1. Preface
This report was written as my Final Project for a Master’s of Science Degree from the Historic
Preservaton Program at Eastern Michigan University. I chose to embark upon this project due to my
interest in conservation. Edsel and Eleanor Ford House had started this project, thus it was beneficial to
both parties for me to continue their work in this project. Preventive Conservation theory encompasses
several areas of conservation risks, which allowed me to research and study many conservation factors.
The project to establish a preventive conservation program at Edsel & Eleanor Ford House was begun in
2010 by Megan Callewaert, Collections Manager at the Ford House. The first step was to start a top to
bottom, thorough assessment of the collections, the architecture and the environment on a room-by-
room basis. Mark Gervasi, conservator at Edsel & Eleanor Ford House, began this assessment in the
summer of 2010, and I joined him in the fall to assist in the assessment. From Mark’s observations, I
developed a visual layout of the environmental issues, tagging them to the floor plan of each room.
Additionally, a narrative accompanies each room layout listing the issues (see Appendix A). This data
was further extrapolated to floorplans on a floor-by-floor basis. From this, I could better see cause and
effect of the issues at Ford House.
As we continued on this assessment, I found that a variety of information important to creating a full
picture of the current conservation program and its deficits was being missed. From this, I created Room
Survey forms, which evolved as I researched preventive conservation factors, as can be seen at the start
of Appendix B. On these forms, I gathered information such as the orientation of the room, what form of
light was found in the room, light mitigation techniques used, number of interior and exterior openings,
climate control methods used, traffic patterns, room materials, fire hazards present and fire barriers
present, and can be used for future assessment efforts. I gathered this information, room-by-room, to
add to our environmental data. These are found in Appendix B.
Throughout the project, I have studied what are considered the most significant risk factors for
collections and historic buildings in preventive conservation, as detailed below:
The Greatest Risks to Collections andHistoric Structures are:
 Physical Forces
 Fire
 Water
 Criminal Activity
 Pests
 Contaminants/Pollutants
 Light and UV Radiation
 Incorrect Temperature
 Incorrect Relative Humidity
 Custodial Neglect

2. 1 | P a g e
As these factors present the greatest risks, these are the factors to be prevented and mitigated. Through
research, I determined what was considered optimal as far as conditions are concerned, how to enact fire
prevention programs, mitigate light damage, create an Integrated Pest Program and the like. This
research combined with the data specific to the Ford House, are the basis for the list of recommended
actions, as well as the maintenance schedule.
The project and paper will form the basis on which manuals for cyclical maintenance and policies and
procedures can be created. It will provide a high level overview of the current condition with
maintenance tasks including frequency and recommended projects sorted by level of resources required.

3. 2 | P a g e
Edsel & Eleanor Ford House
Preventive Conservation
What is Preventive Conservation?
Preventive Conservation is the term used to describe policies, procedures and maintenance tasks put in
place to ensure the long-term survival of artifacts and architecture by the mitigation of known risk
factors. Many heritage organizations are often reactive, or at best interventive, when it comes to
conservation efforts. By establishing a preventive conservation program, an organization implements
best-practice efforts to create an environment for collections and the structure housing them that will
prevent the onset of many of the known risks to which organizations are susceptible. Preventive
conservation programs must be tailored to the collections, structure and resources which they serve, as
collections and their environments vary widely. In general, a preventive conservation program is created
in a thoughtful, deliberate manner using a team of experts that includes the staff of the organization as
well as consultants such as conservators, preservation architects and pest management specialists that
are well versed in the risks that are faced by museums. The process is a long one, involving thorough
assessment of the building envelope, monitoring the interior environment and deciding on the best ways
to address the risk factors for the particular environment. The end product is a set of policies and
procedures that will dictate how the collection and structure’s future will be protected, but also includes
lists of initiatives to bring the environment to a more stable place as well as a maintenance plan.
Preventive Conservationat Edsel & Eleanor Ford House
Edsel & Eleanor Ford House currently has an excellent program of stewardship; however historic houses
constructed without climate control systems inevitably invite unwanted conditions that are difficult to
manage. Many of the measures generally recommended for preventive conservation are already utilized.
The staff and management at the house are primarily interventive in conservation focus, sometimes
preventive and very rarely reactive. The building environment would greatly benefit from an update to
many of the systems, updated lighting and a fully implemented Integrated Pest Management program.

4. 3 | P a g e
Preventive ConservationRiskFactors
Fire
“The basic principles of fire protection are to eliminate fire spread while providing safe evacuation of
occupants and safe access for the fire service.” - Gordon Bock, Caring for your Historic House
Retrofitting an historic structure with a fire safety system is a difficult task. There are many factors to
consider, as the very source of fire elimination- water- is detrimental to collections and buildings.
Additionally, fire mitigation is inclusive of a broad array of measures that extend beyond installing an
automatic fire detection system. Creating fire barriers, removing combustibles from the building and a
thorough inspection of outdated electrical and lighting systems are just a few of those measures. A
holistic, thoughtful approach with special consideration of the historical building fabric, collections and
historical construction techniques used for fire prevention will yield a considerable gain in the fire safety
of the historical structure, and thus, a safer environment for the historical resource.
The Issues
Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has a broad range of issues that make fire a real threat to the property. There
is no fire suppression system in place, nor any sort of thermal detection system. The house has a fire
detection system that is based on smoke detection, which is not tied into any security system. Smoke
detection-based systems are problematic, because detection based on smoke is slower, thus fires can
cause extensive damage before they are detected with this type of system. Once a fire is detected, access
to fire suppression equipment is limited, if not nearly non-existent. Additionally, the building has little in
the way of fire barriers. The main fire barrier in the house is the concrete block walls. There are no fire
doors, and doors on offices and rooms are usually left open, losing an opportunity for more fire barriers.
Finally, openings in walls for wiring, ventilation and other systems throughout the house allow fire
spread between spaces.
There are several problem areas in the house related to fire ignition, with an abundance of fuel
throughout the building to cause wide and fast spread of a fire once started. The electrical wiring at Edsel
& Eleanor Ford House is the original wiring, and is not checked on a regular basis by a licensed
electrician. Extension cords have been found to be used on a permanent basis in the basement, arc fault
interrupters are not installed and the potential for overload on outlets in the spaces used as offices is
great. Additionally, solvents, paints and other combustibles are stored in the basement of the Ford House,
providing additional sources of fire ignition.
A major and widespread concern is the use of non-public spaces for storage of extraneous materials and
non-collections items. Throughout the basement and third floor are areas filled with cardboard boxes,
often empty, papers, bags and miscellaneous items that would fuel a fire. Much of the collections, and
indeed the fabric of the house itself, is wood, textile or paper-based, all of which will encourage spread of
a fire.
Addressing the Issues

5. 4 | P a g e
Addressing the fire prevention shortfalls will require a variety of interventions. Firstly, a written fire
protection plan should be created and revisited annually. The plan should be inclusive of information
about the fire detection and suppression systems in place and annual checks on these systems. It should
also include guidelines for planned fire drills conducted at least annually. Fire protection goals and
guidelines should be included in the plan, as well as any other fire prevention or protection tactics used.
This plan should be updated with systems changes, procedural changes and technology updates.
The largest project required will be to add a thermal fire detection system, a natural gas detection system
and a fire suppression system that are tied into a security system. Specialized firms can install fire
detection and suppression systems and blend them into the fabric of the building without disrupting the
visitor experience and the historic character of the house. Fire suppression in a historic house museum
that houses and displays collections is a complicated issue, as the very material that suppresses fire,
water, also inflicts major damage to the collections it is meant to protect in the event of a fire. There are
pros and cons to each of the variety of systems available. A summary of the systems in the context of the
Ford House follows:
1. Water Mist Fire Suppression System:
a. Pros- Minimizes water damage to collections.
b. Cons- Applications are most effective in zoned areas with immediate response to fire
ignition. Zoned systems are more costly. Not fully tested and in widespread application in
heritage resources.
2. Deluge Fire Suppression System:
a. Pros- Very effective fire suppression; water not contained in pipes thus no threat of
accidental discharge
b. Cons- Extensive water damage possible for collections and structure; not activated at
nozzle
3. Dry-Pipe Fire Suppression System:
a. Pros- Water is not contained in pipes thus no threat of accidental discharge, heat sensor at
nozzle activates.
b. Cons- Response time is slower, as there is no water in the pipes; extensive water damage
possible for collections and structure.
4. Wet-Pipe Fire Suppression System:
a. Pros- Immediate response; less likely to corrode than other systems; heat sensor at nozzle
activates
b. Cons- Water is contained in pipes, thus accidental discharge is possible; extensive water
damage possible for collections and structure.

6. 5 | P a g e
5. Pre-action Fire Suppression System:
a. Pros- Water is not contained in pipes, thus no thread of accidental discharge, heat sensor at
nozzle activates
b. Cons- This two-part system involves smoke detection and heat detection- smoke detection
will permit smoke damage prior to fire suppression occurring.
Thorough inspection of the wiring on a regular basis, installation of arc fault interrupters and monitoring
of electrical outlet capacity in the offices, especially those with office equipment, are absolute necessities
and are recommended as part of a cyclical maintenance plan. Stopping the use of extension cords as a
permanent solution to insufficient outlet problems is also recommended.
All solvents, paints and other combustible chemicals should be moved out of Edsel & Eleanor Ford House,
and into a building without historical significance. Paints and other solvents should be stored for a
limited amount of time. Areas used for storage should be cleaned, removing all unnecessary items to the
trash. Items in storage areas should be organized so that both air and people can circulate in the space
without interruption or danger.

7. 6 | P a g e
Water Infiltration and Moisture
Issues related to water and moisture are among the most common problems related to collections and
historic buildings. Many water or moisture-related issues are straightforward to prevent and mitigate,
though diligence and flexibility are required to do so. Proper grading of landscaping, a secure roof and
steadfast maintenance of gutters, plumbing and the building envelope go a long way to prevent moisture
related issues. The techniques used today to prevent moisture problems are virtually the same as those
used more than a century ago. Historic buildings were generally built with these issues in mind, thus
maintenance of the features created at the time of the construction are still effective today. At Edsel &
Eleanor Ford House, most of the strategies listed above need to be revisited in order to create a more
hospitable environment for the collections and the building materials.
The Issues
The basement is host to more moisture-related issues than any other area in the main house, though the
third floor is a close second. Evidence of moisture-related issues, which also tie into the lack of climate
control, appears in the form of corrosion, peeling paint, efflorescence and mold. The issues wax and wane
according to the season, with the greatest proliferation of the effects of moisture occuring during the hot,
humid summer months. The first and second floors have relatively few sites of leaks and moisture related
issues, however they are not obsolete in these areas of the building. The kitchen, as well as several areas
in its vicinity such as the Butler’s Pantry, Kitchen Pantry and Staff Kitchen had a variety of mold and
corrosion in them, although it was most heavily concentrated in the Kitchen. Directly below the Butler’s
Pantry is a store room in the basement with known issues of leaking during heavy rains. The water that is
being conducted into the basement is most likely finding its way through the wall cavities in the vicinity
of the kitchen, creating an increase in moisture in this part of the house. Evidence of small leaks was also
found in Mr. Ford’s Study, the Modern Room and the Cloisters. Efflorescence was found in proximity to
the leak sites in the latter space. Finally on the first floor, mold and corrosion were found in the Library.
There are moisture related issues found in this area of the house on all floors- from basement to third
floor. This, again, displays a roof related leak that is most likely active and continues to shed water into
wall cavities in the southeast section of the building.
On the third floor, the large number of sites with peeling paint in various rooms, especially at the south
end of the house, indicates a water infiltration issue that is finding a path through the walls of the third
floor, especially the hallway, infirmary and infirmary kitchen. An additional leak located near the ceiling
attic access door, though inactive, that has caused significant damage to the surrounding environment is
in Storage Room 303a. Water stains are visible on the frame of the access door and shelving below it
along with peeling paint on the surrounding ceiling. Another leak at the window in this space has caused
efflorescence on the adjacent wall. Extensive staining of the window frame, trim below the window, wall
below the window and sill, along with cracks in the plaster close to this window are very telling of an
extensive issue.
Addressing the Issues
Starting with landscaping, it is advised by conservation professionals for a twelve-inch buffer zone free of
vegetation to surround the building. With historic buildings, this is an ideal that is often not fully

