NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	21564-17-0
Chemical Name	2-[(Thiocyanatomethyl)sulfanyl]-1,3-benzothiazole
Substance ID	R01-B-092
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	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	*	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
2	Flammable gases	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (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	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
5	Gases under pressure	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
6	Flammable liquids	Category 4	- Warning	H227	P370+P378 P210 P280 P403 P501	It was classified in Category 4 based on a flash point of 66 deg C (open cup) (Merck (15th, 2013)).
7	Flammable solids	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	*	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups present in the molecule associated with explosive or self-reactive properties. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
9	Pyrophoric liquids	*	- -	-	-	No data available.
10	Pyrophoric solids	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	*	- -	-	-	Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to liquid substances are not available.
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	*	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine. It was classified as "Not classified (Not applicable)."
14	Oxidizing solids	*	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). 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	*	- -	-	-	No data 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)-(5), it was classified in Category 4. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 750 mg/kg (EPA Pesticide (2006)) (2) LD50 for rats: 750-2,665 mg/kg (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)) (3) LD50 for rats: 1,590 mg/kg (HSDB (Access on September 2019)) (4) LD50 for rats: 2,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)) (5) LD50 for rats: male: 2,000 mg/kg, 2,132 mg/kg, female: 2,200 mg/kg, 2,030 mg/kg (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 12 No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1987))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1)-(4), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (EPA Pesticide (2006), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 12 No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1987)) (3) LD50 for rabbits: > 2,000 mg/kg (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)) (4) LD50 for rats: 10,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), HSDB (Access on September 2019), Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 12 No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1987))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Liquid (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)	Category 2	Danger	H330	P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, since the LC50 values were higher than the saturated vapor pressure level (0.0002 mg/L), the reference values in units of mg/L were applied as the mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: 0.07 mg/L (EPA Pesticide (2006), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)) (2) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: about 0.1 mg/L (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008))
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Category 2	Warning	H315	P302+P352 P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 2. [Evidence Data] (1) In a skin irritation test in which this substance (active ingredient: 80%) was applied to rabbits in compliance with EPA OPPTS 870.2500, the Primary Irritation Index (PIS) was 7.42, and severe erythema and edema were observed after 72 hours (EPA Pesticide (2006), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)). (2) In a skin irritation test with rabbits, severe skin irritation was observed (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) It was classified as "Skin Irrit. 2 (H315)" in the EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on September 2019)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 1	Danger	H318	P305+P351+P338 P280 P310	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 1. The category was changed due to new data obtained. [Evidence Data] (1) In an eye irritation test in which this substance (active ingredient: 60%) was applied to rabbits in compliance with EPA OPPTS 870.2400, the Primary Irritation Score (PIS) was 34 (maximum 110), and the symptoms were not reversible by 7 days (EPA Pesticide (2006)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) It was classified as "Eye Irrit. 2 (H319)" in the EU-CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on September 2019)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	*	- -	-	-	[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) and (2), it was classified in Category 1. The category was changed due to new data obtained. [Evidence Data] (1) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs in compliance with EPA OPPTS 870.2600, it was judged as positive (EPA Pesticide (2006)). (2) In a skin sensitization test (maximization method) with guinea pigs, it was judged to be strongly sensitizing (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) It was classified as "Skin Sens. 1B (H317)" in the EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on September 2019)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), since the results of all standard combination tests, including in vivo and in vitro tests, were negative, as shown in (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, there were reports of negative results in a micronucleus test with mice and a chromosomal aberration test (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)). (2) As for in vitro, there were reports of negative results in a bacterial reverse mutation test, and a micronucleus test, a gene mutation test, a sister chromatid exchange test and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with cultured mammalian cells (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)).
