The sustainability of managing archaeological iron collections presents both environmental and economic challenges for heritage institutions. Energy-intensive climate control and rising operational costs necessitate evaluation of conservation treatments and preventive storage strategies. This study examines the environmental impacts of treatments commonly used for archaeological iron, including sodium hydroxide and sodium disulfite desalination, as well as emerging microbially derived “greener” approaches. Life cycle assessment (LCA) analyses quantify the global warming potential, toxicity, and energy requirements of these treatments. Preventive conservation strategies, including relative humidity (RH) control in storage and display, are assessed for energy efficiency and sustainability. Air exchange rates, dehumidifier performance, and silica gel replacement schedules were measured and modelled to estimate energy consumption and associated environmental impacts. Results highlight that chemical treatments contribute minimally to overall environmental burden, whereas operational energy demands for storage and display are significant. The findings provide evidence-based guidance for implementing more sustainable conservation practices for archaeological iron, balancing material preservation, resource efficiency, and environmental responsibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thickett et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: