE should cluee
Embr-ittled materials.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
EMBR I TTLEMENT .
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY COLUMN
DESIGN.


NOT
TESTED


DOUBLE
0 1


FOLD TEST MEASURE
2 3 4 5


NO DATE count
cuT. count
X row
cum. rc=.
% column
% table

Pre-1851 count
cum. count
% row
cum.r FOW
% column
% table


1851-1899







1900-1909







1910-1919







1920-1929


count
cum.count
% riow
cum. ow

% table
'; 4- i- 1


count
cum.count

cUiTi.row
% column





C rowI
% table

..m o _-i t

* i C O I i -'.






% co luein
0 table

count.
Cum.count
% row
cuni. row
% column
% tsbie


NOT
BRITTLE


2
2
4.26
4.26
8.33
0.1

4
4
66.7
66.7
16.7
0.2

0
0

0,





..
0



1
1
3.2'
3.23
4.17
0.1

2

5.26

8.33
0.1

1
1
1.59
1.59
4.17
0.1


3
3
6.38
6.39
I 'I
.L. ,fl.

0.2

0
0


0
0
C,


5
5
.J
16.1
16.1
19.2
0.3

7


22.6
26.9
0.4

3
39
7.89
7.89
11.5
0.2

2

3.17
.17

0. 1


4
? c
8.51
14.89
4.26
0.2

0
01
0
0
0


9
14
29
45.1
9.57
0.5

8
15
25.8
48.4
8.51
0.4

12
I"
15
31.6
39.49
12.8
0.6

17
19.
27.0
30.17
13.1
0.9


0
7
0
14.89
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0


5
19
16.1
61.2
7.94
0.3

3

9.68
58.03
4.76
0.2



ii
Fr --
2.63
42.12
1.59


10
29
15.9
46.07

0.5
-Ti. ,..7
i C-"


