GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 135410-20-7
Chemical Name (E)-N-(1-{N-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N-methylamino}ethylidene)carbamonitrile; Acetamiprid
Substance ID R02-A-071-METI, MOE
Classification year (FY) FY2020
Ministry who conducted the classification Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)/Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
New/Revised New
Classification result in other fiscal year  
Download of Excel format Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION
Item Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link) GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
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 classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
2 Flammable gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
3 Aerosols Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Not aerosol products.
4 Oxidizing gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
5 Gases under pressure Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
6 Flammable liquids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
8 Self-reactive substances and mixtures Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups present in the molecule associated with explosive or self-reactive properties.
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
10 Pyrophoric solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to solid (melting point <= 140 deg C) substances are not available.
12 Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases Not classified (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 classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
14 Oxidizing solids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - The substance is an organic compound containing chlorine (but not fluorine or oxygen) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
15 Organic peroxides Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to solid substances are not available.
17 Desensitized explosives Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.

HEALTH HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
1 Acute toxicity (Oral) Category 3


Danger
H301 P301+P310
P264
P270
P321
P330
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
The category with higher hazard was adopted from (1) - (6), and it was classified in Category 3.

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats (males): 217 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), CLH Report (2018))
(2) LD50 for rats (females): 146 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), CLH Report (2018))
(3) LD50 for rats (males): 195 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), CLH Report (2018))
(4) LD50 for rats (females): between 140-200 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), CLH Report (2018))
(5) LD50 for rats (males): 417 mg/kg (CLH Report (2018))
(6) LD50 for rats (females): 314 mg/kg (CLH Report (2018))
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR (2011))

1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
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 is not possible due to lack of data because the category could not be determined from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 0.3 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014))
(2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 1.15 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014))
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) It is reported that in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n = 6) (GLP, 4-hour application, 72-hour observation), no skin irritation changes were observed in any animal (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR (2011), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(2) It is reported that in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n = 9) (4-hour application, 3-day observation), no skin irritation changes were seen in any animal (Agchem Age No. 173 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) It is reported that in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n = 9) (GLP, 72-hour observation), slight conjunctival redness was observed after 1-48 hours in the unwashed eye group but disappeared after 72 hours (in 6 in the unwashed eye group: mean corneal opacity score: 0, mean iritis score: 0, mean conjunctival redness score: 0.2, mean chemosis score: 0) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR (2011), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) It is reported that in a maximization test with guinea pigs (n = 20) (GLP, intradermal administration: 2.5% solution), a positive rate was 0% (0/20) at both 24, 48 hours after a challenge (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR (2011), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(2) It is reported that in a maximization test with guinea pigs (n = 10) (GLP, intradermal administration: 1% solution), a positive rate was 0% (0/10) at both 24, 48 hours after a challenge (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR (2011), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (8), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a micronucleus test using the bone marrow cells from mice (GLP, single oral dose), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(2) In a chromosomal aberration test using the bone marrow cells from rats (GLP, single oral dose), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(3) In an unscheduled DNA synthesis test (single oral dose) with the hepatocytes of rats as an in vivo/in vitro test system, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(4) In a bacterial reverse mutation test (GLP), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(5) In an in vitro mammalian cell (CHO) gene mutation test (GLP), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(6) In in vitro mammalian cell (CHO and CHL) chromosome aberration tests, positive results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(7) In an UDS test using the rat primary cultured hepatocytes, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), JMPR Tox Monograph (2011), CLH Report (2018)).
(8) In the latest assessment in EU, it was considered that this substance was not genotoxic based on the weight of evidence from the in vivo and in vitro results (CLH Report (2018), ECHA RAC Opinion (2020)).
6 Carcinogenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, EPA classified this substance in NL (Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans) (EPA Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential Annual Cancer Report 2018: Classification in 2001).
(2) In a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats (dosed by feeding), an increase in the incidence frequency of mammary gland adenocarcinoma was observed in a higher-dose female group, but since it was within the range of the historical control data of the testing laboratory and there was no difference between the treated group and the control group in the Fisher's exact test, it was determined to be not an effect of the treatment (JMPR Tox Monograph (2011)). Besides the above, an incidence of tumors did not increase by the treatment, and carcinogenicity was not observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox. Monograph (2011)).
(3) In an 18-month carcinogenicity study with mice (dosed by feeding), carcinogenicity was not observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR Tox. Monograph (2011)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Category 2