8. 7 | P a g e
attainable for a variety of reasons, at the forefront of which is the maintenance of the building’s character
from its period of significance. The Ford House has extensive vining covering its masonry, which is both
harmful to masonry and holds moisture against the building. When the Ford family was in residence, the
vines were cultivated and are thus part of the character created by them, as much as the wood paneling
and other decorative interior features. For this reason, the vining is kept on the building. The planted
landscaping surrounding the structure can be moved away from the building and filled in with gravel
without disrupting the overall appearance, thus creating the recommended vegetation-free barrier,
excepting the vining. In addition, this change will contribute to mitigating pest population growth.
A second important and very effective measure to mitigate moisture migration to the interior is properly
grading the soil around the building. Currently, it is not graded away from the building, and in some areas
is actually graded to slope toward the building. This alone can cause significant moisture infiltration
problems, but combined with rain drainage issues, it is a much more grave concern. The basement of the
Ford House does indeed have the majority of the moisture issues, and the soil grading issue is a
significant contributing factor. Combining proper soil grading with the twelve inch buffer zone around
the perimeter of the building will eliminate a significant amount of moisture issues.
In 2001, Edsel & Eleanor Ford House contracted Watson and Henry Associates to do a site visit to make
recommendations to improve source moisture control (see appendix B). Michael Henry, of Watson and
Henry, performed several analyses at this time, including comparing the current roof drainage system to
the original design, gutter slope, expansion and contraction of gutter materials, roof runoff interception
and a hydraulic capacity analysis for the gutters and rainwater conductors using four rainstorm
intensities., The analyses Mr. Henry conducted showed several deficiencies and made recommendations
accordingly. In summary, the original design was largely followed, with relatively few gutter and
rainwater conductor omissions for a house of large size. Mainly, the recommendations included adding
rainwater conductors, altering the slope of some gutters, adding some gutters and increasing capacity for
several gutters. Though not failing, the roof drainage system of the Ford House requires repairs and
upgrades which will greatly improve ground moisture and masonry moisture issues surrounding the
building.
Finally, a number of leaking pipes were found in the basement of the Ford House during the year-long
building condition assessment survey. Though it was evident that some leaks were no longer active, the
amount of staining and damage sustained reflected that the leaks were not immediately addressed.
Regular monitoring of all spaces in the building, and immediate action upon learning of a leak are a
necessity in a preventive conservation program, as well as overall proper maintenance. It is worth noting
that most of the moisture related issues found in the basement were found in the vicinity of a leak. The
leaks combined with the soil moisture have caused numerous and large sites of mold contamination.

9. 8 | P a g e
Pests
“The foundations of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) are prevention, monitoring, detection,
identification, and mitigation.”1 - Preventive Conservation for Historic House Museums
A typical IPM program utilizes the following protocol:
1. Inspect for the presence of pests.
2. Deploy non-chemical control measures.
3. Evaluate results.
4. If necessary, deploy chemical measures in a carefully specified manner.
5. Reevaluate results.
6. Establish an ongoing monitoring program.
-A Guide to Museum Pest Control2
Pest control in a building full of collections without climate control is a constant challenge. The
combination of the food for pests and humid, warm environment conducive to museum bug activity will
inevitably result in pest infestations. As mentioned previously, many measures that address one risk
factor also contribute to mitigation of another factor. In this case, climate control measures that stabilize
temperature and humidity to the recommended range will also address pest control. Additionally,
measures that address water and moisture, will contribute to humidity control. This is the first line of
defense in the battle against bugs.
Current conservation practice recommends natural, non-chemical means of addressing problems such as
pests and other biodegradation agents. In preventive conservation, an Integrated Pest Management
Program is integral to success for institutions. According to one expert, Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) is a response to overuse of chemical pesticides which, “…incorporates sanitation, monitoring,
building wellness and grounds wellness…”3 An Integrated Pest Management program involves getting to
know the bugs in your particular museum environment, and very actively monitoring and identifying the
pest population. A key component to Integrated Pest Management is integration of both resources and
methods in responding and preventing infestations. The five stages of an IPM are Avoid, Block, Detect,
Respond and Recover.
The Issues
The most common pests found at Edsel & Eleanor Ford House are mice, snakes and insects. Mice remains
were found on glue traps in attic space in two areas of the third floor. One snake was found on a glue trap
in the Ladies’ Restroom on the first floor under the radiator during the condition assessment, although
snakes have been found at other times in the building. The vining on the exterior masonry is a
contributing factor with insects and snakes. Insects were found in a number of locations, either dead on
glue traps, or through the detritus of their activity. Textiles, wood and paper are the primary item types
found with damage and/or with frass or casings in the vicinity. Only one of these items was in archival
1 Merritt, Jane and JulieA. Reilly.Preventive Conservation for Historic HouseMuseums. New York: Altamira,2010,104.
2 Zycherman, Lynda., ed. A Guide to Museum Pest Control. N.p: Foundation of the American Institutefor Conservation of Historic
and Artistic Works and the Systematics Collections,
3 Jacobs,Jeremy F. “Integrated Pest Management.” Preventive Conservation:Practical Applications.MusuemStudies Program at
George Washington University. Slide3.

10. 9 | P a g e
storage, showing the effectiveness of proper storage. Finally, the exterior entry to the basement at the
ground floor level has gaps which could allow pest entry.
The Ford House uses a pest control company on bi-monthly basis to monitor and place glue traps.
Additionally, Collections Care staff conducts room checks on a daily basis, and make reports when pests
are found. During the condition assessment, it was obvious that some glue traps had been in place for
months, if not years. In one case, on a warm day on the third floor, the glue trap placed on a window sill
was found melting onto nearby masonry, with insects on the trap. Glue traps, however control
infestations; “… they [glue traps] are purely a monitoring device when addressing museum insect pests.”4
In some instances, Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has had furnishings removed and treated chemically for
pest infestation problems.
Addressing the Issues
An IPM addresses all areas of pest management. The first stage, Avoid, is essentially putting preventive
measures in place, such as a twelve-inch vegetation-free zone around the perimeter of the building and
moving exterior lights away from the building and onto non-historic resources. Additionally, removing
clutter in storage areas, including food sources such as cardboard, textiles and the like; storing all
collections not on display in metal museum cabinet; and timely removal of food waste from the building.
Dust and dead bugs are food for other pests, so cleaning all areas and prompt removal of pest-laden glue
traps is essential. At the Ford House, all of these measures are applicable to the current environment,
though the Collections Care staff does actively monitor and remove spent glue traps. Dedicated museum
collection storage space that is not intermingled with non-collections items, is also recommended to
prevent spreading infestations.
The second state, Block, involves sealing the building envelope at the Ford House, but also encompasses a
quarantine program for returning loan items and new acquisitions. Ensure seals on all windows and
doors are intact and still effective. Spalling and degrading masonry around entries are a particular area of
concern, as the northeast entry to the basement of the house areas of masonry loss that would allow pest
entry. Identifying and rectifying failing window openings and door openings is an important step in
mitigating and blocking pest entry. A space dedicated to receiving new acquisitions is also integral to
controlling incoming pests.
The third stage, Detect, is incredibly important, and more time-intensive than the other stages. Glue traps
are used to detect and identify pests. Glue traps are already used at Ford House for pest control. The
National Park Service offers Conserve O Gram 3/7: Monitoring Insect Pests with Sticky Traps, which has
several suggestions pertinent to the monitoring and detecting portion of an IPM. The glue traps should be
monitored often, as regularly as weekly at the beginning of the monitoring program, to determine what
pests are present. From this, the specimens should be identified and catalogued in a database which
includes the date and location the pest was found. When the pest is not visible but damage is, it should
also be noted in the database with description and photographs, such as whether it is a casing, frass or
exit hole.
4 United States. National Park Service. Conserve O Gram 3/7: MonitoringInsect Pests with Sticky Traps.National Park Service, August
1998.

11. 10 | P a g e
The fourth stage, Respond, will be dependent on threshold levels set according to the pest and the area in
which it is found. A carpet beetle found in an area with few textiles and mainly masonry will require a
different response that one found in an area full of textiles. The levels of response should be
predetermined. In addition to eradicating the infestation, the area should be addressed for
environmental factors that contributed to the spread of the infestation.
The fifth and final stage, Recover, addresses the artifact infested. The artifact should be removed and
treated, preferably by a non-chemical means, to rid the artifact of the infestation. Chemical means of
treatment should only be used as a last resort.

12. 11 | P a g e
Contaminants
The term “contaminants” is inclusive of a broad range of gaseous and particulate matter. According to the
National Park Service Museum Handbook,
Particulate pollutants are solid particles suspended in the air. Particulate
matter comes both from outdoor and indoor sources. These particles are
mainly dirt, dust, mold, pollen, and skin cells, though a variety of other
materials are mixed in smaller amounts.
Gaseous pollutants are reactive chemicals that can attack museum objects.
These pollutants come from both indoor and outdoor sources.5
Dust, which can include skin cells, soil, fibers and a variety of other materials, attracts pests. If left
unattended, it will increase pest issues. Outdoor pollutants such as ozone infiltrate Edsel & Eleanor Ford
House throughout the day, especially during summer months, as staff and visitors enter and exit the
building. Windows are sometimes opened to allow greater airflow on warm summer days, and the
building envelope itself allows some air movement. Additional gaseous pollution is released by some
building materials such as paint and glues, and plastic storage containers. The National Park Service’s
Museum Handbook has an excellent summary of the outdoor and indoor pollutants, as well as a listing of
materials and how they are affected by the pollutants found in the museum environment. These
pollutants contribute to material degradation, along with other factors that can accelerate the affect of
the pollutants on the materials. Among the damage that can be inflicted is discoloration, tarnishing,
surface erosion and weakened fibers.6
The Issues
The American Lung Association releases air quality information on an annual basis, including a listing of
the cleanest and dirtiest cities in America. The annual report, titled State of the Air, listed Detroit as one
of the 25 dirtiest cities for the year 2011. 7 In this report, one can view a report card for those counties in
which air quality is monitored. Edsel & Eleanor Ford House is located in Wayne County, near the border
of Macomb County. The State of the Air report gives grades for Ozone and 24-Hour Particle Pollution. For
both categories, Wayne County received grades of F. Macomb County received an F for Ozone pollution,
and an A for 24-Hour Particle Pollution.8 Clearly, ozone is a problem for the area. The high occurrence of
industry in this area of Metro Detroit is also a significant factor for particulate pollution.
Ford House staff uses paints that off-gas for the regular painting that is done in the building. This paint is
stored in the main house itself, and at least one can is stored in the house without a lid. In addition to this
source of gaseous pollution, the house is full of wood furnishings as well as decorative wood finishes.
Wood releases acids which can migrate to other materials such as textiles and photographs. The
collections at Ford House are extensive and contain many items which may have been constructed using
5 United States. National Park Service. NPS Museum Handbook, Part 1. 1999, 46.
6 United States. National Park Service. NPS Museum Handbook, Part 1. 1999, 47.
7 American Lung Association,“State of the Air 2011 Most Polluted Cities”. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2011/city-rankings/most-
polluted-cities.html
8 American Lung Association,“State of the Air 201 Report Card:Michigan”. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2011/states/michigan/.