3
10
6.38
21.27
5.17
0.2

1
1
16.7
16.7
1.72
0.1

1
20
3.23
64.43
1.72
0. i

1




1.72
9I




0. 1

3
19
7. 89
50.01
5.17


0.2
36

57.17
12.1
0.4


2
12
4.26
25.56
4.76
0.1

0
1
I
0,
16.7
0
0

2
22
6.45
70.83
4.76
0. 1

0
19
0
61.31
0 i
0


3
39
4.76
61.93
7,14
0.2


2
14
4.26
29.79
2.44
0.1

0
1
0
16.7
0
0

3
25
9.68
80.56
3.66
0.2

1
20
3.23
64,54
1.22
0.1


6
45
9 ,,52
71.45
7.3 p
0.3


31
31
66
66
2.1
2

I
1
16.7
16.7
0. 0628
0.1

6
b

19.4
19. 4L"
0.407


10

32.3

0.678
0.5


17
17
27
27
i .15
0, 9


_ ___ __~
i. i ~---------------













COLUMN NOT
DESIGN. TESTED


1930-1939







1940-1949







1950-1959







1960-1989


2
2
2.27


. 33


count
cum.count
* row
cum.row
%, column
% table

count






C U0 U. -Mt
cum.count






CCU' COL i

C% rI-O
cum.row




% column




% table

count
cum.count




% row
CLumi.row




% column
% table
"- table


DOUBLE
0 1


2
2
2.27
2.27
7.69
0.1

4
4
3.36
3.36
15.4
0.2

0
0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
0


13
15
14.8
17.07
13.8
is)
0.7


12
16
10.1
13.46
12.8
0.6

10
10
4.44
4.44
10.6
0.5

9
9
0.74
0.74
9.57
0.5


FOLD TEST MEASURE
2 3 4 5


8
27
9.09
26.16
12.7
0.4

11
27
9.24
22.7
17.5
0.6

11
21
4.89
9.33
17.5
0.6

14
23
1.15
1.89
22.2
0.8


8

9.09


0.4


37
8.4
31.1
17.2
0.5
11

32
4.89
14.E
19.0
0.6

13
36
1.07
2.96
22.4
0.7


5


40.93
11.9
0.3

6
45
5.04'
36.14
14.3
0.3

12
44
5.33
19.55
28.6
0.6

10
46
0.822
3.792
23.8
0.5
-7-7 -7


COLUMN NOT
DESIGN. TESTED


count
cum.count
% row
cum.row
% column
% table


24
24
1.29
1.29
100
1


DOUBLE FOLD TEST MEASURE
0 1 2 3 4


26
26
1.39
1.39
100
1


94
120
5.04
6.43
100
5


63
183
3.38
9.81
100
3


58
241
3.11
12.92
100
3


42
243
2.25
15.17
100
2


CHRONOLOGY


0
0i


1")
0



12
12
0.986
0.986
50
0. 6


NOT
BRITTLE


6
46
6.82
47.75
7.32
0.3

8
53
6.72
42.86
9.76
0 '~!L
0.4

16
60
7.11
26.66
19.5
0.9

37
83
o-7-
3.04
6.822
45.1
2


44
44

55
2.98


68
68
57.1
57.1
4.61
4

165
165
73.3
73.3
11.2
9

1122
1122
92. 182
92.182
76
60.1


CHRONOLOGY


TOTAL


NOT
BRITTLE


1476
1476
79.154
79.154
100
79.1


82
365
4.4
19.57
100
4


- --- --- -- -- ----
------- :i













COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Much of this information is already known. Not too surprisingly, there is little
deviation from pre-existing information.
a Embrittlement is above the average for all collections at every level of dft
measurement from 1851 through 1960. The table indicates that the older the item,
the more likely it is to be embrittled.
a The most severely embrittled materials were published between 1851 and 1920.
Embrittlement of materials from this period ranges from 3 to over 16 times more
brittle than the average. Nineteenth century materials and collections, such as
those held by the Baldwin Library are at extreme risk. (Cf, data from Baldwin
survey attached as an appendix to this table.)
a Embrittlement of current (i.e., 1960-1989) materials is already one third the
average.
Baldwin survey shows that 8% of items are available in reprint or microform.
Coincidentally, Brittle Books Program data for the NEH/RLG Great Collections
Microfilming Grant (Phase 2) indicates that availability of reprint and
microforms for Caribbean materials hovers between 8% and 10%. Availability rates
differ from collection area to collection area. They should not be taken as
constants.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Some or all of the collections should undergo deacidification and alkalinization
to remove acids and buffer materials against the effects of acids in pacer.
These processes should begin with materials published in the current (i.e.,
1960-present) era.
Portions of the collections should be microfilmed or reproduced in optimal
quality facsimile. These efforts should concentrate on materials published
between 1851 and 1920, but not exclude materials published as late as 1960.
The Libraries, through its Freservation Office, and in collaboration with the
Commission n Preservation and Access, the Association of Research Libraries, and
the Research Libraries Group, should lobby the National Endowment for the
Humanities to extend its publication date parameters for funding of refcrmatting
pro jects.
a Make grant application (NEH Preservation) for microfilming of ninetesnth century
items, particularly those of the Baldwin Library of Juvenilia. (Cf date/place of
publication and data/holding location tables.)












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
TEXT-BLOCK TREATMENT REQU I REMENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY


NO DATE




Pre-1851


1851-1900




1900-1909




1910-1919




1920-1929




1930-1939




1940-1949




1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
X row
X column
% table

count
% row
% column
X table


N/A TEXT-BLOCK TREATMENT REQUIRED?
NO YES


2
4.26
50
0.1

1
16.7
25
0.1


count
% row
% column
X table

count
% row
, column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
I column
% table

count
% ro'w
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
X table

count
% row
% column
% table


37
78.7
2.27
2

1
16.7
0.061
0.1

19
61.3
1.17
1

17
54.8
1.04
0.9

27
71.1
1.66
1

44
69.8
2.7
2

65
73.9
3.99
3

94
79
5.77
5

180
80
11
10


8
17.0
3.48
0.4

4
66.7
1.74
0.2

12
38.7
5.22
0.6

14
45.2
6.09
0.8

11
28.9
4.78
0.6

19
30.2
8.26
1

23
26.14
9.57
1

25
21
10.9
1

45
20
19.6
2













CHRONOLOGY COLUMN N/A TEXT-BLOCK TREATMENT REQUIRED?
DESIGNATION NO YES

1960-1989 count 1 1146 70
% row 0.082 94.2 5.75
% column 25 70.3 30.4
% table 0.1 61 4

