GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 79-11-8
Chemical Name Chloroacetic acid
Substance ID 24B6522
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
-
-
- - It is regarded as combustible (ICSC (J) (2003)), but the classification is not possible due to no data.
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
-
-
- - It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 470 deg C (Hommel (1996)).
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 chlorine and oxygen (but not fluorine) which are 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 3


Danger
H301 P301+P310
P264
P270
P321
P330
P405
P501
There are nine LD50 values for rats [55 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004)), 90 mg/kg (EU-RAR 52 (2005)), 100-300 mg/kg, 277.5 mg/kg (the above, SIDS (Access on Apr. 2012)), 102 mg/kg, 76.2 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 580 mg/kg (the above, ECETOC JACC38 (1999))], eight correspond to Category 3, and one corresponds to Category 4. Therefore, it was classified in Category 3, to which most corresponded.
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Category 2


Danger
H310 P302+P352
P361+P364
P262
P264
P270
P280
P310
P321
P405
P501
There are two LD50 values for rats [305 mg/kg (EU-RAR 52 (2005)), 145 mg/kg (ACGIH (2006))], one corresponds to Category 2, and one corresponds to Category 3, then it is classified in Category 2 with higher hazard. As for rabbits, there are three are LD50 values [250 mg/kg (EU-RAR 52 (2005)), 178 mg/kg (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)), 230 mg/kg (PIM 352 (2000))], one corresponds to Category 2, and two corresponds to Category 3, therefore, it is classified in Category 3, to which most correspond. From the above, the category with higher hazard was adopted between those for rats and rabbits, and it was classified in Category 2.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) Classification not possible
-
-
- - An LC50 value by 1-hour exposure to rats is reported to be > 66 ppm (vapour, converted 4-hour equivalent value: > 33 ppm) (EU-RAR 52 (2005)), but because the category cannot be determined, and there are no other data, the classification is not possible.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) Category 2


Danger
H330 P304+P340
P403+P233
P260
P271
P284
P310
P320
P405
P501
It was classified in Category 2 based on an LC50 value of 0.18 mg/L by 4-hour exposure of rats (SIDS (Access on Apr. 2012)). Besides, the value is lower than the saturated vapour pressure concentration (0.33 mg/L), but due to the description of a concentration of "aerosol" (ACGIH (2006)), it was regarded as a test with the dust.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Category 1A


Danger
H314 P301+P330+P331
P303+P361+P353
P305+P351+P338
P304+P340
P260
P264
P280
P310
P321
P363
P405
P501
It was classified in Category 1 because it is reported that corrosivity was seen after 24-hour occlusive application of 150-250 mg of a 50% solution to the rabbit skin (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and as a result of the 24-hour occlusive application of 500 mg to the skin of four rabbits, two animals died, severe erythema and edema were observed, and the primary skin irritation index was 7.66 (maximum 8) (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)). Furthermore, it was classified in Category 1A because the 30-second application of 0.5 mL of a 75% solution to the rabbit skin produced necrosis (SIDS (Access on Apr. 2012)). Besides, it is described that the pH of this substance was 1 or less (800 g/L, 20 deg C) (IUCLID (2000)). And in humans, many cases are reported in which accidental exposure caused burns of the body surface, including fatal cases (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR 52 (2005)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 1