13. 12 | P a g e
glue, another material that off-gasses. Finally, plastics such as those used in storage containers, can off-
gas. Edsel & Eleanor Ford House uses plastic storage containers, office accessories and other items made
of plastic in many of the storage spaces and office spaces of the house.
Addressing the Issues
Not all contaminants can be removed, but there are measures that can be taken to mitigate the extent of
gaseous and particulate pollution. Diligent and thoughtful housekeeping strategies are an effective
course of action. Dust collections and buildings regularly to prevent accumulation of dust that will attract
pests. In a large house museum such as Ford House, this may involve weekly dusting done in segments
throughout the week, with higher traffic areas such as the public tour spaces being dusted more
frequently. High filtration HEPA vacuum cleaners should always be used to maximize removal of
particulate pollution.
A monitoring program is recommended in those areas of the house where there is a high concentration of
textiles and wood to establish what airborne contaminants are present before addressing them. Most
spaces in the house have extensive wood, as well as textiles. Storage areas have plastic containers as well
as collections that include textiles and wood. Each of these areas should have baseline contaminant
levels determined.
Portable air filtration devices with activated carbon can be used in these spaces to filter out as much
gaseous pollution as possible, though the nature of the collections at Ford House dictate that there will
always be some level of airborne contamination.
The current use of paint containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) should be stopped. A program
that restricts paints to only those containing no VOCs is strongly recommended. This is an easy and cost-
effective way to reduce indoor gaseous air pollution.

14. 13 | P a g e
Light & IR/UV
Historic buildings face risk of degradation by light from both natural light and artificial light. Light is a
powerful agent of degradation for most materials, but organic materials are more sensitive to light than
non-organic materials. Thus, it is important to have light mitigation measures in place for both sources.
As with many conservation risk factors, many low-tech, effective techniques are available that have been
used for at least the last century. Some particularly effective natural light mitigation techniques are
awnings, window shades and curtains or drapes. These were used in many households when Edsel &
Eleanor Ford House was built. Awnings are currently employed on a majority of the window openings on
the east side of the house, as well as some on the west side. No shades are used, however drapes and
curtains are found on most windows. These drapes and curtains, however are drawn every morning that
the house is open for public visitation until the completion of the last tour, after which they are closed.
The spectrum of light which concerns museums ranges from UV rays, which are 0-400 nanometers (nm),
visible light at 400-750nm and infrared with a length of 750nm – 1mm and is perceived as heat. All of
these can cause damage to artifacts. Many traditional lighting sources such as incandescent and
fluorescent light emit UV, visible and infrared light. Fluorescent light emits high UV rays, while
incandescent lights generate excessive heat. Natural sunlight contains the entire spectrum.
Alternatives to traditional lighting have been developed in recent decades to the advantage of the
museum and historic resource communities. Each has benefits and drawbacks, and has specific types of
utilization that are better suited to it. Additional considerations include the Color Rendering Index (CRI)
of the light type. As noted in a lecture on Light, a CRI of 100 is considered close to sunlight in color, and
therefore the ideal.9 LED lighting, fiber-optic lighting and Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL) are among
the top choices for alternatives to standard incandescent bulbs. LEDs, or Light Emitting Diodes, can emit
UV and infrared rays, though generally it is minimal unless UV LED or infrared LED is used. They are
much cooler in temperature, have low-energy consumption and can be made to emit appropriate CRI
color for the museum setting. Fiber-optic lights are, in simple terms, incandescent light based, however
the light is directed through miniscule tubes to an endpoint. Thus, the heat generated is not near the
object being lighted, and there is no UV or infrared emission. A drawback to the fiber optic lighting is its
high initial cost, though low energy consumption makes up for this cost over time. Fiber-optic lights can
produce warm, good CRI light as well. It has limited applications and is better suited to museum cases
and hidden lighting. CFL bulbs are relatively inexpensive, and available widely to the mass market. They
produce little infrared rays, or heat, and have a diffuser to mitigate UV rays. A drawback is that CFL bulbs
contain mercury, which complicates disposal.
In general CFL lights are manufactured as bulbs interchangeable with incandescent bulbs, making them
an easy choice for replacement of lamp bulbs. They may, however, alter the historic appearance of a lamp
if they are visible. An interesting product was recently released by Panasonic, though it is not yet in
production. It is a LED light in clear filament bulb form with good, natural color, and is only 4.4 watts.10
9 Coughlin,Mary, Slide18.
10 Matt Grocoff. “LED Lights for Historic Houses.”Old House Web. Accessed November 27, 2011. http://www.oldhouseweb.com/
blog/led-lights-for-historic-houses/

