NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	112-30-1
Chemical Name	Decan-1-ol
Substance ID	H30-B-007-METI, MOE
Classification year (FY)	FY2018
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	FY2008
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	Not classified	- -	-	-	A flash point is 108 deg C (closed cup) (ICSC (J) (2005)).
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 255 deg C (ICSC (J) (2005)).
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)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (4 cases), 5,000 mg/kg (one case): 5 cases in total (EPA Pesticide (2007)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg, 19,500 mg/kg, > 26,410 mg/kg: 3 cases in total (SIDS Dossier (2006))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified" (equivalent to Category 5 in UN GHS classification or "Not classified") with more cases. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg, > 4,000 mg/kg, 5,000 mg/kg: 3 cases in total (EPA Pesticide (2007)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: > 1,000 mg/kg, 2,000-4,000 mg/kg : 2 cases in total (SIDS Dossier (2006))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), one case corresponds to Category 4-"Not classified," and 3 cases correspond to "Not classified." Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified" with more cases. The classification was changed by the addition of new information sources. Besides, the saturated vapor concentration of this substance is 10 ppm (0.06 mg/L), and all the test concentrations in (1) and (2) are much higher than the saturated vapor concentration, therefore, the reference value was applied as the mist. [Evidence Data] (1) 4-hour LC50 for rats: > 17.8 mg/L (converted from > 71 mg/L (one hour)) (SIDS (2006)) (2) 4-hour LC50 for rats: > 3.35 mg/L, > 5.07 mg/L, > 7.08 mg/L: 3 cases in total (EPA Pesticide (2007))
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Category 2	Warning	H315	P302+P352 P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1)-(3), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, in human data in (4) and (5), information that it was not irritating was also obtained. However, since skin irritation was shown in multiple more reliable animal studies, the animal test results were adopted. Besides, the category was changed from the previous classification by using new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) There is a report that in a skin irritation test (OECD TG404, GLP) with rabbits, after semi-occlusive application of the undiluted liquid of this substance for 4 hours, the erythema score was 1.9, the edema score was 0, and both resolved in 10 days (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) There is a report that in a skin irritation test (OECD TG404, GLP) with rabbits, after semi-occlusive application of the undiluted liquid of this substance for 4 hours, at 72 hours, the erythema score was 2.15, the edema score was 1.15, with PII = 3.33, and they did not fully resolve in 7 days (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (3) There is a report that in a skin irritation test (EPA OPPTS 870.2500, GLP) with rabbits, after semi-occlusive application of the undiluted liquid of this substance for 4 hours, PII = 2.8 was obtained (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Oct. 2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) There is a report that no irritation was observed in a skin patch test in which 0.2 mL of the undiluted liquid of this substance was applied to 30 subjects for 4 hours (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (5) There is a report that no irritation was observed when petrolatum containing 3% of this substance was applied to 25 volunteers (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.6, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)). (6) There are reports that as for C8, 10, and 12 linear alcohols, it was not irritating in three tests among skin irritation tests (4 tests) with rabbits, but since erythema, scabbing and edema were observed in one test at 72 hours, it was judged to be a mild irritant (EPA Pesticide RED (2007)). (7) There is a report that C6-C11 linear alcohols are slightly irritating but not corrosive (SIDS (2006), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Oct. 2018)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	[Rationale for the Classification] (1) and (2) suggest classification equivalent to Category 2A, but (3) suggests Category 2B, so it was classified in Category 2 due to lack of information possible to determine the subcategory. [Evidence Data] (1) There is a report that in an eye irritation test (OECD TG405, GLP) with rabbits, in which an undiluted solution of this substance (Kalcohl 1095: C10: more than 95%) was applied, after 48 hours, slight to moderate conjunctivitis and very slight to mild corneal opacity and iritis were observed in all animals. Also on Day 4, slight conjunctivitis was observed in all animals, corneal opacity was observed in a small area on one animal, and slight conjunctivitis persisted until Day 15 after the application (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) This substance is reported to be irritating to rabbit eyes (SIDS (2006), Patty (12th, 2012)). (3) There is a report that in an eye irritation test (EPA OPPTS 870.2400, GLP, n=3) with rabbits, in which an undiluted solution of this substance was applied, the conjunctiva score was 2 and the conjunctival edema score was 1.4, both of which resolved within 7 days (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Oct. 2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) There are reports that as for C8, 10, and 12 linear alcohols, in four eye irritation tests with rabbits (EPA OPPTS 870.24), in which this substance was applied, corneal opacity was observed in all animals until 7 days after, conjunctival irritation was observed until 14 days after, and the neovascularization as an irreversible effect was observed even after 21 days in one animal (EPA Pesticide RED (2007)). (5) C6-C11 linear alcohol is said to cause eye irritation (SIDS (2006)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1)-(5), while this substance is considered to be a weak sensitizer, it is not considered sensitizing to humans and no description that clearly denies skin sensitization in the information sources in List 1 is found. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible." The category was changed from the previous classification by adopting the new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) There is a report that in a skin sensitization test (Kligman human maximization test, n=25) with volunteers, no sensitization response was shown to a 2% solution (petrolatum) of this substance (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) There is a report that in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Buehler test), GLP, n=10), in 25% of this substance (Alfol 10: C10) in a solvent (mineral oil), no animals showing sensitization were observed (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Oct. 2018)). (3) There is a report that in a skin sensitization test (the modified Draize method, n=10) with guinea pigs, as a result of application of this substance itself, no sensitization was shown at challenge after induction (1st time), but sensitization was shown by re-challenge after the 2nd induction, therefore, this substance is a weak sensitizer (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (4) The investigator in (3) stated that the weak sensitizers identified in this test method do not show sensitization many times when tested in guinea pigs as an ingredient of perfume formulation, and on the basis of experience, this substance does not show sensitization in the Maximization test in humans (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (5) In four skin sensitization tests (EPA OPPTS 870.2600) with guinea pigs, when this substance was applied, no sensitization was shown in 3 tests (EPA Pesticide RED (2007)). [Reference Data, etc.] (6) There is a statement that the category of linear alcohols shows no skin sensitization in guinea pigs (SIDS (2006)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] As for in vivo data, there is only (1). Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, it was negative in a mammalian cell sister chromatid exchange (SCE) test although the test reliability was invalid (3, Invalid) (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) As for in vitro, it was negative in a bacterial reverse mutation test (SIDS (2006)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] As for carcinogenicity, there are no available reports on humans. The animal test result is limited to (1). Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) After a single application of initiator (7, 12 dimethylbenz[a]anthracene) to mice, this substance was administered dermally 3 times/week for 60 weeks. As a result, skin tumors (squamous cell carcinomas in 2 animals) occurred in 6/30 animals. The authors concluded that this substance has tumor promoter activity, but it is judged in SIDS that the increase in skin tumor incidence was ambiguous (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) There are no classification results by domestic and international organizations.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Although there is a report that no developmental effects were observed like (1), there are no test data on fertility. Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data. Besides, as for (2), occurrences of malformations and skeletal variations are suspected to be from fetotoxicity, but it is concluded that the test data is not reliable (SIDS Dossier (2006)). In the previous classification, it was classified in Category 2 based on (2), but the classification result was changed based on the fact that the data were not adopted in the information sources in List 1. [Evidence Data] (1) Pregnant rats were exposed by inhalation to 100 mg/m3 of this substance on gestational day 1-19, no adverse effects were observed in either maternal animals or fetuses (SIDS Dossier (2006)). (2) Fetotoxicity was observed in a study in which a 40% solution of this substance was dosed orally to pregnant rats on gestational day 1-15 (PATTY (6th, 2012)). Regarding this fetotoxicity, it is pointed out in SIDS that fetotoxicity (effects on the internal organs and skeletal) observed after administration of the C1-C10 alcohols including this substance is hydrocephalus, hydronephrosis, and retardation of ossification, but that the frequency of the occurrence is not described for each alcohol. Since in this study, there are methodological problems such as a small number of maternal animals (10 animals), no data analysis per litter, and no description on the conditions of maternal animals, it was classified as uncertain data (invalid: reliability 3) (SIDS Dossier (2006)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) It is mentioned that fatty alcohols (C6-22) including this substance show no effects on fertility in rats (SIDS Dossier (2006)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 3 (Respiratory tract irritation)	Warning	H335	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on the data in (1), it was classified in Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation). [Evidence Data] (1) Cough and sore throat occur by inhalation of this substance (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.6, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] The data in (1) were observed at doses within the range of Category 2, but since the site where irritation symptoms were observed cannot be identified, classification was not possible. [Evidence Data] (1) In 2-month inhalation exposure tests with rats or rabbits, decreased serum cholinesterase activity at or above 200 mg/m3 (converted guidance value: 0.09-0.13 mg/L) within the range of Category 2 and focal irritation at 600 mg/m3 were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.6, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)).
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] There is no finding in humans. Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data. Besides, since it is a primary normal alcohol composed of carbon atoms of not less than 3 and 13 or less and (1)-(3) shows aspiration hazards to experimental animals, it corresponds to Category 2 in UN GHS classification. [Evidence Data] (1) A 0.2 mL of this substance was given in the mouth of rats, and aspirated. As a result, 9/9 animals died (PATTY (6th, 2012)). (2) In rats, a small amount of this substance behaves like hydrocarbon solvents, causing death due to the pulmonary edema (HSDB (2015)). (3) The kinematic viscosity calculated from the viscosity of this substance, 10.9 mPa (25 deg C) and the density, 0.83 g/cm3 (20 deg C) (HSDB (2015)) is 13.1 mm2/s and is expected to be not more than 14 mm2/s at 40 deg C.

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	It was classified in Category 1 from 72-hour EC50 (growth rate) = 0.56 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2018)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Category 2	-	H411	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 2 due to rapid degradability (readily biodegradable, judged by comparison with degradability of related compounds (J-CHECK, 2012)), and 72-hour NOEC (growth rate) = 0.028 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2018)).
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

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