Formaldehyde, reaction products with m-phenylenediamine, sodium sulfide (Na2S) and sulfur

Vapour pressure

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference

Endpoint:

vapour pressure

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method A.4 (Vapour Pressure)

Deviations:

no

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 104 (Vapour Pressure Curve)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

effusion method: vapour pressure balance

Key result

Remarks on result:

not determinable because of methodological limitations

Remarks:

From the general behaviour of the test item and the known composition of the test item it can be assumed that the vapour pressure of the test item before drying would be approximately like the vapour pressure of water.

Vapour Pressure:

The test item contains 84.6 % water. Both the composition and the physical chemical behaviour are comparable to project 20110348.03. Due to the unreasonable behaviour of the vapour pressure of the test item of project 20110348.03 the measurement of the vapour pressure with the effusion method (vapour pressure balance) was waived for the test item presented here (C.I. Leuco Sulphur Brown 37). It can be assumed safely that the test item would also show untypical behaviour of the vapour pressure which is most likely caused by the high water content of the test item (84.6 %). It can be assumed that the vapour pressure is a combination of the vapour pressure of water, the drying of the test item (thus evaporation of water and physical and chemicals changes to the test item) and the vapour pressure of a partially dried test item.

The measurement with the dynamic method was also not possible due to the consistency of the test item. Therefore it has to be concluded, that a measurement of the vapour pressure for this test item would not yield any reasonable results. From the general behaviour of the test item in other tests (see 20110346.01, .02, .04, .06 and .07) and the known composition of the test item it can be assumed that the vapour pressure of the test item before drying would be approximately like the vapour pressure of water. The vapour pressure of the (partially) dried test item should be considerably lower.

Conclusions:

From the general behaviour of the test item in other tests (see 20110346.01, .02, .04, .06 and .07) and the known composition of the test item it can be assumed that the vapour pressure of the test item before drying would be approximately like the vapour pressure of water. The vapour pressure of the (partially) dried test item should be considerably lower.

Executive summary:

Vapour Pressure:

The vapour pressure of the test item was not measured as it is known from comparable tests items that a measurement yields no meaningful results due to the chemical composition (water content 84.6 %) of the test item. From the general behaviour of the test item in other tests (see 20110346.01, .02, .04, .06 and .07) and the known composition of the test item it can be assumed that the vapour pressure of the test item before drying would be approximately like the vapour pressure of water. The vapour pressure of the (partially) dried test item should be considerably lower.

Additional information

The vapour pressure of the test item was not measured as it is known from comparable tests items that a measurement yields no meaningful results due to the chemical composition (water content 84.6 %) of the test item. From the general behaviour of the test item in other tests (see 20110346.01, .02, .04, .06 and .07) and the known composition of the test item it can be assumed that the vapour pressure of the test item before drying would be approximately like the vapour pressure of water. The vapour pressure of the (partially) dried test item should be considerably lower.