Item | Information |
---|---|
CAS RN | 7681-52-9 |
Chemical Name | Sodium hypochlorite (aqueous solution) |
Substance ID | 25B0014 |
Classification year (FY) | FY2013 |
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 | FY2008 |
Download of Excel format | Excel file |
Item | Information |
---|---|
Guidance used for the classification (External link) | GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government (July, 2013) |
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 |
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) (aqueous solution) |
3 | Aerosols | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Not aerosol products. |
4 | Oxidizing gases | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
5 | Gases under pressure | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
6 | Flammable liquids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | Not combustible (ICSC (1999)). (aqueous solution) |
7 | Flammable solid | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
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 |
- |
- | - | Not combustible (ICSC (1999)). (aqueous solution) |
10 | Pyrophoric solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
11 | Self-heating substances and mixtures | Not classified |
- |
- | - | Not combustible (ICSC (1999)). (aqueous solution) |
12 | Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases | Not classified |
- |
- | - | Reacting with water is inconceivable because it is an aqueous solution. |
13 | Oxidizing liquids | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data available. Besides, it is classified in Class 8, PG II, III (UN1791) in UNRTDG. (aqueous solution) |
14 | Oxidizing solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
15 | Organic peroxides | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | It is an inorganic compound. |
16 | Corrosive to metals | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
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 = 8.8 g/kg for rats for a 12.5% solution (as available chlorine) (EU-RAR (2007)). Besides, there is a report of LD50 = 5,800 mg/kg for mice for a pure substance (PATTY (6th, 2012)). |
1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It was classified as "Not classified" from LD50 of > 10,000 mg/kg for rabbits (IUCLID (2000)). |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) (aqueous solution) |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | There are data of LC50 of > 10.5 mg/L for rats (IUCLID (2000)), but the classification is not possible because the exposure time is unknown. Besides, because the concentration was lower than 90% of the saturated vapour pressure concentration (75.1 mg/L), it was thought to be tested on vapour with little mist. |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
2 | Skin corrosion/irritation | Category 1 |
Danger |
H314 |
P301+P330+P331
P303+P361+P353 P305+P351+P338 P304+P340 P260 P264 P280 P310 P321 P363 P405 P501 |
In a test with rabbits and guinea pigs (FHSA method (equivalent to a Draize test)), slight irritation was observed in both species after application of 5-5.25% aqueous solutions of this substance. However, severe irritation was found in another skin irritation test with rabbits after the application of 6.25-12.5% aqueous solutions of this substance (EU-RAR (2007)). As for epidemiological data in humans, severe irritation was seen after the occlusive application of 5-5.25% aqueous solutions of this substance of pH 10.5 (EU-RAR (2007)). It is concluded in EU-RAR (2007) that the overall evaluation of both animal and human data supports the current EU classification as irritant above 5% and as corrosive above 10%. Furthermore, this substance is classified in "C; R34" in EU DSD classification and "Skin Corr. 1B H314" in EU CLP classification. It was classified in Category 1 based on the above information. Besides, it is described that in a test with rabbits (OECD TG 404), irritation scores for erythema and edema (total 8 points) were 1.2 for a 2% solution, 5.3 for a 20% solution, 5.2 for a 35% solution and 5.3 for a 50% solution (IUCLID, 2000), but it was not adopted because it is described in EU-RAR (2007) that the test was of low validity. |
3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 1 |
Danger |
H318 |
P305+P351+P338
P280 P310 |
In a Draize test with rabbits, after the application of an aqueous solution of this substance, slight irritation was observed for a 1.6% aqueous solution, but severe irritation was found for a 12.5% aqueous solution (EU-RAR (2007)). And in another Draize test with rabbits, after the application of a 50% solution of this substance, the score on day 21 in the case without washing was 48/110 (the score in the case with washing 4 minutes later was 27/110, and the score on day 21 was 0/110), and severe irritation was seen (IUCLID (2000)). As for epidemiological data in humans, it is reported that as a result of the accidental splash of a 5.25% solution into the eyes, a burning sensation and slight damage to the cornea occurred, and prompt rinsing of the eyes led to full recovery within 48 hours (EU-RAR (2007)). Furthermore, this substance is corrosive to the skin and is classified in "C; R34" in EU DSD classification and "Skin Corr. 1B H314" in EU CLP classification. It was classified in Category 1 based on the above information. |
