GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 120-78-5
Chemical Name Di(benzothiazol-2-yl) disulphide (MBTS)
Substance ID H30-B-016-MHLW, MOE
Classification year (FY) FY2018
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 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
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
3 Aerosols Not applicable
-
-
- - Not aerosol products.
4 Oxidizing gases Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
5 Gases under pressure Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
6 Flammable liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available. Besides, it is described that it is poorly flammable (GESTIS (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
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 applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
10 Pyrophoric solids Not classified
-
-
- - It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 365 deg C (GESTIS (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data 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
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
14 Oxidizing solids Not applicable
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine.
15 Organic peroxides Not applicable
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - Test methods applicable to solid substances are not 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]
As LD50 values for rats, the data of (1)-(7) are reported, and one case corresponds to Category 4 and six cases to "Not classified." Therefore, by adopting a category with the larger number of cases, it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 value for rats: 433 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(2) LD50 value for rats: >5,000 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(3) LD50 value for rats: ca. 7,000 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(4) LD50 value for rats: 7,000 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(5) LD50 value for rats: >7,000 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(6) LD50 value for rats: >7,940 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
(7) LD50 value for rats: 12,000 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
As the LD50 value for rabbits, the data from (1) is reported, and it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 value for rabbits: > 7,940 mg/kg (BUA Report (1993))
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Solid (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) Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1)-(3), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) There is a report that this substance (solid state) was applied to the skin of 6 subjects for 24 hours but it showed no irritation (BUA 126 (1993)).
(2) There is a report that repeated patch test showed no signs of skin irritation (BUA 126 (1993)).
(3) It is described that there was no response in 6/6 animals after 24-hour application in a skin irritation test (FHSA method) with rabbits (BUA 126 (1993)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) There is a description that in an eye irritation test (FHSA method) with rabbits, a slight reaction was observed in 6/6 animals 24 hours after application, but this resolved within 48 hours (BUA 126 (1993)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Category 1


Warning
H317 P302+P352
P333+P313
P362+P364
P261
P272
P280
P321
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1)-(7), it was classified in Category 1.

[Evidence Data]
(1) There is a report that when patch tests were performed on 1,698 subjects, 25 subjects showed positive reactions (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(2) There is a report that when patch tests were performed on 78 men and 70 women, a positive reaction was shown in 50/78 (64%) men and 33/70 (74%) women (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(3) There is a report that when patch tests were performed on 21 patients who developed contact dermatitis by wearing specific shoes, a positive reaction was shown to a 1% preparation of this substance (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(4) There is a report that 9 out of 21 patients who developed contact dermatitis to rubber showed positive reactions to this substance (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(5) There is a report that one out of 21 patients who developed allergic symptom to rubber or vinyl gloves showed a positive reaction to this substance (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(6) There are reports that when a patch test was performed with a 1% solution of this substance on 17 subjects showing sensitization reaction to 2-mercapto benzothiazole (CAS RN: 149-30-4), all the subjects showed positive reaction, but a controlled test on 20 non-allergic subjects was negative (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(7) There is a description that a sensitization reaction was observed in a Maximization test with guinea pigs (BUA Report No. 126 (1993), GESTIS (Accessed Jul. 2018)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(8) There is a description of a case of a miner who developed contact hypersensitivity by this substance when contained in the lamp cables used in mines (HSDB (2002), BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(9) This substance was classified as "Skin Sens. 1" in EU CLP.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Although there is no in vivo data, there is a negative result for a similar substance in (1), and as for in vitro, there are negative results in a bacterial reverse mutation test and a mammalian cell chromosomal aberration test. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible" in accordance with the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government.

[Evidence Data]
(1) There was a negative result in an in-vivo micronucleus test with rats for the similar substance, MBT (2-Mercaptobenzothiazole) (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
(2) As for in vitro, bacterial reverse mutation tests and tests with cultured mammalian cells were negative or could not be assessed (GESTIS (Accessed Jul. 2018)).
(3) As for in vitro, it was negative in a bacterial reverse mutation test (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
(4) As for in vitro, it was negative in a chromosomal aberration test with cultured mammalian cells (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
As for carcinogenicity, there are no available reports on humans.
There are no classifications by other organizations as shown in (2), and there is a negative report with experimental animals as shown in (1), but it was classified as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a carcinogenicity study with 2 strains of mice dosed orally for 18 months, no significantly higher incidence of tumors compared with controls was observed at the highest dose of 1,577 ppm (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
(2) There are no classification results by domestic and international organizations.

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) There is a report that carcinogenicity was not shown, but the test conditions are unknown (GESTIS (Accessed Jul. 2018)).
(4) In a carcinogenicity study with mice in which a similar substance, MBT (2-Mercaptobenzothiazole) was administered by feeding for 2 years, no significant results were obtained compared with the control group considering the historical data, and no clear carcinogenicity could be concluded (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
No developmental toxicity of this substance was observed in (1), and no reproductive or developmental effects were detected for the similar substance, MBT as shown in (2) and (3). In conclusion, although it is considered that this substance does not cause developmental effects, there is no finding on reproductive toxicity. Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data.

[Evidence Data]
(1) As developmental toxicity of MBTS to rats, neither fetotoxicity nor teratogenicity effects was observed even at administration of the highest dose of 596 mg/kg/day (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018), GESTIS (Accessed Sept. 2018)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(2) No effect on fertility was observed in a two-generation reproductive toxicity study of MBT with rats (GESTIS (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
(3) In a developmental toxicity study of MBT with pregnant rabbits, neither developmental toxicity nor teratogenicity was induced in oral administration of 50, 150, and 300 mg/kg/day. In the administration of 300 mg/kg/day, decreased body weight gain and slightly increased liver weight were observed in maternal animals (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on the data in (1), this substance corresponds to "Not classified" through the oral route, but toxicity information from the other routes is inadequate. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible."

[Evidence Data]
(1) In an acute test in which the dose of 7,940 mg/kg out of the range of Category 2 was administered orally to rats, reduced appetite and activity were observed after 1-3 days, but no changes were observed in organs on necropsy of survival animals after 7 days (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on the data in (1)-(3), this substance corresponds to "Not classified" through the oral route. However, since toxicity information of the other routes is inadequate, it was classified as "Classification not possible."

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a 21-day oral administration study with rats, temporarily decreased body weight gain was observed at the dose of 596 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 139 mg/kg/day) (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(2) In a 3-month oral administration study with rats, decreases in lactate and malic dehydrogenase activity were observed at the dose of 100 mg/kg/day which is the upper limit value of Category 2. However, there is no description of other toxicological findings (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
(3) In a 31-day oral administration study with rats, no effects other than decreased body weight gain were observed at the doses of 375, 750, and 1500 mg/kg bw/day (converted guidance value: 125, 250, 500 mg/kg bw/day) out of the range of Category 2 (BUA Report No. 126 (1993)).
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
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) Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
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