early warning strategy

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER

UCL Presentation for MASTER workshop, January 2006

EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Early Warning Strategy

Joel Taylor

UCL Centre for Sustainable Heritage

Review of Preventive Conservation in Europe Early Warning System

Mitigation

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Review of Preventive Conservation in Europe

Literature Review – published work on best practice and what should be done

Questionnaire – views on current practice and what is being done

Expert panel – end-user views on current practice and what could be done

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093 Literature Review

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Gaps in Preventive Conservation Strategy

Techniques often not integrated

Damage functions not known for many materials and difficulty in generalising from one material to a range of materials

Synergy of agents of deterioration

Effects of open display, e.g. historic houses and contemporary exhibitions

Data analysis deficit

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

(Problems with) Standards

Dosimeters cannot utilise existing standards – why? RH levels often mid-range, and concentrate on physical

damage and mould growth Temperature incorporates human comfort Light levels incorporate visibility Few standards on pollutants (concentration-based) No accepted standards for VOCs

The numbers, rather than the ways of achieving them, gained acceptance.

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

(Problems with) Standards 2

More recently, standards have evolved from single numbers to ranges

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Conclusions from the Literature Review

Preventive conservation strategies are drawing upon risk management more and more

Acceptable change is being defined

The rate of deterioration for different locations can be compared, using techniques such as isoperms

An overall strategy can accommodate different aims

Interdisciplinary methodologies are replacing standards

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093 Questionnaire

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire on

monitoring

Sent out to determine how attitudes and practice reflect literature

31 heritage institutions of varying size from 18 European countries responded

Archive Museum Historic House

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Perceived causes of damage

02468

101214161820

Res

po

nse

sPrimary Cause Secondary causeNot important Unknown

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Is monitoring systematic?

Everyone that monitors at all, monitors temperature and RH. Very few people monitor pollutants

For many risks, there appeared to be very little correlation between perceived threat and amount of monitoring -except pests and organic acids (risks with visible impact)

All of the institutions that did not consider temperature or RH as important risk factors (or didn’t know), monitored them

Pollution monitoring is independent of location - proportionally, there is more pollution monitoring in rural locations than urban ones

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Questionnaire conclusions

Awareness of risks was related to standards, and therefore intellectual access to information

Pollution and organic acids were not frequently monitored

Rational decision-making is distorted by external factors, such as lack of resources

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Expert Panel

First end-user workshop in Krakow

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Outcomes of discussion

Light, temperature and RH commonly monitored. Pollutants, less so

Differences in monitoring are more related to the size and type of institution than differences in culture or country

Data overload is the most common problem

Most systems rely on single parameter monitoring, not considering synergistic effects

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Overall recommendations

‘Data overload’ a problem

Preventive conservation

methods often not integrated

EWO should help define relationship between risk and damage

EWO should be easy to use

Need for EWO to be relevant to existing methodologies

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Convergence of findings from literature review, questionnaire and expert views -1

Conservation assessments need to account for synergy among different risks (all research strands revealed this)

Consistent way of comparing different risks needs to be carried out in practice (all strands)

More data analysis should be encouraged in practice (all stands)

Theory and practice emphasise some risks over others (literature review and questionnaire)

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Convergence of findings from literature review, questionnaire and expert views - 2

Understanding, and expression, of rate of change for chemical deterioration is still required (literature review and workshop )

Data overload and lack of integration of methods within preventive conservation (questionnaire and workshop)

Communication between scientists and the general public is required (literature review and workshop)

Integration of existing preventive conservation methodologies is desirable (literature review and workshop)

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093 Early Warning System

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Developing a new preventive conservation strategy for the

MASTER sensors

Integrate EWO sensor with existing preventive conservation methodologies

Understand and express, of rate of change for chemical deterioration

Account for synergy between agents

Encourage more data analysis (simplicity)

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Existing Preventive Conservation Methods

