Mass Deacidification at the University of Maryland

The University of Maryland at College Park completed a successful pilot mass deacidification program in the Spring of 1998. This pilot program focused on their Communication, Journalism, and Broadcasting collections. Their chosen method of mass deacidification was the Bookkeeper method created by Preservation Technologies, L.P. (PTLP). PTLP advertises that this Bookkeeper method meets both "current and projected OSHA, FTC, and EPA consumer and environmental requirements" (PTLP: Deacidification). The Bookkeeper method, according to PTLP, also manages to neutralize harmful acids with a non-toxic alkaline buffer while using neither solvents nor gases, thereby avoiding any off-gassing and harmful chemical residues (PTLP: Deacidification). Incidentally, this is also the mass deacidification method the Library of Congress employs.

A survey undertaken by the University of Maryland's library system noted a problem quite common to most research institutions: a wealth of acidic books (75%) in their collection with a good amount of them (16%) being too brittle for deacidification to be undertaken. As mentioned previously, their initial pilot program focused successfully on their Communication, Journalism, and Broadcasting collections. They then turned their attention towards their American, English, and foreign language literature collections. Subsequent collections deacidified include Russian and Slavic history, terrorism, African-American studies, Middle East/Arab/Islamic countries, and poltical instutions and public administration. They state that their next collections to be deacidified will be chosen upon "the advice of the Preservation Committee and the Collection Management Team" ("Mass Deacidification"). The criteria by which these two bodies select collections for mass deacidification are the following:

1. Deacidify books in disciplines of importance to the University of Maryland mission.
2. Deacidify books which will be needed in the original format for the foreseeable future. ("Mass Deacidification")

One can clearly see these selection criteria at work in the collections previously chosen for mass deacidification - i.e. terrorism, Middle East/Arab/Islamic countries, and the always of scholarly interest literary collections. Perhaps more to the point than the above rather general and arguably somewhat subjective criteria, are the following far more specific lower-level criteria stated by the University of Maryland's library system:

Do Select:

• Acidic paper
• Stable text blocks
• No larger than 11 1/2 X 9 X 2 1/2 inches
• Best condition copy if there are multiple copies

Do Not Select:

• Unstable text blocks
• Visibly brittle paper
• High percentage of coated paper or super calendared paper
• Unbound
• Duplicates - poor condition
• Pre-1850 imprints
• Rare materials
• Larger than 11 1/2 X 9 X 2 1/2 inches.

The only issue this author can see with the above criteria is the confusion he suspects an individual could experience attempting to discern just what constitutes a "high percentage" of coated paper. It is well within reason, however, to suspect that the library system defines such a percentage in-house.

Of final import is the library system's commitment to providing a "quick turnaround and responsiveness to the researcher" ("Mass Deacidification"). This is accomplished by sending pieces of a collection rather than the whole, recording the books as 'checked-out' in the online catalog so a definitive date for their return is discoverable, and by rushing their interlibrary loan service for materials they are having deacidified.

As a last note, it must be noted that all of the above information was discovered from the University of Maryland library system's Mass Deacidification website which also contains a shipment record from the 2004 fiscal year. There is no more recent record of deacidification programs this author could discover either on the library system or in the library catalog. This author did discover, however, a document from 2005 that asserted "Mass deacidification is being reevaluated [by the library's Science and Technology Collaborative] in light of the trend toward digitization by Google and others." Moreover, the minutes from a meeting in 2005 of the Collection Management Team at the University of Maryland declare that "the older model of mass deacidification may no longer be appropriate" due to the rising prominence of electronic versions. Thus, it stands to reason that mass deacidification, though once in favor, fell somewhat out of favor at the University of Maryland.