NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	111-87-5
Chemical Name	1-Octanol
Substance ID	24B6506
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	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
3	Aerosols	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.
4	Oxidizing gases	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
5	Gases under pressure	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
6	Flammable liquids	Category 4	- Warning	H227	P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P280 P501	It corresponds to Category 4 from a flash point of 81 deg C [closed-cup] (CRC (91st, 2010)) > 60 deg C and <= 93 deg C.
7	Flammable solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
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 classified	- -	-	-	It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 253 deg C (ICSC (2002)).
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Test methods applicable to liquid 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	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
14	Oxidizing solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
15	Organic peroxides	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure.
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

HEALTH HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Acute toxicity (Oral)	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" based on LD50 values for rats of 18,240 mg/kg (SIDS (2006)) and > 5,000 mg/kg [OECD TG401, GLP] (SIDS (2006)).
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" in the Classification JIS (corresponding to Category 5 in UN GHS classification) based on an LD50 value for rabbits of 2,000-4,000 mg/kg (SIDS (2006)). Besides, there is also a report on an LD50 value for rabbits of > 5000 mg/kg (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	An LC50 value for rats was reported to be > 5.6 mg/L/4 hours (SIDS (2006)), but because the category cannot be determined, it was classified as "Classification not possible." Besides, the test concentration exceeded the saturated vapour pressure concentration, but because it is described that animals were exposed to the vapour generated by heating the test substance to 425 deg C, the reference value in units of mg/L was applied as a vapour with mist.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	In a test by 4-hour semi-occlusive application of 0.5 mL of undiluted this substance to the skin of three rabbits (OECD TG404: GLP-compliant), the mean scores of three animals at 24, 48, 72-hour observation were 1.0, 2.0, and 1.3 for erythema and all 0 for edema, and it was judged as slightly irritating (SIDS (2006)). Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified" in the Classification JIS (corresponding to Category 3 in UN GHS classification). Besides, in another test in which an undiluted or 50% solution of this substance was occlusively applied to the rabbit skin for 24 hours, irritation indices were 4.3/8 for the undiluted and 2.8/8 for a 50% solution, it was reported to be moderately irritating (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)). Furthermore, as for humans, as a result of 4-hour occlusive application of 0.2 mL of this substance to the upper arms of 27 and 28 volunteers in two 2 facilities, positive reactions of slight skin irritation were observed in 4/27 and 5/28, respectively after 24, 48, 72-hour observation, but the substance was determined to be not an irritant (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2A	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	In a test in which 0.1 mL of undiluted this substance was applied to the eyes of two rabbits (OECD TG405, GLP), iritis, slight to moderate conjunctivitis, and very slight to slight corneal opacity occurred 72 hours after application, very slight conjunctivitis was observed in all three animals at days 8-15 and persisted in two until the end of the 22-day observation period, iritis persisted in one animal until day 22, and it was judged as irritating (SIDS (2006)). And in another test in rabbits using almost the same test conditions as in the above (OECD TG405, GLP), the average scores for three animals by 24, 48, 72-hour observation were 1.7 for the cornea, 0.7 for the iris, 2.2 for the conjunctiva (redness), and 2.5 for the conjunctiva (chemosis), and the overall irritation score, MMAS (equivalent to AOI) was reported to be 41.0 (SIDS (2006)). It was classified in Category 2A based on the above results. Besides, as for humans, it is reported that in an occupational accident, entering in the eyes of chemical plant workers caused transient damage to the corneal epithelium, which was reversible within 48 hours (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
4	Skin sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Data are lacking. Besides, it is reported that in a maximization test in 25 volunteers, there was no evidence of sensitization, and it was not a human sensitizer (SIDS (2006)). However, because it is a summary report of unpublished data, and the details such as test methods are unknown, it was classified as "Classification not possible."
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It is reported that it was positive in a chromosomal aberration test with bone marrow cells by intraperitoneal administration to rats (in vivo somatic cell mutagenicity test) (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)), but it was considered inappropriate for the rationale for classification because it is described that the dose is unknown, a single dose level was used, and there are no dose-dependency data for the test. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible." Although another chromosomal aberration test by oral administration to rats conducted by the same authors suggested an increase in chromosomal aberrations, it was concluded that the results were ambiguous due to methodological deficiencies (SIDS (2006)). Besides, as for in vitro tests, it is reported that it was negative in an Ames test (SIDS (2006)), and a chromosomal aberration test with Chinese hamster lung fibroblast (V79) was positive without S9 (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	As for reproductive/developmental toxicity tests, in a test by oral administration to rats on gestational days 6-15, maternal animals showed general toxicity such as death, a decrease in food consumption, and reduced weight gain, but there were no reproductive/developmental effects in maternal animals and fetuses (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)), and no effects were seen in maternal animals or fetuses in a test by inhalation exposure of rats on gestational days 1-19 (Hazard Assessment Report Ver. 1.0 (CERI, NITE, 2008)). From the above results, no adverse effects on the development of offspring were found. However, because effects on sexual function and fertility are unknown, it was classified as "Classification not possible" due to insufficient data.
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (respiratory organs), Category 2 (digestive system)	Danger Warning	H370 H371	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	In a test by 4-hour inhalation exposure of rats to 5.6 mg/L (vapour), gasping and rapid respiration were observed, 3 out of 10 animals died, exposure-related necropsy findings were limited to the lung, and microscopic lesions included necrosis of the bronchial epithelium, alveolar edema, congestion, alveolar hemorrhage, regeneration of the bronchial epithelium, and alveolar hyperplasia (SIDS (2006)). Because the concentration corresponded to the guidance values for Category 1, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory system). And 24-hour dermal administration of 1-4 g/kg to rabbits caused generalized weakness and inanimation in most animals, there were dead animals at or above 2 g/kg, and the animals' necropsy revealed blanching and multiple focal hemorrhages of the gastric mucosa, watery peritoneal fluid, etc. Surviving animals also showed multiple focal hemorrhages of the gastric mucosa and accumulation of clear or amber viscous fluid in the peritoneal cavity (SIDS (2006)). Because the abnormal findings in the stomach and peritoneal cavity were within the guidance value range for Category 2, it was classified in Category 2 (digestive system).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It is reported that aspiration of 0.2 mL of this substance to rats produced deaths in 10/10 animals, which presented an aspiration hazard of this substance (SIDS (2006)). And although this substance is not a hydrocarbon, kinematic viscosity is 10.84 mm2/s at 20 deg C and would be 14 mm2/s or less at 40 deg C, therefore, it corresponds to Category 2 in UN GHS classification. However, because there is no information in humans, and the Classification JIS does not adopt Category 2, it was classified as "Classification not possible."

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 2	- -	H401	P273 P501	It was classified in Category 2 from 48-hour EC50 = 4.17 mg/L for crustacea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 5 (Ministry of the Environment, 2006)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Category 3	- -	H412	P273 P501	It was classified in Category 3 due to being rapidly degradable (readily biodegradable (a 4-week degradation rate by BOD: 89%) (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 2002)), and 7-day NOEC = 0.75 mg/L for fish (Pimephales promelas) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
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