NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	79-10-7
Chemical Name	Acrylic acid
Substance ID	H26-B-001, R-001
Classification year (FY)	FY2014
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)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2013 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 3	Warning	H226	P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501	It was classified in Category 3 based on a flash point 54 deg C (closed cup) (ICSC (2013)). Besides, it is classified in Class 8, Subsidiary Risk 3, PGII (UN2218, stabilized) in UNRTDG.
7	Flammable solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Type G	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group (unsaturated bond) associated with self-reactive properties present in the molecule. According to Transportation Standards and the like of Dangerous Goods by Ship, Article 5 (1) 5-iii, acrylic acid which does not contain the specified amount of a stabilizer is transport-prohibited substances. It is estimated that a pure substance and its mixture correspond to Type A. A stabilized one is classified in Type G. As a stabilizer, 0.02% p-methoxyphenol is used (EU-RAR (2008)).
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 360 deg C (ICSC (2013)).
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 in the molecule
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)	Category 4	Warning	H302	P301+P312 P362+P364 P264 P270 P330 P501	There are multiple reports of oral LD50 values within the range of 33.5-3,200 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012), PATTY (6th, 2012), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR (2002), ACGIH (7th, 2001), EHC 191 (1997), IARC 19 (1979), ECETOC JACC (1995)) for rats. Based on the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government, it was classified in Category 4 to which the larger number of data corresponds (340 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001), EHC 191 (1997), ECETOC JACC (1995), IARC 19 (1979)), 1,250 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001), ECETOC JACC (1995)), 1,337 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012)), 1,350 mg/kg (EHC 191 (1997), EU-RAR (2002), ECETOC JACC (1995)), 1,500 mg/kg (ECETOC JACC (1995))).
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 3	Danger	H311	P302+P352 P280 P312 P321 P361 P364 P405 P501	Based on reports of dermal LD50 values of 300-600 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)) for rats, and dermal LD50 values of 280 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012)), 294 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012)), 295 mg/kg (IARC 19 (1979), EHC 191 (1997), ECETOC JACC (1995)), 300 mg/kg (EU-RAR (2002)), 640 mg/kg (EHC 191 (1997), EU-RAR (2002), ECETOC JACC (1995)), 640 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012)), 750 mg/kg (IARC 19 (1979), EHC 191 (1997), ECETOC JACC (1995)), 950 mg/kg (IARC 19 (1979), EHC 191 (1997)), and 295-950 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)) for rabbits, it was classified in Category 3.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Category 3	Danger	H331	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P311 P321 P405 P501	There are 3 reports of LC50 values in a 4-hour inhalation of 3.6 mg/L (1,221 ppm) (EHC 191 (1997), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), IARC 19 (1979), EU-RAR (2002), ECETOC JACC (1995), PATTY (6th, 2012)), > 5.1 mg/L (> 1,740 ppm) (EHC 191 (1997), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR (2002), ECETOC JACC (1995)) and 14.4 mg/L (4,522 ppm) (PATTY (6th, 2012)) for rats. One each corresponds to Category 3 and Category 4, and one is data, by which the category cannot be specified, therefore, it was classified in Category 3 to which the smallest value of the LC50 values corresponds. Since the LC50 value was lower than the 90% of the saturated vapor concentration (5,222 ppm), the reference value in units of ppm was applied as a vapour without a mist.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Category 4	Warning	H332	P304+P340 P261 P271 P312	Based on reports of 11,100 mg/m3 (1 hour (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 2.75 mg/L)), 26,000 mg/m3 (0.5 hour (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 3.25 mg/L)), and 7,500 mg/m3 (2 hours (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 3.75 mg/L)) (EHC 191 (1997), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)) as LC50 values for rats using the aerosol, it was classified in Category 4. Besides, although when each LC50 value for 1, 0.5 and 2-hour exposures described above is converted to 4-hour equivalent value as the aerosol (mist), it is lower than the saturated vapor concentration (15.4 mg/L) and corresponds to the vapour. However, based on the report that it is the test with the aerosol (EHC 191 (1997)), the reference values in units of mg/L for the dust and mist were applied.
