AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ICHTHYOLOGISTS AND HERPETOLOGISTS
CURATION NEWSLETTER
May 28, 1999
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
In the past, the Curation Newsletter has been distributed at ASIHmeetings and sent by mail to approximately 400 addresses. In theinterest of minimizing reproduction and mailing costs, we are askinginterested recipients of the Newsletter to access it electronically(gopher://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu:70/11/curation/ichs_herps)rather than requesting a printed copy. This issue of the Newsletterwill be mailed to all on the current mailing list but we arerequesting a subscription renewal ONLY by those who do not haveaccess (or do not expect it within the next year) to the internet, orcannot otherwise access the Newsletter electronically. Libraries andthose wishing to renew should send their name, title, institutionname, department and address to Susan Jewett (see address listing atthe end of this newsletter for Susan's address as well as thecomplete physical and email addresses of all Curation NewsletterSubcommittee members).
Future issues of the Curation Newsletter will be mailed only tothose who renew at this time.
ARTICLES
PARAFORMALDEHYDE/ALCONOX PROBLEMS
Douglas W. Nelson (dwnelson@umich.edu), John Sparks; Divisionof Fishes, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI48109-1079.
The UMMZ staff has noted some "clearing" problems with fishspecimens fixed in paraformaldehyde which was prepared using Alconox,an agent that helps dissolve paraformaldehyde in water. The problemswere similar to those discussed by Saul (1981). The formula formaking the solutions was basically the same as described in Fink etal. (1979: pp. 7-8).
Most of the problems appeared only after transfer to 70% ETOHalthough there was some clearing in a few specimens prior to transferto ETOH. Specimens had begun to clear and had suffered pigment lossafter a few months. These specimens also appeared to be swollen or"bloated" in comparison to members of this same taxon that did notexhibit this clearing phenomenon. The material had been processed(i.e., transferred into ETOH) at another institution, and a portionhas been moved to the UMMZ. The material had been kept largely in thedark, typical museum conditions, with minimum UV exposure. Thespecimens were not rinsed in water prior to transfer to 70% ETOH. Webelieve that this is the problem.
Measurements of pH in the jars of ETOH-preserved specimens thatshowed this clearing problem yielded results of 9.5-10. Even afterrepeated changes of 70% ETOH, the pH in these jars remained at thishigh level or even rose in some cases. We believe that phosphatesand/or chelating agents and emulsifiers composing Alconox, which hadnot been adequately rinsed from the tissues of the specimens, are thesource of the high pH and the problems associated with clearing. Forexample, see Tucker and Chester (1984, p. 982). Although theseresearchers were concerned with fish larvae preserved in formalin,the descriptions of the specimens are similar and we believe that thephenomena may have a common cause.
The director of technical services at Alconox, Inc. (pers. comm.)pointed out two major items that should be of great interest topersons working with the paraformaldehyde/Alconox mixture (directquotations from his letter are herein provided). (1) Alconox is a"reasonable thing to use in dissolving paraformaldehyde" -- due toits chemical composition, availability, and (perhaps most important)its "free rinsing ingredients". (2) Specimens should be thoroughlyrinsed in water after fixation and prior to transfer into alcohol."Fortunately all of these potentially problematic ingredients arevery free rinsing and a thorough water rinse should substantiallyremove them."
This initial communication is simply to alert the ich./herp.community about the necessity of rinsingparaformaldehyde/Alconox-fixed specimens in water prior to transferinto alcohol. Studies into the nature of this problem and itsprevention are continuing at the UMMZ.
LITERATURE CITED
Fink, W. L. et al. 1979. A report on current supplies andpractices used in curation of ichthyological collections. ASIH Ich.and Herp. Collection Comm. 63 p. (see also:http://www.utexas.edu/depts/asih (click on "Curation")
Saul, W. G. 1981. Paraformaldehyde problems. Curation Newsletter3: 1. (see also: ASIH website cited above)
Tucker, J. W., Jr. and A. J. Chester. 1984. Effects of salinity,formalin concentration and Buffer on quality of preservation ofsouthern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) larvae. Copeia 1984(4):981-988.
AN ALTERNATIVE TO GLASS? YES! (FOR SOME CASES)
H.J. Walker, Jr. (hjwalker@ucsd.edu), Cynthia I. Klepadlo(cklepadlo@ucsd.edu), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univ.California, San Diego 0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208, and John E.Simmons (jsimmons@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu), Natural History Museum,University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-2454.
A preliminary investigation (occasionally anecdotal) into theefficacy of using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) jars as asubstitute for glass collection jars indicates that PET offers aquality, short-term, low-cost, lightweight, and practicallyunbreakable alternative to borosilicate glass in certaincircumstances. PET is the only transparent plastic approved by theU.S. Food and Drug Administration for use as containers ofhigh-ethanol concentration products for human consumption (hardliquor). According to Dr. Michael Adams, FDA polymer chemist (pers.comm., Dec 1998), the FDA tests involved exposure of containers withethanol (not whiskey, gin, or rum, etc.) concentrations of 50% to 95%at an elevated temperature and normal day/night cycle equivalent toapproximately one year of shelf time. A negligible amount of chemicalresidue was found in the ethanol at the end of the experiment, andthus PET was approved, but it cannot be inferred that the PETincurred no structural damage (Dr. M. Adams, pers. comm., Jan 1999).Other chemical reactions cannot be discounted. Our own smallexperiment at Scripps Marine Vertebrates Collection exposed PETcontainers to 95% ethanol and 99% isopropanol. After two years thefluids and containers are perfectly transparent and the containersare flexible and cannot be induced to crack, even after repeatedsqueezing. (Other transparent plastics are too brittle for ourpurposes, even without exposure to alcohol.) Dr. Albert van derHeiden (avdhj@servidor.dgsca.unam.mx, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico) hasbeen using PET jars in his collection (70% ethanol) for eight yearswith no problems. For additional data, see table below.