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), it was classified in Category 2 in accordance with the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government. The classification result was changed according to classification results by other organizations. [Evidence Data] (1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified as C (Possible Human Carcinogen) by EPA (EPA Pesticide (2006)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in which rats were given this substance by feeding for 2 years, a significant increase in testicular interstitial cell adenomas in males and a significant increase in thyroid C-cell adenomas in females were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)). (3) In a carcinogenicity study in which mice were given this substance by feeding for 2 years, no treatment-related neoplastic lesions were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Category 2	Warning	H361	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), since skeletal abnormalities were observed in fetuses at doses where maternal toxicity was manifested, it was classified in Category 2. [Evidence Data] (1) In a developmental toxicity test with female rats administered by gavage on gestational days 6-15, fused or wavy ribs, rudimentary ribs (cervical, thoracic and lumbar ribs), and increases in sternebrae and pelvic girdle anomalies were observed in fetuses at the dose where maternal toxicity (rough coat, dyspnea/wheezing, diarrhea or no feces, piloerection and hunched gait, etc.) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) No reproductive effects were observed in a two-generation reproductive toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)). (3) In a developmental toxicity test with female rabbits dosed by gavage on gestational days 6-19, no effects were observed in fetuses at the dose where maternal toxicity (deaths (1/20 animals), decreased body weight gain) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. There is information in (1) on humans and (2) on experimental animals. However, this was insufficient to judge the category. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible." [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In a study in two sawmills where an antimicrobial agent to prevent wood discoloration was switched from pentachlorophenol (PCP) to this substance in British Columbia, there were many complaints of dry skin around the eyes due to exposure to this substance, bloodstained mucus from the nose, nose bleed, peeling skin, burning or itching skin, and skin redness or rash. On the other hand, in a study in three sawmills that switched from PCP to oxine-copper, there was no increase in complaints (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), HSDB (Access on September 2019)). (2) The main symptoms observed when this substance was orally administered to rats were bradykinesia and irregular gait, and in surviving animals, these disappeared 3-7 days after administration. Deaths were observed from 2 hours to 5 days after administration, and patches in the lungs and liver were observed at necropsy of dead females (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	*	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Although there is information in (1)-(4), no clear target organ can be identified from this information. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible." Besides, since effects on the stomach adopted as the classification evidence in the previous classification were considered to be due to the irritant effect of this substance, the stomach was not adopted as a target organ, therefore, the classification result was changed from the previous classification. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) When dogs were given this substance (purity: 81.6%) by feeding at 100-1,000 ppm for 1 year, decreases in ALT, leukocyte counts, and monocytes were seen at or above 100 ppm (male/female: 3.8/4.0 mg/kg/day, within the range of Category 1), and decreases in spleen and thymus weights, etc. were observed at 1,000 ppm (male/female: 38/40 mg/kg/day, within the range of Category 2). A tendency for an increase in the degree of thymus involution with doses was observed (EPA Pesticide (2006), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)). (2) When this substance (purity: 82.3%) was dermally applied to rats at 25-250 mg/kg/day for 21 days, skin irritation and ulcers were observed, and at 250 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 58 mg/kg/day, (a converted value equivalent to this substance: 48 mg/kg/day, within the range of Category 2)), decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit value, etc. in males and females, and increases in AST in females were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010)). (3) In a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats, in which this substance (purity: 81.6%) was administered by feeding at 2-20 mg/kg/day, a decrease in platelets was observed in females at or above 2 mg/kg/day (within the range of Category 1), but there were no changes in other hematological indexes, and no toxicologically significant changes were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)). (4) As results of a study in which this substance (purity: 81.56%) was administered by feeding to rats at 10-100 mg/kg/day for 90 days and of a study in which this substance (purity: 80%) was administered by feeding to rats at 333-750 ppm for 13 weeks, effects on the stomach (inflammatory changes, squamous epithelial hyperplasia, necrosis and ulcer, etc. in the gastric mucosa) were reported within the range of Category 2 (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2010), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.17 (Ministry of the Environment, 2019)). These were considered to be changes due to the irritation effects of this substance.
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 96-hour LC50 = 0.0087 mg/L for fish (Lepomis macrochirus) (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
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 because it was not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1990)), and due to NOEC in an early life stage test (duration: unknown) = 0.00034 mg/L for fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). 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 because it was not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1990)), and due to 48-hour LC50 = 0.0153 mg/L for crustacea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). 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