Registration Dossier

Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets

Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.

The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.

Diss Factsheets

Physical & Chemical properties

Particle size distribution (Granulometry)

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference
Endpoint:
particle size distribution (granulometry)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2011
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
test procedure in accordance with generally accepted scientific standards and described in sufficient detail
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: ISO13320
GLP compliance:
no
Type of method:
Laser scattering/diffraction
Percentile:
D10
Mean:
ca. 20.4 µm
St. dev.:
1.83
Percentile:
D50
Mean:
ca. 52.51 µm
St. dev.:
3.55
Percentile:
D90
Mean:
ca. 95.77 µm
St. dev.:
8.08
Conclusions:
Particle size distribution of the test substance Acid Black 210 is characterized by D50 = 52.51+/-3.55 um
Executive summary:

A laser diffraction method according to ISO was used to determine the particle size distribution of a sample of Acid Black 210. The results are:

D10=20.42 +/-1.83 um

D50=52.51 +/-3.55 um

D90=95.77 +/-8.08 um

Description of key information

D50=52.51 um

Additional information

A study for the particle size distribution of a sample of Acid Black 210 was performed following method ISO 13320 with a D50 ca. 52.51 um.

The value is considered within the inhalable fraction, but not in the thoracic or respirable fraction. Since the usual form present on the market is liquid and the solid form is always treated with antidusting materials, this value is too much conservative in respect to the real form present in the market, therefore it is not indicative of the need to test the respiratory toxicity as preferred exposure route.