Are "acid-free" backing boards truly acid-free? Part 2

[gkargreen-migration]

 

In conclusion, Gerber does not contribute, NOR neutralize any acidic material in the environment.

 

This is incorrect, as described ad nauseum in the thread linked above.

 

The calcium carbonate in the top-of-the-line fullbacks sold by Gerber, Hotflips, Bill Cole, and other suppliers is capable of neutralizing acidic off-gases, in the same way that the calcium carbonate in mammalian bones helps neutralize the bloodstream pH during metabolic acidosis, and calcium carbonate solid can neutralize acidic gases or liquids in a container.

 

And I would accept that as logical chemistry, I do believe it was also stated in the numerous threads that EGerber does not state that their boards contribute to neutralizing the off-gassing from pulps. I believe you when you say that they should vis-a-vis acid/base reaction, however we are reading that into their boards and EGerber does not state that. Would the, or any other company, state that if it were true as it gives them even more value as a product? I truly hope it does, I believe a good backing board necessary to provide rigidity to comic storage, to also have the bonus of neutralizing the destructive chemistry inherent in pulps would be quite nice. However, EGerber does not state that nor does the pen test prove that. Only by performing an experiment similar to the one MCP uses can one make that claim with validity. Yes, it makes sense the CaCO3 would neutralize off-gassing (if that is indeed the mechanism) but making sense and proving are two different things and the pen test does not prove that mechanism.

 

And this also goes to the BCW claim, yes, it is logical to assume that a board with one side acidic at point-of-purchase CAN contribute to chemical degradation, but that too is not proven. And because BCW DID make what is believed to be (and I would probably agree with) false claims of "long-term storage solution" (which they change?) they were automatically tarred as dishonest in EVERY thing they said forward to that point regardless of what they tried to do. OTOH, EGerber is also dishonest in saying their boards are archival grade by US govt standards, and it is now know by the analysis that is not true since their boards contain groundwood which is unacceptable by those standards, yet you give them a kiss and a pat, kind of a double standard...

 

One other thing, MCP is show in chemical experimentation to absorb deleterious chemicals in the degradation of pulp, however, their mechanism is NOT by acid/base neutralization, but by the use of zeolite capture. Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)? While I look to believe (and spend my money as such) that the EGerber is a better product, the claims inferred by the pen test are not absolute gospel as some would lead to believe, that tests only one aspect. I don't think anyone believes polybags are anywhere as good as mylar, even a blind man can see that sticky surface from old polybags can't be good! But the board issue is not as cut-and-dry by the single test used.

[gkargreen-migration]

It amazes me that the BCW spokesperson could be proven wrong time and time again and people will still take his statements at face value.

 

The idea that you could take any of his arguments, conclusions, or even "independent test results" as gospel, after such a concerted disinformation campaign is ludicrous.

 

I am not as sure that all of his actions were done in bad faith as some here have decried. It would appear that some statements were likely to be less-than-honest, but his attempts to come up with some level of understanding were at least done with honesty, to just up and tar him otherwise is to show less of an interest in learning the truth than just being dismissive to outright hostile. In many ways, if he had just gone away and not even attempted to uncover some level of truth or honesty, I would be more in agreement. But he did make quite an effort, more than any of his detractors did. And thus while I do not take everything as gospel from anyone, I do try to learn from what was said from all sides, that is called learning and I do not believe that is "ludicrous".

 

BTW, I see that you sell MCP for comics, correct? Your prices would be from what I have seen to be quite good, and after I unload some books to pay for it, I am looking to get at least a fair size of my SA/BA books MCPed. I did read on the goog from one seller that if your paying less that $29.95 for 100 sheets, you were getting "fake" MCP, I am sure you would not agree with that statement!

 

[AnkurJ]

Interesting that the study was not done with full backs. Frankly I think all of this is moot since the books will not change much in our lifetime if they are properly stored. I think even if stored raw in a cool and low humidity environment, comics will do fine and surpass our lifetime.

[namisgr]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

2. We'll have to disagree. A thick board with calcium carbonate infused throughout should contain more buffering material than a board with a thin layer of it sprayed on top. Your claim that a cheaper type of board contains the same amount of calcium carbonate as an infused thick board is not substantiated by any specific information.

 

3. Use whatever product makes you happy for long-term storage of your comic book and magazine collections. Just don't expect them all to protect the paper to the same degree.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

It amazes me that the BCW spokesperson could be proven wrong time and time again and people will still take his statements at face value.