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	There is a report that in a skin irritation test (OECD TG compliant) in which the undiluted liquid of this substance was applied semi-occlusively to rabbits for 3 minutes, superficial necrosis, slight edema, and discoloration were observed, and on histopathological examination, deep focal necrosis and loss of epidermal adnexa in the necrosis area, and perifocal moderate epithelial hyperplasia and diffuse inflammatory reaction were observed in the application area (EU-RAR (2002)). In addition, there is a report that as a result of a 1-minute application of the undiluted liquid of this substance to rabbits, a corrosive reaction was observed (EU-RAR (2002), ECETOC JACC (1995)). Moreover, in humans, 2 workers needed hospitalisation because of skin corrosion during 1967-1992 (EU-RAR (2002)). Based on the above results, it was classified in Category 1A. Besides, it was classified as "C, R35" in the EU DSD classification, and "Skin Corr. 1A, H314" in the EU CLP classification.
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 1	Danger	H318	P305+P351+P338 P280 P310	In an eye irritation test with rabbits, application of the undiluted solution showed severe irritation, and it is reported that scarring of the eyelid and corneal opacity persisted 20 days after administration (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EHC 191 (1997), EU-RAR (2002)). In addition, there is a description that it is irritating to the eyes in humans (PATTY (6th, 2012)). Based on the above results, it was classified in Category 1.
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Not classified	- -	-	-	In humans, it is reported that no sensitization symptom has been observed in more than 450 workers using industrial products of acrylic acid since 1989 (EU-RAR (2002)). In addition, there are both positive and negative results in experimental animals. In a modified split adjuvant test with guinea pigs, skin reaction was observed in 0/10 animals so it was negative (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EHC 191 (1997), EU-RAR (2002)). In a modified split adjuvant test with guinea pigs, purified acrylic acid was negative, however commercial acrylic acid was positive (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR (2002)). Besides, it is described in EU-RAR (2002) and SIAP (2001) that impurities and polymerization inhibitors contained in acrylic acid showed skin sensitization but purified acrylic acid does not. Based on these results, it was judged that acrylic acid itself does not cause skin sensitization, and it was classified as "Not classified."
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Classification not possible" because it was not possible to classify a substance as "Not classified" according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. As for in vivo, it was negative in a mouse dominant lethal test and a chromosomal aberration test with rat bone marrow cells (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012), EU-RAR (2002)). As for in vitro, it was negative in bacterial reverse mutation tests and a mammalian cell gene mutation test (HGPRT Gene locus) (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008) and EU-RAR (2002)), but it was positive in mouse lymphoma tests and a chromosomal aberration test with cultured mammalian cells (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR (2002)). Furthermore, it was positive in an adduct formation test with the thymus DNA of a calf (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012)) and it was negative in an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with cultured rat primary hepatocytes, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test and a micronucleus test with Syrian hamster embryo cells (SHE) (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012), EU-RAR (2002)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Classification not possible" because it was classified in Group 3 by IARC (IARC 71 (1999)) and A4 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2001)). Besides, no carcinogenicity was observed in 2-year (104-week) inhalation carcinogenicity tests with rats and mice (both of the Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) (Access on May 2014)). In addition, it is reported in SIAP (2001) and EU-RAR (2002) that "there is no evidence that acrylic acid administered orally to rats or applied dermally to mice is carcinogenic, and there are no carcinogenicity data available related to human exposure." The category was revised according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Although no effect on fertility was observed in a two-generation reproductive toxicity test with rats by the oral route (drinking water), decreased body weight gain and delayed development and differentiation (delayed eustachian tube opening and delayed eyelid opening) were found in pups at doses where general toxicity (decreased body weight gain, slight hyperkeratosis in the limiting ridge of the forestomach with slight edema in the glandular stomach mucosa) was seen in parental animals (PATTY (6th, 2012)). As for a teratogenicity test, in a test with rats by the inhalation route, a low value of fetal weight was observed at doses where maternal toxicity was observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Besides, in Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012) which referred to the same literature, there was a description of "increased fetal resorption and fetal deaths," however, in the original report (Saillenfait et al., 1999), effects were denied since there was no difference in increases in fetal resorption and fetal death observed between the groups. Furthermore, in a study with rabbits by the inhalation route, no developmental effects in the fetuses were observed at doses where maternal toxicity was seen (EU-RAR (2002)). As described above, although effects in fetuses were observed at doses where effects in maternal animals were seen, delayed development and differentiation and a low value of fetal weights corresponded to slight changes in the developmental indexes, therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible."
