An anecdotal supplement to Matt’s excellent advice: While it would be unexpected for moths to lay eggs away from food, there can still be apparent infestations of such substances. I was once given a box of non-archival documents with an infestation of meal moths (Plodia). The major damage came from unusually wet frass, lots of webbing, and carcasses of larvae, pupae, and adult, but mostly pupae that had been smashed when the box had been moved around. There was some feeding on the documents, mostly on the coatings and bindings, not the paper. I surmised that these parts were made of corn derivatives. If these had been archival documents, they would have been salvageable but only with a lot of work.
I found nothing in the offices that could have been the source of the infestation. However, with an expanded search and questioning, I found a store of hull-less sunflower kernels that had a large and very active infestation in an adjacent office, separated by a partition. Similar infestations were found in other boxes near the sunflower. No concrete conclusions were ever drawn (staff weren’t sure where their box had been and I killed the moth colony quickly) but I suspect that the moths came in on bird seed and established a struggling colony on the sunflower that persisted after the seed was gone. I think the moths were mostly in the box for dispersal and pupation purposes (no small larvae were noted). There is some possibility that the moths (maybe as last instar larvae) migrated from the source to the box through ventilation openings and cracks in the partition wall, since staff claim that the focal box had never been in the source room. These conclusions are supposition but the fact that a large and damaging infestation was present without a ready source of food has widened my search for source colonies whenever I find an infestation, even with good food present. ---Steve Steven M. Sullivan | Senior Curator of Urban Ecology The Chicago Academy of Sciences and its Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum Museum|2430 North Cannon Drive|Chicago Illinois 60614| <http://www.naturemuseum.org/> naturemuseum.org Collections|4001 North Ravenswood Ave.|Chicago Illinois 60613| <http://projectsquirrel.org/> projectsquirrel.org P 708-937-6253 | F 773-549-0344 | ssulli...@naturemuseum.org The Urban Gateway to Nature and Science From: Matthew Mickletz [mailto:mmi...@winterthur.org] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 7:57 AM To: pestlist@museumpests.net Subject: [pestlist] RE: low-temperature treatment on photographs? Hello, Just my humble opinion on this: First, get a positive ID on the moth. Post a photo to the list or use Museumpests.net to see if the moths found are museum pests (potential for harming objects). To my knowledge, moths aren’t known to feed on photographs or cause other damage to them other than their carcasses perhaps soiling surfaces; that fine powdery coating on their wings coming off. If positively ID’d to a harmful moth, the area the photos came out of should be checked to find the food source – animal hide, hair, feathers and textiles. Photos simply do not provide moths with what they need to survive and bread, but what might have? Were there other objects around the photos, in their history within the Mylar and to your knowledge, with these sort of materials moths like? Carcasses of moths are still nothing to simply ignore due to the potential of them becoming a food source for dermestids (e.g. carpet beetles larvae). Is there any other damage besides the water damage? Most common for paper and photographs would be via silverfish or firebrats – grazing on the back of the snapshot. Close examination of each photograph would be time better spent than jumping to treatment. A time consuming step if we’re talking large numbers, however it will better determine the eradication method, if any, needed. Based on what you’ve told us, I can’t see putting the photos at risk in a low temperature treatment unless there is evidence enough to support it. With a textile such as a large rug, if carpet beetle larvae, frass and sheds are found in a several areas, to physically pick out each larva would be impractical. Freezing would be warranted, if its condition and materials allow. A photo of the photos, how they are stored, where they are stored/displayed would help us on the list give a better idea of the situation. Hope this helps a bit! Best, Matt Matthew A. Mickletz – Supervisor, Preventive Conservation – Winterthur Museum <http://www.winterthur.org/> – 302.888.4752 From: Cara Kuball [mailto:ckub...@mfa.org] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 5:42 PM To: pestlist@museumpests.net Subject: [pestlist] low-temperature treatment on photographs? Hello all, I’m wondering if anyone has experience with a low-temperature treatment on photographs (snapshots). The photographs we may need to treat have been severely water-damaged (they are artifacts) and we suspect a moth infestation. The photographs were on view in mylar sleeves, and when they were deinstalled we found 5 dead adult moths inside the sleeves. Our photo conservators are very concerned about doing more damage to already fragile surfaces by treating with low-temperature. I don’t think treating photographs in this way is very common, but I’d be grateful for any recommendations of literature or other experience you may have. The other idea I had was to bag the photos with a pheromone trap to see if we catch any adults. If we don’t catch a lot of moths in, say, a week’s time, would it be safe to conclude that there is no active infestation? Thanks, Cara -- Cara Kuball Collections Manager for Preventive Conservation Museum of Fine Arts, Boston ckub...@mfa.org | 617-369-3953 http://www.mfa.org/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.efa-project.org> E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean. Click here to report this message as spam. <http://mail.winterthur.org/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=6404110018D.AEC7B&token=52a92c27e3f74ea8116b6cedc361e8bd>
