Registration Dossier

Physical & Chemical properties

Appearance / physical state / colour

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
appearance / physical state / colour
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
11th June 2001 to 18th June 2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EPA OPPTS 830.6302 (Color)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EPA OPPTS 830.6303 (Physical State)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EPA OPPTS 830.6304 (Odor)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Physical state at 20°C and 1013 hPa:
solid
Key result
Form:
other: crystalline solid (pure); sticky solid (technical)
Colour:
Munsell notation of N 9.25/. with a colour description of white (pure)

Munsell notation of N 9.73/. with a colour description of white (technical)
Odour:
other: musty
Substance type:
organic
Conclusions:
Under the conditions of the test, the colour/physical state/odour of the purified test material was determined to be a white crystalline solid with a musty odour.
Executive summary:

In a GLP compliant colour/physical state/odour study conducted in compliance with standardised guidelines EPA OPPTS 830.6302, 830.6303 and 830.6304, the colour/physical state/odour of the test material was determined. Under the conditions of the test, the purified test material was determined to be a white crystalline solid with a musty odour.

Description of key information

The test material was determined to be a white, crystalline solid with a musty odour according to a study performed in line with EPA OPPTS 830.6302, 830.6303 and 830.6304.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Physical state at 20°C and 1013 hPa:
solid
Form:
solid: particulate/powder
Colour:
colourless

Additional information

The key study (Chee-Chue, 2002) was performed in line with GLP and standardised guidelines 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).

The supporting study (Berkel et al., 1987) was assigned a reliability score of 2 using the principle for assessing data quality as set out in Klimisch (1997).