[Nhcoll-l] Taxidermy mount testing

[Kathryn Makos]

Greetings! Mr. North and I just spoke and I wanted to post our conversation
in response to this issue.  

As Ellen Carrlee has said, the portable XFR is fairly ubiquitous now in
major facilities, certainly a university system; and one with a RCRA metals
profile will give you useful data as long as the user understands what
settings to properly use.  Plus, many, many data points should be taken
since preservatives/pesticides like arsenicals were not always evenly
applied and/or may have migrated unevenly to the surfaces of the specimen.

Industrial hygiene/environmental/NIOSH methodologies to use for
identification would also include moistened surface wipes and vacuum
sampling with pumps and MCEF filters (ICP analysis typically).  You said
that your local state occupational health lab had those options.

I used to take a wipe (gloved hands natch) and rub (to the extent allowed by
collection mgr) surfaces for an overall sample.  Be sure to concentrate on
seams and the like with mounts, as they may be weakened through age and now
portals for interior treatment materials to leach.  Wipes do not always
account for internal treatment material presence (XRF should handle that)
but still give a fairly good idea of contamination.

In response to your question as to any "museum" standards for clearance: as
you suspected the laws/regulations that apply are the same as applicable to
any use of a chemical (EPA FIFRA etc, OSHA HazCom, OSHA arsenic standards
etc) and the concerns in this case would be whether the teaching collection
staff are covered by a university safe work practice and hazard
communication system, whether the staff have had exposure monitoring or
control training, and whether the center also cautions collection users of
possible hazards and ways to protect themselves (gloves & hand washing come
to mind).  Having a HEPA vacuum to clean drawers, work surfaces and display
cases is basic.

There are no standards for legal clearance except, as Dr. Carrlee notes, to
say that the analytical results were below the levels of detection or
quantitation.  Which, if these are sensitive enough, can be pretty
definitive.

Finally, Michigan State Univ EHS staff have worked closely with the
Vertebrate Zoology (I hope I'm right about the unit) collections management
staff on a comprehensive testing of specimens and personal exposure
measurements.  You said that the collections manager has contacted you and
you definitely should study the 2012 SPNHC poster she sent, as their survey
has extremely useful & impressive data.  That should provide you with a
variety of state-of-the-art IH analytical methods.

Very respectfully,
Kathryn Makos, MPH, CIH



Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:15:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ralph North <rnorth at uwsa.edu>
Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Hazardous materials
To: nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
Message-ID: <c54e6e13-036a-403d-b7dd-c82e9a51e113 at newman>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


Hello, 

Do you use a commercial laboratory to test animal taxidermy mounts for the
presence of arsenic and other hazardous materials ? 

If not, do you use a home test kit? I became aware of Weber's test. Is this
an "industry standard"? 


Is there a "certified clean" certification or something similar? Is there a
regimen of materials for which testing should be done? I know about As, Hg,
Pb. 
Is there a year before which you assume a mount has been treated with
arsenic? 
Thanks. 
Ralph North, CHMM
Environmental Affairs Specialist
University of Wisconsin System



Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:05:01 +0000
From: "Carrlee, Ellen M (EED)" <ellen.carrlee at alaska.gov>
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Hazardous materials
To: Rortvedt deZero <rortvedt at hotmail.com>,
	"nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu" <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Message-ID:
	
<7FBD8145FD0C8741986D1A196355871E65E99A4A at SOAJNUEXMB1.soa.alaska.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In the museum field, it is common to use a kit or a procedure similar to the
one here:
http://ellencarrlee.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/arsenic-testing-step-by-step/

Using a known positive and a known negative in a rigorous way is important
in making sure the results are valid.

Some museums now have the ability to use a portable XRF for testing of some
pesticide toxins in which the elements are heavy enough to be detected
(Arsenic, mercury, lead etc).  There are toxins that are present on
taxidermy specimens that are not visible to XRF.
I am not aware of a museum saying "certified clean" for arsenic because your
test is only valid for the sample area you have tested.  We tend to say, "no
arsenic detected in sample" or something similar.  Usually many areas of the
specimen are tested to increase the confidence in the results.

I am aware of arsenic being used on taxidermy well into the 1980's.  If
there is no specific law against it, it could be used past then as well.

Ellen Carrlee
Objects Conservator
Alaska State Museum

****************************