GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 100-52-7
Chemical Name Benzaldehyde
Substance ID H27-B-16-METI/M-029B_P
Classification year (FY) FY2015
Ministry who conducted the classification Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)/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 (Ver. 1.1))
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
Based on a flash point of 63 deg C (closed cup) (ICSC (2006)), it was classified in Category 4. Besides, it is classified in Class 9: miscellaneous hazardous materials, PGIII (UN 1990) in UNRTDG, and it is subject to regulations on container/transportation unit. However, a class which corresponds to GHS classification category for flammable liquids is not allocated in UNRTDG.
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 192 deg C (ICSC (2006)).
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
P264
P270
P330
P501
There are 9 cases of reported LD50 values for rats of 1,292 mg/kg (female) (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)), 1,300 mg/kg (male, female) (3 cases) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), SIDS (2002), NTP TR378 (1990), JECFA FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series 44a (1967)), 1,502 mg/kg (male), 2,279 mg/kg (male), 2,400 mg/kg, 2,850 mg/kg (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)), and 1,300-2,850 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Since 5 cases correspond to Category 4, and 3 cases correspond to "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification), it was classified in Category 4 by adopting the category with a larger number of data. Besides, since one case is a value that is a summary of multiple data, it was not adopted for this classification.
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, there is a report of an LD50 value of > 1,250 mg/kg for rabbits (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), SIDS (2002), NTP TR378 (1990)), but the category cannot be determined only from this data.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - There is a report that itching, burns, and hyperemia were observed in humans exposed to this substance, but they recovered upon removal of the substance (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). There is also a report that irritation was not observed as a result of occlusive application of this substance (4%) to volunteers for 48 hours (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). As for animal tests, it is reported that irritation was not observed by the application of this substance in a test with guinea pigs (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). From the above, it was classified as "Not classified" (Category 3 in UN GHS classification). Besides, in this reclassification, the category was changed according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government or by a review of the information sources. In addition, there are two reports that in skin irritation tests with rabbits, as a result of the application of this substance for 24 hours, moderate irritation was observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). However, they were not adopted for the classification due to the 24-hour application tests.
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 2A


Warning
H319 P305+P351+P338
P337+P313
P264
P280
There are reports that in an eye irritation test with rabbits, as a result of application of this substance, moderate irritation was observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and eye irritation, blepharospasm, lacrimation, and conjunctival hyperemia were seen (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). In addition, there is a report that in another eye irritation test with rabbits, mild irritation was observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). Furthermore, there is a report of eye irritation in volunteers who were exposed to this substance (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). From the above, since moderate irritation was reported in animal tests, it was classified in Category 2A. Besides, in this reclassification, the category was changed according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government or by the review of the information sources.
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - There are reports that in a maximization test with guinea pigs, sensitization by this substance was not observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), SIDS (2002)), and that it was negative in an open epicutaneous test with guinea pigs (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). On the other hand, there is one report that it was positive in a maximization test (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). As for humans, there are reports that positive reactions were observed in 10 as a result of the patch test on 100 volunteers (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), NTP TR 378 (1990), SIDS (2002), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)), and that sensitization was not observed in the patch test in 25 volunteers (NTP TR 378 (1990), SIDS (2002), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). It is stated in DFGOT that this substance was widely used in general and could not be judged to have a sensitizing potential only from a few case reports of sensitization (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)). From the above, it was classified as "Classification not possible" for this hazard class. The category was changed based on the description in DFGOT.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data. There is no in vivo data. As for in vitro, bacterial reverse mutation tests were negative, and as for tests with cultured mammalian cells, a mouse lymphoma test was positive, and there were negative and positive results in chromosomal aberration tests (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), SIDS (2002), NTP TR378 (1990)).
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is no information on human carcinogenicity. As for experimental animals, in a 2-year carcinogenicity test with rats or mice dosed by gavage, no increase in tumor development was observed at up to 400 mg/kg/day in both sexes in rats, however, in mice, a slight increase in the incidence of squamous epithelial papillomas of the forestomach was observed at 400 mg/kg/day in males and at 300 and 600 mg/kg/day in females. Hyperplasia in the forestomach was also observed in these groups, and this was regarded as tumor development from administration of the test substance (NTP TR 378 (1990), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), SIDS (2002)). Regarding the results of this test, it is concluded in NTP that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in female and male rats, and some evidence of carcinogenicity in female and male mice (NTP TR 378 (1990), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014)). On the other hand, it is stated in DFGOT that the squamous epithelial papillomas of the forestomach in mice were probably due to an irritation effect by this substance and are not applicable to humans because they were tumors at a species-specific site, and it was concluded that there is no evidence for carcinogenicity of this substance in either rats or mice (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)).
From the above, it is unclear at this moment whether the tumor development of the forestomach in mice could be evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and there are also no classification results by other organizations. Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data.
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, there is a report of unknown details that after 5 mg/kg of this substance were orally administered to female rats on alternate days for 32 weeks including the mating period, they were mated with untreated males, but no effect due to the administration of this substance was found in the number of pregnant animals, the number of pups born, and the postnatal body weight and the survival rate (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014), SIDS (2002)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 2 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects)