 

The idea that you could take any of his arguments, conclusions, or even "independent test results" as gospel, after such a concerted disinformation campaign is ludicrous.

 

I am not as sure that all of his actions were done in bad faith as some here have decried. It would appear that some statements were likely to be less-than-honest, but his attempts to come up with some level of understanding were at least done with honesty, to just up and tar him otherwise is to show less of an interest in learning the truth than just being dismissive to outright hostile. In many ways, if he had just gone away and not even attempted to uncover some level of truth or honesty, I would be more in agreement. But he did make quite an effort, more than any of his detractors did. And thus while I do not take everything as gospel from anyone, I do try to learn from what was said from all sides, that is called learning and I do not believe that is "ludicrous".

 

So you applaud his attempt to "learn" about the product he is selling?

 

All the while he was regularly and repeatedly making incorrect statements of fact, misstating the positions of others, misinterpreting raw data and coming to incorrect conclusions based on the evidence. Each and every time these errors and inconsistencies just happened to be in favor of his product. Great salesmanship if your goal is to push a product and you have no qualms about misrepresentation. Epitome of bad faith.

 

[gkargreen-migration]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

2. We'll have to disagree. A thick board with calcium carbonate infused throughout should contain more buffering material than a board with a thin layer of it sprayed on top. Your claim that a cheaper type of board contains the same amount of calcium carbonate as an infused thick board is not substantiated by any specific information.

 

OK, so MCP does not really protect comics from their own out-gassing acids? If that is the case, it would appear that MCP is really not all that important in preserving pulps. As you have noted and I believe, the main culprit is the breakdown of lignin into acidic components that cause further degradation of the pulp paper and the migration of said acids throughout, but particularly to, the front/back cover where the acidoc damage leads to chipping and color loss. In that view, and from further archival storage methods, it would appear that a buffer paper, like EGerber and interleave papers such as this: universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=936

would provide the best means to reduce the damage (outside of proper storage techniques as noted) to pulps.

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

There are now probably hundreds of different synthetic zeolites used in all manner of industry, proprietorially manufactured for specific adsorptive applications. They have widely different adsorptive properties. The patented SPZ zeolite used in microchamber paper removes acids, aldehydes, ammonia, pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, and oxidative gases.

 

From a paper preservation standpoint, microchamber paper's SPZ zeolite's ability to absorb aldehydes is important because aldehydes form acetic acid, a huge culprit in the deterioration of paper. Aldehydes and many other preacidc byproducts of deterioration pass right through buffered papers, however they are trapped in microchamber paper, in the same manner that CO2 is trapped in zeolites designed for that purpose.

[gkargreen-migration]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

There are now probably hundreds of different synthetic zeolites used in all manner of industry, proprietorially manufactured for specific adsorptive applications. They have widely different adsorptive properties. The patented SPZ zeolite used in microchamber paper removes acids, aldehydes, ammonia, pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, and oxidative gases.

 

From a paper preservation standpoint, microchamber paper's SPZ zeolite's ability to absorb aldehydes is important because aldehydes form acetic acid, a huge culprit in the deterioration of paper. Aldehydes and many other preacidc byproducts of deterioration pass right through buffered papers, however they are trapped in microchamber paper, in the same manner that CO2 is trapped in zeolites designed for that purpose.

 

thanks, that is good to know. So MCP is still probably the best treatment for pulps, even over buffered CaCO3-containing tissues, correct? (as a means for reducing the effects of acids from lignin breakdown).

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

There are now probably hundreds of different synthetic zeolites used in all manner of industry, proprietorially manufactured for specific adsorptive applications. They have widely different adsorptive properties. The patented SPZ zeolite used in microchamber paper removes acids, aldehydes, ammonia, pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, and oxidative gases.

 

From a paper preservation standpoint, microchamber paper's SPZ zeolite's ability to absorb aldehydes is important because aldehydes form acetic acid, a huge culprit in the deterioration of paper. Aldehydes and many other preacidc byproducts of deterioration pass right through buffered papers, however they are trapped in microchamber paper, in the same manner that CO2 is trapped in zeolites designed for that purpose.

 

thanks, that is good to know. So MCP is still probably the best treatment for pulps, even over buffered CaCO3-containing tissues, correct? (as a means for reducing the effects of acids from lignin breakdown).

