Content-Type: text/html Dwight; I would just do the silver dupe but that is base on cost and your ability to control the film's future storage environment. John > [Original Message] > From: WALLIS Dwight D <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 2/22/2006 3:05:38 PM > Subject: [RM] Polysulfide Treatment of Redox Contaminated Microfilm > > We are engaged in the on-going process of reviewing a rather large > library of microfilm for either destruction or preservation. A portion > of our microfilm (relatively small, thank goodness) has been > contaminated with redox. In most cases, the damage is fairly limited, > often to the leader film, or to a few frames on the roll. > > Our policy has been to silver duplicate this film, polysulfide treat the > silver duplicate, use that for our security copy, and discard the > original. Given the limited damage, and the growing cost of both silver > duplication and brown-toning, can anyone comment on the wisdom of > polysulfide treating the original film? Would this stop the damage from > spreading, and create a viable preservation copy, or are we better off > sticking with our original silver duplication/treatment plan? Note that > on the advice of our state archives, we are polysulfiding original > uncontaminated film. > > Dwight Wallis, CRM > Records Administrator > Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution & Stores > (FREDS) > 1620 SE 190th Avenue > Portland OR 97233 > phone: (503)988-3741 > fax: (503)988-3754 > [log in to unmask] > > > List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html > Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance