GHS Classification Result
GENERAL INFORMATION
REFERENCE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
NOTE:
GENERAL INFORMATION
| Item | Information |
|---|---|
| CAS RN | 107-18-6 |
| Chemical Name | Allyl alcohol |
| Substance ID | H29-B-072 |
| Classification year (FY) | FY2017 |
| 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 | FY2009 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 |
| 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 2 |
 Danger |
H225 |
P303+P361+P353
P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501 |
Based on a flash point of 21 deg C (closed cup), and a boiling point of 97 deg C (ICSC (J) (2000)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, it is classified in Division 6.1, Subsidiary risk 3, PGI in UNRTDG (UN 1098). |
| 7 | Flammable solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
| 8 | Self-reactive substances and mixtures | Type G |
- |
- | - | There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties (ethylene group) in the molecule, but because it is classified in Division 6.1, Subsidiary risk 3, PGI in UNRTDG (UN 1098), it does not correspond to self-reactive substances and mixtures, hazard class with the highest precedence. |
| 9 | Pyrophoric liquids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 378 deg C (ICSC (J) (2000)). |
| 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 | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It is not corrosive to metals (HSDB (Access on July 2017)). |
| 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 |
Based on reported LD50 values for rats of 64 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), 70 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), SIDS (2016)), 99 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), SIDS (2016)), and 105 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), SIDS (2016)), it was classified in Category 3. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Category 1 |
Danger |
H310 |
P302+P352
P361+P364 P262 P264 P270 P280 P310 P321 P405 P501 |
There are two reports of LD50 values for rabbits of 45 mg/kg (DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), PATTY (6th, 2012)) and 89 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), SIDS (2016)), and one case corresponds to Category 1, and the other corresponds to Category 2. By adopting the category with higher hazard, it was classified in Category 1. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Category 2 |
Danger |
H330 |
P304+P340
P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501 |
Based on reported LC50 values in 4-hour inhalation exposure tests for rats of 0.300-0.330 mg/L (124-137 ppm) (SIDS (2016)) and 165 ppm (DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), PATTY (6th, 2012)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, a reference value of the unit of ppm was applied as vapour with little mist because the exposure concentrations were lower than 90% of the saturated vapour pressure concentration (33,515 ppm). |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
| 2 | Skin corrosion/irritation | Category 2 |
 Warning |
H315 |
P302+P352
P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321 |
There are reports of mild irritation or no irritation in skin irritation tests with rabbits (SIDS (2016), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)), however, there is a description that skin contact with this substance resulted in corrosion and pain in the deeper-lying muscles in humans (DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), PATTY (6th, 2012)). Based on the above, it was classified in Category 2. Besides, this substance was classified as "Skin Irrit. 2" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on June 2017)). |
| 3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 2A |
Warning |
H319 |
P305+P351+P338
P337+P313 P264 P280 |
There are descriptions that in an eye irritation test (Directive 84/449/EEC, B.5) with rabbits, it was irritating to the eyes and that also in other multiple tests with rabbits, this substance was irritating to the eyes (SIDS (2016), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), PATTY (6th, 2012)). There is a report that in a case of a splash accident in humans, corneal burns occurred (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004)), and a report of transient blindness (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), but both were reversible symptoms. From the above, it was classified in Category 2A. Besides, this substance was classified as "Eye Irrit. 2, H 319" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on June 2017)). |
| 4 | Respiratory sensitization | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
| 4 | Skin sensitization | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | There is a description that in a skin sensitization test (OECD TG 406 compliant) with guinea pigs, none of the test animals showed a positive reaction (positive ratio: 0/20), and it was not a skin sensitizer (SIDS (2016)), however, since information on other animal tests and humans could not be obtained, it was classified as "Classification not possible." |
| 5 | Germ cell mutagenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | The substance 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 all negative in a dominant lethal test with rats, a micronucleus test with rat peripheral blood, and a micronucleus test with mouse bone marrow cells (SIDS (2016), DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004)). As for in vitro, it was positive in a bacterial reverse mutation test, a mammalian cell gene mutation test, and a mouse lymphoma test (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), SIDS (2016), DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004)). |
| 6 | Carcinogenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | In a 2-year carcinogenicity test with rats dosed by drinking water, there was no clear evidence of carcinogenicity in males, but in females there was an increased incidence of neoplastic nodules and carcinomas in the liver, and this was concluded as equivocal evidence for carcinogenicity (SIDS (2016)). As for the classification by other organizations, ACGIH classified it in A4 (ACGIH (7th, 2015)). From the above, it was classified as "Classification not possible." |
| 7 | Reproductive toxicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - |
In a reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 421) with rats dosed by gavage, at the high dose (40 mg/kg/day) at which liver effects (enlargement, yellowish patches, and rough surface of the liver) were observed in maternal animals, hyperplasia of the luteal cells in the ovary, extension of sexual cycle and irregularity of the sexual cycle in females and a decrease in the viability index on postnatal day 4 in the pups were observed, but the adverse effect in the pups was considered as a secondary effect due to maternal toxicity (SIDS (2016)). In addition, when male rats were dosed by gavage for 11 weeks and mated with untreated females every week during that period, no effects on male fertility were observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), PATTY (6th, 2012), DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001)). Other than these, in a developmental toxicity test with pregnant rats dosed by gavage on gestational day 6-19, at 35 mg/kg/day or above where severe general toxicities (death, decreased body weight gain, a decrease in feed consumption, liver effects, etc.) were observed in maternal animals, an increase in females with total litter loss was observed, but this fetal death was considered to be due to severe maternal toxicity (SIDS (2016), PATTY (6th, 2012)). From the above, since the increase in fetal death is attributed to severe maternal toxicity, it was classified as "Classification not possible" according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification ("Not classified"). |
