GHS Classification Result
GENERAL INFORMATION
REFERENCE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
NOTE:
GENERAL INFORMATION
| Item | Information |
|---|---|
| CAS RN | 75-15-0 |
| Chemical Name | Carbon disulfide |
| Substance ID | H29-B-074 |
| 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 | 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 1 |
 Danger |
H224 |
P303+P361+P353
P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501 |
Because a flash point is -30 deg C (closed cup), a boiling point is 46 deg C (ICSC (J) (2000)), and an initial boiling point is unknown, it is not possible to judge if it corresponds to Category 1 or 2. However, it was classified in Category 1 from a viewpoint of safety. Besides, it is classified in Class 3, Subsidiary risk 6.1, PGI in UNRTDG (UN 1131). |
| 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 90 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 inorganic compound containing no oxygen or halogen, or an organic compound containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine. |
| 14 | Oxidizing solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
| 15 | Organic peroxides | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | It is an inorganic compound. |
| 16 | Corrosive to metals | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Test methods applicable to low-temperature-boiling liquids are not available. |
| Hazard class | Classification |
Pictogram Signal word |
Hazard statement (code) |
Precautionary statement (code) |
Rationale for the classification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Oral) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | Based on a report of an LD50 value of 3,188 mg/kg (HSDB (Access on June 2017)) for rats, it was classified as "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification). The category was changed from the previous classification according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Category 4 |
 Warning |
H332 |
P304+P340
P261 P271 P312 |
Based on a report of an LC50 value of 25 mg/L (8,028 ppm) (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 17.7 mg/L (5,677 ppm)) in a 2-hour inhalation exposure test with rats (HSDB (Access on June 2017)), it was classified in Category 4. Besides, since the exposure concentration was lower than 90% of the saturated vapor pressure concentration (475,248 ppm), reference values in the unit of ppm were applied as vapour with little mist. The data of RTECS (2004) used in the previous classification was not adopted this time since it could not be confirmed. The classification result was changed from the previous classification by using the new information source. |
| 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 |
Based on descriptions that this substance caused dermatitis and blistering by contact on humans (PATTY (6th, 2012)), and that blisters and ulcers occurred on the skin surface and subcutaneously in a skin irritation test (application period was unknown) with rabbits (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, this substance was classified as "Skin Irrit. 2, H315" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on June 2017)). The category was revised based on information obtained in this investigation. |
| 3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 2 |
Warning |
H319 |
P305+P351+P338
P337+P313 P264 P280 |
Based on a case of workers in a viscose rayon factory who developed a burning sensation and photophobia in the eyes due to exposure to this substance for 5-6 years (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, this substance was classified as "Eye Irrit. 2, H319" 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 |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. There is a description that it may be a skin sensitizer (HSDB (Access on June 2017)), but there was no description of the test data in the original source. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data. |
| 5 | Germ cell mutagenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | As for in vivo, a dominant lethal test with rats and a chromosomal aberration test with rat bone marrow cells were negative (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), CaPSAR (1999), CICAD 46 (2002), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). As for in vitro, bacterial reverse mutation tests were negative, a chromosomal aberration test with mammalian cultured cells was negative, and a sister chromatid exchange test was positive (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), CaPSAR (1999), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2015), NTP DB (Access on July 2017)). From the above, it was classified as "Classification not possible" according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. The classification result in the previous classification was revised. Besides, as for "positive in somatic cell mutagenicity tests in vivo (chromosome aberrations)" in the previous classification, it was not adopted since there are descriptions in CaPSAR (1999) and CICAD 46 (2002) that the contents of the report were not sufficient, and the reliability of the findings could not be evaluated. |
| 6 | Carcinogenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
| 7 | Reproductive toxicity | Category 1A, Additional category: Effects on or via lactation |
 Danger |
H360
H362 |
P308+P313
P201 P202 P280 P405 P501 |
In epidemiological studies targeted on women workers who were exposed to 37-56 mg/m3 of this substance for 1 year or more in a viscose rayon factory in China, significant increases in the incidence of menstrual abnormalities and gestoses were observed, carbon disulfide was detected in the umbilical cord blood and milk of the exposed persons, and the urine of lactating infants, so a transfer of this substance through the placenta and breast milk was confirmed (OEL Documentations Vol.55 (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2013), CICAD 46 (2002), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005)), and that in a retrospective cohort study targeted on women workers (exposure at 1.7-14.8 mg/m3 for 1-15 years) in a viscose rayon factory in China, no significant difference in the incidence of gestoses, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, premature birth, delayed parturition, and congenital anomalies was observed, but a significant increase in the incidence of menstrual abnormality was observed (OEL Documentations Vol.55 (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2013), CICAD 46 (2002), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005)). In addition, there is a report that an increase in menstrual irregularity was observed