Registration Dossier

Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets

Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.

The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.

Diss Factsheets

Physical & Chemical properties

Particle size distribution (Granulometry)

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
particle size distribution (granulometry)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
30 July 2012 to 05 September 2012
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: see 'Remark'
Remarks:
Study conducted in compliance with agreed protocols, with no or minor deviations from standard test guidelines and/or minor methodological deficiencies, which do not affect the quality of the relevant results. The study report was conclusive, with experiments conducted according to appropriate and valid guidelines and conducted under GLP conditions.
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: Particle size analysis: CTL SOP No. 417
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: ISO 13320:2009
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: CIPAC MT 187
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 110 (Particle Size Distribution / Fibre Length and Diameter Distributions)
Deviations:
not applicable
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of method:
Laser scattering/diffraction
Type of distribution:
volumetric distribution
Mass median aerodynamic diameter:
268.99 µm
Geometric standard deviation:
>= 1.482 - <= 1.486
Key result
Percentile:
D50
Mean:
251.932 µm
Remarks on result:
other: Average result is calculated from the entirety of data captured in each of the five runs and is not a simple arithmetic mean(migrated from fields under 'Mass median diameter' as D50 percentile. No source field for Standard deviation.)
Key result
Percentile:
D10
Mean:
153.16 µm
St. dev.:
0.38
Key result
Percentile:
D50
Mean:
251.932 µm
St. dev.:
0.32
Key result
Percentile:
D90
Mean:
408.702 µm
St. dev.:
0.94

VISUAL MICROSCOPE OBSERVATIONS

- Standard visual observations: medium size, white powder with clusters.

- Observations at 100 x magnification: Particles appeared to be round edged crystals. The smallest individual particle was approximately 83 µm and the largest was approximately 432 µm.

- Observations at 400 x magnification: The test material was observed to be made up of single crystalline particles.

Table 1. Test Results (µm)

 

Run 1

Run 2

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Average**

Volume weighted Mean

267.999

269.148

267.939

267.940

268.027

268.211

Median (d.50)

251.848

252.567

251.702

251.736

251.809

251.932

Mode (µm)

254.033

254.258

254.058

254.004

254.123

254.096

MMAD*

268.900

269.668

268.744

268.780

268.858

268.990

10% of material is <

153.355

153.801

152.730

152.980

152.944

153.160

50% of material is <

251.848

252.567

251.702

251.736

251.809

251.932

90% of material is <

407.819

410.528

408.539

408.202

408.453

408.702

*Mass median Aerodynamic Diameter

** Average result is calculated from the entirety of data captured in each run and is not a simple arithmetic mean.

0.0% by volume of sample was seen to be < 10.00 µm.

Table 2. Standard Deviation Results

Run No.

1

2

3

4

5

STDVP

% STDV

d10

153.355

153.801

152.730

152.980

152.944

0.38

0.25

d50

251.848

252.567

251.702

251.736

251.809

0.32

0.13

d90

407.819

410.528

408.539

408.202

408.453

0.94

0.23

d15.78

169.905

170.386

169.355

169.577

169.561

0.36

0.21

GSD*

1.482

1.482

1.486

1.484

1.485

0.00

0.10

MMAD

268.900

269.668

268.744

268.780

268.858

0.34

0.13

*Geometric standard deviation

Coefficient of variation: d50 < 3%; d10 and d90 < 5%. The repeatability of the characteristic particle in the size distribution is within the acceptability limits of the ISO 13320-1 test standards.

Conclusions:
Under the conditions of the test, the particle size of the test material was determined to have a MMAD (mass median aerodynamic diameter) of 268.990 µm, median diameter of 251.932 µm with a geometric standard deviation of between 1.482 and 1.486. The coefficient of variation was less than 3% at d50 and less than 5% for d10 and d90, thus the repeatability of the characteristic particles in the size distribution are within the acceptability limits of the ISO 13320-1 test standards.
Executive summary:

The particle size of the test material was determined by laser diffraction in a GLP study performed to the standardised guidelines Particle size analysis: CTL SOP No. 417, ISO 13320: 2009, CIPAC MT 187 and in consideration of the OECD guideline 110.

Under the conditions of the test, the particle size of the test material was determined to have a MMAD (mass median aerodynamic diameter) of 268.990 µm, median diameter of 251.932 µm with a geometric standard deviation of between 1.482 and 1.486. The coefficient of variation was less than 3% at d50 and less than 5% for d10 and d90, thus the repeatability of the characteristic particles in the size distribution are within the acceptability limits of the ISO 13320-1 test standards.

Description of key information

The particle size of 3,5-Dimethylpyrazole was determined in a key study (Livingston, 2012) to have a MMAD (mass median aerodynamic diameter) of 268.990 µm, median diameter of 251.932 µm with a geometric standard deviation of between 1.482 and 1.486. The study was performed to GLP and the standardised guidelines; particle size analysis: CTL SOP No. 417; ISO 13320: 2009; CIPAC MT 187 and in consideration of the OECD guideline 110.

Additional information

Livingston (2012) has been provided as the key study to address this endpoint, where the average particle size was determined by the laser diffraction method. The study was performed in line with GLP and standardised guidelines and had thus been assigned a reliability score of 1 using the principles for assessing data quality as set out in Klimisch (1997).