| 8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 1 (central nervous system, liver, 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 for humans, two accident cases were reported who inhaled the steam diffused into the room when this substance was spilled by mistake on the floor or clothes, and it is described that both produced gastrointestinal tract disorders with nausea and vomiting, and severe headaches, and in one case, slight hemoptysis was seen, however, resolved afterwards (ACGIH (7th, 2001), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). As for experimental animals, there is a report that in a single oral administration test with rats, apathy, ataxia, aggression, flushing of the skin, and diarrhea were observed, and on necropsy of the death cases, congestion and edema of the lungs and discoloration of the liver were seen. Although there were no detailed descriptions of the doses where these effects were observed, it is considered to be within the range of Category 1, which is in the vicinity of LD50 values of 95-105 mg/kg (SIDS (2016)). It is reported that in another single oral administration study with rats, periportal necrosis of the hepatocytes was observed at 30-40 mg/kg within the range for Category 1 (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). As for the inhalation route, there is a report that in a test in which rats were exposed by inhalation to 0.095-5.45 mg/L of the vapor of this substance for 1, 4 or 8 hours, coma and diarrhea were seen, and as the histopathological findings in the death cases, congestion of the lungs, congestion and necrosis of the liver, red casts and cloudy swelling in the kidney were observed (SIDS (2016), SIDS Dossier (2016)). In addition, a transient decrease in the respiratory rate was observed due to inhalation exposure to this substance in a sensory irritation test with mice, and it was considered to indicate respiratory irritation (DFGOT Vol. 15 (2001), SIDS (2016)). Based on the above information, the central nervous system, liver and kidney are considered to be the target organs of this substance, and it shows respiratory tract irritation. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system, liver, kidney), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation). Regarding an effect on the lung that was adopted as the target organs in the previous classification, it was not adopted this time because the finding concerned is one in dead animals and may be a secondary effect. Therefore, the classification result was changed. |
| 9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (liver) |
Danger |
H372 |
P260
P264 P270 P314 P501 |
No information on humans is available. As for experimental animals, in 14-week repeated oral dose toxicity tests with rats and mice, in rats, hyperplasia of the squamous epithelium in the forestomach at or above 6 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 4.7 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 1, and an increase in the liver weight, bile duct hyperplasia, hypertrophy of periportal hepatocytes, and abnormal sexual cycle (prolongation of diestrus, shortening of metestrus) at 25 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 19.4 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 2 were observed, and in mice, hyperplasia of the squamous epithelium of the forestomach at or above 12 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 9.3 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 1, and vacuolization of periportal hepatocytes at or above 25 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 19.4 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 2 was observed (NTP TOX 48 (2006)). In addition, in 90-day toxicity test with rats dosed by drinking water, at 70 mg/kg/day within the guidance value range for Category 2, hepatocellular necrosis with regeneration was observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), SIDS (2016)). In a 12-week inhalation toxicity test (7 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats, decreased body weight gain at or above 20 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.04 mg/L) within the guidance value range for Category 1, and an increase in relative lung weight, gasping, severe depression, nasal bleeding, eye irritation, and corneal opacity at or above 40 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.07 mg/L) were observed, and at or above 60 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.11 mg/L), death and an increase in the relative kidney weight were observed. In addition, at 150 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.19 mg/L), all cases died due to 1-10 exposures, and hepatic bleeding, lung discoloration and intestinal tract congestion were seen (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), SIDS (2016)). Other than these, there is a report that in a 5-week inhalation toxicity tests with rats, rabbits, or guinea pigs, at 7 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.006 mg/L) within the guidance value range for Category 1, in all the animal species, sinusoidal dilation of the liver, cloudy swelling and focal necrosis of hepatocytes, glomerulonephritis-like changes, necrosis of the renal tubular epithelium, and an increase of interstitial tissue in the kidney were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). However, it is described in the Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007) that since the details of the experimental conditions and data in this study were unknown, it could not be evaluated, and it was not cited in SIDS (2016) as reliability could not be evaluated. From the above, the data on the 5-week inhalation toxicity test was poor in reliability, the finding of the forestomach was considered to be due to irritation, and they were not adopted as rationale for the classification. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (liver). Besides, because the data of the 5-week inhalation toxicity test was not adopted, and the kidney was excluded from the target organ, the classification result was different from the previous classification. |
| 10 | Aspiration hazard | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, the kinetic viscosity was calculated to be 1.426 mm2/sec (25 deg C) based on the numerical data (viscosity: 1.218 mPa*s (25 deg C), density (specific gravity): 0.8540) listed in HSDB (Access on June 2017). |
| 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 96-hour LC50 = 0.25 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004)), it was classified in Category 1. |
| 11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) | Category 3 |
- |
H412 |
P273
P501 |
If chronic toxicity data are used, it was classified in Category 3 due to being rapidly degradable (readily biodegradable, a degradation rate by BOD: 86% (J-CHECK, 1976)), no bioaccumulation (logKow: 0.17 (PHYSPROP Database: 2010)), and 21-day NOEC (reproduction inhibition) = 0.919 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004), Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). |
| 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. |