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (respiratory organs, kidney), Category 2 (liver)	Danger Warning	H370 H371	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	The following was reported in rats: by the oral route, degeneration and necrosis of the hepatocytes (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EHC 191 (1997)), and lethargy (EU-RAR (2002)); by the inhalation route, perinasal wetness due to respiratory irritation, encrustation, abdominal breathing, dyspnea, lethargy, unresponsiveness to irritation, strong irritation and severe inflammation in the bronchial mucosa, exudate into the bronchial lumen, macrophage in the alveoli, focal inflammation in the lung parenchyma, pulmonary hemorrhage, pulmonary edema, congestion of kidneys, and degeneration of hepatocytes and renal tubules (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR (2002), EHC 191 (1997), ECETOC JACC (1995) and ACGIH (7th, 2001)). In rabbits, by the dermal route, apathy, laboured respiration, poor general state, and pulmonary edema at necropsy (EU-RAR (2002)) and dyspnea (ECETOC JACC (1995)) were reported. Besides, effects on the respiratory organs and kidneys were observed within the guidance range value for Category 1 and effects on the liver were observed within the guidance range corresponding to Category 2. Based on the above, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs, kidney) and Category 2 (liver).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (respiratory organs)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	There are 3 test reports that rats were dosed by drinking water for 90 days in Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.10 (Ministry of the Environment, 2012), EU-RAR (2002) and ACGIH (7th, 2001). In one of these reports, there is a description that decreased body weight gain was observed only in males at a dose (2,000 ppm: corresponding to 100 mg/kg/day) of the upper limit of Category 2, but the target organ cannot be identified. In the other 2 reports, effects on the kidneys, gastrointestinal tract and liver were observed at doses exceeding Category 2, and this substance corresponded to "Not classified" for the oral route. On the other hand, in the inhalation route, in addition to the above information sources, according to Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) (Access on June 2014), based on the description that in multiple tests in which mice and rats were exposed to the vapour of this substance for 90 days or 2 years, tissue changes in the nasal cavity (degeneration, atrophy, and respiratory metaplasia of the olfactory epithelium, squamous metaplasia of the respiratory epithelium, atrophy of the bundle of the olfactory nerve fibers, eosinophilic changes in the nasopharynx, etc.) were observed from the concentrations of Category 1 (2-40 ppm: 0.0059-0.118 mg/L/6 hours/day), it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs). Besides, in the 90-day inhalation exposure test with mice, decreased hemoglobin concentrations were observed from the concentrations of Category 1, and effects on the blood system were suggested, however, adverse effects by exposure to this substance are considered to be limited to local effects on the nasal cavity because consistent systemic effects were not observed in other tests in rats and mice.
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.

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	From 72-hour ErC50 = 0.13 mg/L for algae (Desmodesmus subspicatus) (EU-RAR, 2002, EHC 191, 1997), it was classified in Category 1.
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Category 2	-	H411	P273 P391 P501	If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 2 due to being rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD = 67.8% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1975)), and 72-hour NOEC (growth rate) = 0.016 mg/L for algae (Desmodesmus subspicatus) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR, 2002). 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 being rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD = 67.8% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1975)), a low bioaccumulation estimate (log Kow = 0.35 (PHYSPROP Database, 2009)) despite 96-hour LC50 = 27 mg/L for fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), EU-RAR, 2002, EHC 191, 1997). By drawing a comparison between the above results, it was classified in Category 2.
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