Environmental Monitoring

Condition Assessment

Location Assessment

Risk Assessment

Vantaa, 2000

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

FUTURE

PAST

DETERMINISTIC CATASTROPHIC

Deterioration

Location Assessment

Condition Survey Risk Assessment

Environmental Monitoring

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Properties of the EWO-G dosimeter

False Positive

Response, no damage False NegativeDamage, no response

True positiveResponse and damage

True negativeNo response or damage

Maritime vapours

Unusual VOCs

Inherent deterioration

Rate of reaction

Physical damage

Biological damage

Dose-response (Tetreault, Brimblecombe, Larsen)

Isoperms (Sebera, Michalski, TWPI)

JNFs (Ashley-Smith . et al.)

Passive layers on objects

Agents reducing reaction rates

Uncertainty (Ashley-Smith)

Stability (Bradley and Thickett)

Deterioration Dosimeter Response

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Classification in Preventive Conservation

Building (ASHRAE, 1999; 2003) Condition (Keene, 1991; 2002) Environment (CIE, 1995; Larsen, 1996) Risk (Waller, 1994; 2003) Value (Delta plan, Van der Reyden 1996)

Different kinds of institution will have different aims and requirements in terms of assessment and control

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Type of building

Calibrated levels1 2 3 4 5

Archive Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control

Problem with control

Serious problem

Purpose built museum

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control


Historic house

museum

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control

Open structure

Sensor is not

responding

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

External store

Sensor is not

responding

Sensor is not

responding

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Types of institution -11 Archive Climate controlled and air is purified Possibly more of a storage than exhibition space Collections very vulnerable or valuable A realistic optimum

2 Purpose Built Museum Environmental control is possible - Thomson’s Class 1 museum Will probably meet the needs of human comfort and existing

standards for organic objects Consistent with existing ideas of good preservation

3 Historic House museum Historic buildings and museums with limited resources -

Thomson’s Class 2 museum. Most organic objects would be well preserved in this

environment

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Types of institution - 2

4 Open structure Open display when the environment is difficult to control May

have open windows or little UV protection For robust organic objects but not valuable or vulnerable Just outside levels that might be recommended for a museum

object

5 External store with no control Very little control or protection. Environment is open to the outdoors in some respects and

provides shelter rather than environmental control. Not to be aspired to but indicates location’s performance

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Disagreement between assessmentsPositive information

Neg

ativ

e in

form

atio

n

EWO-G Monitored data

Condition Assessme

nt

Location Assessm

ent

Risk Assessme

nt

EWO-G

Possible causes are light or very high RH. Relate to single parameters. Is deterioration chemical?

Inherent decay in object (look at RH), OR fading (look at light levels) OR damage is not chemical

Problem in location exists but is not (yet) affecting the environment OR is light or very high RH

Problem is light or very high RH, OR not yet affecting the collection, OR is a ‘type 1’ or ‘type 2’ risk

Monitored data

Response on EWO sensor is synergistic, OR a hazard that is not monitored

Hazard not monitored, OR collection sensitive outside recommended levels

Problem in location exists but is not yet affecting the environment

Risk is not environmental OR not a monitored parameter

Condition Assessme

nt

Early warning of future condition by chemical deterioration

Environment is not (yet) adversely affecting the collection

Location problem is not yet affecting the collection

Problem not (yet) affecting the collection, OR is a ‘type 1’ risk

Location Assessme

nt

Problem is with control, not location, OR problem is very subtle

Problem is with control, not location, OR problem is very subtle

Problem is inherent in objects or environmental control

Risk not associated with location, such as handling

Risk Assessme

nt

Risks are synergistic OR unmonitored ‘type 3’ risk OR present no loss of value

Materials not susceptible OR risk has been under-estimated

Objects more sensitive than recommended levels suggest

Location problem is not likely to increase

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Agreement between assessmentsPositive information

Neg

ativ

e in

form

atio

n

EWO-G Monitored data

Condition Assessme

nt

Location Assessme

nt

Risk Assessme

nt

EWO-G \\\ Positive \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\

Negative \\\

Objects likely to be affected by a monitored hazard, and possibly others. Mitigate and check for others

