Registration Dossier

Physical & Chemical properties

Density

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
relative density
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
from 2017-04-10 to 2017-04-13
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 109 (Density of Liquids and Solids)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EU Method A.3 (Relative Density)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of method:
pycnometer method
Dynamic viscosity of test material:
not applicable
Type:
density
Density:
1.354 g/cm³
Temp.:
20 °C
Key result
Type:
relative density
Density:
1.354
Temp.:
20 °C

Findings

All measured values and the corresponding calculation results are given in the following table:

Table 2: Measured values

First Determination

 

 

 

Error rel.

Error abs.

Temperature

19.8

°C

 

 

0.1

Density of water

0.998203

g/cm³

 

2.00 %

0.0002

Weighing #

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Item

Pycn. empty

Pycn. + H20

Pycn.+ repl. liq.

Pycn.+ test item

Pycn. + test item + repl. liq.

Mass in g

36.7408

61.6038

56.3892

43.8930

59.3742

Temperature in °C

19.8

19.8

20.0

20.2

20.0

Second Determination

 

 

 

Error rel.

Error abs.

Temperature

20.2

°C

 

 

0.1

Density of water

0.998203

g/cm³

 

0.02 %

0.0002

Weighing#

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Item

Pycn. empty

Pycn.+ H20

Pycn.+ repl. liq.

Pycn.+ test item

Pycn. + test item + repl. liq.

Mass in g

36.7409

61.6045

56.3854

43.8959

59.3727

Temperature in °C

19.8

20.2

20.2

20.2

20.2

Pycn. = Pycnometer; repl. liq.= replacement liquid, rel. = relative; abs. = absolute

Presentation of results

Results of the single determinations with the respective error as well as the mean value and its standard deviation are presented in the following tables:

Table 1: Results of single determinations

Determination Density
in g/cm³
Error of Determination
in g/cm³
1 1.3539 0.0006
2 1.3540 0.0006

Table 2: Results - mean values

Parameter Value Unit Standard
Deviation
Relative Standard
Deviation
Volume of pycnometer 24.91 cm³ 0.0004 0.00 %
Density of test item 1.3539 g/cm³ 0.0000 0.00 %
Density of test item 1353.9 kg/m³ 0.0 0.00 %
Relative density of test item 1.3539   0.0000 0.00 %
Conclusions:
The density of the test item was determined to be 1.3539 ± 0.0006 g/cm³ at 20.0 ± 0.2 °C, which is the mean of two values. The relative density was the same value without unit.
Executive summary:

A study was performed in order to determine the density of test item according to OECD TG 109 and Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008, method A.3 by using the pycnometer method. The density of the test item was calculated as 1.3539 ± 0.0006 g/cm3 at 20.0 ± 0.2 °C, which is the mean of two values. Precision of the value was given as maximal error of a single determination. The standard deviation of the two values was much lower than the maximal error of a single determination, indicating that the error of the determination was lower than the calculated value. Correspondence of the values was very good. Therefore, the study was considered valid.

Description of key information

The density of the test item was determined to be 1.3539 ± 0.0006 g/cm³ at 20.0 ± 0.2 °C, which is the mean of two values.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Relative density at 20C:
1.354

Additional information

A study was performed in order to determine the density of test item according to OECD TG 109 and Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008, method A.3 by using the pycnometer method. The density of the test item was calculated as 1.3539 ± 0.0006 g/cm3 at 20.0 ± 0.2 °C, which is the mean of two values. Precision of the value was given as maximal error of a single determination. The standard deviation of the two values was much lower than the maximal error of a single determination, indicating that the error of the determination was lower than the calculated value. Correspondence of the values was very good. Therefore, the study was considered valid (reference 4.4 -1).