Registration Dossier

Physical & Chemical properties

Surface tension

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
surface tension
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
16 August 2001 to 21 August 2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EU Method A.5 (Surface Tension)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
The result was not corrected using the Harkins-Jordan correction table as the correction is not applicable to the apparatus used. Once calibrated, the balance and ring assembly used in this test gave a direct reading that is within the required accuracy
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of method:
ring method
Key result
Surface tension:
68.5 mN/m
Temp.:
20 °C
Conc.:
0.016 g/L

Table 1: Results

 Time (mins)  Reading (mN/m)  Temperature (ºC)
 70  68.0  20
 76  68.5  20
 85  69.0  20
 118  68.5  20
 125  69.0  20
 140  69.0  20

Mean reading = 68.7 mN/m

Surface tension = reading x calibration factor = 68.7 x 0.997 = 68.5 mN/m

pH of sample solution = 5.71

Conclusions:
Under the conditions of the test, the surface tension of the test material was determined to be 68.5 mN/m using the ring method.
Executive summary:

In a GLP compliant surface tension study conducted in accordance with standardised guideline EU Method A.5, the surface tension of the test material was determined using the ring method. Under the conditions of the test, the surface tension of the test material was determined to be 68.5 mN/m at 20 ± 0.5 ºC.

Description of key information

The surface tension of the test material was determined to be 68.5 mN/m according to a study performed in line with EU Method A.5.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Surface tension:
68.5
in mN/m at 20°C and concentration in mg/L:
0.016

Additional information

The key study (Evans, 2001) was performed in line with GLP and a standardised guideline with a sufficient level of detail to assess the quality of the study. The study was performed to a good standard and was assigned a reliability score of 1 using the principle for assessing data quality as set out in Klimisch (1997).