GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 591-27-5
Chemical Name m-Aminophenol
Substance ID 24B6502
Classification year (FY) FY2012
Ministry who conducted the classification Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)/Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
New/Revised Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year FY2006  
Download of Excel format Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION
Item Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link) Physical Hazards and Health Hazards: GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government (July, 2010) Environmental Hazards: UN GHS Document (4th revised edition)
UN GHS document (External link) UN GHS document
Definitions/Abbreviations (Excel file) Definitions/Abbreviations
Model Label by MHLW (External link) MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
Model SDS by MHLW (External link) MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
OECD/eChemPortal (External link) eChemPortal

PHYSICAL HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
1 Explosives Not applicable
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
2 Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
3 Aerosols Not applicable
-
-
- - Not aerosol products.
4 Oxidizing gases Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
5 Gases under pressure Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
6 Flammable liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is the information that it is combustible (Hommel (1996)), but the classification is not possible due to no data in the prescribed test method.
8 Self-reactive substances and mixtures Not applicable
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups present in the molecule associated with explosive or self-reactive properties.
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
10 Pyrophoric solids Not classified
-
-
- - This substance was classified as "Not classified" because it is classified in Division 6.1, PG III (UN2512), not applicable to hazards of the highest precedence, pyrophoric solids.
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - Test methods applicable to solid (melting point <= 140 deg C) substances are not available.
12 Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases Not applicable
-
-
- - The chemical structure of the substance does not contain metals or metalloids (B, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sn, Sb, Te, Bi, Po, At).
13 Oxidizing liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
14 Oxidizing solids Not applicable
-
-
- - The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
15 Organic peroxides Not applicable
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure.
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - Test methods applicable to solid substances are not available.

HEALTH HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
1 Acute toxicity (Oral) Category 4


Warning
H302 P301+P312
P264
P270
P330
P501
It was classified in Category 4 based on LD50 values of 693 mg/kg (males) and 856 mg/kg (females) in an acute toxicity test with male and female rats (OECD TG 401, GLP) (JECDB (Access on Apr. 2012)).
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Data are lacking. Besides, there is a description of an LD50 value of 1,000 mg/kg for rats (Chemical Substance Hazard Data (CERI, 2001)) as List 3 data, but the details are unknown.
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) Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is a report on an LC50 value of 1,162 mg/m3 for rats (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 5 (Ministry of the Environment, 2006)), but because the exposure time is unknown, the classification is not possible. Besides, because the LC50 value (1,162 mg/L) was higher than the saturated vapour pressure concentration (0.01 mg/L), it was regarded as a test on dust.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - A volume of 0.5 mL of a 3% solution of this substance was applied to the back skin of rabbits and the skin reactions were scored after 24 hours, this procedure was repeated three times in 4 days, and no erythema or edema was observed during the test period (HSDB (2011)). And in another test with rabbits, the primary skin irritation index after 72 hours was 0.2, and it was assessed as mildly irritating (HSDB (2011)), and it is described that the substance is a mild irritant to the rabbit skin (HSDB (2011)). Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified" in the Classification JIS (corresponding to Category 3 in UN GHS classification).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Classification not possible
-
-
- - Data are lacking. Besides, it is reported that there was moderate irritation in a test in which 100 mg was applied to the rabbit eye (RTECS (2010)), it is described that it was irritating in an experiment in which 2.5% of this substance was applied (application amount unknown) to the rabbit eye (Chemical Substance Hazard Data (CERI, 2001)), and the above is the List 3 information.
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
4 Skin sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - It was reported to be negative in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (Open epicutaneous method) (HSDB (2011)). And in a skin sensitization test in humans (Repeated insult patch test), 99 out of 115 volunteers completed the test, and two had positive reactions after the challenge (HSDB (2011)). However, it is reported that no reactions were observed after the challenge in another skin sensitization test (Repeated insult patch test), in which 98 out of 114 volunteers completed the test (HSDB (2011)). The above knowledge was all from a List 2 information source, the test with guinea pigs used the test method, which was not approved by OECD, and conclusions were not clear in human test results. Therefore, the classification is not possible. Besides, o-aminophenol and p-aminophenol, the isomers of this substance, are listed as sensitizers in Contact Dermatitis (Frosch) (corresponding to List 1).
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - It was classified as "Not classified" based on a negative result in a dominant lethal test by diet administration to male rats for 19 weeks before mating (in vivo heritable germ cell mutagenicity test) (HSDB (2011)). Furthermore, as for in vivo tests, it was reported to be negative in a sister chromatid exchange test with bone marrow cells after intraperitoneal administration to Chinese hamsters (in vivo somatic cell genotoxicity test) (HSDB (2011)). Besides, as for in vitro tests, it is reported that it was mostly negative in Ames tests (JECDB (2000)) and positive in a chromosomal aberration test with cultured Chinese hamster cells (CHL cells) (JECDB (2000)).
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - Data are lacking. Besides, in 2-year carcinogenicity tests with rats and mice by drinking water, in rats, no increased incidence of tumors was observed in females, there was a tendency toward increases in the incidence of follicular adenocarcinoma and the combined incidence of follicular adenoma and adenocarcinoma in the thyroid in males, but it was insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity. In mice, it is reported that no increased incidence of tumors was found in either males or females (Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2012)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - In a test by diet administration to female rats from 90 days before mating by gestational day 20, no adverse effects were observed on fertility and the survival or development of offspring (HSDB (2011)). Furthermore, in a test in which a hair dye formulation containing 0.7% of this substance was dermally administered to rats over three generations, no treatment-related effects were found on general status, fertility, gestation, survival, and live birth indices in parent animals or the development of offspring in any generation (HSDB (2011)). On the other hand, it is reported that in a test in which a hair dye formulation containing 0.7% of this substance was dermally administered to rabbits for four weeks before mating and through mating to gestational day 30, the treated group had a slightly lower fetal survival, its percentage of resorbed fetuses was more than twice that of the control group, and the unusually low sex ratio was shown in the treated group (males/females = 0.7) (HSDB (2011)). However, the report was from the results of the test on a hair dye formulation containing this substance, and it was impossible to attribute the effects to this substance. Therefore, the classification is not possible due to lack of data.
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 2 (haemal system)


