Dust, Mold, Heavy Metals: Health Hazards in Museums

1458 

Student Poster 

J Klicker-Wiechmann¹, M Wilson¹, H Cusack McVeigh²

¹Purdue University, School of Health Science, West Lafayette, IN, ²IUPUI, Museum Studies Program, Indianapolis, IN

Johnathan Klicker-Wiechmann, Masters Student  
Purdue University, School of Health Science

Dr. Mark Wilson, DC, PhD  
Purdue University, School of Health Science

Holly Cusack-McVeigh, PhD  
IUPUI, Museum Studies Program

For centuries museums have collected the scientific specimens and cultural heritage objects that are central to their institution's mission. These tangible collections serve to tell compelling stories of people and places through time, but the long-term storage and special environmental needs of these valuable collections present a variety of ongoing challenges for those charged with their care and conservation (Landry 2000; Merritt and Reilly 2010; Staniforth 2006; Szcepanowska 2013; Ward 1989). Treatment and preservation efforts throughout time have led to unknown hazards on many of these collections objects either inherent to the collection or acquired (introduced). These hazards present dangers to the health and safety of those charged with their care and display. For example, in order to protect organic and natural history specimens from pest infestations, from the 1800s well into the 1970s, objects were routinely treated with pesticides, including mercury and arsenic. In a four-month long partnership between the Purdue University Occupation and Environmental Health Science and the IUPUI Museum Studies graduate programs, graduate students worked together to answer the question: How can museums safely identify, assess, and mitigate toxins or poisons lurking in their collections? Three case studies were conducted at the Indiana Medical History Museum (IMHM), the Eagle Creek Ornithology Center, and an FBI Art Crime collection which cumulatively house human remains, natural history specimens, associated medical materials, and archaeological artifacts. In consideration of the hazards associated with materials in the collection as well as the conditions of the environment, the team collected samples of particulate matter, mold spores, and X-Ray Fluorescence readings which resulted in identification of heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury in mostly small quantities and suggestions for the safety of collections workers in the care, handling, and maintenance of the collections.

How can museums safely identify, assess, and mitigate toxins or poisons lurking in their collections? Through a collaboration between Museum Studies graduate students and Occupation and Environmental Health Science graduate students, we investigated the human health hazards of three institutions which can serve as examples of cultural institutions across the country that are facing similar problems in their collections and exhibit spaces. Due to the nature of museums, being repositories of historical, anthropological, and natural history collections, heavy metals, dust, and mold are common human health hazards, and these were the focus of the investigation. It is important to know where and when these hazards are present to protect not only the museum workers and the visitors to our heritage institutions, but also the artifacts which the museums seek to preserve, research and display. We investigated the types and levels of toxins in museum spaces to evaluate their risk to museum workers and visitors. Not only did the team investigate the issues to identify the hazards, but also to measure their levels to evaluate their risk to human health. Through the identification and measurement of these hazards within a museum space, museums can implement strategies to create a safer work and recreational environment through updated preventive conservation plans and the adoption of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). By investigating particulate matter, the presence of mold, and the concentration of heavy metals in spaces in which people work and visit, we reveal the importance of collective knowledge between the two fields in addressing these issues to make museums safer and healthier for people and artifacts alike.

The primary device used to quantify the concentration of heavy metals in the artifacts was an XRF. XRF stands for X-Ray Fluorescence and uses X-rays to excite a sample, causing it to fluorescence and send X-rays back to the device. Once the X-rays reach the device, a detector measures the energy spectrum and tells you the type of elements and the amount of each element that are present. For this project, a portable XRF was used to travel between the various rooms of the facility and limit the amount of interaction of the artifacts to preserve their quality. Scans included skeletons (long bones, skull, and teeth), jarred human tissue, medical instruments (dental X-ray machine, barometers, etc.), bottled compounds on display, and structural features of the building (walls, old workplaces, etc.).After performing the scans on the artifacts of concern, dust samples were taken with swabs that were then analyzed at the lab using XRF to quantify the concentration of heavy metals in the dust. Since this is a facility where dusting is necessary in order to keep the artifacts presentable to the public, there is a concern of heavy metal exposure during the dusting process. To replicate what a normal exposure would be, we had volunteers begin dusting in locations throughout the facility. While dusting, we set up a DustTrak, which is an aerosol monitor that uses a light-scattering photometer that gives real-time aerosol concentration, to quantify the particulate matter (PM) in the room. After obtaining the average PM concentration, we used the data from the dust samples and the data from the DustTrak to quantify the exposure through inhalation of dust.
Due to the age of the facility and its artifacts, there is a concern of mold. To identify the presence of mold, we first identified areas that appeared to have mold growth, then used Biotape to remove the suspected mold and brought it back to the lab. Once back at the lab, a microscope will be used to visually identify different mold species.

