Heather, thank you for your question!
In a perfect world of plentiful funding for preservation, you would replace both folders and boxes at the same time. But in reality, something is better than nothing. And if you HAD to choose what to do first, I would probably go with folders first, boxes in the next round of funding. My reasoning is that the folders are the internal protection layer, which is closer to the documents. The boxes are the external protection layer. The alkaline reserve that the folders contain (pH 8.5-10) will absorb some of the acidity of the archival documents. The large number (bulk) of archival buffered folders within a box will create a bit of a micro-climate and provide at least some acid neutralization.
When you get a chance to tackle the boxes, you have the added benefit that archival boxes are freakishly absorbent. If you ever have a leak in the stacks where boxes get dripped on, the archival document boxes (made from barrier board, with metal edges) will absorb most of the moisture and shield your documents pretty darn well.
Best of luck with your storage upgrade, Heather. It is a big undertaking but such an important one!
With best wishes,
-Sonya
------------------------------
Sonya Barron
C2CC Monitor
Collections Conservator
Iowa State University Library
Ames IA
(515) 294-9116
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-25-2021 07:51
From: Heather Hamilton
Subject: Archival storage boxes vs folders
I am hoping to hear how others have handled updating their archives storage. When replacing older acidic housings consisting of folders within boxes, have you replaced both the boxes and inside folders? How do you feel about replacing only the folders? The boxes only?
Sent from my iPhone