 

Yes, as long as you are getting "real" microchamber paper

 

btw, in addition to the proprietary zeolites, MCP is also buffered throughout with CaCO3

[gkargreen-migration]

Could it be that acid/base neutralization is not a good way to eliminate off-gassing degradation, and that zeolite capture is the only effective solution? And if CaCO3 does indeed neutralize off-gassing, would a spray application with little porosity on one side be better than a porous board with CaCO3 (which was stated that both boards contained the SAME AMOUNT by weight)?

 

1. No. Zeolite is a sorbant for removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from industrial production. Instead of carbon dioxide, it's acidic off-gases that are thought to primarily degrade comic book paper.

 

There are now probably hundreds of different synthetic zeolites used in all manner of industry, proprietorially manufactured for specific adsorptive applications. They have widely different adsorptive properties. The patented SPZ zeolite used in microchamber paper removes acids, aldehydes, ammonia, pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, and oxidative gases.

 

From a paper preservation standpoint, microchamber paper's SPZ zeolite's ability to absorb aldehydes is important because aldehydes form acetic acid, a huge culprit in the deterioration of paper. Aldehydes and many other preacidc byproducts of deterioration pass right through buffered papers, however they are trapped in microchamber paper, in the same manner that CO2 is trapped in zeolites designed for that purpose.

 

thanks, that is good to know. So MCP is still probably the best treatment for pulps, even over buffered CaCO3-containing tissues, correct? (as a means for reducing the effects of acids from lignin breakdown).

 

Yes, as long as you are getting "real" microchamber paper

 

btw, in addition to the proprietary zeolites, MCP is also buffered throughout with CaCO3

 

And that is why I ask questions, because I now know something I did not, which is that MCP is also BUFFERED, which I did not know and make this product even more of value in preserving, thanks!

 

[aerischan]

Let's look at the results of TAPPI T-435 (pH) from the samples submitted;

 

Comic Book pH 5.4

E. Gerber Half-Back pH 8.52

BCW Comic Backing Board pH 8.47

Bill Cole Thin X-Tender pH 8.57

Miller Hobby Comic Backing Board pH 9.36

Ultra Pro Comic Backing Board pH 7.94

 

As you can see, the comic book is acidic as expected. The boards all have relatively the same pH with Miller Hobby at the top of the scale and Ultra Pro at the bottom.

 

Now let's look at the results of ASTM D-4988 (Alkaline Reserve);

 

E. Gerber Half-Back 7.69%

BCW Comic Backing Board 3.64%

Bill Cole Thin X-Tender 6.57%

Miller Hobby Comic Backing Board 4.45%

Ultra Pro Comic Backing Board 4.72%

 

From the data we can see that the E. Gerber Half-Backs and Bill Cole Thin X-Tenders actually have more than twice the Alkaline Reserve as advertised. The SBS boards all have about the same Alkaline Reserve with Ultra Pro at the top of the scale and BCW Supplies on the bottom.

 

Let's take a look at the results of ASTM D-776 (Artificial Ageing);

 

Aged 10 years

 

Comic Book pH 5.45

E Gerber Half-Back pH 8.07

 

Comic Book pH 5.44

BCW Comic Backing Board pH 7.62

 

Aged 20 years

 

Comic Book pH 5.27

E Gerber Half-Back pH 8.07

 

Comic Book pH 5.26

BCW Comic Backing Board pH 7.34

 

From the data we can see that the E. Gerber Half-Back's pH level does not change over a 10 year period which suggests that the E. Gerber Half-Back does not absorb any residual acid from the comic book.

Forgive the thread revival. I just started collecting comics (nothing valuable really, just titles I like) that I'd like to keep in as pristine condition as possible for my personal enjoyment. I happened to come across this thread while researching comic book storage.

 

Now I'm no chemistry major but just going by the results from the post, I don't know how someone can infer that the BCW boards absorb more residual acid from the comics than E. Gerber. If that were true, then I would think the pH level for the 20-year ageing test would be higher for the comic book with BCW backing board compared to the one with E. Gerber backing board. Instead, they're 5.26 and 5.27 respectively which is a negligible difference.

 

Whether either absorb residual acid from the comics, there's not enough information to confirm. I didn't notice a control test of just the comic by itself without backing board to see what the pH would be like after ageing. That said, the pH 5.44/5.45 after 10-year ageing compared to 5.4 original suggests the backing boards do absorb at least a little bit.