TOTAL count 4 1630 231
% row 0.214 87.4 12.354
% column 100 100 100
X table 0.2 87 12.1



COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Of total items needing text block treatment, need increases the younger
the volume. This may be due to poorer manufacture, greater use and
changed research patterns, poorer handling techniques perhaps related to
the increase of the consume/dispose economy, etc.
Of total items needing text block treatment, greatest need is for items
with imprints between 1920 and i960.
a Need for text block treatment dramatically increases after the 1850
publication date, the date after which ground wood pulp and other
detrimental processes were introduced.
a Publication groups, relative to their size in the collections, in greatest
need of tt block treatment are in pre-1920 imprint groups.
Pre-1851 imprints have greatest need relative to their size in the
collection.
a Approximately 12% of the collections, overall, need treatment.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Pritority for identification of items needing text block treatment should
be given to items with pre-1851 imprints. However, priority for actual
treatment should be given only to those that are rare, valuable or unique
and ca.rc.t be replaced.
a Priority for actual text block treatment should be given to circulating
collections of the modern period.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN :
CASE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.


GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP

UNKNOWN
PLACE OF
PUBLICATION


AFRICAN
GROUP




AUSTRALASIAN
GROUP



CANADA





CARIBBEAN
& CENTRAL
AMERICAN
GROUP

EUROPEAN
GROUP



SOUTH
AMERICAN
GROUP


USA
GROUP



TOTAL


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


count

% column
% table

count
%" row
% column
: table

count
C 0 Ui nt
% row
% column n
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

couLt t
% roi,
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
' row
% column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


N/A
UNKNOWN

1
1.85
25
0.1

0
C0
0
0
0C


0
0
0

0
0
i)
Li



C'
0

0
0

0
0r
0


0

0
0i






0.2

4
0.214
100
0.2


CASE TREATMENT REQUIRED?
NO YES


42
77.8
2.77
2

2
100
0.132
0.1

47
79.7
3.10
3

12
100
0.793
0.6

16
69.6
1.06
0.9

312
86.0
20.6
17

169
68.1
11.2
9

914
82.8
60.4
49

1514
81.2
100
81


11
20.4
3.17
0.6


12
20.3
3.46
0.6


7
30.4
2.02
0.4

51
14.0
14.
3


79
31.9
22.8
4


187
16.9

10

347
18.6
100
19


TOTAL
COUNT


248
100


1 104
100


1865
100


363
100













COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Approximately 15.6% of all collections require case treatments.
a In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States and
South America have the greatest need for case treatment. In the latter,
binding is often poor as a result of economic factors. Items published in
the United States (and possibly those from South America) show up in this
category due to the great number of USA (and South American) imprint in
the collections.
I In the individual imprint groups, items published in South Amarica, the
Caribbean basin and Central America, and Australasia exceed the average
need. Items published in these areas are often substandard.
a Insufficient information regarding African imprints was collected.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Priority for case treatment should be given items published in the United
States and South American. These items should be identified through
circulation. Staff responsible for circulation should be trained to
identify these materials.
a Secondary priority should be oiven third world imprints. These items are
often unique in the United States, and the University has an obligation to
preserve them. These items should be targeted by means of a shelf
survey. A survey staff dedicated to this task should do the work. Work
shc.uld begin in the Latin American Collection where there is both greatest
need and concentration. It should then proceed into general stack using
area study call numbers as a guide.













FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
CASE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.
ANALYSIS BY HOLDING LIBRARY.


LIBRARY COLUMN N/A TREATMENT REQUIRED? TOTAL
DESIGNATION NO YES COUNT

ARCHITECTURE Count 0 63 15 78
& FINE ARTS % row 0 80.8 19.2 100
LIBRARY % column 0 4.16 4.32
% table 0 3 0.8

BELKNAP count 0 87 5 92
COLLECTION % row 0 94.6 5.43 100
% column 0 5.75 1.44
% table 0 5 0.3

EDUCATION count 0 51 30 81
LIBRARY row 0 63.0 37.0 100
% column 0 3.37 8.65
Stable 0 3 2

GOVERNMENT count 0 77 5 82
DOCUMENTS X row 0 93.9 6.10 100
LIBRARY % column C 5.09 1.44
% table 0 4 0.3

HUMANITIES count 1 328 68 397
SOCIAL % row 0.252 82.6 17.1 100
SCIENCES % column 25 21.7 19.6
LIBRARY % table 0.1 18 4

JOURNALISM count 0 90 7 97
READING row 0 92.8 7.22 100
ROOM column 0 5.94 2.02
% table 0 5 0.4

LATIN count 0 236 106 342
AMERICAN % row 0 69.0 31.0 100
COLLECTION % column 0 15.6 30.5
% table 0 13 6

MARSTON count 1 294 52 347
SCIENCE % row 0.e28 84.7 15.0 100
LIBRARY % column 25 19.4 15.0
% tale 0.1 16 3

MUSIC count 0 8 8 98
LIBRARY X row j0 89.8 10.2 100
% column 0 5.81 2.88
% table 0 5 0.5












LIBRARY COLUMN N/A TREATMENT REQUIRED? TOTAL
DESIGNATION NO YES COUNT

P.K. YONGE count 0 97 9 106
LIBRARY OF % row 0 91.5 8.49 100
FLORIDA % column 0 6.41 2.59
HISTORY % table 0 5 0.5

PRICE count 0 56 34 90
LIBRARY OF % row 0 62.2 37.8 100
JUDAICA X column 0 3.70 9.80
K table 0 3 2

UNIVERSITY count 2 47 6 55
ARCHIVES % row 3.64 85.5 10.9 100
X column 50 3.10 1.73
% table 0.I 3 0.3

TOTAL count 4 1514 347 1865
% row 0.214 81.2 18.6 100
% column 100 100 100 100
% table 0.2 81 19 100



COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Approximately 18.6% of all collections require case treatment.
In the collections as a whole, materials in the Latin American Collection
and Humanities/Social Science and Marston Science Libraries approximate or
exceed the average need for case treatment.
In individual collections, case treatment need Exceeds the average need in
the Judaica, Education, Latin American, Architecture/Fine Arts Libraries.
This is to say that in these libraries, case treatment needs are excessive
and immediate.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

a Priority for case treatment should be given individual collections which
exceed the average. These collections should be actively targeted, by
means of shelf survey, to identify materials in need. Work should be
prioritized according to greatest need as state above. A survey staff
dedicated to shelf survey should do this work.
Secondary priority for case treatment should be given to the circulating
ci sections of the Latin American Collection, Humanities/Social Sciences
and Marstcn Science Libraries. However, targeting should not be as
deliberate as for individual collections as recommended above, rather it
should occur through circulation only. Individuals responsible for
circulation in these libraries should be trained to identify materials in
need.














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
CASE TREATMENT NEEDS .
CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGY



NO DATE





Pre-1851


1851-1899





1900-1909





1910-1919





1920-1929





1930-1939





1940-1949





1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
% row
% column
X tabei

cou nt
Ci row
% column
% table


N/A




L.
4.26
50
0.1

1.
16.7
25
0.i


count
/X E 1
% column



c table

cou nt
FC, i-o






iU tab I
% row
% clumn
X table


% -row

% table

count
% rowi
% column




C Ca U t
% table
county

, colu Lmn



% table


% table


CASE TREATMENT NEEDED?
NO YES


36
76.6
2.38
2



66.7
0. 264
0.2

19"

61.3
1.25
1

15
43. 4

0.8

25
65.8
1.65
i
i.


