Managing Hazardous Collections in Museums

Understanding the Scope of Hazardous Museum Materials

Hazardous objects are an unavoidable reality in many science, history, and cultural institutions. Items such as mercury thermometers, arsenic-treated taxidermy, nitrate film, and lead-glazed ceramics present material risks to staff, visitors, and other collection objects. In some museums, hazardous materials may account for as much as 30% of the total collection. According to guidance cited by the Northern Ireland Museums Council,

“Anything collected before 1900 should be considered contaminated, and anything collected before 1960 should be handled with caution.” (NIMC, 2023)

While institutions with natural history or science collections often follow stricter protocols, this “golden rule” serves as a valuable benchmark for history museums and general collections. As regulatory requirements become more stringent and institutional priorities shift toward sustainability and safety, museums must adopt a more proactive, structured approach to hazard management.

The Role of Collection Management Systems in Hazard Oversight

A well-implemented CMS like TMS Collections empowers institutions to document hazardous materials with precision and mitigate risks. It allows for a structured analysis of the hazards present which then forms the basis for prioritizing containment and long-term treatment. It serves as an integral part of health and safety measures in the workplace by reminding everybody how to handle contaminated artifacts in a safe way. It allows staff to work more efficiently because objects labelled as health hazards may be excluded from an exhibition or loan by default (therefore omitted from the selection process), could be flagged during inventory or noted early on for thorough inspection and special conditions in the insurance contract. In this context, the CMS is not just a record-keeping tool but an active participant in the institution’s risk management strategy.

Fossilized dinosaur bones, which can pose radiation or chemical risks, displayed in a museum case.

What to Capture in the CMS

Documenting hazardous materials accurately begins with identifying and recording a core set of data fields. A well-configured CMS should support the following key elements:

• Hazard Type: Clearly define the specific hazard involved, such as mercury, arsenic, or asbestos, and include the chemical name, hazard classification (e.g., flammable, carcinogenic, toxic), and relevant risk codes.
• Material Association: Record the material linked to the hazard, such as “mercury in thermometer” or “arsenic in taxidermy,” to track risks across categories. A known hazard to a material group such as taxidermies might be added by default to those objects.
• Handling Instructions: Provide clear handling instructions in the database so staff can familiarize themselves with them before physically handling the object. This might include safety data sheets and a checklist for personal safety protection to wear.
• Responsible Parties: Track individuals who have assessed, treated, or managed the object. This aids institutional memory, supports accountability, and helps with health and safety measures if a hazard is only discovered months or years later.
• Risk Mitigation Actions: Record all actions taken to address the hazard, containment, labelling, isolation, or handling restrictions, to ensure visibility and auditability across departments.

An important consideration when designing your CSM fields is avoiding ambiguity, especially when dealing with binary options like checkboxes. Angela Kipp, in her book Managing Previously Unmanaged Collections: A Practical Guide for Museums, offers this critical perspective:

eMuseum screen view featuring 18th-century objects from the collection.

This insight underscores the importance of thoughtful field configuration. A well-designed CMS doesn’t just store data; it prevents dangerous assumptions and creates a shared understanding across departments.

Structured Approach and Institutional Flexibility

Handling hazards requires both flexibility to add data specific to an object or an institution’s needs, and a stringent, consistent approach to labeling and categorizing hazards, ideally using international standards.

Collections vary widely in material types, documentation practices, and regulatory frameworks. A system that allows only rigid, predefined categories can leave institutions struggling to capture meaningful, actionable risk data.

TMS Collections provides both. Out of the box comes a set of standard fields that help classifying groups of objects and potential dangers, Getty’s Art and Architecture thesaurus helps cataloging materials and compositions, and Status Flags serve as a first-sight warning messages like “radioactive” or “requires PPE”. For the individual needs of every institution comes a wide range of fully customizable options: Institutions can build their own thesaurus of health hazards; add unlimited additional fields either drop-downs for handling tiers of restrictions or checkboxes to signify that an object was treated.

This approach ensures not only flexibility but also data integrity and operational security, enabling institutions to adapt the system while preserving consistency across departments. 

Example of a FlexField Group in TMS Collections used to record required PPE for handling hazardous materials.

Workflow Integration: Embedding Hazard Management into Daily Operations 

For hazard management to be effective, it must be seamlessly woven into daily collections workflows. Museum professionals across conservation, registration, exhibition planning, and facilities management all require access to current hazard data to make informed decisions. 

CMS platforms like TMS Collections enable institutions to integrate hazard management into their existing workflows. For instance: 

• When a flagged object is scheduled for handling or movement, conservators can be notified via their Dashboard. 

• Loan request processes can be configured to require hazard review prior to approval for material groups known for potentially containing hazards. 

• Access restrictions can be enforced digitally, tying permissions to hazard classification or containment status. Alternately, set up an approval workflow, for example an object can only be approved for going on display after a conservator has certified it is safe to do so by checking the assigned checkbox. 

• Checklists for necessary precautions and personal protective equipment (PPE) needed for handling can be provided directly in the object record. 

• Regular checks, i.e. for emitted radiation, container safety, or environmental conditions can be scheduled via the dashboard and managed via Flex Field Groups 

By embedding these workflows into the CMS, institutions reduce reliance on informal communications and siloed documentation. This leads to improved efficiency, fewer handling errors, and better protection for staff and visitors alike. 

Example of status flags applied to records in TMS Collections.

Regulatory Compliance and Institutional Risk Management 

Beyond internal coordination, hazard documentation plays a crucial role in meeting external compliance standards. Institutions may be required to demonstrate adherence to guidelines from agencies such as OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), or REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). 

A well-configured CMS supports compliance by: 

• Providing accurate, up-to-date hazard documentation for regulators, auditors, and insurance companies 

• Enabling standardized reporting on object hazards and mitigation actions 

• Providing digital evidence of internal procedures and risk assessments 

In this way, collections’ data becomes part of the institution’s broader legal and ethical responsibility to manage risk transparently and proactively.