Chemical Resistance of Transparent Plastic Resins* at 20ºC (left) and 50ºC (right) after 30 Days Exposure
Ethanol (95%)
Isopropanol (99%)
Formaldehyde (10%)
PETG
PS
PC
PMPEG
FN
EG
EGEE
EG
EE
EEEG
FN
EG
EGE=no damage; G=little or no damage; F=some effect after 7 days; N=not recommended. PETG=polyethylene terephthalate copolyester; PS=polystyrene; PC=polycarbonate; PMP=ploymethylpentane.
*Source: Nalge Nunc International, Nalgene Brand Products.
Oxidation is probably the leading cause of long-term degradationof fluid-preserved specimens and PET is the least oxygen-permeable ofthe available plastics, ie., plastics formed into bottles or jars.For example, PET is 10 times less permeable than PC (data from NalgeNunc International, Nalgene Brand Products, 3 May 1999).
A cost comparison obtained from a local vendor revealed asubstantial savings for PET, paragon-style jars. For example, the PETjars cost (per thousand) $170 for the 4-ounce and $300 for the16-ounce; the glass jars cost $270 for the 4-ounce and $380 for the16-ounce. In addition the standard polypropylene lids with F217triseal liners are used with PET jars. All vendors we would normallycontact for our glass jars had PET jars in stock or could order them.Potential buyers need to check for sizes and styles.
The weight advantage of PET over glass is remarkable. An 8-ounce,paragon, PET jar weighs approximately 23 grams and the glass jar, 207grams. The glass is roughly the weight of 8 ounces of 50%isopropanol, 206 grams, or 8 ounces of 70% ethanol, 202 grams.
Because PET has not been tested over decades, we cannot recommendits use in place of glass for permanent storage of specimens inalcohol. However, PET probably can be used for periods up to tenyears and would be the better choice for teaching collections whenjars and specimens are handled every year, or more frequently. Inthis situation oxidation would not be a concern. In addition PETwould make an ideal container for protecting fragile specimens duringshipping.
A. M. Snyder (amsnyder@unm.edu), Museum of SouthwesternBiology, Dept. of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM87131-1091.
Many curatorial tasks in collections of natural history areaccomplished by using computers. Most notable is the production ofspecimen labels for dry collections (skins, insects, skeletons) orwet (fishes, amphibians, and reptiles) in preservatives such asalcohol or glycerin. In the past, staff working with collections offishes, amphibians, and reptiles produced labels manually, either inhandwritten form or typed. Higgins Eternal No. 813, technical pens,and Byron Weston Resistall linen ledger paper #36 were the standard,producing very acceptable labels for specimens in alcohol, formalinand glycerin. Also used were preprinted labels on paper with a highcotton rag content, which were filled out using manual typewriterswith cloth ribbons impregnated with a high carbon ink.
The current practice of producing container and specimen labels byelectronic/mechanical means is favored because of affordabletechnology, a drastic reduction in time spent to make labels, and thelegibility of the machine printed label. However, in the last 15years, we have learned that not all methods of mechanical labelproduction make labels that endure in wet conditions or for longperiods of time. For example, it has been shown that laser (toner)printed labels have not held up well to abrasion and the letteringtends to "lift off" or float off the paper, especially when used inalcohol containing oils leached from specimens. It has also beenfound that not all of the inks used with impact printers or forhandwriting labels are suitable for use in wet collections. Some inksare very acidic (not good for the long-term conservation of specimensin alcohol) and other inks fade or bleed out excessively. Nothing isknown about the use of inkjet printers for wet label production interms of ink chemistry and types of water/chemical proof paper thatcan be used with this printer. It has also been shown that theribbons used in impact printers must be cloth (not the plastic filmvariety) or the lettering will also lift-off. Finally, there aredifferences in the letter quality between impact and laser printers.Impact printed labels do not appear as "crisp" or as dark as thelaser printer labels and smaller fonts (6-8 point) may not be aslegible for impact printer labels as they are for laser printerlabels.
The type of paper used has become as varied as the methods oflabel production. Many collections use such papers as Resistall linenledger #36, a 100% cotton fiber paper impregnated with formaldehydefor durability and therefore, not acid free, Tyvek (also sold asPolypaper), an olefin material that is inert and commonly used fordisposable hospital gowns, and Forbon, a waterproof vulcanizedmaterial that is also pH neutral and extremely durable.
Choosing a method and the materials for wet label productioninvolves some trade off, such as the availability of funding forsupplies and labor, computer/printer expertise, availability ofmaterials and collection growth. Therefore, no one method can bestrictly recommended over another and it is not the purpose of thisshort article to do so. But, regardless of the method chosen, acouple of issues must be addressed: 1) the label paper and ink willin no way compromise the long term conservation of the specimens inthe jar or tank. Please check the references at the end of thisarticle on inks and papers for recommendations on low acidic inks andsuitable label paper. 2) The catalogue number must remain, forever,physically associated with the specimens. To depend on jar labels asthe sole link between the specimens and their catalogue record (fielddata) is fool hardy. If those labels degrade, the catalogue numberdisappears with the paper. The specimens no longer have associateddata and their scientific value is drastically decreased.