61
69,.3
4.03
3


166

11.0


9
19.1

0.5

i


16.
0.288



12
38.7
3.46


!16
51.6
4.61
0.9


21
33.3




27

7.78



40



iC
1;1.






3













CHRONOLOGY COLUMN
DESIGNATION


1960-1989


TOTAL


CC' ..t
count
X row
% column
% table

count
X row
% column
% table


CASE TREATMENT NEEDED?
NO YES


1
0.082
25
0.1

4
0.214
100
0.2


1067
87.7
70.5
57

1514
81.2
100
81


149
12.2
42.9
8

347
18.6
100
19


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

Approximately 18.6% of all collections require case treatment
a In the collections as a whole, only materials published after 1960 require
immediate case treatment. Need among items in this group is more than
two times greater than the average need.
a In individual imprint groups, need for case treatment is almost
universally apparent. The bulk of imprint group items needing treatment
most in relation to their numbers were published between 1351 and 1920.
Because of the degree of the pFroblem among recent imprints, it may be
possible to conjecture that contemporary case (i.e., publisher's) bindings
fail at rates far greater than those of early periods either because of
greater and poorer use or poorer manufacture if not both.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Priority for case treatment should be given modern imprints. These
iTprints should be targeted at point of circulation,,
SlThene .'r possible, books s-huld be purchased in paperback and given
tr.aditi-.al library bindinqs. Such bindings ted end to b" m.iore di'ur;bl t.ha
publisher' css bindings. Iplementation of this practice will require
-ethinking of allocations for comm-rcial binding,














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
CASE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
RELATION TO JOINT COVERING MATERIALS.


JOINT COVER
MATERIAL


CLOTH


LEATHER


PAPER


OTHER


TOTAL
ALL
MATERIALS


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


count
C rL ow
%, column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count

% column
% table


% row
% column
% table

count
Sco lumin

, table
e ..
C! D L; 'I
C I 10-
b 1


UNKNOWN CASE TREATMENT REQUIRED?
NO YES


0
0




1
0.2
25
0.1

3
3.66
75
C0.2


0.214
10,0
0.2


83.9
69.0
56

28
71.8
1.85


375
75.2
21 .8
20

67
81.7
4.43
4

1514
81.2
100
81


201
16.1

11

11
28.2
3.17
0.6

123
24.6
35.4


!2
14.6
3.46
0.6

347
18.6
100
19


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

This table associates joint covering material with case treatment need.
Cases (i.e., covers and spine) generally deteriorate at the head-caps
(along the top of the spine) and along the joints. Th-e oint covering
material covers both locations.
The average rate of deterio-ration c i.e. case treatment need) is 18.6
of all collections. Joint covering materials which e';.ced this average
include leather and paper. Cloth and other covering materials (e.g.,
plastic) appro:-iimate the average.
28.2% of leather materials require case treat ment. Most leather materials
3ere issued prior to 1910. It is conceivable that leather has either
aced, losing it natural oils or, because of the tanning process has
suffered leather or red rot. Rates of publication and acquisition of
leather bound materials has dropped significantly since 1910. Statistics,
therefore, coud be said to document a rather static problem.













