Hello Susan Hamilton and other 'annelids' who have been discussing the
production of specimen labels! Sorry for the delay in responding but I do
have some comments to add!! I apologize in advance for the length of
this response......
Computer-generated labels are a very efficient method of producing
large quantities of labels. Given the increasing and essential efforts by
museums to document their collection data by means of databases
computer-generated labels are not only a logical and practical method to
use for label production but also an inevitable one. As noted from many
of your comments however, there are inherent problems with this method
and no easy answers. But there is progress!!
The best combination of paper, ink and printer to produce the best
quality, readable, durable and long-lasting label is what you are trying to
achieve. But it is also important to know the details of that with which you
are working!!
PAPER:
The composition of the paper (Hill, 1999 pp 191-197; Burgess, 1995) has
a great deal to do with how well the ink sets in and on it, as well as its
strength in water (ordinary, low-grade papers such as xerox or printing
paper, index cards, etc disintegrate in fluids). Note that all of you who
reported successful ink adherence on label paper and durability in
preservation fluids used high cotton-content paper. Resistall (Byron
Weston Paper Co) is included in this category (long, stable 100%
cotton). Resistall has been used in many museums for about 3 decades
for hand-written labels though only about 5 years for computer-generated
labels. As mentioned by Linda Ward, Resistall is still available through
University Products though its availability may not continue once the
supply is used up - it does not comply with NIOSH (USA National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health) regulations due to its formaldehyde
content. Resistall is also not acid-free (probably due to the formaldehyde)
and the longterm effect of acidity on specimens has raised concerns in
the SPNHC/conservation community (Andrei, M.A. and H.H. Genoways.
1999). It would be nice if BWP were to come up with a substitue, acid-
free cotton paper that museums could use for archival-quality labels.
With more demand this may yet happen. However, in the meantime and
with the above reservations, I would suggest using Resistall - it works and
it's reliable. There are other more neutral papers that work well for dry,
acid-sensitive collections such as molluscs, and pre-gummed label
papers for microscope slides (Down, 1999).
INK:
Ink used in the production of labels is susceptible to fading due to UV
light or dissolving as a result of reaction with the preservation fluid. Good
references for investigations of ink include Williams and Hawks (1986);
Gisbert, J. et al.(1990); Gisbert, J. et al.(1992); and Palacios, F. and J.
Gisbert (1990). Andrew Mackie had a good suggestion to source
indelible ink products through printer suppliers such as Hewlett Packard.
Depending on source and availability your choice of ink should still be
based on test trials. I encourage you to use tests identified by Williams
and Monk (1999) to ensure that the ink you chose is suitable and
permanent. though with a slant towards botany this reference has much
information that is of value across disciplines.
PRINTER:
My limited understanding of printers is that high heating temperatures
accompanied by tight roller pressure enable the ink to better apply and
adhere to the paper, thus producing a more rigorous print on the label. I
have found that the Hewlett Packard Laserjet II and III printers have
produced durable labels (and Dieter Fiege: HPLJ III and IV). I was
interested to note that Andie had success using the HP Deskjet 870Cxi
and 660 series which have lower operating temperatures (max 40C)
compared to the laserjets (>135C). I believe that most deskjet or bubblejet
printers function by electrostatic attraction of the ink to the paper (as
opposed to heat applied) and this generally may produce less
satisfactory labels. I am not surprised when I learn of people that are
taking precautionary measures of ironing labels (more heat and
pressure) or spraying sheets of labels with a plastic coating to ensure
there longevity and durability.
While at the Royal Ontario Museum (pre 1996) I produced computer-
generated labels for wet alcohol collections using Resistall paper (on both
28 lb and 36 lb weights) and an HP Laserjet II printer. The labels were
well-produced, clear, and durable (so far as I know) using this
combination. As with Mackie, I allowed the sheets of printed labels to air-
dry for 1-2 days (this is important). I tested these labels by vigorous
rubbing of the print with an eraser, and a shake-down in the washing
machine. The print showed signs of wear or lifting only after VIGOROUS
rubbing with the eraser, but at a level that I felt was far beyond what
would be encountered by inserting and removing a label from a vial (the
problem noted by Linda Ward). Laser-produced labels that pass the
eraser test should not loose their print when rubbing the side of the vial
on extraction . I did find that when initially inserting the label into the
alcohol there was a faint release or leaching (not continuous) of ink that
dissolved in the alcohol but this was not due to physical abrasion against
the vial. I recall a similar leaching of the ink when using India ink on hand-
printed labels. The tests of Williams and Monk (1999) should be useful in
this respect but Mackie may have made a wise choice of refilling his
cartridges with the HP Waterproof Permanent Pigmented Ink.