To insure that the catalog number remains with the jar of fish orthe single lizard specimen, a permanent number tag must be includedwith the specimens or tied on the specimen. Some collections stilluse tin tags (stamped with the number) or Dymo Tapewriter 1500 tapeembossing writers to make small catalogue numbered tags. Tin tagsplaced in formalin will corrode and Dymo tags tend to bleed out theircolor and become brittle over time. Both tags can alter thefluidís pH, one through corrosion and the other due to offgassing.
The currently recommended product for a permanent, back up tag isthe Forbon White Tag, a .010 pt. vulcanized fiber paper (pH neutral)which comes in rolls with preprinted catalogue number series andinstitutional codes (per Leviton, et al. 1985). Each tag measures1-1/4î x 5/16î and has a left hole punch for tying to thespecimen. We recommend tags produced by Allen-Bailey Tag & Label,Inc. in Massachusetts. Contact Lilian Larrabee at 1.800.724.1069 forprices and examples. My experience with National Tag in Ohio, a longtime supplier, reveals many production problems, quality that is notup to standard, and a lack of good customer service.
The following represent a variety of methods and materials usedfor label production. These descriptions were contributed by membersof the 1997/98 ASIH Supplies and Practices Subcommittee. It is hopedthat the reader will get ideas for producing labels or re-evaluatetheir own methods and standards for label production. I have includedthe email addresses of Collection Managers so that they can becontacted for further details.
I would like to thank the members of the ASIH Supplies andPractices Subcommittee for sharing their ideas and taking the time towrite these descriptions. I would also like to thank the ASIHNewsletter Subcommittee for reviewing this note, especially JohnSimmons, University of Kansas, for providing references on inks andcomments that helped shape the ideas in the article.
A Sampling of Label Production Methods in Current Use
Tulane University Museum of Natural History, Fish Collection(TU). 185,000 catalogued lots. 40% of collection is stored inethanol alcohol, 60% of collection is stored in isopropanol. Henry L.Bart, Jr., Curator & Michael S. Taylor, Collection Manager(Mike@museum.tulane.edu).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: MUSE, output via Xtrieve Plus and exported to a standard data exchange format file. The records are imported into FoxBase+/Mac using a custom database program written by the Collection Manager. This program automatically tracks incoming records until jar labels and catalog pages have been printed. The plotter is driven by a Macintosh Chooser-level printer device called PLOTTERgeist (Infowave Wireless Messaging Inc., British Columbia, CANADA).PAPER: Curtis Parchment Parchkin 25 X 38 inches vellum Basis 120 pound stock, item no. 55-11-20 Curtis Paper Division, James River Corporation, Southhampton PA 18966. PH. 800. 441.9292 This paper has been used in the TU collection for 30-35 years. As of 30 June 1995, cost was $488.13/case. Case=500 25 X 38 inch sheets.
PRINTER & INK: E-size plotter, Hewlett-Packard DraftMaster MX Plus. The plotter uses rapidograph nibs (00 to 1-size nibs) filled with Koh-i-noor 3080-F India ink.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Labels are printed in groups of 70 and trimmed to size with a rolling-blade paper cutter. (Alignment marks insure that all labels are cut to same size.) Labels are left to dry for one week before placing them in the jars. Soluble ink used for alignment marks dissolves without discoloring the alcohol, leaving only the label information. Design for these labels is taken from the existing (old) labels.
OTHER NOTES: The FoxBase+/Mac is compatible with the DOS version of FoxPro.
Field Museum of Natural History, Division of Fishes (FMNH).103,547 catalogued lots. 100% of collection is stored in ethanolalcohol. Barry Chernoff & Mark Westneat, Curators. Mary AnneRogers, Collections Manager (rogers@fmppr.fmnh.org).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: MUSE. Output via Xtrieve.PAPER: Domtar Wet Strength Laundry Tag 70; at one time available from MUSE, Natural History Museum, Dyche Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045-245 PH. 913.864.3803. Contact Domtar at Columbia Centre 1, 5600 N. River Rd. Site 760, Rosemont IL 60018. PH. 847.698.9700.
PRINTER & INK: Hewlett Packard LaserJet 4 Si and toner.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Jar labels are printed on HP LaserJet 4 Si. Most of the collection has pre-printed permanent FMNH tags in the jars. If no number tag is present, a permanent label in the form of a small paper label with a handwritten catalog number on it is inserted in the jar along with the laser-printed label. These hand printed "backup" labels or any notes included in the jars of specimens are written on Byron Weston Resistall paper with KOH-I-NOOR Universal #3080-F Black India ink.
OTHER NOTES: The HP LaserJet labels are very nice looking labels. The lettering is crisp and remains dark compared to other labels. These labels do not perform well in some oily alcohols or if they are subject to a lot of handling or used as loan labels. The print tends to "lift off" of the paper and will disappear completely if subject to abrasion. At one time, FMNH staff used a spray fixative to hold letters to paper but found it to be too troublesome and not much of an improvement when compared to leaving the labels "bare." The bottomline for FMNH staff is to always include a permanent backup label with the catalogue number on it with each loan or jar of specimens.