24.6% of paper materials require case treatment.
The percentage of paper materials in the collections (26.8%) roughly
equals the percentage of paperback books (26.3%) reported in the type of
books tables. It is conceivable that 0.5% of collections are hardbound
materials covered and jointed with paper or cloth textured paper. It
appears that @ 75% of paper jointed materials do not require case
treatment. Chronological analysis in type of book tables indicates that
the majority (65%) of paperback were published in the last thirty years.
The Preservation Office has suggested a policy of binding paperback
monographs only after initial circulation. It is hoped that, since cloth
cover treatment needs approximate the treatment need average, this policy
will allow paperback case to take the brunt of initial mistreatment,
eventually reducing cloth cover treatment need percentage. It is assumed
that cloth covering is a more permanent form of covering.
Examining column statistics for treatment need, the majority (57.9%) of
need and conservation queue is cloth covered material. Paper covered
material represents 35.4% of need and queue. Conservation work will be
concentrated on cloth materials. Again, the suggestion that paper covered
material should be commercially bound (lacking structural damage to the
textblcck) will reduce conservation queues to handle this and other
problems. Placing this problem in perspective however, this table
indicates that only 11% of all collections are cloth covered materials
needing case treatment. This figure suggests that well managed
conservation queues should allow the Conservation Unit to perform
additional pamphlet binding, boxing encapsulation, and tex;tblock repair.
Figures for this and other types of conservation treatments should be
compiled and time studies performed to determine adequacy of present
staffing levels.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Figures for case treatment repair and other types of conservation
treatments should be compiled and time studies performed to determine
adequacy of present staffing levels.
A retrospective project, beginning with Rare Books and Special
Collections, should be undertaken to conservatively oil leather b'.nd
volumes which do not suffer red rot. Special Collections staff, with
an-nual training in the Preservation Office and with p-riodic random
evaluations, should be able to perform much of this activity.
'.OTE: Recent studies have indicated that even conservative leather oiling
may eventually damage textblocks. The Preservation Offi:e ceased oiling
operations in 1987 until further scientific information could be
released; studies have not been completed to date. The p problem of leather
detario-ation represents only 0.6% of all collections (16,200 volumes).
while this figure might be significant for larger libraries, without:
further assessment of salvageability of leather and value of leather b:ound
items, it may not be significant for a collection of a reported 2,700,00
volumes.
T The Collection Management Division should conduct a current price survey
of leather- bound materials.












a The Preservation Office should compile information regarding the
salvaqeability of damaged leather materials. In particular, it should
keep statistics of location and type of leather damage, and should perform
a survey on materials in the current survey registered as in need of case
treatment to ascertain the extent of red rot in collections. Red rot is a
condition which is currently considered unsalvageable.
' The Libraries should adopt the Preservation Office recommendation (cf,
attached 1990 May 31 memorandum entitled, "Preservation Office
Reorganization") to enact a policy of commercial binding for monographs
only after initial circulation. This policy reduces conservation and
commercial binding queues to allow other vital work, and serves to allow
more equitable use of funds for preservation within a static funding
situation. The proposal incorrectly states that 85% of materials could go
unbound, the correct figure is 75%. Since circulation statistics are
unknown, the proposal should be modified to provide review after
circulation. The decision to bind should be founded in this review and
based on case and textblock condition after circulation. This would still
require circulation staff to route paperbacks to the Preservation Office.
Further, the Preservation Office should provide training to circulation
staff to identify paperback materials which may be in need of binding.
The proposal ignores the benefit of binding in case of disaster.
Disasters elsewhere have shown that hardcovers protect materials from
water and smoke damage. This should be taken into consideration.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
CASE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.
RELATION TO TYPE OF BOOK.


CASE
TREATMENT
REQUIRED?

UNKNOWN





NO





YES





TOTAL


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


cou int

} column
table

count

/' column
C table


X. row
% column
/.X ro
X table







count
% row
%' column
% table


OTHER/
NOT
BOUND

2
50
22.2
.p i



0.330
55.6
0.3

2
0.576
22.2
0.1

9
0.483
100
0.5


PAPERBACK
SOFT COVER
BOOK

2
50C
0.4(08
0.1

367
24.2
74.9
20

121
34.9
24.7
6

490
26.3
100
26


HARDBACK
HARD COVER
BOOK

0
0

0

1142
75.4
83.6
61

224
64.6
16.4
12

1366
73.2
100
73


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

This table shows relation between type of book and cae treat meant need
S12.6% of all materials require case treatment. Of material needing cas
treatment: 64.6 are hardcover book-, 34.9% are poaer; a lck bcoks, and
0.576% are of unspecified type.
Data indicates that 33. of hardcover books arnd 74.9 of paperbark book
do not require case tre ntent.
SNo unlike findings in th t table e rating case t reatmet need to joint
covering material, the percentage of paperbacks req ring case treatment
rouq.!l eouals the pe;-centaqe of paper pointss requiring casse: treatment.
Re'co-,mmE~,ndations in that table ,shoul d be considered here.


