Registration Dossier

Physical & Chemical properties

Vapour pressure

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
vapour pressure
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
9 September 2001 to 17 September 2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EU Method A.4 (Vapour Pressure)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of method:
gas saturation method
Key result
Test no.:
#1
Temp.:
25 °C
Vapour pressure:
0.14 Pa

Table 1: Summary of results

Run Log10 Vp
1 -0.912
2 -0.726
3 -0.913
4 -0.846
Mean -0.849
Conclusions:
Under the conditions of the study, the vapour pressure of the test material was determined to be 0.14 Pa at 25 °C using the gas saturation method.
Executive summary:

In a GLP compliant vapour pressure study conducted in accordance with standardised guideline EU Method A.4, the vapour pressure of the test material was determined using the gas saturation method. Under the conditions of the study, the vapour pressure of the test material was determined to be 0.14 Pa at 25 °C.

Description of key information

The vapour pressure of the test material was determined to be 0.14 Pa at 25 ºC according to a study performed in line with EU Method A.4.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Vapour pressure:
0.14 Pa
at the temperature of:
25 °C

Additional information

The key study (Tremain, 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). This study was selected as the key study as it was performed to GLP and contains more information than the supporting study such that a reliability score of 1 could be assigned.

The supporting study (Berkel et al., 1987) was performed in line with a standardised guideline, but not to GLP, 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 2 using the principle for assessing data quality as set out in Klimisch (1997) on the basis that it is non-GLP.