Environment is aggressive and may be a long-standing problem. Diagnose cause

Location problems are affecting environment. Cause may be evident from inspection

Risk is environmental and is likely to affect the value of the collection soon, if not already

Monitored data

Risks are not environmental or light is not monitored. Check condition of collection

\\\ Positive \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\

Negative \\\

Environment is related to deterioration, and possibly the cause. Other risks may also exist

Location may be the cause of problems. Condition of collection should be checked

Risk is environmental and is related to a monitored hazard and possibly others

Condition Assessme

nt

Deterioration not evident, or is not chemical. Type 1 or 2 risks may be more urgent

Risk is not environment OR not a monitored hazard. Refer to risk assessment

\\\ Positive \\\ \\\ \\\ Negative \\\

Location may have deleterious effect on collection. Check data on environment

Risks are type 2 or 3 and are affecting the collection already – urgent problem

Location Assessme

nt

Location is not affecting environment Risks are more likely to be type 1 or 2. Check light levels

Risk is not environment, or not monitored. Assess risk and condition

Location is not a cause of deterioration. Inspection of data and services still worthwhile

\\\ Positive \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\

Negative \\\

Risks are related to location and collection should be assessed

Risk Assessme

nt

Environment is stable. Check objects for inherent deterioration

Risks are not environmental, or not measured. Check for pests etc.

Deterioration is not visible and not expected

Risks are unpredictable, OR damage has occurred outside accepted levels

\\\ Positive \\\ \\\

Negative \\\

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Strategy

Only required data is analysed

Methods are integrated

Diagnostic

Reduce uncertainty in each method

Does not assume what data exists (or ignore existing data)

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Interpreting the dosimeter

1

2

3

4

5

Problem may be synergistic, or an unmonitored element of the environment. Assess unmonitored hazards.

Identified hazard causing damage?

Carry out risk assessment, location assessment, monitor environment look at collection.

Once value is assessed, prioritise mitigation.

Responding to identified hazard, possibly a long-standing problem. Diagnostic monitoring recommended.

Location Risk

EnvironmentCondition

Yes

No

Check existing data.

1

2

3

4

5

Expectation and PPO response

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Trøndelag Folk Museum ExampleNew, purpose built museum. HVAC system. Category 2

(purpose built museum gallery)

Environment – ‘Class 1’ museum. Monitor temp, RH and light but not pollutants. No natural light (only UV)

Object condition – No visible deteriorationLocation – Checked regularly, no problemsRisk – No risk assessment carried out but major

environmental threats perceived

Site T/RH Light UV TWPI NO2 SO2 O3

B 2 1 1 2 3 2 1

C 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

1

2

3

4

5





Location Risk


1

2

3

4

5

Expectation

No

Yes



MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

1

2

3

4

5





Location Risk


1

2

3

4

5

PPO response (gallery)


Yes

No


MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Type of building

Calibrated levels1 2 3 4 5

Archive Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control


Serious problem

Purpose built museum

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control


Historic house

museum

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

Poor control

Open structure

Sensor is not

responding

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

Could be better

External store

Sensor is not

responding

Sensor is not

responding

Excellent control

Very good control

Expected,

Acceptable

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Disagreement between assessmentsPositive information

N

e

g

a

t

i

v

e

EWO-G Environ Condition Location Risk

EWO-G

Environ Response on EWO sensor is synergistic, OR a hazard that is not monitored

Condition Early warning of future condition by chemical deterioration

Location Problem is with control, not location, OR problem is very subtle

Risk Risks are synergistic OR unmonitored ‘type 3’ risk OR present no loss of value

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Agreement between assessmentsPositive information

N

e

g

a

t

i

v

e

EWO-G Environ Condition

Location Risk

EWO-G \\\ POSITIVE

\\\

\\\

NEGATIVE \\\

Environ \\\ POSITIVE

\\\

\\\

NEGATIVE \\\

Condition

Risk is not environment OR not a monitored hazard. Refer to risk assessment

\\\ POSITIVE

\\\

\\\

NEGATIVE \\\

Location Risk is not environment, or not monitored. Assess risk and condition

Location is not a cause of deterioration. Inspect data and services

\\\ POSITIVE

\\\

\\\

\\\

NEGATIVE \\\

Risk Risks are not environmental, or not measured. Check for pests etc.