TOTAL
COUNT


4
100
0.214
0.2

1514
100
81.2
81

347
!00




100
100
100
100














POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Libraries should adopt the Preservation Office recommendation (cf,
?190 May 31 memorandum entitled, "Preservation Office Reorganization") to
enact a policy of commercial binding for monographs only after initial
circulation. This policy reduces conservation and commercial binding
queues to allow other vital work, and serves to all more equitable use of
funds for preservation within a static funding situation. The proposal
incorrectly states that 85% of materials could go unbound, the correct
figure is 75%. HOWEVER, other than condition or leaf attachment, the
Preservation Office has no criteria for selection for binding.
The Collection Management Division in collaboration with the Acquisitions
Department should consider including recommended retention periods on
order records. The Preservation Office now has no criteria from
Collection Management staff for binding, conservation or reproduction of
materials. Recommended retention periods would assist Preservation Office
staff in decision making. Retention information could be keyed into a 583
field on the bibliographic or holdings record for consideration.














FREQUENT
GROUND
CHRONOLOGICAL


ICY BREAKDOWN:
WOOD PULP CONTENT.
ANALYSIS.


CHRONOLOGOY


NO DATE





Pre-1851


1851-1899





1900-1909





1910-1919





1920-1929





1930-1939





1940-1949





1950-1959


COLUMN
DESIGNATION

count
% row
X column
% table

count
% row
% column
% table


count
% row
X column
% table

count
% row
% column
X table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row,
K column
X table

count
% row,
% column
% table

count

Column
% table

count
% r ow
X colufmnt
X table


UNKNOWN
NOT TESTED


5
83.3
11.6
0.3

1
3.23
2.33
0.1

1
3.23
2.33
0.1

1
2.63
2.33
0.-1

2
3.17
4.65
0.1

3
3.41
6.98
0.2


1
0.444
2.33
0. 1


GROUND WOOD PULP PRESENT?
NO YES


38
80.9
2.47
2

1
16.7
0.065
0.1

22
71.0
1.43
1

2EB
90.3
1.82
2

35
92.1
2.28
2

56
88.9
3.65
31

76
86.4
4.95
4

93
78.14
5.99
5.1

188
83.6
12.2
0


9
19.1
3.33
0.5

0
0
0
0
C:
(1


8
25.8
2.96
0.4

72
6.45
0.741
0.1

2
5.26
0.741
0.

5
7. 94
1.85
0.3

9
10.2
3.33
0,5

26
21.8
9.63
1

36
16
13.3
2













CHRONOLOGOY COLUMN UNKNOWN GROUND WOOD PULP PRESENT?
DESIGNATION NOT TESTED NO YES

1960-1989 count 29 1015 173
% row 2.338 3.43 14.2
; column 67.4 65.1 64.1
X table 2 54.8 9

TOTAL count 43 1552 270
% row 2.31 83.258 14.5
% column 100 100 100
% table 2 82.9 14


COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a Approximately 14.5% of collections contain ground wood pulp. Ground wood
pulp may be detrimental to paper in two ways. First, ground wood contains
short fibers which, unlike long fibers, may have less bending strength.
As embrittlement occurs, short fibers break into even shorter fibers.
Second, ground wood pulp is likely to contain lignin; an acidic substance
which causes embrittlement.
The presence of ground wood pulp should be considered an indicator of
possible future embrittlement.
a In the collections as a whole, items published after 1960 represent, by
far, the bulk of materials containing ground wood pulp.
a In individual imprint groups however, nearly every imprint group after 1940
contains as much or slightly more ground wood pulp than the average.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

E Because of their great number in the collection, materials published after
1960 should be given first priority should mass deacidification become
affordable. These materials left untreated will eventually represent a
more significant problem than imprint groups with higher per count
occurrence of ground wood pulp.
a Second priority for future mass deacidification should be given materials
published af.er 1940. Tables containing pH values under chronological
analysis should be consulted to determine the wisdom of mass deacidifying
these materials. As a general rule older materials have lower pH.
Deacidification, while it raises pH, cannot neutralize or buffer materials
which have pH lower than @ 4.0.














FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
GROUND WOOD PULP-
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.


GEOGRAPHIC
GROUP

AFRICAN
GROUP


AUSTRALASIAN
GROUP




CANADA





CARIBBEAN
& CENTRAL
AMERICAN
GROUP

EUROPEAN
GROUP




LATIN
AMERICAN
GROUP


UNKNOWN
PLACE OF
PUBLICATION


UNITED
STATES
GROUP


TOTAL


COLUMN
DESIGNATION


count
% row
% column
% table

count


% table

count
% row
% column
% table

count
% row
% cO lumin
% table

count
% row
C C'
% column
% table

count

% column
% table


z- l-OM
% column
K table

count


4- tble

count
% row
% column
% table


NOT
TESTED


GROUND WOOD PULP
NO YES


2
100
0.1 9
0.1

Z49
83.1
3.16
3

11
91.7
0.709:
0.6


16.
69.6
1.03
0. 9


6
1.65
13.6
0.

2
0.806
4.55
0.1


36
3.26
81.83


44
2.36
100
2


280
77.1
18.1
15

168
67.7
10.8
9
0

5c0
92.6
3.22
3

975
88.3
62.9
52

1551
83.2
100
83


10
16.9
3.70
0.5

1
5.33
0.370
0.1




2. Li





23.5
30.4
5.'Q








78






7.41
1.48
01.2



34.4
28.5
4










78
31.5









100
4
7.41
1.48
0.2

93
8.42




270
14.5
100
14















COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.


Approximately 14.5% of collections contain ground wood pulp. Ground wood
pulp may be detrimental to paper in two ways. First, ground wood contains
short fibers which, unlike long fibers, may have less bending strength.
As embrittlement occurs, short fibers break into even shorter fibers.
Second, ground wood pulp is likely to contain lignin, an acidic substance
which causes embrittlement.
The presence of ground wood pulp should be considered an indicator of
possible future embrittlement.
In the collections as a whole, items published in the United States, Latin
American and the Caribbean basin represent the bulk of items containing
ground wood pulp.
In individual imprint groups however, the areas with the most ground wood
pulp per number of items from that group are Latin American and the
Caribbean, Europe and Australasia. For the most part, new processes of
papermaking which remove most of the lignin from ground wood pulp have
been slowly introduced into the United States.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Because of their great number in the collection, should the ability to
mass deacidify materials become affordable, materials from the North and
South America should be targetted first. European materials should be
tarqetted second.
Embrittlement and pH in relation to ground wood pulp should be
periodically and regularly measured on a control group to determine future
need for preservation in materials.












FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN:
GROUND WOOD PULP CONTENT


PRESENCE COUNT % TOTAL

Unknown 44 2.36
No 1551 83.20
Yes 270 14.50

TOTAL 1865 100.00




COMMENTS, ANALYSES, ETC.

a i4.5% of all materials surveyed, including pre-1851 materials, were made
with around wood pulp.
a Ground wood pulp contains fibers which are much shorter than other fibers
used in paper manufacture. As a result, papers made from ground wood
pulp, are more likely to suffer greater and more rapid embrittlement.,
The ground wood pulping process, as opposed to other wood pulping
processes, does nct neutralize, buffer or entirely remove lignin from
fibers. Lignin contributes to the deterioration of paper.


POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

S bome or all of the collections should undcero deacidification and
alkalinization to remove acids (ligninase) and buffer materials against
the effects of acids. Mass treatment methods are still undergoing
testing. Approimate average co-t cf Mass t-ratment may be between $3,.00
and $5.00 per volume, excluding personnel, tracking, shipping, miateial ,
and insurance costs,
SThe libraries should endeavor to purchase -aterials which have been
manufactured in compliance with American Nationl St~andar;d 39.4,3
'...'Permanence of paper for printed library materials.."




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs