foamcore & preservation

[framanista]

I've heard oblique references to foamboard not being perfect for preservation framing, but I don't know the whys and wherefores. I couldn't find anything using the search feature. Could someone explain it to me or direct me to where it's been discussed? Thanks a bunch.

[JPete]

Read this thread http://thegrumble.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004608
you'll find more with a search using artcare.

[Ron Eggers]

That thread that JPete linked to is a near-perfect example of what's great about The Grumble: an intelligent, thoughtful discussion among framers who want to do the right thing and aren't real sure what that is.

By all means read it, but don't expect an answer from it.

I am sorry to say, I don't know what the status is of the FACTS look at fomeboard. Maybe if Greg is reading this he can update us.

I continue to use 4-ply rag backing and Coroplast filler for my highest levels of c/p framing (which are probably around 10% of my work.) I feel better about Coroplast, but only if it's not full of UV inhibitors, anti-oxidants and other additives needed by the sign industry.

And I still use a lot of ArtCare fome for everything else.

[preservator]

What Ron said about the utility of that thread
is so true. Having a variety of perspectives on
an issue such as this, for which there is no
simple answer, is the best way for framers to
make their usage decisions in an informed manner.

Hugh

[Framerguy]

Originally posted by Ron Eggers:
I continue to use 4-ply rag backing and Coroplast filler for my highest levels of c/p framing (which are probably around 10% of my work.) I feel better about Coroplast, but only if it's not full of UV inhibitors, anti-oxidants and other additives needed by the sign industry.

Framerguy is about to show his ignorance here,........ maybe.

We use UV filtering glass on our better framing. We try to minimize the oxidation of all paper products, metals, and inks used in framing.

We even take anti-oxidants to prolong our own lives! (Well, this one may be a stretch as an application in the framing profession.)

So, tell me, why would the UV inhibitors and anti-oxidants in coroplast be all that dangerous to the contents of the art package?? I don't want to hear that it is "harmful" or it "outgasses" or it isn't "FACTS" approved. We have hashe those terms to death and decided that many of the products that we use will "outgas" to some degree and many of the materials we use somewhere in the frame package is "harmful". (Take a look at the FRAME! Duh!!) And "FACTS" probably has its hands full as it is right now just trying to get caught up on what we have used for the last decade or two to set some kind of standards for their use.

With those minor parameters firmly laid in place, I am really seriously interested in why regular coroplast would be so harmful to the framing package that we should consider not using it for preservation, other than the above reasons that haven't yet been observed in coroplast??

Framerguy

[ 10-29-2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Framerguy ]

[Ron Eggers]

FramerGuy, here is my limited understanding of the bird's-eye low-down on this caper. I am counting on a show of confidence to impress you.

The UV inhibitors and anti-oxidants in Coroplast are there to help it survive weather - which you shouldn't have inside the frame package. There are also additives in there to help the Coroplast accept paint.

I don't know how to say this without using the word 'outgas,' but all these additives transform the otherwise inert Coroplast/polyflute into something not-so-inert.

Is regular Coroplast a bad thing to include in the c/p frame package?

I don't know.

Is fomecore - ArtCare or otherwise - a bad thing to include in the c/p frame package?

I don't know.

But for those cases where you want to be really conservative (those 1-out-of-10 orders, in my case) I think it makes sense to introduce as few unknowns into the package as possible.

If you were looking for a more technical explanation, I apologize. I flunked organic chemistry in 1970 and things have gone downhill since then.

Edit/clarification (maybe)
Those additives in regular Coroplast are there to protect the Coroplast. They will do nothing to protect the frame package (except structurally) and might just do the opposite.

Also, for those that don't know, there is a Coroplast/Polyflute available WITHOUT the additives.

[ 10-29-2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Ron Eggers ]

[Framerguy]

Well, Ron, my edit didn't show up for some reason or another. I usually (and did this time) post an edit as "Edit:" and then add what I want to add but it never made it to the press!

Here's what I tried to add (or close to it):

One other parameter or maybe just common sense is that we don't mount much of anything directly to coroplast. There is usually some kind of barrier between the filler boards (coroplast) and the framed objects. With that in mind, and assuming that we would only use coroplast for "medium level" preservation as Jim Miller terms it, what additional harm would using regular coroplast do to the framed objects that materials like ATG, hot melt glue, or non-barriered wood moulding might do??

I guess you sort of gave me your answer to this already (you don't know, do you?) but I am curious as to what the consensus of coroplast users is on this subject.

FGII

Edit: Those barriers are either rag board, purified alpha cellulose, or maybe a deep spacer if talking about a shadowbox.

(I just added this to make sure my "edit" button wasn't busted!)

[ 10-29-2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Framerguy ]

[Ron Eggers]

Two things I disagree with, FramerGuy.

1)The notion that Coroplast would be used only for "medium" preservation. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more perfect filler for maximum c/p framing than Coroplast. I would agree, though, that regular Coroplast should be fine for most applications.

2)The notion that 4-ply rag, or any other board, can provide a "barrier" to protect artwork from chemicals in the filler. Why not use corrugated cardboard or old newspapers for filler?

For the record, we are in nearly complete agreement about Cracker Barrel restaurants, though.

[Framerguy]

Originally posted by Ron Eggers:
Two things I disagree with, FramerGuy.

1)The notion that Coroplast would be used only for "medium" preservation. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more perfect filler for maximum c/p framing than Coroplast. I would agree, though, that regular Coroplast should be fine for most applications.

2)The notion that 4-ply rag, or any other board, can provide a "barrier" to protect artwork from chemicals in the filler. Why not use corrugated cardboard or old newspapers for filler?

For the record, we are in nearly complete agreement about Cracker Barrel restaurants, though. Is that what I said?? Read that closely again, Ron, I will buy the first 2 sentences as "notions". But, from there on, I tried to set up a scenario using those ideas and a few assumptions to ask the question. I wasn't defending anything at all nor was I making any statements of preferal or endorsement one way or the other.

I am simply trying to get the opinions of those who use coroplast and find out if they have taken into account the potential of these "additives". I really don't know if the additives in coroplast would do anything bad to the package or not.

(At least it was generally oriented towards a framing type question.) tongue.gif

FGII

[preservator]

Here is part of a post, from the ConsDistList, in reply to a question about storage in plastic:"According to Scott: The polybutadiene is there to increase impact resistance. As far as he knows, polystyrene and polystyrene with polybutadiene are very stable and do not cause any problems due to their degradation. The polybutadiene component is an unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon and is therefore subject to oxidation at the C=C double bonds. This leads to carbonyl functional groups on the polybutadiene polymer backbone, but not to corrosive volatile compounds.".
The Scott mentioned is Scott Williams from the
Canadian Institute for Conservation.
As to what could be wrong with signage grade
polypropylene fluted board, the UV inhibitors
are large molecules and thus, are not likely to
come out. The anti-oxidants are smaller and more
mobile. Are they likely to cause damage? We don't
know. There are principles that make common sense,
"Like with like, Keep it simple, Fewest unknowns"
and these can help us evaluate materials. Ultimately, we are all, to some extent, guessing
but our guesses should be as informed as possible.

Hugh

[Ron Eggers]

The first part of Hugh's post reminded me why I flunked organic chemistry.

The second part sounds familiar: nobody knows for sure, but why take chances?

Decisions about what filler to use are always tempered by price and availability. As my stash of Coroplast dwindles, I am re-evaluating my thoughts on ArtCare fome - which I always have in stock. I'm not likely to have 300 sheets of Coroplast trucked in.

I've also used archival corrugated for filler. Nobody seems to take issue with this material, but it tends to be a little messy and it takes a lot of it to fill a 3/4" rabbet. Also, it lacks Coroplast's moisture-retardant properties.

[dns ynko]

I am going to ask this, it might be naive, but this has not stopped me yet.

Is coroplast not cheaper than artcare foamcore? I thought it was...so if it is and it is better for the artwork, then why not use it in all packages, provided the frame is deep enough? That was a run-on sentence, so no need to correct me.

And I did ask this before, is there 1/16 coroplast available for frames not as deep?

Please don't yell at me for this one, had to throw it out there.
d

[nona powers]

I wanted FACTS to have a panel in Vegas on Filler board, including coroplast, gatorboard and especially foamboard. I think framers need a good panel discussion on all the features of each product because a lot of the discussion about use is based on information and most of us do not have enough or the understanding of what we do have. Hugh's post was wonderful, but I didn't understand much of it. The panel will be put off until Atlanta because the volunteers working on the question are not ready.

There is a very good article in DECOR this month about Jack Forbes, the president of Bainbridge, but the one following is called Getty Study Validates Artcare Technology gives even more information. This guy works for Getty, he was not bought by Bainbridge and I met him during a tour of his facility our PPFA chapter did and he is very straightforward. The information he gives is very interesting and addresses this question a bit.

My question about using foamboard in the housing, and I hope Hugh and Rebecca will comment, if I put the art, in a full four ply archival board front and back and the art is more than an inch away from the edge of the matting, everything properly hinged, haven't I framed the piece meeting the criteria of "do no harm" even if I put it in a wooden frame without using barrier tape on the rabbet of the frame?

