1 / 27

The Relevance of the NOAEL concept and related parameters in defining pollution thresholds for cultural heritage collect

The Relevance of the NOAEL concept and related parameters in defining pollution thresholds for cultural heritage collections. Jens Glastrup The National Museum of Denmark. Articles to discuss:. Studies of Lead Corrosion in Acetic Acid Environments(1).

chaney
Download Presentation

The Relevance of the NOAEL concept and related parameters in defining pollution thresholds for cultural heritage collect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Relevance of the NOAEL concept and related parameters in defining pollution thresholds forcultural heritage collections. Jens Glastrup The National Museum of Denmark

  2. Articles to discuss: • Studies of Lead Corrosion in Acetic Acid Environments(1). • Jean Tétreault, Jane Siriois and Eugénie Stamatopoulou • Studies in Conservation 43 (1998) 17-32. • Corrosion of Copper and Lead by Formaldehyde, Formic and Acetic Acid Vapours(2). • Jean Tétreault, Emilio Cano, Maarten van Bommel, David Scott, Megan Dennis, Marie-Geneviève Barthés-Labrousse, Léa Minel and Luc Robbiola • Studies in Conservation 48 (2003) 237-250.

  3. Experiments: • Experimental conditions: • Copper or lead plates, 2.5 (or 2) x 5 cm • Room temperature • Varying RH (I discuss 54%). • Different acetic or formic acid concentrations.

  4. Graph from (2)

  5. The NOAEL concept(No Observable Adverse Effect Level) • From (1): • Lead: ”As observed in……., when the acetic acid concentration is below 0.43mg/m3(175ppb), insignificant weight gains on lead were detected” • From (2): • Copper: ”A significant weight gain for copper samples is seen when the formic acid concentration is higher than 2ppmv(2000ppb or 3,8mg/m3)

  6. The NOAEL conceptThe figures • The balance minimum detection limit is 0.1 mg • However, in the figure, 1-2 (difference between the ”same” weight is equalling a difference in weighing of 0.5mg, 3-2 is 0.6mg on the balance. • This means that on a 25cm2 plate we cannot see a corrosion layer less than 128nm/year. • This is at least 128 Cu(Ac)2 molecules 1 3 2

  7. The size of things

  8. Question 1? • Is a minimum detection level of 128nm satisfactory to define a No Observable Adverse Effect?

  9. The NOAEL concept(No Observable Adverse Effect Level) • Tétreault (2003): The NOAEL approach relies on thermodynamic limitations (Brimblecombe 1994) • But then: • If the concentration shall have no effect, the rate of reaction must approach 0 at low concentrations. • Is this true in this case?

  10. Graph from (1)

  11. What is the rate of reaction?Constant

  12. What is the rate of reaction?Decreasing with increasing conc.

  13. What is the rate of reaction?Increasing with increasing conc.

  14. Graph from (1)

  15. Graph from (1)

  16. Graph from (1)

  17. Graph from (2)

  18. Graph from (2)

  19. Graph from (2)

  20. Graph from (2)

  21. Graph from (2)

  22. Graph from (2)

  23. Own results:Removal of acetic and formic acid by lead.

  24. Question 2? • Does a “No Observable Adverse Effect Level” exist?

  25. My conclusions: • It is easy to set standards in air: • But is it the best possibility? • NOAEL is dangerous because of the “specific design” parameter. • NOAEL does not exist, or only to a very limited degree • We are the chemists, the readers are the curators, therefore, our standards should be defined with great, great care.

  26. My conclusions 2: • If we continue to • - define thresholds based on NOAEL and NOAED. • we risk to give acceptance to corrosion layers as thick as 1µm/10year. • we risk to give the impression to curators that at certain low concentrations everything is safe. • we “miss the focus”, by pinpointing a concentration in air, but what about highly desorbing/reacting materials in areas with high ventilation rates? As shown above, at lowest concentrations we probably have the the highest reaction rates. • LIMITS IN AIR SHOULD BE BASED ON FLUX FROM SURROUNDING MATERIALS

  27. My conclusions 3: • Future research should focus on: • Establishing specific reaction rates for different materials in contact. • FAST methods to evaluate materials. • Defining maximum desorbing flux from materials.

More Related