4 | Respiratory sensitization | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
4 | Skin sensitization | Not classified |
- |
- | - | All of three skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs were negative, and both of two HRIPT (human repeat insult patch test) gave negative results. It was classified as "Not classified" because it is described that the likelihood of sensitization is practically negligible from the widespread use of sodium hypochlorite (EU-RAR (2007)). The classification was conducted based on the information in EU-RAR (2007), which was obtained in this investigation and added. Among tests in the rationale for the classification in 2008, one positive result in a test with guinea pigs and one epidemiological data in humans were removed from the rationale because the "validity 4" was given to them in EU-RAR (2007). |
5 | Germ cell mutagenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. As for in vivo, it is reported that it was negative in a chromosomal aberration test and a micronucleus test with mouse bone marrow cells (EU-RAR (2007)). As for in vitro, there are both negative and positive results in bacterial reverse mutation tests and chromosomal aberration tests with cultured mammalian cells (EU-RAR (2007)). |
6 | Carcinogenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | It was classified as "Classification not possible" because IARC classified it in Group 3. Besides, in a 104-week oral administration test (drinking water) with rats (IARC 52 (1991)) and a 103-week oral administration test (drinking water) with mice (IARC 52 (1991)), survival and the incidence of tumors were not significantly different from those in the control group, regardless of the concentrations of sodium hypochlorite. No carcinogenicity was observed either in another dermal test (IARC 52 (1991), NTP TR 392 (1992)). The category was changed according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. |
7 | Reproductive toxicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. There are no data on sodium hypochlorite, but there are descriptions of reproductive developmental toxicity data by the administration of hypochlorous acid or chlorine in EU-RAR (2007) as follows. No effects on fertility of parent animals or effects in offspring were observed in a seven-generation breeding test with rats by oral administration. And no effects on fertility of parent animals or effects in offspring were found either in an oral dose breeding test with rats. Furthermore, in an oral dose developmental toxicity test with rats, no abnormalities were seen in fetal weights, the external or skeletal system. The information in IARC 52 (1991) was deleted from the rationale because it was impossible to identify it as the information on this substance, and the information in EU-RAR (2007), which was obtained in this investigation, was added as a reference. |
8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 3 (Respiratory tract irritation) |
Warning |
H335 |
P304+P340
P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501 |
In EU-RAR (2007), there is a case report of persons who were exposed in the swimming pool and developed ocular and upper respiratory irritation, and it is described that respiratory irritation was observed in an experiment in which mice were exposed by inhalation to the aerosols. Therefore, it was classified in Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation). |
9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 2 (systemic toxicity) |
Warning |
H373 |
P260
P314 P501 |
In 3-month or 2-year tests with rats by drinking water administration, only systemic effects such as reduced weight gain were observed at the doses (about 200 mg/kg/day or above) above the guidance value range (EU-RAR (2007)). However, in a 2-year drinking water administration test with mice, lower values of body weights were found at the dose (equivalent to 58 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 2 (EU-RAR (2007)), but there were no abnormalities in pathological examinations. Because the target organ is unknown, it was classified in Category 2 (systemic toxicity). Besides, the previous classification was conducted based on the information source in List 2, but this time, the classification was conducted using the information in EU-RAR, which was the information source in List 1 and was obtained in this investigation. |
10 | Aspiration hazard | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
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 |
From 24-hour LC50 = 5 microg FAC/L for crustacea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (EU-RAR, 2007), it was classified in Category 1. (FAC = free available chlorine) |
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 because this substance is a metal compound, and appropriate data on rapid degradability were not obtained, and due to 134-day NOEC = 5 microg TRC/L for fish (EU-RAR, 2007). If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 1 because this substance is a metal compound, and appropriate data on rapid degradability were not obtained, and due to 24-hour LC50 = 5 microg FAC/L for crustacea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (EU-RAR, 2007). From the above results, it was classified in Category 1. (TRC = total residual chlorine, FAC = free available chlorine) |
12 | Hazardous to the ozone layer | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol. |
|