15. 14 | P a g e
This would be an excellent replacement for traditional bulb incandescent lights throughout the house.
LED candle bulbs for chandeliers are also available.
The Issues
Window glass filters rays up to 325nm, thus it is important for window films to block UV rays between
325nm and 400nm.11 “Elimination is typically stated as 95-99% or better in the range of 200 to 380 nm
(The 380-400 nm range is often not included in the manufacturer’s range and therefore, not accounted
for in their data.)”12 Window film does need to be changed at regular intervals, as it loses its ability to
filter UV rays after 10-15 years.13Because the window film on the windows at Ford House have been in
place for over 10 years, they are no longer filtering UV rays and require replacement.
Though the Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has very little fluorescent lighting in public spaces, it is found in
Henry II’s bathroom, in some basement spaces and in two places on the first floor. The areas where the
fluorescent lighting is used in the basement include areas where collections are stored, one area of which
is already problematic due to significant moisture issues. Of the rooms and spaces assessed, fluorescent
lighting was found in eight of them, including Mr. Ford’s bathroom off ofhis study (124) as well as one of
the offices used by Ford House staff.
Generally, incandescent lighting is used in the house. Incandescent lights are less than ideal, with
potentially excessive heat generated. While most of the lamps have updated wiring, the sconces do not.
The outdated wiring in combination with the incandescent bulbs can prove to also be a fire issue, as high
heat was noted during the condition assessment.
Natural light can be as great a risk as artificial light. Objects positioned directly in the path of natural light
will experience degradation quickly, as has been noted in particular in the Boys’ Bedroom (213), where
textiles, furniture and a book are in direct light and show significant color degradation. Additionally,
rooms with more than a few windows, or with several large banks of windows, have a large amount of
natural light flooding the space. These rooms include the Dining Room (111), Drawing Room (116),
Gallery (118) and Boys’ Bedroom (213). Each room has a bay window with at least two additional
exterior openings that allow in light. In all but the Gallery, awnings mitigate the light of the bay windows.
The other openings have no awnings to mitigate incoming natural light.
Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has no light monitoring program in place. Light monitoring can be as simple
as using inexpensive Blue Wool Standard light dosimeters, or more costly monitors with digital readings
that can be downloaded into data management programs. These should be used in key spaces in the
house such as those with significant and key artifacts, excessive natural light and those where
signification light degradation to materials has been noted.
Addressing the Issues
11 Merritt and Reilly, Preventive Conservation, 73.
12 “UV and VisibleLightFilteringWindowFilms”. WAAC Newsletter 30.2(May 2008): 16-23.http://cool.conservation-
us.org/waac/wn/wn30/wn30-2/wn30-204.pdf, 16.
13 Ibid.17.

16. 15 | P a g e
Awnings are an excellent way to mitigate natural light coming through window openings. On much of the
east façade, and select windows on the west façade, awnings are in place. For those windows where the
awnings have been removed, especially on the east façade which receives the most intense sunlight,
replicated or original awnings should be reinstated. Additionally, awnings currently in place should be
kept in good repair.
The outdated window film found on all of the house windows should be replaced. This is another
significant measure in mitigating natural light which will prevent natural light UV rays from impacting
the artifacts and building materials.
Artificial incandescent lighting at Edsel & Eleanor Ford House should be replaced with CFL, LED or fiber-
optic lighting. As noted above, each alternative lighting option is suited to particular uses. Attention
should be paid to the specific strengths of each light type. LED light tubes are an alternative to using
fluorescent tube lighting, and should be considered. This alternative is especially important in those
areas housing collections.
Current Lighting Projects at Edsel & Eleanor Ford House
Collections Manager Megan Callewaert and intern Elaine Barone have been conducting a project focused
on the lighting at the Ford House for several months. They will soon be testing alternative lighting such as
CFL and LED for color and performance in a non-public space prior to placing it in various first floor
rooms of the house. The long-term plan is to implement this project on a house-wide scale.
The Morning Room is another example of experimental lighting at the Ford House. A stanchion with
fiber-optic lighting was placed in this room in recent years. An awning over the bay window mitigates
natural light, and five low-level incandescent lights are in the room.

17. 16 | P a g e
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Control of temperature and relative humidity (RH) is of vital importance for the preservation of historic
structures and artifacts. In an ideal world, the environment would be kept in a limited range with regards
to these two factors. This is possible for many museums, especially those built with these features in
mind, but for a historic house the issue is infinitely more complicated. Insertion of a cooling system in a
historic building the size of Edsel & Eleanor Ford House is costly, very complicated and difficult to do
without completely disrupting the original building fabric of the home. Additionally, the building fabric
itself may react adversely to the change in the environmental conditions, further complicating the matter.
Conversely, not addressing these factors is detrimental to the artifacts and the building. In this lies the
difficulty in dealing with the environment of a historic house built without climate control.
Generally, standards for RH and temperature indicate a range of 55-60% RH for humidity and 60°F-65°F
for temperature. Temperature and RH are inverse in relation, thus a rise in temperature will create a
drop in RH. “The rate of chemical reactions doubles for every 18°F rise in temperature.”14 Uncontrolled
temperature variations can be extremely detrimental to collections and buildings. Additionally, “…the
more water vapor that is present in the air, the faster most chemical reactions will progress…”15 The
problem is further exacerbated with rising relative humidity. The Ford House is not climate controlled
and the impact of this is great.
The Issues
The Ford House has significant problems with air circulation as there is no active building wide air
circulation system in place such as air conditioning, though there is a centralized boiler-fed heating
system. This lack of air circulation contributes to humidity and temperature issues, resulting in pest
activity, mold infestations and material degradation.
An analysis of twelve months of readings of relative humidity and temperature indicate that the
basement has a significant humidity problem. HOBO units, which record temperature and humidity, are
located in the Archives (B02) and storage room B16. Storage Room B16 houses collections storage. The
relative humidity range found in these spaces over the twelve month period varied 66% and 64%
respectively. Monthly variance in room B16 was 30% or greater during three of twelve months. Due to
the subterranean location of the basement, temperatures were in a much smaller range of only 66°-75°
during the entire twelve month period analyzed. The greatest variation in temperature occurred in May
2011 in both HOBO locations, at 28% and 33%, with greater variance occurring in storage room B16
consistently.
An analysis of data for the third floor during the same twelve month period showed problems with both
relative humidity and temperature variance, though data was missing for the significant summer months
which are most problematic for the house. Again, location plays a significant role in the environmental
conditions.
14 Mary Coughlin, “Environmental Monitoringand Control- Temperature and RH.” Preventive Conservation:Practical Applications.
Museum Studies Program at George Washington University ( 22 September 2005), slide3.
15 Mary Coughlin, “Environmental Monitoringand Control- Temperature and RH.” Preventive Conservation:Practical Applications.
Museum Studies Program at George Washington University ( 22 September 2005), slide4.

