NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	21725-46-2
Chemical Name	Cyanazine
Substance ID	R01-B-024
Classification year (FY)	FY2019
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

PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Explosives	*	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
2	Flammable gases	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
3	Aerosols	*	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
4	Oxidizing gases	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
5	Gases under pressure	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
6	Flammable liquids	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
7	Flammable solids	*	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (ICSC (1999)).
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	*	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive or self-reactive properties present in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
9	Pyrophoric liquids	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
10	Pyrophoric solids	*	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (ICSC (1999)).
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	*	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (ICSC (1999)).
12	Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases	*	- -	-	-	The chemical structure of the substance does not contain metals or metalloids (B, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sn, Sb, Te, Bi, Po, At). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
13	Oxidizing liquids	*	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
14	Oxidizing solids	*	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing chlorine (but not fluorine or oxygen) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
15	Organic peroxides	*	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
16	Corrosive to metals	*	- -	-	-	Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to solid substances are not available.
17	Desensitized explosives	*	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified."

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	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 4. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: (female) 300-2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) LD50 for rats: (male) 367 mg/kg, (female) 306 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) LD50 for rats: 149-835 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012)) (4) LD50 for rats: 149-835 mg/kg (WHO, drinking-water quality 2003) (5) LD50 for rats: 149 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2019), HSDB (Access on June 2019)) (6) LD50 for rats: 182 mg/kg (WHO, drinking-water quality 2003)
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbets: >2,000 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), ACGIH (7th, 2019), WHO, drinking-water quality 2003) (2) LD50 for rats: (male) 5,440 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) LD50 for rats: >1,200 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), ACGIH (7th, 2019)). (4) LD50 for rats: >1,200 mg/kg (WHO, drinking-water quality 2003).
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (the dust, 4 hours): >4.35 mg/L (measured concentration (nominal concentration: 5.0 mg/L)) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) LCLo for rats: >4.9 mg/L (ACGIH (7th, 2019)) (3) Acute inhalation with rats (1 hour): no fatal animal was observed at 4.9 mg/L (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 1.225 mg/L) (PATTY (6th, 2012))
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified as "Not classified" (Category 3 in UN GHS classification). [Evidence Data] (1) Mild irritation was observed on rabbits' skin following occlusive application for 24 hours (PATTY (6th, 2012)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) This substance was neither a skin irritant nor a sensitizer in guinea pigs (PATTY (6th, 2012)). (3) Slight skin irritation at 2,000 mg in rabbits is reported (WHO (2003), ACGIH (7th, 2019)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 2. [Evidence Data] (1) It is reported that this substance produced mild to slight irritation in the eyes of rabbits, while there is a report that it was not irritating (PATTY (6th, 2012)). (2) A 90% formulation was a severe irritant to the rabbit eye, and recovery took 14 days (PATTY (6th, 2012)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (Buehler method, induction at 0.4 g once a week for 3 weeks, challenge at 0.4 g 2 weeks after the last induction), no skin reactions were observed, and this substance was judged to be negative (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2016), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) A skin sensitization test with guinea pigs is reported to be negative (ACGIH (7th, 2019)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), a few positive results were reported in in-vitro tests. However, no positive results were reported in in-vivo tests such as micronucleus tests. Therefore, based on expert judgment, it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, negative results are reported in a micronucleus test, a chromosomal aberration test and a dominant lethal test with mice, and a UDS test with rats (ACGIH (7th, 2019), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2016)). (2) As for in vitro, negative results in bacterial reverse mutation tests, negative or positive results in chromosomal aberration tests with cultured mammalian cells or human lymphocytes, and positive results in mouse lymphoma tests are reported (ACGIH (7th, 2019), PATTY (6th, 2012)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Category 2	Warning	H351	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on classification results by other organizations in (1), and the fact that an increase in the incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma was observed in female rats in the test in (2), it was classified in Category 2. By the use of new data, the category was changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) As for existing classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified as A3 