University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Division of Reptilesand Amphibians (UMMZ). 410,000 catalogued specimens. 100% ofcollection is stored in ethanol. Arnold Kluge & Ron Nussbaum,Curators. Greg Schneider, Collections Manager (ges@umich.edu).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: Foxpro.PAPER: Gummed labels (Cummings Label Co. Kalamazoo, MI); Byron Weston 100% Cotton Bond paper (University Products, MA); Forbon paper tags (.010 imperv fiber), 1/4" x 1-1/4" preprinted with UMMZ and catalogue number (Allen-Bailey Tag & Label, Inc.).
PRINTER: Hewlett Packard LaserJet 4 and impact printer with transfer (plastic) ribbon.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Catalogue numbers are typed on gummed labels using an impact printer with transfer (plastic) ribbon. These labels are moistened and attached to the outside of jars or skeleton boxes. Each specimen (alcoholic or skeletal) has a permanent catalogue numbered tag tied on to it. Labels used for glycerine-stored specimens are printed on Byron Weston 100% Cotton Bond paper. The information printed on them, in 5 point type using a Hewlett Packard laser printer, is queried from the database and formatted using Foxpro's label application. Again, each glycerine-stored specimen has a permanent (catalogue numbered) tag enclosed with it.
OTHER NOTES: There has been no fading of labels used in glycerine nor have the letters "lifted off" as reported for wet labels in alcohol collections. Each glycerine specimen has a permanent catalogue numbered tag as well. It should be noted that in herpetological collections each specimen has a permanent number tag tied on to it. The UMMZ Division of Amphibians and Reptiles uses permanent number tags (field and specimen) produced by the Allen-Bailey Tag & Label, Inc. in Massachusetts.
Atlantic Reference Centre (ARC). 11,200 catalogued lots.90% of collection is stored in isopropanol alcohol. Lou Van Guelpen,Collections Manager (arc@sta.dfo.ca).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: MUSE (used for cataloguing, but not label production).PAPER: Byron Weston Resistall 36#.
PRINTER & INK: A local print shop pre-prints jar labels to ARC specifications. Labels are filled out by hand using Staedtler Marsmagno 2 disposable pens.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Jar labels are pre-printed on Resistall paper. (Domtar Wet Strength Laundry Tag 70# was used in past, but is no longer available in small batches.) Labels are filled out by hand, using Staedtler Marsmagno 2, disposable pens with 0.25mm nibs. Cartridges are replaceable.
OTHER NOTES: An alcohol-proof ink is used on pre-printed labels provided by a local print shop. The name or type of ink used is unknown. However, for 19 years these pre-printed labels have been in use without any problems. The Staedtler Marsmagno pens and ink work well for all preservatives and there is no bleeding of ink when immersed in fluid. Occasionally the narrow 0.25mm nibs break during writing.
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,Division of Fishes (USNM). 292,932 catalogued lots. 100% of thecollection is stored in ethanol. G. David Johnson, Lynne R. Parenti,Victor G. Springer, Richard P. Vari, and Stanley Weitzman, Curators.Susan L. Jewett and Jeffrey T. Williams, Collections Managers(jewett.susan@nmnh.si.edu).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: Mainframe database program. Due to switch to PCs and a commercially available database management program, like MUSE, within the next year.PAPER: Byron Weston Resistall 36#, cut to continuous rolls of 6" width with pin feed holes and side perforations.
PRINTER & INK: Genicom 3840 E, a dot matrix impact printer on a simple printer network. Non-bleeding, ethanol resistant ink (special formula) available from Automated Office Products Inc., Lanham MD, is used on printer ribbon cartridges.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Labels are printed on the continuous rolls of Resistall paper and then cut crosswise to make a variable length label. No pre-soaking is required.
OTHER NOTES: The USNM has been producing these labels for 20 years and for the last 10 years has used a special, non-bleeding ink formula. The following are listed as pros for this method: variable lengths can be produced so that all label data can be included, there is minimal paper waste, lettering can be large and bold which mimics the jar neck labels, generating and replacing labels is easy, and pre-soaking the label is no longer necessary due to the ink being used. The following may be considered as drawbacks to this method of label production: printer is loud, the label can sometimes be too long and must be folded to fit in the jar, the time expended in maintaining the software and hardware used for label production can be bothersome, and perhaps cutting each label may be more time consuming compared to splitting perforated labels.
Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico,Division of Fishes (MSB). 42,636 catalogued lots. 85% of theadult and larval fish collection is stored in ethanol and 10% inisopropanol; larvae and all eggs (5% of collection) are stored inbuffered 5% formalin. Thomas F. Turner, Curator, Steven P. Platania,Associate Curator. Alexandra M. Snyder, Collections Manager(amsnyder@unm.edu).
COMPUTER PROGRAM: Paradox 4.1 for Windows98. Output in either 3"x 5" jar labels or 3" x 2.5" vial labels. Other labels produced are shipping/loan labels, id labels and accession labels; these labels are 1" x 3" printed 16 labels on 8" x 11" single fed sheets of linen Resistall paper.PAPER: Byron Weston Resistall 36# Fan-fold, perforated, pin feed 3" X 5" labels (old stock from University Products) 500 labels per pack. Also purchased, 18"x23" sheets (100 sheets per pack) of Byron Weston Resistall for preprinted accession labels and shipping/loan labels.
