[NHCOLL-L:4095] Re: Possible replacement to alcohol storage?

Fri Nov 28 09:16:51 EST 2008

Dear colleagues,

Concerning this interesting subject, I would like to give the following in consideration:

General acceptance of an alternative in fluid preservation will probably only comply to fluids that have been in use as a preservative for many decades in multiple institutes, which have generated enough data with regard to preservation quality and stability (mostly based on the reported experiences under different conditions and management).

As for a less hazardous alternative for formalin and/or ethanol, there aren't many substitutes with a long record of proven preservation quality and stability. Mainly, glycerol based fluids like Kaiserling, Joores, etc. seem to be at present the positive exceptions. These fluids have been used for display collections (mainly pathology specimens for which these preservatives were developed to revive the blood colour) for more than 100 years. 

Health and safety regulations concerning storage and transport of pure glycerol are much less stringent than that of ethanol (store glycerol dry and in a closed container away from strong oxidizing agents, no DOT transport regulations). 
Flaspoint ethanol 16.6 degrees Celcius. Flashpoint glycerol 160 degrees Celcius. 

NFPA ratings: 
Flammability ethanol = 3, glycerol = 1. 
Health hazard rating ethanol = 2, glycerol = 0. 
Instability/reactivity for both fluids = 0.

In our anatomical institute, 5 years ago, we have decided and started to carry out the replacement of formalin by Kaiserling. The decision was certainly not only based on health and safety issues, but more important on the low stability, high acidity and in case of research collections on biomoleculair degradation (DNA) inherent to the mechanism of antimicrobial action and stability of formaldehyde. Furthermore, the fact that we have in our institute already 90 years experience with Kaiserling, the alternative choice was not a real difficult one.

By the way, one should be aware that preservatives (such as phenoxetol) dissolving much better in oils and fats than in water might loose their antiseptic strenght in the aquaous solution by migrating to the fat tissues in the specimen. This means that such a preservative might have a limited use.

Furthermore, there is no ideal safe preservative that can replace all our hazardous counterparts.
The choice of preservation method was and still is primarily defined by the purpose for which the specimen will be used (type of research, presentation, etc). E.g., for good morphology in histological research there are hardly any alternatives for formalin (although there are some interesting recent developments). I agree with Simon, that this discussion should be followed up on at the SPNHC 2009 meeting in Leiden.

Best regards,

Dries van Dam

 --
Andries J. van Dam, conservator

Directory Board member ICOM-CC
Webmaster http://www.icom-cc.org

Director Alcomon Company
http://www.alcomon.com

Museum of Anatomy
Leiden University Medical Center
Postal zone T7-P
P.O. Box 9600
2300 RC Leiden
The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)71 526 9581
fax: +31 (0)71 526 8275
E-mail: A.J.van_Dam at lumc.nl
Visiting address: Hippocratespad 21, building 3

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu namens Moore, Simon
Verzonden: vr 28-11-2008 11:13
Aan: simmons.johne at gmail.com; delre at mpm.edu
CC: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
Onderwerp: [NHCOLL-L:4093] Re: Possible replacement to alcohol storage?

Dear All,

Without getting on a soap-box too much, I am severely worried by these
new trends to ban alcohol and especially formalin from museum
collections and/or displays.  The hazards are obvious and we have all, I
think, managed this far without any real problem.
John Simmons has mentioned the drawbacks to using Novec (which requires
initial fixation in formalin) and while I applaud the idea of someone
experimenting with an adapted biocide solution, it cannot possibly
replace the fluids that we have used, with great effect, for years.  For
a start, museums with fine collections and limited budgets would be hard
pressed to purchase enough and I have severe doubts about its
preservation longevity anyway.

I am about to publish a paper on the situation as I see it, rather
subjective maybe, in NatSCA News (see www.natsca.org in the future
months) and which will outline the situation, mention some older
fixative and preservative fluids - including the merits and de-merits of
glycols and phenoxetol (UK spelling!) and dispel a few myths.  

