Hazard class
|
Classification
|
Symbol
|
Signal word
|
Hazard statement
|
Precautionary statement
|
Rationale for the classification
|
1
|
Acute toxicity (Oral)
|
Not classified
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Not classified because of SPECIES: Rat; ENDPOINT: LD50; VALUE: : approximately 6000mg/kg; REFERENCE SOURCE: ACGIH 7th, 2001)
|
1
|
Acute toxicity (Dermal)
|
Not classified
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Based on rabbit LD50 value: 6000mg/kg (ACGIH 7th, 2001), and outline fatal dose: 17000mg/kg (ACGIH 7th, 2001), it was set as the outside of Category.
|
1
|
Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)
|
Not applicable
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Liquid (GHS definition)
|
1
|
Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No data available
|
1
|
Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)
|
Not classified
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
From description that a toxic phenomena was not acknowledged in 3900ppm of 6-hour exposure (4-hour equivalent 10.75mg/L) in the inhalation exposure test of the mist using the rat (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), it was set as the outside of Category.
|
2
|
Skin corrosion/irritation
|
Category 3
|
-
|
Warning
|
H316: Causes mild skin irritation
|
P332+P313: If skin irritation occurs: Get medical advice/attention.
|
It was set as Category 3 from description that slight transient skin irritations was admitted in the test using the guinea-pig (ACGIH (7th, 2001)).
|
3
|
Serious eye damage/eye irritation
|
Category 2B
|
-
|
Warning
|
H320: Causes eye irritation
|
P305+P351+P338: IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. P337+P313: If eye irritation persists: Get medical advice/attention. P264: Wash ... thoroughly after handling.
|
We classified it as Category 2B based on the description that the very slight transient stimulant action was acknowledged in the test applied to the eyes of the rabbits (ACGIH (7th, 2001)).
|
4
|
Respiratory sensitization
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No data
|
4
|
Skin sensitization
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Although we found the description that skin sensitizing property was not acknowledged in the test using the guinea pigs in ACGIH (7th, 2001), we presupposed that we could not classify it since the test method is unknown and sufficient data to classify it as Out Of Category was not obtained.
|
5
|
Germ cell mutagenicity
|
Not classified
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
There was a negative result by the micronucleus test which used the mouse red corpuscles, which are the in vivo mutagenicity tests using a somatic (NTP DB, 2005). So it carried out the outside of Category.
|
6
|
Carcinogenicity
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No data available
|
7
|
Reproductive toxicity
|
Not classified
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
In the oral administration study using pregnancy rats and rabbits in the NTP DB (2005), there is a description that specific reproductive toxicity was not observed at the dose in which general toxicity is observed in parental animals.
Therefore, it was out of the Category.
Moreover, there is no descriptions on general toxicity of parent animals in the ACGIH (7th, 2001).
However, there is a description that reproductive toxicity was not observed in the percutaneous administration examination using pregnant mice and rats.
Specific reproductive toxicity was not also observed in the oral administration fertility study using the male and female mice in NTP DB (2005).
|
8
|
Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
There was a description in ACGIH (7th, 2001) referring to that toxic phenomena were not confirmed at high concentrations beyond the guidance value limits of Category 2 in mist inhalation exposure tests using rats, while there is no other data, and determined that it cannot be classified as out of Category because of lack of data.
|
9
|
Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Although there was description that toxic effect was not observed with the dosage within the guidance value range for Category 2 in 90 day dermal administration test on rats (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), since there was no other data which clearly deny hazard with Priority 1, it was presupposed that data is insufficient and it cannot classified as out of Category.
|
10
|
Aspiration hazard
|
Classification not possible
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No data available
|