Danger
H318 P305+P351+P338
P280
P310
In a test in which 100 mg was applied to the conjunctival sac of rabbits, severe signs of irritation and discolored and corroded eyelids and mucous membranes were observed (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)), and it is reported that extreme irritation was seen in another test in which 100 mg was applied to the conjunctival sac of rabbits, mean irritation scores at 24, 48, 72 hours were 3 for conjunctival redness, 3 for chemosis, and 4 for the cornea, the iris could not be evaluated due to the corneal opacity, and there was no recovery after seven days (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 1. Besides, this substance is also corrosive to the skin, and it is described that pH was 1 or less (800 g/L, 20 deg C) (IUCLID (2000)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
4 Skin sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - It is described that it was not sensitizing in a skin sensitization test with rabbits (open epicutaneous test) (Initial Risk Assessment Report Ver.1.0, 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). However, because the test method is not the one approved by OECD, and test details are unknown, it was classified as "Classification not possible." Besides, although the data obtained so far are not considered acceptable with regard to the regulatory requirements, based on the wide practical experience with this substance and the absence of any case reports on allergy at the ideal conditions for the induction of contact allergy, it is concluded in EU-RAR 52 (2005) that further testing is not required.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - It was classified as "Not classified" from negative results in chromosomal aberration tests with bone marrow cells after oral or subcutaneous administration to mice (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). As for other in vivo tests, it is reported that DNA damage tests with somatic cells of mice and rats (in vivo somatic cell genotoxicity test) were negative (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and as for in vitro tests, it was all negative in an Ames test (NTP DB (Access on Jan. 2012)), an HGPRT test with Chinese hamster V79 cells (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and a chromosomal aberration test with CHO cells (NTP DB (Access on Jan. 2012)) and positive in a mouse lymphoma test (NTP DB (Access on Jan. 2012)). Besides, an in-vivo chromosomal aberration test with bone marrow cells after intraperitoneal administration (single or 5-day consecutive) to mice (in vivo somatic cell mutagenicity test) gave a positive result (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)), however, it is described in EU-RAR 52 (2005) that "the relevance of the positive finding is not clear because of the limited description of the test, and based on the available data, it is concluded that this substance is not a genotoxic compound."
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - It was classified as "Classification not possible" because ACGIH classified it in A4 (ACGIH (2006)). Besides, it is reported that in carcinogenicity tests by 2-year oral administration to rats and mice, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in males and females of either animal species (NTP TR 396 (1992)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - In a test by oral administration to pregnant rats during the organogenesis period, maternal animals in the high dose group (140 mg/kg/day) showed reduced weight gain, and increased heart malformations (mainly levocardia) are reported in fetuses, but it is described that there is no full test report but a summary, and the details are unknown (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). And in a test with rats dosed by drinking water during a gestation period (gestational days 1-20), maternal animals in the 1,570 ppm group (equivalent to 59.9 mg/kg/day) had reduced weight gain, but no effects were observed in fetuses, especially no incidence of heart malformations was reported (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). As to the test results above, it is described in Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008) that these were inappropriate tests due to insufficient dose setting, etc., and it is described in EU-RAR 52 (2005) that a developmental toxicity test should be performed, and based on its result, the performance of a one-generation or two-generation reproductive test may be considered, and the conclusion was put on hold. From the reasons above, it was classified as "Classification not possible."
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidney), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation)



Danger
Warning
H370
H335
P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P312
As symptoms from acute exposure to this substance, starting from cutaneous damage due to corrosivity, systemic toxicity is delayed, vomiting and diarrhea occur initially, followed by central nervous system disturbances such as hyperexcitability, disorientation, convulsions, and coma, and there are descriptions of arrhythmia, tachycardia, and cardiovascular shock with non-specific myocardial damage and ventricular contractions, and renal failure, which is probably caused by cardiovascular shock (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)). As for human case reports, a 47-year-old worker had the legs exposed and burned and developed nausea, vomiting, cardiovascular dysfunction such as arrhythmia, blood pressure drop, and acidosis, and neurological dysfunction such as loss of consciousness and coma after 4 hours (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), a 38-year-old driver was exposed to an 80% solution of this substance and burned and developed blood pressure drop and excitement after 1 hour, followed by cardiovascular dysfunction, decreased renal function, and loss of consciousness (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Also, in humans, cardiovascular disorders and neurological dysfunction were seen in a person who accidentally ingested and died (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)) and a person who had severe burns from dermal exposure to a high concentration and died (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Based on the above knowledge, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidney). In animal tests, neurobehavioral effects, front limb paralysis, etc. were reported after oral or dermal administration to rats, mice, or rabbits (EU-RAR 52 (2005), SIDS (Access on Apr. 2012)). On the other hand, it is reported that as a result of exposing rats, mice, and guinea pigs to vapour at 27 mg/L for 3, 5, or 10 minutes, or 31 mg/L for one minute, there was no mortality in either animal species, and signs of nasal discharge, lung hyperemia, lacrimation, and dyspnea were observed (ECETOC JACC 38 (1999)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 2 (heart, liver)


Warning
H373 P260
P314
P501
It was classified in Category 2 (heart) because, in a 13-week repeated oral administration test with rats, the incidence and severity of degenerative and inflammatory changes in the heart increased in both males and females in the groups at or above 60 mg/kg/day (NTP TR 396 (1992)). And dose-dependent and significant increases in ALT and AST activities in males and females at or above 60 mg/kg/day and a significant decrease in cholinesterase activity at or above 30 mg/kg/day were observed, and these changes suggested the possibility of hepatic toxicity. And in a 90-day drinking water administration test with rats, decreased liver weight, and bile duct proliferation, edema, and an increased number of inflammatory cells in the liver portal vein were reported at 180 ppm (equivalent to 19 mg/kg/day) (Initial Risk Assessment Report 102 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (liver). Besides, in humans, it is reported that no adverse effects were seen in three volunteers who ingested 300 mL of a 0.05% aqueous solution of this substance for 60 days (NTP TR 396 (1992)), but there are almost no data on toxic effects after repeated exposure in humans.
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 72-hour ErC50 = 0.033 mg/L for algae (Desmodesmus subspicatus) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 due to being rapidly degradable (readily biodegradable (a 3-week degradation rate by BOD: 96%) (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1976)), and 72-hour NOEC = 0.0058 mg/L for algae (Desmodesmus subspicatus) (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