18. 17 | P a g e
Addressing the Issues
While conducting the Condition Assessment, conservator Mark Gervasi found an unused air handling
system in the basement laundry area. An additional system was found on the third floor adjoining the
Play Room closet. These systems should be investigated for re-use. The basement and third floor have the
most severe environmental issues in the Ford House, and could benefit greatly from increased air
movement.
Several options exist for mitigating environmental issues in a historic building without climate control.
Realistically speaking, integrating a modern climate control system into Edsel & Eleanor Ford House is
not an option. As mentioned previously, the system itself can be problematic to the historic fabric.
Additionally, such systems are extremely expensive and very difficult, if even possible, to install without
damaging the building integrity.
Among the least costly and least high-tech is the use of stand-alone dehumidifiers and air-conditioning
units. Currently, dehumidifiers are used in some basement areas, however they are not routed to drain
automatically, which is desirable. Additionally, the units are too small for the space which they serve. If
used, the units should be sized to accommodate square footage of the space they serve, should be placed
in all finished areas, especially those with collections, where conditions are outside the acceptable RH
and temperature ranges. Ideally, dehumidifiers are routed into available drains to allow for automatic
emptying of collected moisture. This option is the least desirable, least effective and least expensive
available.
The areas with the greatest environmental variations, and least hospitable conditions, are where the
majority of collections not on display are stored. The three options available for improving the
conditions of collections storage are all costly. Firstly, climate controlled storage cabinets would allow for
the smaller artifacts to be housed in ideal conditions without changing the surrounding environment.
This will not accommodate furnishings, however. Secondly, building a room within a room would allow
for the insertion of the equipment and systems necessary for a climate controlled environment. Due to
the large amount of collections at the Ford House, this solution would likely not be able to house all
collections without several such rooms being created. The final solution would be to create a new,
climate-controlled building, which would allow for ideal conditions to be created and maintained.
It is worth noting that the conditions that exist in both the basement and on third floor can be mitigated
to a small extent by addressing other issues. Moisture infiltration from leaks contributes to the relative
humidity problems in the house. The lack of air circulation further complicates the issue by creating
stagnant conditions which are beneficial to mold growth.

19. 18 | P a g e
Custodial Neglect
Custodial neglect as a risk factor can apply to a range of issues in a historic building. Generally speaking, it
could cover all areas listed as risk factors, if they are not addressed and artifacts are allowed to
significantly degrade. The focus here is to address those issues of neglect that fall outside the spheres
listed above, such as insufficient maintenance, improper storage and a general neglectful attitude toward
the building itself. No institution intentionally permits neglect, however it does occur and must be
addressed promptly.
The Issues
Though Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has an excellent program of stewardship, there are marked issues
with regard to standard maintenance. In particular, the response time and response type to interior
plumbing leaks, especially in the basement, has been detrimental to collections and the building.
Numerous instances were found of various issues regarding leaks. Unaddressed active leaks, inactive
leaks with marked staining of the surrounding area along with degraded materials from the leak and
leaks addressed with a bucket simply placed under the leak without regard to a real solution were all
found in the basement. It is no coincidence that the greatest degree of moisture issues, such as mold and
high humidity are also found in the basement. Prompt and vigilant plumbing maintenance is key to any
building.
Another area of concern is the gutters on the Ford House. Visual observation shows clogged,
unmaintained gutters on the building. With some gutters over capacity or improperly sloped, as noted in
the Watson and Henry Source Moisture Control Report, a failure to maintain the gutters greatly
exacerbates the existing moisure runoff issues. Problems created by a failing rainwater runoff system
create a domino affect as moisture spalls exterior masonry from the freeze-thaw cycle, finds its way into
the building damaging interiors, and spills onto the soil adjacent to the house which is improperly
graded. Planned, routine cleaning and maintenance of the gutters is essential.
Excessive storage of non-essential and extraneous materials in basement and attic storage areas creates
not only a fire hazard but also vast disorganization. In many areas, but especially the northern attic
spaces, books, pamphlets, empty boxes, bags and various other items were stored without any attention
to organization. Additionally, very important, priceless architectural drawings and landscape drawings
are stored in basement storage B08, where a leak above the cart containing these items could severely
damage or destroy them.
The staff area of Edsel & Eleanor Ford House, which now contains the Ford House administrative offices,
has seen significant abuse. While careful attention has been paid to how changes affect the historic fabric
of the public areas of the house, this unseen area has not been paid the same respect. Excessive wear to
historic wood paneling, various holes drilled both in masonry and wood molding and doors and other
abuses are seen in offices.
Addressing the Issues
In theory, the issues listed above are easily addressed. For the gutters, clean the gutters according to the
maintenance plan, adding in additional maintenance if the weather necessitates it. Likewise, addressing