PRINTER & INK: Epson LQ-870 impact printer (cost $500.00 in 1993) with re-inked nylon cloth ribbons using special formula non-bleeding ink from Automated Office Products, Inc. Lanham MD. Re-inked ribbons cost $8.00 each and produce about 200-300 labels.
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL: Labels are printed on fan-fold, pin fed packets of Resistall paper in two sizes: jar and tank labels (3" x 5") and vial labels printed 2 per 3" x 5" labels, then cut by hand. Lettering is set to double strike (bold) setting, 6 to 12 points. No pre-soaking is required. Labels are inserted in jars and vials along with permanent, pre-numbered MSB catalogue tags (1" x 1/4" with left hole punch) purchased from National Tag in Ohio. (Overall quality of National Tag specimen tags has become very poor in the last 5 years. Customer service is non-existent.) These tags were produced on Forbon paper (.010 imperv fiber) with black permanent ink. In the future, the MSB will purchase these tags from Allen-Bailey Tag and Label, Inc. of Whitinsville, MA.
OTHER NOTES: The MSB Division of Fishes has been using this method for 6 years. Although we are generally satisfied with the quality of the jar and vial labels, there can be some variability in boldness or intensity of the lettering on the labels. It is important to set the font on double strike when printing these labels. Three years ago, a bad batch of ink was used on the ribbons and thus bled out, leaving about 400 labels very faded. Staff has also observed mottled lettering on a few labels in 5% phosphate buffered formalin. This will be monitored and labels replaced as needed. We also maintain a shelf of experimental jars, labels and inks. This shelf includes examples of the Resistall/non-bleeding ink/impact printer-produced labels in our collection and from casual observations we feel confident that the labels currently used in our collection will hold up for a number of years.
REFERENCES
Fink, W.L., K.E. Hartel, W.G. Saul, E.M. Koon, and E.O. Wiley.1979. A report on current supplies and practices used in curation ofichthyological collections. American Society of Ichthyologists andHerpetologists ad hoc subcommittee report, 63 pp.
Jewett, S.L. 1995. Laser printer labels: potential disaster whilespecimens are on loan. American Society of Ichthyologists andHerpetologists Curation Newsletter No. 11.
Leviton, A.E., R.H. Gibbs, Jr., E. Heal, and C.E. Dawson. 1985.Standards in herpetology and ichthyology: Part I. Standard symboliccodes for institutional resource collections in herpetology andichthyology. Copeia 1985 (3): 802-832.
Simmons, J.E. 1987. Herpetological collecting and collectionsmanagement. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herp.Circular No. 16:1-70.
Sims, L.L. 1990. An analysis of the suitability of various laserand impact printer generated labels for wet label storage. AmericanSociety of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Curation Newsletter No.10:2-3.
Williams, J. T. 1990. Printer ribbons with non-bleeding ethanolresistant ink; finally a wet label that bypasses presoaking! AmericanSociety of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Curation Newsletter No.10:4.
Williams, S. L., and C.A. Hawks. 1986. Inks for documentation invertebrate research collections. Curator 29 (2): 93-108.
_____________________. 1988. A note on inks. Society for thePreservation of Natural History Collections Newsletter 2 (1): 1.
Wood, R.M. and S. L. Williams. 1993. An evaluation of disposablepens for permanent museum records. Curator 36 (3): 189-200.
Note: Some of the product and vendor information can be found onthe ASIH web site, Supplies and Practices databasehttp://www.utexas.edu/depts/asih/coms/ihcc/supplies/supplies.html) oremail amsnyder@unm.edu for information.
H.J. Walker, Jr. (hjwalker@ucsd.edu) and Cynthia I. Klepadlo(cklepadlo@2ucsd.edu), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univ.California, San Diego 0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208.
Most specimens in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography MarineVertebrates Collection, like other fish collections, are relativelysmall and housed in 4- or 8-ounce jars. And like other growingcollections, shelf space for individual species is generally at apremium. Rather than re-arranging entire shelf banks (which mightinclude changing many species' locations) when growth occurs on analready tight shelf, we often will employ combination jars. This isone of the best methods for curating fish larvae, juveniles and smalladults. In our collection these jars are larger (32- or 16-ounce)containers which typically house 8-30 lots. A large label, easilyseen and specifying each lot, is included within. Each large labelalso is prominently identified (ie, "Combo 1") and an additionalmaster listing is maintained of the combo jar number and the lotsinvolved in order to quickly locate the appropriate jar. Depending onthe situation, we use either polystyrene vials with polyethylene capsor borosilicate glass tubes with preferably cotton plugs forindividual lots. The size of glass tube used most often is 15 x 85mm. We recommend the use of cotton plugs (less than 100% is fine)because synthetic materials do not form as tight a seal andoccasionally have fallen out. We have had virtually no problems withthese inexpensive techniques after more than 10 years exposure in 50%isopropanol. However, we have encountered problems, such as alcoholdiscoloration and odors of apparent plastic deterioration, usingbakelite (phenolic plastic) closures within combination jars andthese should be avoided.
D. W. Nelson (dwnelson@umich.edu), Division of Fishes, Museumof Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48107-1079.