in women workers exposed to 10-20 mg/m3 of this substance in a Russian factory (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). From the above, in the epidemiological studies in humans, effects on menstruation and pregnancy were reported in the exposed female workers. On the other hand, no reproductive toxicity by carbon disulfide was reported in the exposed male workers (OEL Documentations Vol.55 (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2013)). As for experimental animals, there are reports that in an inhalation exposure test with pregnant rats, decreased body weight and clubfoot were observed in pups at doses where suppressed body weight gain was observed in maternal animals (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)), and that in tests with pregnant rabbits dosed orally or exposed by inhalation, an increased incidence of malformations was observed in fetuses at doses exceeding the dose where maternal toxicity such as suppressed body weight gain developed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). As for classification results by other organizations, Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) classified it in Group 1 (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (2017)), and EU in Repr. 2 (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on June 2017)). From the above, based on the epidemiological study results in human occupational exposure, it was classified in Category 1A for this hazard class, and the additional category of "effects on or via lactation" was added. Besides, the classification category was changed from the previous classification based on the new information source. |
| 8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 1 (central nervous system, heart), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects) |
Danger Warning |
H370
H335 H336 |
P308+P311
P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501 P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 |
As for humans, there is a report that in an experiment in which volunteers were exposed by inhalation for a short time, headache was seen at or above 316 ppm (1,000 mg/m3 or above, 8 hours), and dizziness at 1,138 ppm (3,600 mg/m3, 30 min) and severe headache and coma at 2,022-3,160 ppm (6,400-10,000 mg/m3, 30 min) were seen (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). In addition, as cases of acute exposure in rubber and rayon factory workers, there are reports that symptoms such as excitement, emotional instability, delirium, hallucinations, delusions and suicidal desire were seen in a short time exposure to 948-1,580 ppm (3,000-5,000 mg/m3), and that 27 police officers and firefighters exposed in an explosion accident involving a tank vehicle complained of headache, dizziness, sore throat due to burns, dyspnea, and pain on breathing (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). As for experimental animals, there is a report that in a 4-hour inhalation exposure test with rats, after 2-time inhalation at 4 mg/L corresponding to the guidance value range for Category 1, an increase in catecholamine-induced necrosis and fibrosis in the cardiac muscles was observed (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). Besides, in the original paper on this test, it is described that catecholamine-induced necrosis of the cardiac muscles was also observed in single exposure at 4 mg/L (Chandra, S.V. et al., Experimental and Molecular Pathology 17, 249-259 (1972)). From the above, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system, heart), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects). |
| 9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidney) |
Danger |
H372 |
P260
P264 P270 P314 P501 |
As for humans, polyneuropathy, optic nerve disorder, cerebral atherosclerosis, cerebral atrophy, imbalance of local blood flow in the cerebrum, cortical atrophy, multiple lesions suspected of small infarct foci in the nucleus basalis and corona radiata, atrophy of the olivary nucleus-pons-cerebellum, delay of peripheral nerve conduction velocity and a decrease in action potential, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, nodular glomerulosclerosis, diffuse glomerulosclerosis, and thickening of the basilar membrane in the Henle loop, Bowman's capsule, and distal renal tubules were reported (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). As for experimental animals, in a 13-week inhalation toxicity test (6 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats, an abnormal gait (neuromyopathy) was observed at or above 50 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.11 mg/L) within the guidance value range (vapour) for Category 1. In a 3-month inhalation toxicity test (5 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats, a vacuolar degeneration of the cardiac myocytes was observed at 16 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.03 mg/L) within the guidance value range (vapour) for Category 1, and in a 6-month inhalation toxicity test (8 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats, edema, bleeding, stromal hyperplasia and vasodilation in the heart were observed at or above 16 ppm (converted guidance value: 0.07 mg/L) within the guidance value range (vapour) for Category 1 (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). From the above, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidney). |
| 10 | Aspiration hazard | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, in the previous classification, it was classified in Category 2 based on the information of CICAD and ICSC, and there is also a similar description that "swallowing the liquid of this substance may cause chemical pneumonitis due to aspiration into the lungs" (HSDB (Access on June 2017)). This description of general precaution only could not be taken as evidence for the classification. In addition, according to Japanese Industrial Standards for classification of chemicals based on GHS (JIS Z7252:2014) which was revised after the previous classification, a substance is allocated to only Category 1 for this hazard class (not allocated to Category 2). |
| 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 48-hour EC50 = 2.1 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)), it was classified in Category 2. |
| 11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) | Category 2 |
 - |
H411 |
P273
P391 P501 |
Chronic toxicity data were not obtained. Due to being not rapidly degradable (non-biodegradable, No data in BOD, average degradation rate by GC: 2% (J-CHECK, 1988)), and acute toxicity Category 2, it was classified in Category 2. |
| 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. |