Email digest for the Global Conservation Forum (ConsDistList) egroup.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Online Chemistry bridging course for conservation
2. RE: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
3. Advice Sought: Best Practices for Storage and Display of Diecast Models
4. RE: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.From: Christian Dreyer
Posted: Friday August 14, 2026 6:50 AM
Subject: Online Chemistry bridging course for conservation
Message: Online Chemistry bridging course for conservation
An online
Chemistry course
for conservation
is being
presented by The
South African
Institute for Heritage
Science &
Conservation.
The course was
developed to
assist students
transitioning to
conservation
studies (e.g.
from the Arts),
and whom may be
lacking the crucial
perspective of
chemistry:
"Bridging
to Chemistry
for
Conservation"
Duration: 4
month course
Course
instructor: Dr
Christian Dreyer
Course fee:
USD895.00 /
Euro775.00
Part bursaries:
The Strimling
Conservation
Studies Fund has
kindly extended
a USD220 /
Euro195 part-bursary to
each of the
first 3
successful
enrollments.
Registration:
Enrollment
register now
open for
starting date 14
September 2026 or 19
October 2026.
For more
information,
kindly view the
course outline here
<http://www.sainst.org/documents/Linked_Documents/Chemistry%20for%20Conservation%20(Bridging)%20Prospectus_USD_EUR_GBP.pdf>.
To enquire about enrolling
click here
<http://www.sainst.org/Bridging_to_Chemistry_for_Conservation_Enrolment_Application.html>
or contact the
Academic
Administrator at
[email protected] <[email protected]>
With kindest regards,
Dr Christian
Dreyer
(Programme
Director)
The
South African
Institute for
Heritage Science and
Conservation
Faculty
of Physical
Sciences
Faculty of
Commerce
www.sainst.org
<http://www.sainst.org/>
Provisionally
registered
with the
Department of
Higher
Education and
Training as a private
higher education
institution
under the Act.
Registration
certificate
No.
2018/HE07/007
Registered as:
The South
African
Institute for
Heritage
Science (Pty)
Ltd. Registration
Number:
2015/317414/07
2.From: Timothy Greening
Posted: Friday August 14, 2026 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
Message:
Hello William, I analyzed thousands of natural history speciemens for an
institution via XRF (In Saskatchewan no less! <3) about a decade ago, and so
have tons of thoughts! Particularly on the specifics of your question. But if
you want the simplest elevator style pitch for something like this, I would say
" There is arsenic in these ones, which are older, so we have to deal with it,
mot these others" rather than a lot of pie charts of elements? My rule of
thumb would be the vast majority of speciemens from before c. 1900 should have
"massive" quantites of arsenic beneath the skin, thats the way it is,
unfortunately, and needs a measured responce. But yeah, maybe don't say
"massive" at city council. When the (non-musuem type) instrument salesman came
to visit and put his instrument on an old mount for the first time as the demo,
he just said "....WOW!!! " looking at his screen. Presenting to the public can
be dificult. Meanwhile strontium, bromine and even lead are difficult and
may actually be natural elements, depending on your numbers, reporting them to
the public/ohs people needs caution, my poster explains that a bit, it took me
years to figure that out. Perhaps your instrument is sensitive enough to always
detect a number for them? That's a giveaway there. Also barium, which may be a
pesticide, or just white filler materials depending on the context.
Interesting. Cadmium is also interesting, and maybe from paint on the surface?
If you are decting mercury at all, you should at least get an air monitoring
specialist in to look at it further; and I understand that is stressful for
city councilors, but nessesary to say it. There should be some attachments to
this message from old conferences I was at in my RSM days, when I was doing
this. Take care, love to talk more about this!
Tim Greening
------------------------------
Timothy Greening
Archaeological Scientist
Parks Canada
Ottawa
Canada
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-13-2026 15:04
From: William Shepherd
Subject: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
Hello All,
I'm finishing up an XRF project where I tested a huge part of our
zoological/taxidermy collection. I've been volun-told that I'm presenting on
the project to our City Council. Within conservation and collections circles we
know that dangers exist within our holdings, but once words like arsenic show
up in the presentation I'm anticipating some surprise from Council and a
question if that's normal. I can say that X, Y Z are expected in our taxidermy
as our specimens cover 100-ish year period, but I'd like to support that with
some examples from other institutions. I've done some searching, but most
resources focus on carrying out projects or specific examples versus whole
collection results. If I've missed something, please let me know.
I don't need tons of details, I'm thinking percentages of tested collections
that showed positive for arsenic, barium, cadium, lead, and/or mercury. If
anyone is willing to share I'd appreciate it. I'm certainly happy to share any
data I recorded from our project to anyone who is interested.
Thank you in advance!
------------------------------
William Shepherd (He/Him/His)
Collections Officer - Swift Current Museum
Swift Current, SK, Canada
------------------------------
3.From: Andriani Maimaridou
Posted: Friday August 14, 2026 11:54 AM
Subject: Advice Sought: Best Practices for Storage and Display of Diecast
Models
Message:
Dear all,
I am seeking advice on the long-term care of a collection of 1:50 scale models
composed of diecast metal, plastics, rubber components, and associated
cardboard and plastic packaging.
I would be interested in best practices for display and storage. When not on
display, are these models best kept within their original packaging or stored
separately from the packaging? If kept in their original boxes, should the
boxes remain closed, or is some degree of ventilation advisable given the
presence of plastics, rubber, foams, and adhesives?
I would also welcome recommendations on environmental conditions and practical
measures that may help slow the degradation of both the models and their
packaging over time.
Any advice, references, or experiences with similar collections would be
greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Andri Maimaridou
------------------------------
Andri Maimaridou
Conservation Manager
Plowden & Smith, Ltd.
United Kingdom
------------------------------
4.From: William Shepherd
Posted: Friday August 14, 2026 8:01 PM
Subject: RE: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
Message:
Hello Tim,
Thank you for your reply and the attachments. The poster will be especially
useful as I had planned to include information to explain why an element
present may not be the end of the world. Most of our collection is 1930s and
later so most show positive for something, but likely not "massive" quantities
as you say. Even the early donations where the year they were processed wasn't
known/recorded are probably still 20th century as anything earlier than say the
1910s would likely have had to been shipped here with the settler's belongings.
My guess is they likely wouldn't have made the cut when deciding what to bring
for most people.
In case it's of interest the results of 429 tests on 326 specimens showed the
following. I ultimately focussed on 9 elements and broke them down into two
areas. I did record any other elements that showed up in an "Other" column in
case it proves useful for something later on.
Specimens with Elements of Concern (EOC): 75.2%
Arsenic: 72.1%; Barium: 1.2%; Cadmium: 0.3%; Lead: 16.9%; Mercury: 0.9%
Specimens with Elements of Note (EON): 42.9%
Bromine: 4.6%; Chromium: 0.3%; Selenium: 0.3%; Strontium: 40.2%
Good point on the air quality testing. I have been wanting to get that done and
potentially some upgrades in the taxidermy storage. Hopefully, I can use the
results towards that. On the positive side, our taxidermy storage has
continuous negative-ish pressure so (hopefully) there isn't too much building
up. On the negative side, it's pretty basic and older so I'd like to get it
tested so make sure it's all working properly.
Thanks again and if there is anything that may be of interest from our
relatively small XRF project I'm happy to send that along.
------------------------------
William Shepherd (He/Him/His)
Collections Officer - Swift Current Museum
Swift Current, SK, Canada
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-14-2026 07:11
From: Timothy Greening
Subject: Comparison of Heavy Metal Contamination in Zoological Collections?
Hello William, I analyzed thousands of natural history speciemens for an
institution via XRF (In Saskatchewan no less! <3) about a decade ago, and so
have tons of thoughts! Particularly on the specifics of your question. But if
you want the simplest elevator style pitch for something like this, I would say
" There is arsenic in these ones, which are older, so we have to deal with it,
mot these others" rather than a lot of pie charts of elements? My rule of
thumb would be the vast majority of speciemens from before c. 1900 should have
"massive" quantites of arsenic beneath the skin, thats the way it is,
unfortunately, and needs a measured responce. But yeah, maybe don't say
"massive" at city council. When the (non-musuem type) instrument salesman came
to visit and put his instrument on an old mount for the first time as the demo,
he just said "....WOW!!! " looking at his screen. Presenting to the public can
be dificult. Meanwhile strontium, bromine and even lead are difficult and
may actually be natural elements, depending on your numbers, reporting them to
the public/ohs people needs caution, my poster explains that a bit, it took me
years to figure that out. Perhaps your instrument is sensitive enough to always
detect a number for them? That's a giveaway there. Also barium, which may be a
pesticide, or just white filler materials depending on the context.
Interesting. Cadmium is also interesting, and maybe from paint on the surface?
If you are decting mercury at all, you should at least get an air monitoring
specialist in to look at it further; and I understand that is stressful for
city councilors, but nessesary to say it. There should be some attachments to
this message from old conferences I was at in my RSM days, when I was doing
this. Take care, love to talk more about this!
Tim Greening
------------------------------
Timothy Greening
Archaeological Scientist
Parks Canada
Ottawa
Canada
------------------------------
You are subscribed to "Global Conservation Forum (ConsDistList)" as
[email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to
http://community.culturalheritage.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions. To
unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to
https://community.culturalheritage.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=d16eaa87-0f69-494b-9f2f-303dbc1222e1&sKey=fab9aa4f27a04c5d876e&GroupKey=757a8f16-505f-4323-8e74-e376757aa9f7.