The UMMZ, in addition to the combination jars described in thepreceding article, is now using what we call "multi-lot jars" forlarger specimens. This storage method is widely used in herpetologycollections, but is not common practice in fish collections.
At the UMMZ a durable tag, bearing the catalogue number, is sewnto the fish specimen (generally around the caudal peduncle). Thespecimen is then placed into a jar with other members of the samespecies from the same geographic locality; e.g., Alectis ciliarisfrom Thailand. A regular jar label is dropped into the jar for eachcatalogued lot in the jar, and an easily readable "summary" label isplaced inside the jar. The comment "multilot 1-gal. jar" is enteredinto the "Storage" field of the catalogue database to provide asearch image for specimen retrieval.
This method has distinct space-saving advantages for singlespecimens of deep-bodied fishes, which usually require a 1-gallon,wide-mouth jar, e.g., flatfishes, piranhas, chaetodontids. Severalspecimens can easily be accommodated in an uncrowded fashion in asingle jar, rather than several.
LARVAL FISH PRESERVATION: ETHANOL ACIDITY FROM BYRON WESTONRESISTALL LABEL PAPER
Lou Van Guelpen (arc@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca), Atlantic ReferenceCentre, Huntsman Marine Science Centre, St. Andrews, N.B. E0G 2X0,CANADA.
The Atlantic Reference Centre routinely processes ichthyoplanktonfrom plankton samples for government agencies, universities, andprivate industry. Usually, fish larvae are placed in 15 ml vials of70% ethanol along with a small vial label (measuring 50 mm x 14 mm)of 36# Byron Weston Resistall label paper with the ARC name andaddress preprinted at a local print shop, and containing sample andidentification data handwritten in ink. Also inserted is a smaller(26 mm x 14 mm) preprinted ìEthanolî label of the samepaper. In February 1999, representative vials of larvae from onecruise (herein called Group 1) were found to have pH values rangingfrom 5.6-6.9 (average 6.4, N = 10). These larvae were collected 24months and sorted/vialed 13 months prior to reading pH. They had notbeen fixed in formalin, but were immediately preserved in 70% ethanolupon collection. Relative volume of the larvae in each vial comparedto that of the ethanol was extremely small. Acidity in these vialswas surprising since 70% ethanol is reported to have a favorable pHfor specimen preservation (Taylor 1981; Lavenberg, et al. 1984). Forcomparison, representative vials of larvae (Group 4) from a morerecent cruise were examined. These were collected 10 months andsorted/vialed 4 months prior to reading pH, had the same preservationprotocol as Group 1 larvae, but had pH values from 6.0-7.5 (average6.9, N = 11). Clearly, acidic ethanol was a problem and would bedetrimental to calcified structures in the fish larvae. A preliminaryinvestigation was done to characterize potential causes of acidifiedethanol, and is reported here. A more in-depth study was planned,however, Andrei and Genoways (1999) have just published aninformative paper pinpointing the likely cause of the acidity--theinternal vial labels made from Byron Weston Resistall paper. Mypreliminary investigation is detailed here to support and complementthe findings of Andrei and Genoways.
Factors investigated individually in the current study were: 1)source 95% ethanol (samples from four drums at the factory and onesample from an ARC drum), 2) distilled water used to dilute theethanol, 3) resulting 70% ethanol from the lab carboy (used to fillall vials except those containing larvae in this study, which werefilled from earlier batches in the carboy), 4) the vial and cap(capped vial of 70% ethanol only), 5) an ARC label with nohandwritten data in 70% ethanol, 6) an ARC label with datahandwritten in ink in 70% ethanol, 7) the Ethanol label in 70%ethanol, and 8) hand-writing ink alone, ca. one drop, in 70% ethanol.Also tested were 9) an on-hand vial of 70% ethanol containing testlabels to check new label shipments for bleeding of printerísink (latest addition many months before pH testing), 10) two vials oflarvae (group 2, collected 15 months and sorted/vialed 12 monthspreviously) from a different program, but processed at approximatelythe same date as group 1, 11) two more vials of larvae (group 3,collected 20 months and sorted/vialed 9 months previously) from theinitial program and processed at a date intermediate to groups 1,2versus 4. Factors 1 (ARC drum only) through 8 were prepared five daysprior to pH testing; factors 2-9 consisted of one vial each. Resultsare given below. pH measurements were repeated nearly one monthlater, and paralleled these results.
Factor: pH:
Group 1 larvae
Group 4 larvae
1) factory and ARC 95% ethanol samples
2) distilled water
3) 70% ethanol from lab carboy
4) vial/cap
5) ARC label with no handwritten data
6) ARC label with data handwritten in ink
7) Ethanol label
8) hand-writing ink alone
9) on-hand vial of 70% ethanol to test new labels
10) group 2 larvae
11) group 3 larvae5.6- 6.9
6.0-7.5
8.2-8.7
5.9
7.8
7.8
5.5
5.3
6.5
8.7
6.0
6.0, 6.6
6.2, 6.7
The pH of 70% ethanol from the carboy, used to fill test vials andthe normal source during laboratory operation, was somewhat alkaline.This was because the more strongly alkaline 95% ethanol overcame theacidity of the distilled water used to dilute it. The vial and caphad no effect on pH. Hand writing ink seemed to make the ethanol morealkaline. Values for all vials containing label paper, but no larvae,ranged from 5.3-6.5; the highest value belonged to the vial with theEthanol label, the smallest of the labels. Thus, in testing strictlyphysical parameters, the label paper appeared to acidify the ethanol,and in a period of only five days. These findings agree directly withthose of Andrei and Genoways (1999). Groups 1,2, and 3 larvae supportthis finding. However, the picture is muddied by the Group 4 larvae,of which approximately half of the vials had a pH of 7.0-7.5. Theselarvae were the most recently collected and processed. In fact, therewas a trend toward decreasing pH over time in the vial for Groups 1-4larvae (as was found by Andrei and Genoways 1999 over 30 days with nospecimens present). Also, perhaps presence of larvae in a vial slowedthe process of ethanol acidification caused by the labels (compareGroup 4 larvae to factors 5,6,and 7, which acidified in five days).But numbers of replicates used in this experiment were too small todraw definitive conclusions regarding time and effect of larvae.