I know Hugh likes to seal the framing package but in California it would often not work and the news should show why. 25% humidity caused by the wind blowing from the desert when the fires started and 65 % today with the wind blowing from the ocean. It would be real hard to stabilize humidity in the package and lots of harm caused by a chemical reaction to pollutants and humidity, correct?

If I use foamboard, which is in dispute as to how much it outgases, plus I use the one with Artcare, would I be causing harm inside the housing? If I am worried about it, I use Archival Corrugate with Artcare. As a picture framer, who wants to do no harm, and recognizing I can't readily get coroplast, and wouldn't know which have additives and which don’t?

Wouldn't a conservator be pleased if they received artwork that had been framed the way I described from a retail framer? Custom framers face many different challenges than a conservator does. Rebecca asked awhile back if it wasn't time for conservators and framers to work more closely together. I agree, but part of that exchange needs to include a mutual respect for the challenges we face. I don't know any framer who wants to hurt the art they frame but they do have to make a living and their clients are very different than the ones a conservator will meet.

This is long, I apologize. My head is probably smoke addled, we had to evacuate our home for a day, the fire didn't get our house, but many have been lost here, so sad.

Nona Powers, CPF
www.nonapowers.com (http://www.nonapowers.com)
San Diego, CA

[ 10-30-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: nona powers ]

[Ron Eggers]

Dennis,

Assuming you have a regular source for it and the shipping doesn't kill you, there's probably no good reason NOT to use Coroplast for filler on every job.

It's especially spiffy on metal frames where you can actually see it.

I've only seen Coroplast in 4mm and 6mm (roughly 1/8" and 3/16".) If I don't have room for the 4mm, I will use a piece of "scrap" matboard.

Usually that's a discontinued Alphamat.

[preservator]

The point of the quote from CCI was that they
saw nothing wrong with polystyrene. The package
that Nona described sounds like a good choice.
If a package is truely sealded, it should have
no problem sequestering its contents against
even very large short term swings in relative
humidity. If conditions stay very high or low
for long periods, then the package will have
to be glazed with glass and given a high level
of seal.

Hugh

[Ron Eggers]

Maybe this'll help. Maybe not.

<u>Both</u> archival Coroplast and standard <u>clear</u> Coroplast are chemically inert, don't outgas and are free from additives such as coloring agents, anti-static and uv inhibitors. This makes them unsuitable for outdoor applications, so I would guess they would generally be unavailable from sign-makers.

The "clear" Coroplast is really more translucent than clear.

Colored (and white) Coroplast may contain all those additives and, in my mind at least, would be suspect for higher levels of c/p framing.

Archival Coroplast has an added agent (oh oh) which enables this material to absorb chemicals/gases in the air, essentially to protect the project at hand. I don't know if that agent is Zeolites, but I believe it serves a similar function.

For a given thickness and sheet size, archival Coroplast costs roughly twice what the standard Coroplast does.

Edit:
My own conclusion, until I hear differently from the FACTS committee, is that either clear or archival Coroplast would be an excellent filler for any level of c/p framing, as well as for every-day projects, and that colored or white Coroplast would be suitable for up to moderate levels of preservation.

Whether one chooses clear or archival Coroplast is probably a matter of cost and availability.

Edit 2:
And speaking of cost - Looking at minimum purchase quantities in my own market area, here are some comparative costs.
</font> 1/8" Regular fome: .44/sq ft</font> 1/8" Artcare fome: .72/sq ft</font> 4mm standard Coroplast: .26/sq ft</font> 4mm archival Coroplast: .51/sq ft</font> Bainbridge archival corrugated: .62/sq ft</font> Bienfang rag-covered fomeboard (3/16"): .75/sq ft</font> 4-ply white Alpharag: 1.17/sq ft</font> 8-ply white Alpharag: 2.68/sq ft</font>
Purchased in quantity, all of these prices are likely to be much lower.

Edit 3: I've revised and added some numbers based on a new price list.

[ 10-31-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Ron Eggers ]

[Ron Eggers]

And the rumors that Coroplast is actually a liquid are unfounded.

[Rebecca]

I am no scientist, and like all of you, have to base my decisions on

- other people's research
- the common "standard" of practice
- my own observations
- the practicalities and demands of each
particular situation

Because conservtion and preservation is such a small field/market, there are very few products designed specifically for our use. In conservation, we usually find materials designed for use in other industries - Coroplast from signmakers, Marvelseal from the food packaging industry, etc. etc.