Deterioration is not visible and not expected

Risks are unpredictable, OR damage has occurred outside accepted levels

\\\ POSITIVE

\\\

\\\

\\\ NEGATIVE \\\

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Interpretation

Pollutants are the only hazards not monitored. None of the monitored hazards reveal a problem

We can deduce that pollutants are the problem

Pollutant gases are undetected by the museum and the EWO dosimeter reveals the problem

Diagnostic monitoring would reveal that NO2 and O3 levels are higher inside than outside (during the field test)

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Pollutants identified

1

2

3

4

5





Location Risk


1

2

3

4

5


Yes

No


MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Diagnostic monitoring

EWO-S dosimeter can be used for assessments of external pollution, as a diagnostic monitoring campaign

Shorter exposure time of twenty eight days suitable for investigating problems

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Mitigation

What to do when a hazard has been determined

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Risk chain

release

exposure

attack consequence

Risk assessment

Dosimetry Condition assessment

Environmental monitoring

Part of this is determining which points are critical for hazards to have an effect on a collection.

There are various ways of assessing and mitigating damage which relate to different stages of the process.

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Dependencies in risk

Outcomes are dependent on a series of prior events, which can be generalised.

What needs to take place for damage to happen?

What are the critical points and pathways in this chain of events?

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Dependency modelling

These are deductive, top-down methods of analyzing risks in system design.

It involves specifying a ‘top event’ to analyze (damage).

Followed by identifying all of the associated elements in the system that could cause that ‘top event’ to occur.

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Damage to object from

pollution

Exposed surfaces for deposition

Interaction of pollutant with

collection

Presence of pollutant in

building

No attractive deposition surfaces

Generation of pollutant internally

Infiltration through natural

ventilation

AND

AND

OR

Infiltration through HVAC

An example…

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Relationships in model

In a positively phrased dependency model, AND dependencies are points of weakness because all events need to occur for the higher event to take place.

OR dependencies represent points of strength, because of alternatives options. Can turn these into ANDs through investigation.

Probabilities can be applied to each event, so cost effectiveness and efficiency can be determined for any action.

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Modelling deterministic risk

Events often about extent of impact, not presence or absence of impact. Deterministic risks cannot be modelled this way.

The threshold levels can be used to create ‘steps’ for each event, so pathway has defined levels.

E.g. presence is NO2 at 10 ppb, rather than 5ppb. Steps based on object deterioration and MASTER calibration.

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093

Damage to objects e.g. 5ppb NO2 for one year


gallery

Presence of pollutant in building

Infiltration from outside

External presence of

pollutant

HVAC Filter

No scavenger in display area

Intake filtration

Intake position

Internal generation

Reaction from NO

Unflued heating

appliance

Cellulose nitrate break

down

No attractive deposit surfaces

AND

AND

OR

OR

OR

OR

A general model of a test site museum shows possible ways in which NO2 can affect collections

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093



gallery




pollutant

HVAC Filter


Intake filtration

Intake position

Internal generation

Reaction from NO

Unflued heating

appliance

Cellulose nitrate break

down


AND

AND

OR

OR

OR

OR

4ppb

6ppb

Monitoring showed that internal concentrations were actually higher than external concentrations

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093



gallery




pollutant


Intake filtration

Intake position

Internal generation from NO2 reaction


AND

AND

OR

AND

Consequently the critical pathways can be identified using the model

MA

ST

ER

MA

ST

ER


EU

K4-

CT

-200

2-00

093 Acknowledgements

May Cassar and Nigel Blades

European Commission 5th FP

MASTER project team

You

early warning strategy

Documents