Though 70% ethanol has been recommended for specimen preservationby some authors, in part because of its favorable pH (Taylor 1981,Lavenberg, et al. 1984), preservative acidity can still be a problem.In a study of the herpetological collection of the University ofKansas Museum of Natural History, Simmons and Waller (1993) foundthat the pH of 70% ethanol in jars of specimens (and labels) rangedfrom 5.4-8.2, similar to this study. The findings of Andrei andGenoways (1999) and this study point to internal jar labels made fromByron Weston Resistall paper as a source of acidity. This brand oflabel paper is in common use in fish and herp collections, and itsacidic properties were thoroughly discussed by Andrei and Genoways(1999) and mentioned by Sims (1990). Researchers who must avoidacidic pH values to preserve otoliths or other calcified structuresin fish larvae preserved in 70% ethanol should consider usingacid-free paper as an alternative to Resistall for internal labels(test the pH over time to be sure), or attaching labels to theoutside of their vials. However, if the latter practice is adopted,label detachment likely will become a problem in long termstorage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank John E. Simmons for his helpful advice.
LITERATURE CITED
Andrei, M.A., and H.H. Genoways. 1999. Changes in pH in museumstorage fluids, I--Effects of Resistall paper labels. CollectionForum 13(2): 63-75.
Lavenberg, R.J., G.E. McGowen, and R.E. Woodsum. 1984.Preservation and curation. In: Moser, H.G., W.J. Richards, D.M.Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall, Jr., and S.L. Richardson. Ontogenyand systematics of fishes. American Society of Ichthyologists andHerpetologists Special Publication No. 1, ix + 760 pp.
Simmons, J.E., and R.R. Waller. 1993. Assessment of a fluidpreserved herpetological collection. 1993 ASIH Workshop on CollectionCare and Management Issues in Herpetology and Ichthyology, Austin,TX, 1 June 1993. 5pp.
Sims, L.L. 1990. An analysis of the suitability of various laserand impact printer generated labels for wet label storage. CurationNewsletter No. 10: 2-3.
Taylor, W.R. 1981. On preservation of color and color patterns.Curation Newsletter No. 3: 2-10.
Compiled by John E. Simmons (jsimmons@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu),Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS66045-2454.
Andrei, M.A. and H.H. Genoways. 1999. Changes in pH in museumstorage fluids, I.--effects of Resistall paper labels. CollectionForum 13)2):63-75.
Anon. 1996. Procedure for curating old glass museum jars. TheBiology Curator 7:3-5.
Anon. 1998. Working safely with glutaraldehyde. Techlines 5(1):1;6.
Armstrong, J.D. and D.C. Stewart 1997. The effects of initiallength and body curvature on shrinkage of juvenile Atlantic salmonduring freezing. Journal of Fish Biology 50:903-905.
Bayless, J. and C. Shepherd. 1993. Removing wet specimens fromlong-term storage in formalin. National Park Service Conserve O Gram11(1):1-4.
Beelitz, P.F. 1995. Three generations of compact storage. Curator38(1):49-55.
Buck, R. and J.A. Gilmore (editors). 1998. The New MuseumRegistration Methods. American Association of Museums, Washington,D.C. xvii + 426 pp.
Carter, J. 1996. A comparison of two papers and two inks for useas computer generated labels in fluid preserved collections. TheBiology Curator 7:5-7.
Carter, J. 1997. An investigation of pH changes in a selection offormaldehyde buffering agents used on a fish, parasitology researchcollection. Collection Forum 13(1):1-10.
Cato, P. (editor). 1997. Federal and International ScientificPermits: A Workshop for Natural History Museums and Collections.Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History No.33:1-216.
de Andrade, J.B., M. Sousa Bispo, M.V. Reboucas, M.L.S.M.Carvalho, and H.L.C. Pinheiro. 1996. Spectrofluorimetricdetermination of formaldehyde in liquid samples. American Laboratory28(12):56-58.
Kyaw, A., K.A.Tha, H. Pe, K.A.A. Kyaw, and S. Kun. 1992. Reversionof formaldehyde linkage in Russelís viper venom toxoid onstorage. The Snake 24(2):147-150.
Kristoffersen, J.B. and A.G.V. Salvanes. 1998. Effects offormaldehyde and ethanol preservation on body and otoliths ofMaurolicus muelleri and Benthosema glaciale. Sarsia 83(2):95-102.
Mabee, P.M., E.Aldridge, E.Warren, and K. Helenurm. 1998. Effectof clearing and staining on fish length. Copeia 1998(2):346-353.