A strength of this study is that the XRF gives an accurate direct measurement of heavy metals. The use of the portable XRF also allowed us to scan items that would have been too delicate to move. Another strength of this study was that we were able to go to the facility and did not have to rely on samples to be taken then sent to us. This eliminated the potential of contamination that could affect our results. A weakness of this study was that due to how fragile some artifacts were, we were unable to obtain mold samples from things like old and degraded books because Biotape may cause irreversible damage.

XRF scanning of skeletal remains showed small amounts of heavy metals were present. The external average of arsenic on the bone collection was 15ppm(95% CI: 28-2ppm). Average mercury concentration was 4ppm(95% CI: 9-0ppm). Observed average lead concentrations were 15ppm(95% CI: 134-9ppm).
Instruments analyzed were found to have an average arsenic concentration of 32809ppm(95% CI:115823-50204ppm). Average surface concentration of mercury was 4ppm(95% CI: 10-2ppm). Lead concentration across the devices averaged 409789ppm(95% CI:1,460,820-641243ppm).

Human nerves and miscellaneous tissue contained in glass jars scanned by the XRF indicated that the average arsenic concentration of the glass and tissue was 1009ppm(95% CI:1580-438ppm). Scans estimated the presence of mercury was 1.3ppm(95% CI: 5-0ppm). Average lead concentration was observed to be 14-4ppm.
Historical books and journals were analyzed and found to have an average external arsenic concentration of 35ppm(95% CI:113-43ppm). Average mercury concentration was 15ppm(95% CI:59-29ppm). The concentration of lead on the surface of the books was quantified as 305ppm(95% CI:996-387ppm).

The containers and their miscellaneous therapeutic compounds on display were found to have an average arsenic concentration of 881ppm(95% CI:3619-1858ppm). Sampling also found an average mercury concentration of 2ppm(95% CI:9-5ppm). Lead was detected at an average concentration of 3017ppm(95% CI:12563-6530).
Structural features of the museum such as the walls, tables, and flooring were scanned and determined to have an average arsenic concentration of 66ppm(95% CI:152-21ppm). Average mercury concentration was determined to be 723ppm(95% CI:2714-1268ppm). Scans also determined the average surface concentration of lead among museum surfaces was 7237ppm(95% CI: 25218-10744).

Wipe sampling of a historic laboratory's chemical workspace determined the sampled area lacked detectable levels of arsenic, mercury, and lead. Wipe sampling taken in the library section of the same building had very different results. Arsenic was found at an average concentration of 180ppm/ft3. Library shelving was also found to have an average lead concentration of 755ppm/ft3. The presence of mercury was below the XRF's limit of detection.
Dust samples collected by the Dust Track in an old laboratory during an active touring environment averaged a concentration of 0.19mg/m3, ranging from 0.518-0.01mg/m3. The same method was used inside an equally disruptive environment inside the building's library. The Dust Track determined the average dust concentration to be 0.05mg/m3, ranging from 0.425-0.012mg/m3.

Mold samples were collected and have yet to be analyzed.

Permeable dermal exposure regulations do not exist for these heavy metals, but their presence suggests museum workers should wear gloves and wash hands following contact with old artifacts and components of a museum. Dust exposure was quantified well below OSHA's PEL.

Hazard Recognition/Exposure Assessment

Indoor Environmental Quality/Indoor Air Quality

Risk Assessment and Management