As for the washing machine, surprisingly the labels were still mostly
(though sometimes faintly) readable except where creases had occurred
in the paper - there the ink had completely lifted off the paper. Since
folding collection labels is counter-productive (especially across-print)
this should not really be an issue. However, I diligently inscribed the
dbase record number for the label data in pencil on the back of each
label (as noted by Deiter Fiege and Judith Fournier). This exercise is a
bit time-consuming but well worth the effort, at least until we learn what
the durability of these labels is for the long term (more than 3-4 years).
Synthetic substitutes for paper have had varying levels of success
(Gisbert et al 1990; Fenn, 1999 pp 236). I understand they are
particularly useful in the field for mammalogy and herpetology collections.
At the 1999 SPNHC meeting in Washington, DC I handled and observed
the production of polyester labels now being used at the NMNH. I found
them very impressive though Linda Ward, who works with these on a
continuous basis, notes a less than satisfactory quality of output. For
those interested William Keel and William Mosher presented a poster at
the SPNHC meeting entitled 'Alcoholic Archival Polyester Specimen
Labels'. (I'm assuming this is available on www.datamaxcorp.com). Ward
is correct in saying that these systems are expensive. However, given the
general trend towards bar coding of specimens and their data (Russell,
1999), these types of products could well be a prototype of archival
specimen labels of the future. Back to reality: I encourage people to
investigate and test locally available products, especially for ink and
paper (as done by Fiege). This can cut costs considerably. I know of
situations where people have shipped untested, potentially unreliable
products all the way across the country when they could probably have
purchased a similar product in their own city. I also realize that all of this
testing takes time but when you think about it, labels carry very critical
bits of information about the specimens. LABELS ARE VERY
IMPORTANT AND WORTH THE TIME. If possible work with conservators
to sort this out and document all of your findings including dates
incorporated and products you decide to use. Ideally, in the best of
worlds, every museum should test products and develop their own
standardized procedures and guidelines for the production of archival-
quality labels, updating these as new techniques and products evolve.
I hope I have not muddied the waters too much. Good luck!
Sheila Byers
202-1024 West 7th Ave
Vancouver, BC
V6H 1B3
<scbyers at intouch.bc.ca>
References:
-Andrei, M. A. and H.H. Genoways. 1999. Changes in pH in museum
storage fluids, I- effects of resistall paper labels. Collection Forum
13(2):63-75.
-Burgess, H.D. 1995. Other cellulosic materials. Pp 291-302 in Rose,
C.L., C.A. Hawks, and H.H. Genoways, editors. Storage of Natural
History Collections: A Preventive Conservation Approach. Society for the
Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC), Iowa, USA. 448pp.
-Down, J.L. 1999. Adhesive research at the Canadian Conservation
Institute as it relates to herbarium collections. Pp 205-224 (section on pre-
gummed microscope labels) in Metsger, D.A. and S.C. Byers, editors.
Managing the Modern Herbarium - An Interdisciplinary Approach.
SPNHC, Washington, DC. 384 pp. [see also SPNHC website:
www.spnhc.org]
-Fenn, J. 1999. Plastic materials used in the herbarium. Pp 235-249 in
Metsger, D.A. and S.C. Byers, editors. Managing the Modern Herbarium -
An Interdisciplinary Approach. SPNHC, Washington, DC. 384 pp.
-Hill, G.J. 1999. Paper Conservation and the Herbarium. Pp 189-204 in
Metsger, D.A. and S.C. Byers, editors. Managing the Modern Herbarium -
An Interdisciplinary Approach. SPNHC, Washington, DC. 384 pp.
-Gisbert, J., F. Palacios and R. Garcia-Perea. 1990. Labeling vertebrate
collections with Tyvek synthetic paper. Collection Forum 6(1):35-37.
-Gisbert, J., R. Garcia-Perea and F. Palacios. 1992. Durable specimen
labels. Pp 265 in Rose, C.L. and A.R. de Torres, editors. Storage of
Natural History Collections: Ideas and Practical Solutions. Pittsburg, PA.
346pp.
-Palacios, F. and J. Gisbert. 1990. An indelible printing system for
permanent records in natural history collections. Collection Forum
6(1):38-39.
Russell, G.F. 1999. an overview of bar code applications and issues in
systematics collections. Pp 253-261 in Metsger, D.A. and S.C. Byers,
editors. Managing the Modern Herbarium - An Interdisciplinary
Approach. SPNHC, Washington, DC. 384 pp.
-Williams, S.L. and R.R. Monk. 1999. Testing dry documentation media
for permanent hard-copy collection records. Pp 225-234 in Metsger,
D.A. and S.C. Byers, editors. Managing the Modern Herbarium - An
Interdisciplinary Approach 384 pp., SPNHC, Washington, DC.
-Williams, S.L. and C.A. Hawks. 1986. Inks for documentation in
vertebrate research collections. Curator 29(2):93-108.
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