McDiarmid, R.W. 1994. Preparing amphibians as scientificspecimens. Appendix 4, pp. 289-297 in Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly,R.W. McDiarmid, L-A. C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster (editors). Measuringand Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. xix + 364 pp.
Michalski, S. 1994. Leakage prediction for buildings, cases, bagsand bottles. Studies in Conservation 39:169-186.
Palmer, L. 1996. Assessing preservation fluids in a wetcollection: how important is container style? Natural HistoryConservation Number 10:10-12.
Pickering, J. 1997. A survey of ethanol concentrations in thecollections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. TheBiology Curator 10:1-5.
Price, J.C. and G.R. Fitzgerald. 1996. Categories of specimens: acollection management tool. Collection Forum 12(1):8-13.
Rees, N.E., W.M. Boyce, I.A. Gardner, and D.M. Nelson. 1996.Fixation affects morphometric characters of Psoroptes cuniculi mites(Acari: Psoroptidae). Journal of Medical Entomology33(5):835-838.
Reid, G. 1994. The preparation and preservation of collections.Pp. 28-69 in Stansfield, G., J. Mathias, and G. Reid (editors).Manual of Natural History Curatorship. Museums and GalleriesCommission, HMSO, London. xviii + 306 pp.
Sanchíz, B. (editor). 1994. Manual de Catalogación yGestión de las Colecciones Cientificas de Historia Natural.Manuales T_cnicos de Museologia, Vol. 1. Museo Nacional de CienciasNaturales, Madrid. 238 pp.
Sendall, K. and G.W. Hughes. 1996. Correcting alcoholconcentrations. Society for the Preservation of Natural HistoryCollections Newsletter 11(1):6-7.
Simmons, J.E. 1995. Storage in fluid preservatives. Pp. 161-186 inRose, C.L., C.A. Hawks, and H.H. Genoways (editors). Storage ofNatural History Collections: A Preventive Conservation Approach.Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, x + 448pp.
Simmons, J.E. 1998. Almacenamiento de colecciones y datos a largoplaza. Mesoamerica 3(4):38-43.
Simmons, J.E. 1998. Long-term storage of collections and data.Mesoamerica 3(4):44-49.
Snyder, A.M. 1996. New source for specimen tags. Society for thePreservation of Natural History Collections Newsletter 11(1):6.
Steigerwald, M. and S. Laframboise. 1996. Tape application: a jarsealing method for reducing ethanol evaporation in fluid-preservedcollections. Collection Forum 12(2):45-54.
Stephenson, A.B. and J.L. Riley. 1995. Fixation and preservationof museum marine collections using formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde mixes.Collection Forum 11(2):58-68.
Stuart, J.N. 1995. Observations on formalin-induced darkening ofherpetological specimens. Collection Forum 11(2):39-45.
Tarek, M., D.J. Tobias, M.L. Klein. 1996. Molecular dynamicsinvestigation of an ethanol-water solution. Physica A231(1/3):117-122.
Thede, C.E. 1996. Survey of a fluid-preserved anatomicalcollection. Natural History Conservation Number 10:12-17.
Vogt, K.D. 1998. The reconstitution of dehydrated museum specimensII. The Biology Curator 13:6.
Von Endt, D.W., C.A. Ross, and P.E. Hare. 1999. Initial resultsfrom cleaning small vertebrate skeletons using the enzyme trypsin.Collection Forum 13(2):51-62.
Waller, R. and T.J.K. Strang. 1996. Physical chemical propertiesof preservative solutions I. Ethanol-water solutions. CollectionForum 12(2):70-85.
Wilke, H-J., S. Krischak, and L.E. Claes. 1996. Formalin fixationstrongly influences biomechanical properties of the spine. Journal ofBiomechanics 29(12):1629-1631.
Williams, S.L., R.R. Monk, and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 1996. ApplyingMcGinleyís model for collection assessment to collections ofRecent vertebrates. Collection Forum 12(1):21-35.
AUTHORSHIP AND CONTACTINFORMATION
Except where noted, this Newsletter is written, compiled, andedited by the Newsletter Subcommittee of the Ichthyological andHerpetological Collections Committee, American Society ofIchthyologists and Herpetologists, and is intended for use by itsmembership. Comments are not to be construed as an endorsement ofpractices or products by ASIH.
Members of the Subcommittee are:
H.J. Walker, Jr. (chair), Scripps Institution of Oceanography,U.C.S.D. 0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208 [hjwalker@ucsd.edu],phone: 619-534-2199, FAX: 619-534-5306 (Area code 858 after 12 June1999).
George H. Burgess, Florida Museum of Natural History, Universityof Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611[gburgess@flmnh.ufl.edu].
Julian M. Humphries, Jr., University of New Orleans, BiologicalSciences, New Orleans, LA 70148 [jmhbs@UNO.EDU].
Susan L. Jewett, Division of Fishes, National Museum of NaturalHistory, MRC 159, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560[JEWETT.SUSAN@NMNH.SI.EDU], phone: 202-357-3300.
Cynthia I. Klepadlo, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U.C.S.D.0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208 [klepadlo@ucsd.edu].
John E. Simmons, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas,Lawrence,KS 66045-2454 [jsimmons@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu].
Lou VanGuelpen, Atlantic Reference Centre, Huntsman Marine ScienceCentre, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada E0G 2X0[ARC@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca].
