[Nhcoll-l] Fwd: Labelling of alcohol-preserved specimens

Wed Apr 3 14:35:12 EDT 2013

Doug, et al.
We have been using both Lexmark and H-P inkjet printers; the Lexmark
printers at least since before 2000.  Label stock is either Byron-Weston
Ledger or the PermaDur paper from University Products.  No bleeding,
fading,  or flaking of the ink has occurred in 65-95% ethanol.

However, the best labels have been produced via an Epson LQ 570+ dot-matrix
printer with the typical inked ribbon, which is the closest approximation
to old-fashioned typewritten labels on Byron Weston paper, which have
lasted for many decades.  One must soak the labels before use to remove
excess ink, however.

The problem with heat-treating laser labels is that its a step that some
people may ignore and  too often people think its just okay to dunk the
label into the jar and be done with it.  Better to avoid making a process
more complex than necessary!

I have reference labels that I have kept in ethanol, and so far, have had
zero problems with the ink-jet and impact printer labels.  The Pigma Pens
are also archival, but are not germane here.

Mark

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

>  On 4/3/13 7:31 AM, Daniel K. Young wrote:
>
> I was intrigued by Mark O'Brien's comment (Hi Mark)!  I have learned (and
> taught) just the opposite: do NOT use inkjet & bubblejet printers because
> the letters readily dissolve in EtOH (and I've witnessed that). In the case
> of simply xeroxed labels, the letters readily life off the paper. As for
> laser printers, it has been my experience (and, alas, I'm old enough to
> have had a lot of experience) that as long as the heat is sufficient, the
> plasticized carbon will generally NOT lift off the paper.  I am looking at
> EtOH laser-printed labels that were printed more than 25 years ago and have
> been in 80% EtOH since - they look "good as new."
>
> Whenever this topic comes up, I hasten to remind people that (1) the same
> printer using different paper can give wildly different results, and (2)
> there are virtually no hard "longevity" data (as in controlled experiments)
> for different combinations of printers and paper. As such, as a community
> we are confronted mostly with anecdotal data, which may (as in the case
> above) appear to be in conflict, when in fact both sides may be correct. I
> have laser-writer labels produced at KU in 1990 that are sitting in ethanol
> and are all perfectly fine today, while labels from that exact same printer
> but produced one month later on a different batch of paper had the letters
> float off the instant they touched the ethanol. My point is that unless a
> person making a recommendation can tell you the EXACT printer they used,
> and the EXACT paper they used, AND how those labels have held up over a
> span of years, then you can't assume that their recommendation is
> trustworthy.
>
> Another example, which folks like Andy should find interesting: we have a
> Saito thermal printer, identical to the one used by the insect folks at the
> AMNH (we got ours based on their recommendation). Out of curiosity, when we
> first started making labels with it, I took a few chunks of test labels and
> soaked them in water overnight. The next morning, the surface of the labels
> had become somewhat gelatinous with fine visible wrinkling (as if it had
> absorbed water), and a moderate bit of friction rubbed all the printing
> clean off. Why was I able to achieve such a disastrous effect so easily,
> when everyone else seems to swear that thermal-printed labels are great for
> wet collections? Well, (1) not everyone uses a Saito printer (2) maybe
> water is somehow worse than ethanol, though since all ethanol solutions
> contain water, over time I can't imagine why the same effect shouldn't
> occur, regardless of the concentration (3) we had ALSO followed the
> recommendation of the people at the AMNH (who swore by the technique) of
> asking the manufacturer that the thermal plastic be re-spooled prior to
> shipping so what was normally the bottom side of the plastic was on the
> *top*. If I had to guess as to why I found that thermal labels are
> vulnerable to water when no one else has ever reported any such thing, I'm
> tempted to think that point #3 is the source of the discrepancy (i.e., that
> thermal plastic is not symmetrical). However, even if this were the
> problem, then the BACK sides of everyone else's thermal labels might be
> turning gelatinous, and who knows whether that coating may be rubbing or
> peeling off and contaminating their specimens? In our case, we presently
> use two inkjet-printed labels for our wet collections, one inside the vial,
> and another (identical) taped outside the vial, because we don't trust ANY
> labels' archival properties in fluid, and printing duplicate labels is
> cheap insurance for little extra labor.
>
> Again, my point is that we are operating strictly via anecdotes, and don't
> have experimental results we can consult for objective assessments of one
> technique versus another. If it were possible to compile all of the
> observations from people who know ALL of the variable parameters for their
> cases, we might have a useful point of reference; obviously, if anyone
> knows of such a compilation, a lot of us would be interested.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nhcoll-l mailing list
> Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l
>
>

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------****

Mark F. O'Brien, Collection Manager****

Insect Division, Museum of Zoology****

The University of Michigan****

1109 Geddes Avenue****

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079****

(734)-647-2199****

-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20130403/25bb3207/attachment-0001.html 