The main problem is that there are not enough people with a sole
(adequately funded) focus into researching the fundamental problem of
what will make an affordable,  less hazardous but effective fixative and
preservative for use in biological collections.  The situation is
becoming somewhat desperate and I fear that Health & Safety will
'triumph' too soon over common sense and years of good practical
experience before such panacea solutions are found and tested over time!

Hopefully this situation can be mooted in Leiden next Summer and some
programme initiated.

With all good wishes, 
Simon Moore, MIScT, FLS, ACR, 
Senior Conservator of Natural Sciences. 
Hampshire County Council 
Recreation & Heritage Department, 
Museums & Archives Service, 
Chilcomb House, Chilcomb Lane, 
Winchester SO23 8RD. UK. 
Internal  8 327 6737 
01962 826737 
http://www.hants.gov.uk/museum/biology 

________________________________

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of John E Simmons
Sent: 27 November 2008 04:34
To: delre at mpm.edu
Cc: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4090] Re: Possible replacement to alcohol storage?

The use of the fluid in the Smithsonian is an experiment-in-process.
The use of it by the Smithsonian in the new ocean exhibit is not an
endorsement of the fluid for use as a replacement for other
preservatives.

While Novec has wonderful optical characteristics and specimens can be
seen very clearly in it, it has several serious drawbacks:

*	Novec is not a preservative, but forms an envelope around the
specimen that keeps certain preservatives (e.g., formaldehyde) trapped
in the specimen, but removes others (e.g., alcohol).  Novec was designed
to clean electronics (among other uses) and as a consequence of its
cleaning action, it removes alcohol from specimens, which causes the
specimens to deteriorate.  In order to keep specimens from deteriorating
while in the Novec on exhibit, the specimens were removed from alcohol
and returned to a formaldehyde solution. 

*	The density of Novec is approximately 1.5 that of water, so
fluid preserved specimens that are placed in it float--in fact, fluid
preserved specimens are so buoyant in the Novec that they must be
restrained to remain below the surface of the fluid, which can cause
serious damage to the specimen.  

*	Novec can be re-used, but it is very expensive--around US $275
per gallon.

While I think it is a very good thing that the Smithsonian is testing
this fluid on exhibit (the exhibition is designed to produce test data),
in my opinion we are far from having the information needed to recommend
this fluid for use with preserved specimens.  At this point, the known
drawbacks seriously outweigh the presumed advantages.

Hope this helps,
John

John E. Simmons
Museologica
128 E. Burnside Street
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823-2010
simmons.johne at gmail.com
303-681-5708
and
Adjunct Curator of Collections
Earth and Mineral Science Museum & Art Gallery
Penn State University
19 Deike Building
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-2709
jes67 at psu.edu

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Del Re, Christine <delre at mpm.edu>
wrote:

	Is anyone familiar with this new alcohol storage replacement,
and what it can do to the scientific utility of specimens vs. the
materials we are more familiar with?  I understand it is being used at
the Smithsonian and would interested to hear from anyone there involved,
or if any testing has been done.

	Thank you in advance, Chris Del Re

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Novec/Home/Solutions/Museum/
#specimens

	Calamari in Smithsonian's new Ocean Hall

	Back in August, the area science writer's group got a sneak
preview of the Smithsonian's new Sant Ocean Hall, which opened in

September. The main reason was super-sized calamari - a 25-foot-long
female specimen of a giant squid. This is calamari that would happily
eat you - or another giant squid. Our expert said they tend to
congregate in groups of about the same body size, which minimizes the
threat of being eaten by one's neighbor.
	The Smithsonian used a new technology developed by 3M to
preserve it. The fluid, called Novec, was originally developed as an
electronics-friendly fire suppressant. One representative said they had
operated laptop computers that were completely immersed in the stuff;
another said one researcher had tossed a cell phone into it and called
himself.  

	Post 911, Smithsonian realized that the total volume of alcohol
used to preserve specimens in its collections had approximately the
explosive power of a fully loaded  747. So, a non-volatile fluid that
didn't bleach or stain tissue and didn't cloud up over time was of great
interest.

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20081128/84840d45/attachment.html 