20. 19 | P a g e
faulty plumbing is a staff-wide effort that requires immediately notifying maintenance by any staff
member who identifies a leak. Maintenance should then respond immediately as well to contain potential
damage. The most difficult aspect is engendering a sense of respect and commitment toward the building
and its contents. Embracing the history of the people who inhabited the home is important, but their
history in the house cannot live on if the house itself does not. Annual conservation training of the staff
whereby conservation is empasized in an engaging manner and staff-wide policies that aide the
collections and maintenance staffs in performing their duties are reiterated and updated are a
recommended approach.
All archival materials should be stored in the archives area ideally, or in a similarly suitable environment.
All architectural drawings and landscape drawings should be moved to appropriate storage immediately
in order to conserve them. Additionally, extraneous materials in storage should be promptly removed
from the building, and storage areas should be organized in a neat and orderly manner.

21. 20 | P a g e
Bibliography- Edsel & Eleanor Ford House
Preventative Conservation Program Final Project
American Lung Association. “State of the Air 2011”. http://www.stateoftheair.org.
Appelbaum, Barbara and Paul Himmelstein. “An Overview of Light and Lighting in Historic Structures that
House Collections.” APT Bulletin, Vol. 31 No.1, Lighting Historic House Museums (2000), pp.13-15.
Bock, Gordon. Caring for Your Historic House. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998.
Brimblecombe, Peter, Katy Lithgow, Helen Lloyd, David Thickett and Y.H. Yoon. “Managing Dust in
Historic Houses- a Visitor/Conservator Interface.” ICOM Committee for Conservation. The Hague,
2005.
Bullock, Laura. “Measurement of Cumulative Exposure using Blue Wool Standards.” ICOM Committee for
Conservation. Lyon, 1999.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. CCI Notes 2/6: Fire Protection Issues for Historic Buildings.
Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. CCI Notes 2/8: Automatic Sprinkler Systems for Museums.
Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. CCI Notes 3/1: Preventing Infestations: Control Strategies and
Detection Methods. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. CCI Notes 3/2: Detecting Infestations: Facility Inspection
Procedure and Checklist. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada,
1996.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. Technical Bulletin 12: Controlling Museum Fungal Problems.
Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1991.
Canada. Canadian Conservation Institute. Technical Bulletin 26: Mould Prevention and Collection
Recovery: Guidelines for Heritage Collections. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government
Services Canada, 2004.
Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic
Environment. English Heritage. April 2008.
Coughlin, Mary. “Environmental Monitoring & Control- Temperature & RH.” Preventive Conservation:
Practical Applications. Museum Studies Program at George Washington University. 22 September
2005.
Coughlin, Mary. “Monitoring & Control- Light & Contaminants.” Preventive Conservation: Practical
Applications. Museum Studies Program at George Washington University. 29 September 2005.

22. 21 | P a g e
Craft, Meg Loew and M. Nicole Miller. “Controlling Daylight in Historic Structures: A Focus on Interior
Methods.”APT Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 1, Lighting Historic House Museums (2000), pp. 53-59
Edsel & Eleanor Ford House Collections Handling Policies & Manual. Comp. Megan
Callewaert. August 2004.
Fire Safety Analysis for Edsel and Eleanor Ford Estate. Middlebury, VT: Heritage Protection
Group Fire Safety Network, June 2010.
Florian, Mary Lou. Heritage Eaters: Insects and Fungi in Heritage Collections. London: James & James,
1997.
Grocoff, Matt. “LED Lights for Historic Houses.” Old House Web. Accessed November 27, 2011.
http://www.oldhouseweb.com/blog/led-lights-for-historic-houses/
Henry, Michael C. Recommendations for Source Moisture Control at Edsel and Eleanor Ford House.
Watson & Henry Associates. 15 June 2001.
Jacobs, Jeremy F. “Integrated Pest Management.” Preventive Conservation: Practical Applications.
Museum Studies Program at George Washington University. 27 October 2005.
Luhila, Mubiana and Frédérique Vincent. Introduction to Preventive Conservation.
CollAsia2010. 2003.2010. http://www.collasia2010.org/conservationtxt/
preventive_conservation.pdf
“Managing Pests in Your Collections.” Chicora Foundation, Inc.1994.
Merritt, Jane and Julie A. Reilly. Preventive Conservation for Historic House Museums. New
York: Altamira Press, 2010.
Michalski, Stefan and Robert Waller. “Effective Preservation: From Reaction to Prevention.” Getty
Conservation Institute Newsletter. 19.1 (2004). 17 November 2010.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/19_1/feature.html
Our Lord in the Attic: a case study. J. Paul Getty Trust/Netherlands Institute for Cultural
Heritage/ Museum Ons’ Lieve Heer op Solder. 2010. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/
education/case/olita/index.html
Reilly, Julie A. Edsel & Eleanor Ford House Conservation Assessment. Gerald Ford Conservation Center,
1996.
United States. National Park Service. NPS Museum Handbook, Part 1. 1999.
United States. National Park Service. Conserve O Gram 3/4: Mold and Mildew: Prevention of
Microorganism Growth in Museum Collections, National Park Service. July 1993.
United States. National Park Service. Conserve O Gram 3/7: Monitoring Insect Pests with Sticky Traps,
National Park Service. August 1998.

23. 22 | P a g e
“UV and Visible Light Filtering Window Films”. WAAC Newsletter 30.2(May 2008): 16-23.
http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn/wn30/wn30-2/wn30-204.pdf
Van der Burg, J. “Preventive conservation, a deliberate choice”, e-conservation magazine, No.
14 (2010) pp. 22-26. http://www.e-conservationonline.com/content/view/911.

24. 23 | P a g e