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2019)), and in C (Possible human carcinogen) by EPA (EPA Cancer Annual Report (2018): classified in 1991). (2) In a 2-year combined chronic/carcinogenic toxicity test with rats dosed with feed containing this substance (1-50 ppm), an increase in the incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma was observed in females at or above 5 ppm (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), ACGIH (7th, 2019)). (3) In a carcinogenicity test with mice administered feed containing this substance (10-1,000 ppm) for 2 years, no increases in the incidence of neoplastic lesions were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), ACGIH (7th, 2019)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Category 2	Warning	H361	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), miscarriages and increases in post-implantation embryonic deaths were observed in rabbits at doses at which maternal animal toxicity was observed. Therefore, it was classified in Category 2. Besides, the category was changed from the previous classification by the use of new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) In a developmental toxicity test with female rabbits administered orally on gestational days 6-18, miscarriages and increases in post-implantation embryonic deaths, etc. in fetuses were observed at doses of maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain and decreased feed consumption) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In a 3-generation developmental toxicity test by oral administration with rats, reduced body weight gain in parental animals was observed, however, no effects on fertility and pups were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) In three developmental toxicity tests with female rats administered by oral gavage on gestation period, no effects on pups or slight effects such as delayed ossification or skeletal variations were observed at doses where reduced body weight gain was seen in maternal animals (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), PATTY (6th, 2012)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 2 (respiratory organs)	Warning	H371	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 2 (respiratory organs). RTECS, the information source of the rationale for previous classification, was not adopted because it was an information source of List 3 in the current guidance, and the original source was also unconfirmable. The category was changed from the previous classification by the use of new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) In a 4-hour single inhalation exposure test with rats, bloody tears, transparent and red nasal discharge, salivation, dyspnea and rales were observed in both sexes at 4.35 mg/L (equivalent to Category 2) of the dust of this substance. Dead animals were observed in only females, and none in males (Numbers of dead females were not mentioned. However, since the LC50 value was described to be >4.35 mg/L in this test, however, the number was considered to be less than half). No visually remarkable changes were observed at necropsy (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2016)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 2 (blood system)	Warning	H373	P260 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 2 (blood system). Besides, both findings on the spleen and bone marrow in (2) and on the blood in (3) support Category 2 (blood system). By the use of new information sources, the previous classification was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) In a 90-day toxicity test with mice dosed by feeding, decreases in hemoglobin, hematocrit values and erythrocyte counts, etc. were observed in females at 300 ppm (converted guidance value: male/female: 44.1/55.1 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In a 2-year toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding at 1-50 ppm, reduced body weight gain and hyperactivity (in males) were seen at or above 25 ppm (converted guidance value: male/female: 0.985/1.37 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1), and at 50 ppm (converted guidance value: male/female: 2.06/2.81 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1) extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen and granulocyte hyperplasia in the bone marrow in males, and demyelination of the sciatic nervous system in females, were observed (ACGIH (7th, 2019)). In Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), only reduced body weight gain and decreased feed consumption in females and males at or above 25 ppm are described (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (3) In a 2-year toxicity test with mice dosed by feeding at 10-1,000 ppm, decreases in hemoglobin, etc. were observed in females at 1,000 ppm (converted guidance value: 147 mg/kg/day, exceeding the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
10	Aspiration hazard	*	- -	-	-	[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 Short term (Acute)	Category 1	Warning	H400	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 1 from 48-hour EC50 = 0.086 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (ECETOC TR91, 2003).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 1	Warning	H410	P273 P391 P501	If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN), and 96-hour NOEC = 0.01 mg/L for algae (green alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (U.S.EPA: OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database, 2019). If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN), and 48-hour EC50 = 0.086 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (ECETOC TR91, 2003). From the above results, it was classified in Category 1.
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.

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.
An asterisk “*” in the column of “Classification” denotes that “Not classified (or No applicable)” and/or “Classification not possible” is applicable. Details are described in the column of “Rationale for the classification”. If no English translation is available for “Rationale for the classification,” please refer to the Japanese version of the results.

To GHS Information