Archival Hot Glue question.

[T. Ashley McGrew]

Hey Jason,
Most of the PACIN folks are still posting on the listserv (which has about 800 folks signed up) until a few of them start pitching in over here I will drag comments over and post them.
In answer to your question, off-gassing generally means how a material behaves in its normal state so yes, it is recommended that any material that will be in an proximate to art/objects - especially in an enclosed environment over a long period of time be - chemically stable/inert/archival/acidfree etc....
This usually just referes to what is it made off - Polyethylene foams vs Urethane foams, or how they are processed - Blueboard (where the acidity is balanced by a base buffering agent) vs regular cardboard.
For non-storage use though I think just about any gluegun/stick is ok.

[Mark Wamaling]

Ashley,

I like the dialogue you have going regarding the various hot melt types and brands! I cannot tell you where I heard about the 3792 failing but I can see if I get dig that up somehow. As for Jasons comment about archival hot glue, it has been an issue where museums are looking at long term use, otherwise it may not be an issue for short term use in crates.
As for Ashley's comment about Ethafoam failing that is true from the SealedAir plants but not the case in the old Dow plants. We noticed a slight physical difference in the two and started asking them about it. They are trying to provide a consistent product but everyone should be aware of the differences. Foams due change from time to time.

[kchambers3116]

So is there an overall concensus concerning the Bostik Thermogrip 6363 hotmelt? and it is not the same thing as the 3M 3792?

[T. Ashley McGrew]

Way back at the beginnings of this tread I think the basis of the question had to do with the use of bostik 6363 gluesticks in less expensive more available glueguns. I have to confess a whole lot of ignorance on a bunch of levels here. The product Bostik 6363 shows up in several places in which the context would suggest that it is appropriate for use in proximate to art/objects.

The 3M product is most surely not going to be compatable with a run of the mill glue gun (slightly larger diameter and cross hatching to fit the quadtrack feature) but the bostik might. From what I can tell, although I have not seen specific reports on it having passed Oddy tests, it would seem from the context that is presented in

http://www.universityproducts.com/ca...ct_list&c=1193

http://www.williamstownart.org/techb...Techniques.pdf

as well it's basic components that it may be a similar product.

It is true that different guns operate at different temperatures and I have seen warnings about using the wrong temperture gluesticks in the wrong guns. That said, I have seen it happen (both directions - hot gun cool glue, cool glue - hot gun) and while the low temp glue in the high temp gun did appear to be kind of "watery" by definition it was only as hot as the gun it came from to begin with!

As usual it seems I have wandered far afield from our starting point. Basically a think a couple of good questions are raised.


1) Does the Bostik 6363 product pass Oddy testing consistently? I am kind of stodgy that way.
2) Can that glue be used in less expensive - more available glue guns?


If the answer to both questions is in the affirmative then it would seem that museums that anticipate very limited use of the product, with limited budgets could benefit greatly from the knowledge.
I think it is worth a little more research - maybe starting with the PACCIN listserv?

[Morgwn]

This doesn't relate to the specific question asked, but you kind of touch on it, re: archival quality of 3M Hot Melt (3764 TCQ) and Low Melt (3792-LM TCQ) adhesive.

I've been creating permanent storage boxes at various Australian Museums and I've always used 3m glue (Hot Melt) and gun, but have taken it as a given that it's suitable in regards to its archival longevity etc. However, I'm in the process of placing a large order, so just wanted to clarify that using 3M glue doesn't jeopardise the integirty of the object.

Any help that could be offered would be much appreciated. Especially in regards to a definitive answer to the archival quality of the 3M glue mentioned above.

If it is questionable, what might be another alternative?

Cheers!

[T. Ashley McGrew]

I guess I can just say that I know of multiple major museums that have tested the 3M product and use it routinely in storage applications. I wouldn't put it in direct contact with an object but I also can't imagine why you would ever want to do that anyway.

[Morgwn]

Purely storage, obviously.

More the concern about offgassing, etc.

I've spoken to numerous conservators that I work with, plus the product supplier, but there doesn't seem to be a definite conclusion.

I just thought with the lull in this thread, that maybe someone had located a conclusive answer since the last post.

Thanks, anyway.

[T. Ashley McGrew]

I don't really think I understand. What do you mean by definite conclusion? Oddy testing is an accelerated aging test that is designed to visually indicate the presence of byproducts that might damage sensitive objects. It has many limitations but frankly when materials consistently pass the Oddy test even skeptical individuals rarely proceed to more scientifically stringent testing. The nature of the test is that it can easily give false "fails" but rarely gives false "passes". Even with the most sophisticated testing thing can and are missed that can cause damage. If skeptical individuals had performed exhaustive testing, if adverse effects were discovered it would be pretty surprising that it wouldn't have become common knowledge since the product has been in such wide use in the field for so many years now.
In this case the product is a pretty simple material - 100% solids chemically stable thermoplastic - EVA - Ethylene Vinyl Acetate. If you read the MSDS you will note that its description makes it appear to be it quite innocuous. I haven't put a lot of research into it but a quick search of COOL yields the following post by a paper conservator http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform//mailing-lists/cdl/instances/2001/2001-08-17.dst about its use. Paper people are usually pretty sensitive about these things.
As well from my understanding anything that is manufactured by another party can't be absolutely guaranteed to be conclusively "archival" but the fact that it has been tested repeatedly, is approved by, and has been in standard use by the Getty, at least one Smithsonian museum and multiple smaller yet equally competent museums leads me to be fairly comfortable in using it. Practically speaking anyway I am not sure how you can get too much more conclusive that in the real world. Sorry if I have gone on and on. I may just not understand your inquiry completely.