Chemical Name：2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide; cymoxanil
CAS：57966-95-7

Hazard class		Classification	Symbol	Signal word	Hazard statement	Precautionary statement	Rationale for the classification
1	Acute toxicity （Oral）	Category 4		Warning	H302: Harmful if swallowed	P301+P312: IF SWALLOWED: Call a POISON CENTER or doctor/physician if you feel unwell. P264: Wash ... thoroughly after handling. P270: Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product. P330: Rinse mouth. P501: Dispose of contents/container to ...	Based on its rat LD50 values of approximately 1000 mg/kg (IUCLID (2000)) and 1100 mg/kg (HSDB (2000)), the substance was classified into Category 4.
1	Acute toxicity （Dermal）	Not classified	-	-	-	-	Based on its rabbit LD50 values of > 2000 mg/kg (IUCLID (2000)) and > 3 g/kg (HSDB (2000)), the substance was classified into "Not classified" using the JIS classification criteria (Category 5 or "Not classified" category in the United Nations classification).
1	Acute toxicity （Inhalation: Gases）	Not applicable	-	-	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity （Inhalation: Vapours）	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	No data available.
1	Acute toxicity （Inhalation: Dusts and mists）	Not classified	-	-	-	-	Since its rat LC50 is > 5mg/L (4 hours) (IUCLID (2000)), the substance was classified into "Not classified" using the JIS classification criteria (Category 5 or "Not classified" category in the United Nations classification). Because its saturated vapour concentration is 1.17*10^-5 mg/L, the study was presumably conducted in dust.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	-	-	-	-	Rabbit tests (Directive 84/449/EEC) found that the substance is not irritating (IUCLID (2000)). Thus, it was classified into "Not classified".
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Not classified	-	-	-	-	Rabbit tests (Directive 84/449/EEC) found that the substance is not irritating (IUCLID (2000)). Thus, it was classified into "Not classified".
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	No data available.
4	Skin sensitization	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	In rabbit tests using maximization methods, there were no skin reactions observed during the challenge phase (IUCLID (2000)), indicating that the substance is to be placed into the "Not classified" category. However, since the results were obtained based on using a List 2 dataset, it was classified into "Classification not possible".
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	-	-	-	-	Based on negative results documented in in vivo mutagenicity tests using somatic cells (micronucleus tests using mouse bone marrow cells (OECD Guidelines 474)) (IUCLID (2000)), the substance was classified into "Not classified". Regarding in vitro tests, Ames tests gave negative results while chromosomal aberration tests yielded positive results (IUCLID (2000)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Not classified	-	-	-	-	In 23-month mixed diet administration tests using rats (OECD Guidelines 453), abnormalities in intestines, lymph nodes and lungs were detected in pathological examinations, but they were not carcinogenic. In addition, in 18-month mixed diet administration tests using mice (OECD Guidelines 451), abnormalities in the testes, liver and digestive tract were detected, but they were not carcinogenic (IUCLID (2000)). Based on these reports, the substance was classified into "Not classified".
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	In two-generation reproduction toxicity tests using rats that underwent mixed diet administration (OECD Guideline 416), no signs of reproduction toxicity were detected (IUCLID (2000), but no detailed information was provided. In oral administration tests using pregnant rabbits conducted during the organogenetic period (IUCLID (2000)), no effects of administration on implantation rates, survival of fetuses, and morphology were documented. However, it is unclear if the experiment was conducted at the doses that induce toxic effects on maternal animals. As such, classification is not possible due to insufficient data available.
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	No data available.
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	In 90-day mixed diet administration tests using rats (OECD Guidelines 408), decreased body weight and organ weight were detected at the doses that were different from Category 2 guidance doses (IUCLID (2000)). Similarly, in 90-day mixed diet administration tests using dogs (OECD Guidelines 409), the effects of administration on excretion, body weight gain, and organ weight were detected (IUCLID (2000)) at the doses that were different from Category 2 guidance doses or were equivalent to "Not classified" (oral route) category. Overall, the substance was classified into "Classification not possible" since no studies via other administration routes are available except oral.
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	-	-	-	-	No data available.

Hazard class		Classification	Symbol	Signal word	Hazard statement	Precautionary statement	Rationale for the classification
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment （Acute）	Category 2	-	-	H401: Toxic to aquatic life	P273: Avoid release to the environment. P501: Dispose of contents/container to ...	Since its 72h EbC50 = 5.2 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (IUCLID 2000), the substance was classified into Category 2.
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment （Long-term）	Category 2		-	H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects	P273: Avoid release to the environment. P391: Collect spillage. P501: Dispose of contents/container to ...	Since its classification for acute toxicity is Category 2 and it is non-biodegradable (degradability obtained in tests that followed OECD TG 301B: 0-11%) (IUCLID 2000), the substance was classified into Category 2.