The density, refractive index, interfacial tension, and viscosity of ionic liquids (ILs) [EMIM][EtSO4] (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium ethylsulfate), [EMIMI[NTf2] (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide), [EMIM][N(CN)(2)] (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium dicyanimide), and [OMA][NTf2] (trioctyl-methylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide) were studied in dependence on temperature at atmospheric pressure both by conventional techniques and by surface light scattering (SLS). A vibrating tube densimeter was used for the measurement of density at temperatures from (273.15 to 363.15) K and the results have an expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of +/- 0.02%. Using an Abbe refractometer, the refractive index was measured for temperatures between (283.15 and 3 13.15) K with an expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of about +/- 0.0005. The interfacial tension was obtained from the pendant drop technique at a temperature of 293.15 K with an expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of +/- 1%. For higher and lower temperatures, the interfacial tension was estimated by an adequate prediction scheme based on the datum at 293.15 K and the temperature dependence of density. For the ILs studied within this work, at a first order approximation, the quantity directly accessible by the SLS technique was the ratio of surface tension to dynamic viscosity. By combining the experimental results of the SLS technique with density and interfacial tension from conventional techniques, the dynamic viscosity could be obtained for temperatures between (273.15 and 333.15) K with an estimated expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of less than 3%. The measured density, refractive index, and viscosity are represented by interpolating expressions with differences between the experimental and calculated values that are comparable with but always smaller than the expanded uncertainties (k = 2). Besides a comparison with the literature, the influence of structural variations on the thermophysical properties of the ILs is discussed in detail. The viscosities mostly agree with values reported in the literature within the combined estimated expanded uncertainties (k = 2) of the measurements while our density and interfacial tension data differ by more than 1% and +5%.