Warning
H371 P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P405
P501
In an acute oral administration toxicity test with rats (OECD TG401, GLP), deaths occurred in the group at or above 700 mg/kg, and tremors, salivation, brown urine, prone position, lateral position, pale skin in the forelimb, hindlimb, and auricle, etc. were observed on the day of administration at or above 500 mg/kg. Necropsy revealed swelling due to congestion of the spleen in dead animals, dark red discoloration of the spleen, dark brown discoloration of the kidney, etc. in surviving animals at 700 and 1,000 mg/kg. On histopathological examination, congestion in the spleen in males and females, focal necrosis in the liver, a slight deposit of brown pigment in Kupffer cells in the liver and the proximal tubular epithelium in the kidney in males were found in dead animals, and also in surviving animals, a deposit of brown pigment in Kupffer cells in the liver, the proximal tubular epithelium in the kidney and in the spleen were seen in females (JECDB (Access on Apr. 2012)). From the above results, swelling of the spleen was regarded as a change due to elevated processing function from erythroid disorders, and pale skin in the forelimb, hindlimb, and auricle, and dark purple discoloration of the tail tip in general status could be changes reflecting anemic conditions from hemolysis. And it is described that brown pigment deposited in the liver and kidney was estimated to be pigment derived from erythrocytes including hemosiderin, and the administration of this substance probably caused hemolysis (JECDB (Access on Apr. 2012)). Because all the test doses were within the guidance value range for Category 2, it was classified Category 2 (blood system). Besides, the findings in the liver above were not dose-dependent, most of them were observed in dead animals, and effects on the nervous system such as tremors were found at or above 500 mg/kg, which was high and close to the LD50 value. Therefore, these were judged as non-specific findings, and neither the liver nor nervous system was adopted as the target organ.
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 2 (haemal system)


Warning
H373 P260
P314
P501
After 90-day diet administration (concentrations 0, 0.1, 0.25, 1%) to female rats, hemosiderin deposit in the spleen, liver, and kidney with decreases in erythrocyte counts and hemoglobin levels and an increase in mean corpuscular volume were observed in the 1% group (about 500 mg/kg/day), and hemolytic effects were shown (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 5 (Ministry of the Environment, 2006)). And in a 28-day repeated oral administration toxicity test with rats (Guidelines specified by the Chemical Substances Control Law, GLP), in the 720 mg/kg/day group (converted guidance value: 224 mg/kg/day), there were signs of tremors and salivation, anemia, and necropsy revealed dark brown discoloration of the liver, dark red discoloration of the spleen, and dark brown discoloration of the kidney. On histopathological examination, a deposit of brown pigment in the proximal tubular epithelium in the kidney, hemosiderin deposit in the spleen, a deposit of brown pigment in Kupffer cells in the liver, and hypertrophy of follicular cells in the thyroid were found (JECDB (Access on Apr. 2012)). From the above test results, blood effects were seen at higher doses above the guidance values for Category 2 in both the test, but adverse blood effects were also shown after acute exposure to this substance and in the isomers, and it is described that inhalation of large amounts causes methemoglobinemia in humans (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 5 (Ministry of the Environment, 2006)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (blood system).
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Acute) Category 1


Warning
H400 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 from 48-hour EC50 = 0.447 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 2 (Ministry of the Environment, 2003)).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (not readily degradable (a 4-week degradation rate by BOD: 0%) (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1978)), and 21-day NOEC = 0.050 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 2 (Ministry of the Environment, 2003)).
If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified as "Not classified" due to 96-hour LC50 = 120 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 1995)).
By drawing a comparison between the above results, it was classified in Category 1.
12 Hazardous to the ozone layer Classification not possible
-
-
- - This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol.


NOTE:
  • GHS Classification Result by the Japanese Government is intended to provide a reference for preparing a GHS label or SDS for users. To include the same classification result in a label or SDS for Japan is NOT mandatory.
  • Users can cite or copy this classification result when preparing a GHS label or SDS. Please be aware, however, that the responsibility for a label or SDS prepared by citing or copying this classification result lies with users.
  • This GHS classification was conducted based on the information sources and the guidance for classification and judgement which are described in the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government etc. Using other literature, test results etc. as evidence and including different content from this classification result in a label or SDS are allowed.
  • Hazard statement and precautionary statement will show by hovering the mouse cursor over a code in the column of "Hazard statement" and "Precautionary statement," respectively. In the excel file, both the codes and statements are provided.
  • A blank or "-" in the column of "Classification" denotes that a classification for the hazard class was not conducted in the year.

To GHS Information