Warning
H371
H335
H336
P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P405
P501
P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P312
This substance is irritating to the respiratory tract in humans, and other than reports of sore throat by inhalation exposure or oral ingestion (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), HSDB (Access on November 2015), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014)), there are reports of narcotic effects (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002), HSDB (Access on November 2015)).
As for experimental animals, narcotic effects, coma, sedation, tremors, and paralysis of the hind legs were observed in oral administration (1,000-2,850 mg/kg, equivalent to Category 2) to rats (DFGOT Vol. 17 (2002)).
From the above, this substance has the property of respiratory tract irritation and narcotic effects other than effects on the central nervous system, and it was classified in Category 2 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects). Besides, in this reclassification, findings from SIDS in the previous classification could not be confirmed. In addition, the information sources were reviewed.
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 2 (central nervous system, haemal system, liver, respiratory organs)


Warning
H373 P260
P314
P501
There are no data on humans.
As for experimental animals, in a 14-day inhalation toxicity test with rats, at 1,000 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.68 mg/L), which is within the range of Category 2, disorders of the central nervous system such as abnormal gait, convulsions and straub tail, decreases in erythrocytes and values of hemoglobin and hematocrit, an increase in absolute and relative liver weight, and increased AST concentration in the serum were observed, and in a 4-week inhalation toxicity test with guinea pigs, at 500 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.48 mg/L), which was within the range of Category 2, metaplasia/hyperplasia of the respiratory epithelia was seen (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (central nervous system, haemal system, liver, respiratory organs).
Besides, the description in the previous classification that "depression was seen in small amounts, and convulsions were seen in large amounts" in humans, is considered to be a description of an acute effect.
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, the kinematic viscosity is calculated to be 1.258 mm2/sec (25/15 deg C) from the numerical data (viscosity: 1.321 m*Pas (25 deg C), density (specific gravity): 1.050 (15 deg C)) listed on HSDB (Access on November 2015).

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
From 96-hour LC50 = 1.07 mg/L for fish (Lepomis macrochirus) (SIDS, 2002, ECETOC TR91, 2003, Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014)), it was classified in Category 2.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 3
-
-
H412 P273
P501
If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 3 due to being rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by 14-day BOD = 66%, a degradation rate by TOC = 98%, a degradation rate by HPLC = 100% (Official Bulletin of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, 1980)), and 7-day NOEC (lethal, growth) = 0.22 mg/L for fish (Pimephales promelas) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
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 rapid degradability and a low bioaccumulation estimate (log Kow = 1.48 (PHYSPROP Database, 2009)) although 48-hour EC50 = 50 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 12 (Ministry of the Environment, 2014)).
By drawing a comparison between the above results, it was classified in Category 3.
12 Hazardous to the ozone layer Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.


NOTE:
* A blank or "-" in a cell of classification denotes that the classification of the hazard class was not conducted.
* Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement will show when hovering the mouse over a code of Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement.
Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement are also provided in the Excel file.
* Classification was conducted by relevant Japanese Ministries in accordance with GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government,
and is intended to provide a reference for preparing GHS labelling and SDS for users.
* This is a provisional English translation of classification results and is subject to revision without notice.
* The responsibility for any resulting GHS labelling and SDS referenced from this site is with users.
* Codes assigned to each of the hazard statements and codes for each of the precautionary statement are
based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) in United Nations.

To GHS Information