The framing industry is more fortunate in one way, in that there are a lot of products tailor made for framing. But bad in another way, because a lot of the information on the products is based on the manufacturer's claims. I'm thinking about tape adhesive's here.

My own personal opinion, based on what conservation scientists say, the common standards of practice in my neck of the woods, and my own observations, is that a lot of these foamboard/coroplast worries are blown out of proportion. Personally, I don't worry about outgassing. (I wouldn't use the regular "acid" facing paper foamboard for long-term contact because the paper is not great quality).

If I were framing or long term storing something that is unstable, like poor quality paper, or if I wanted a bit more protection, I'd use zeolite materials.

If I really wanted to protect the framed item from the outsside enviroment, I'd seal the framing package. Hugh's method for very precious/fragile pieces. Coroplast, strainer and that really tough brown tape for less precious/fragile materials. I've seen this last method give great protection in floods. (Probably not long term flood protection, but it buys precious time during rescue operations).

Same with sealing the frame rabbet. Each situation is different.

In the grand scheme of things, I am just so happy to see cardboard and tapes going out of the window. The other things are kind of like bonus points. ;)

Rebecca

[nona powers]

This thread is one of the reasons I think TG provides such a valuable service to framers. There is a lot of very good information in all of these posts, I just hope everyone is reading it whether they post or not. Lots of good topics sink fast.

One question Hugh, would most framers be qualified to seal a framing package or should it be done by a conservator? If I had a situation where I thought the package should be sealed, I would want a conservator consultation on the job to make sure I do it correctly. If it's done incorrectly or not monitored, couldn’t damage to the art be done from excess moisture building up in the housing, or even too little moisture? So often we don't know where the art will hang or the conditions it will hang in and during the life of the owner, the art might be moved from one state to the other with varying conditions affecting it. Wouldn't a frame package that is open with some air exchange be a better idea?

So many questions, so little time to learn all a framer needs to know about framing, let alone business.

TG is very lucky to have the help you and Rebecca provide.

Nona Powers, CPF
www.nonapowers.com (http://www.nonapowers.com)
San Diego

[tnframer408]

We have just completed framing two large parchment documents from Cromwell's courts--1630-something--and one Durer engravig off the original Guttenberg press. ALL I used was 8-plys for backing,matting, etc. Altho I love using Coroplast and Artcare rag covered foamboard, I was simply too nervous about these as fillers.

And while I never asked the replacemtn values on these pieces, I knew the custoner wanted the best in protection which to meant using only 100% cotton.

I also firmly believe that in the rare instances like the above--and we got them all within amonth which is even more rare--the customer is not quibbling over pricing They want the best and they're entitled to it. If 8ply is double or triple the cost of Coroplast, so what? We're preserving ancient ducoments and supposedly doing it to the highest standrds so in this case price should not be an issue. :D

[Rebecca]

Nona,

I am bringing this up to the top so Hugh will see it.

Personally, I don't think one needs to be a conservator to do Hugh's sealed package system. Im fact, a framer could probably do it better, as they are used to framing and most conservators aren't.

What you would want to do is make sure your framing workplace, where you store your matboards, is somewhere between 30% - 50% Relative Humidity.

This may be ambient, or you may need a humidifier/dehumidifier, depending on where you live, and the time of year. You can get RH measuring gadgets for about $100 at archival suppliers, or cobalt salt indicator cards (or paper strips) for a lot less.

Rebecca

[Jim Miller]

Originally posted by Rebecca:
...What you would want to do is make sure your framing workplace, where you store your matboards, is somewhere between 30% - 50% Relative Humidity...As I recall from Hugh's class on sealed frame packages, he recommends "conditioning" all hygroscopic materials in the frame package (mats, mount board, fillers, etc.) to RH of about 20%. That can be easily done by placing the assembled package in a cool drymount press (no need to clamp the lid) or slightly-warmed oven until the heat penetrates throughout. That has a drying effect. If there's any question about whether low heat would affect the art, then just leave it out & dry the other parts.

[preservator]

Keeping boards and art at an RH below 50% is
always a good idea, since this allows for these
materials to survive brief periods in which the
climate may spike to high. The simplest way to
do this is isolation of board storage and map
drawers from any sources of moisture with layers
of house wrap like Tyvek or sealing foil such
as Marvelseal 360. The R.H. levels can be tracked
with cobalt salt cards. The matting materials
must be on the dry side if the package is to be
highly sealed. Such packages made with glass can
resist bad climates, indefinitely, while those
glazed with acrylic sheet are useful against short
spikes in climate, but will eventually loose their
conditioning in very wet or dry circumstances.

Hugh