Warning
H361 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (6), it was classified in Category 2.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that in a developmental neurotoxicity test with rats dosed by gavage (GLP, from gestation day 6 through lactation day 21), at 45 mg/kg/day, general toxic effects (death (1 case), reductions in body weight gain and food consumption, etc.) were observed in parent animals; and a decrease in postnatal survival at postnatal day 0-1, a reduction in body weight gain (male/female), and reduced auditory startle responses (male) were observed in offspring (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)). In the assessment by the EFSA, the conservative setting of NOAEL was proposed because the trend of reduced auditory startle responses was also observed at postnatal days 20 and 60 in offspring at the mid-dose, one-level lower (EFSA (2013), CLH Report (2018)).
(2) In a two-generation reproduction toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding (GLP), at 800 ppm, general toxic effects (reductions in body weight gain and food consumption, hypertrophy of the hepatocytes, etc.) were observed in parent animals; and a reduction in body weight gain (F1 and F2), and a decrease in postnatal survival (F2) were observed in offspring. It was reported that no effect on fertility was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR (2011)).
(3) In a two-generation reproduction toxicity study with rats, which was different from that in (2), dosed by feeding (GLP), at 800 ppm, general toxic effects (reductions in body weight gain and food consumption) in parent animals; a reduction in body weight gain, and a decrease in postnatal survival (lactation day 14 and 21) in F1 and F2 offspring; delays in preputial separation and vaginal opening in F1 offspring; and a decrease in postnatal survival (lactation day 4), a decrease in weaning index, a delay in eyelid opening, and the trend of a delay in pinna unfolding in F2 offspring were observed. It was reported that no effect on fertility was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(4) It was reported that in a developmental toxicity study with rats dosed by gavage (GLP, days 6 to 15 of gestation), at 50 mg/kg/day, reductions in body weight gain and food consumption, increases in absolute and relative weight of the liver, and an increase in relative weight of the kidney were observed in parent animals; and an increase in the frequency of shortening of the 13th rib was observed in offspring, but teratogenicity was not observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR (2011)).
(5) It was reported that in a developmental toxicity study with rabbits dosed by gavage (day 6 to 18 of gestation), no teratogenicity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015), JMPR (2011)).
(6) In the CLH Report, Repr. 2 was proposed because of a decrease in postnatal survival from birth, and a delay in postnatal development (a delay in preputial separation in male offspring, etc.) at a dose that affected the maternal body in (3), in addition to neurodevelopmental effects at a dose that did not affect the maternal body (CLH Report (2018)). The RAC denied the reduced auditory startle response at a mid-dose in a developmental neurotoxicity test because there was no significant difference, but determined Repr. 2 to be appropriate because other effects were acceptable. As for the decrease in pre-weaning survival that was observed in offspring in (3), effects of lactation were considered, but the body weight was reduced at postnatal day 0, which suggested that the in utero exposure at least contributed to that, and it was concluded that as for the effects via lactation, classification was not possible due to lack of data (ECHA RAC Opinion (2020)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (nervous system)


Danger
H370 P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (6), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system).

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that in two cases of acute poisoning with an insecticide formulation containing this substance for suicidal purposes, severe nausea and vomiting, muscle weakness, hypothermia, and convulsions were observed in common (HSDB (Accessed Oct. 2020)).
(2) It was reported that in an acute oral toxicity test with rats, death was observed in females at or above 120 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) and in males at or above 150 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), and as symptoms, a reduction in body weight, tremor, crouching, reduced reactivity, and lying on side were observed; lying on belly, salivation, incontinence of urine, and ataxic gait were observed in females; and a dark-reddish lung was observed on necropsy (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(3) It was reported that in an acute oral toxicity test with rats, mydriasis and tremor were observed at or above 140 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1); and clonic convulsion was observed in males at or above 200 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) and in females at or above 280 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(4) It was reported that in an acute oral toxicity test with mice, death was observed at or above 150 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), tremor and crouching were observed as symptoms, and a dark-reddish lung was observed in a few dead animals on necropsy (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(5) It was reported that in an acute inhalation (dust) toxicity test with rats (GLP, 4 hours), at 0.3 mg/L (within the range for Category 1), a reduction in body weight, alopecia, mydriasis, tremor, and clonic convulsion were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(6) In an acute oral neurotoxicity test with rats, from general symptoms and FOB observations, a decrease in locomotor activity was observed in males at or above 30 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1); and at 100 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), significant tremor, dilated pupil, hypothermia, etc. were observed, and acute neurotoxicity was confirmed. It was reported that effects of the treatment were not observed in brain weight and neuropathological examinations (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 2 (liver)


Warning
H373 P260
P314
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), the liver was the target organ, and in (2), not only hypertrophy of the hepatocytes but also vacuolar degeneration of the hepatocytes were observed. Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (liver).

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that in a 90-day oral toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding (GLP), at 800 ppm (50.8 mg/kg/day (male), 56 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), effects on the liver (an increase in relative weight of the liver, centrilobular hypertrophy of the hepatocytes) were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(2) It was reported that in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding (GLP), at or above 400 ppm (17.1 mg/kg/day (male), 22.6 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), hypertrophy of the hepatocytes was observed in males; and at 1,000 ppm (46.4 mg/kg/day (male), 60 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), centrilobular vacuolar degeneration of the hepatocytes in males and hypertrophy of hepatocytes in females were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) It was reported that in a 90-day oral toxicity test with mice dosed by feeding (GLP), harmful effects were not observed within the dose range for Category 1 and Category 2; and at or above 800 ppm (106 mg/kg/day (male), 129 mg/kg/day (female), in the range corresponding to "Not classified"), effects on the liver (an increase in relative weight, centrilobular hypertrophy of hepatocytes, etc.) were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(4) It was reported that in a 90-day subacute neurotoxicity test with rats dosed by feeding (GLP), at 800 ppm (59.7 mg/kg/day (male), 67.6 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), only reductions in body weight gain and food consumption were observed, and neurotoxicity was not observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(5) It was reported that in a 21-day subacute dermal toxicity test with rabbits (GLP, 6 to 6.5 hours/day, 5 days/week), at 1,000 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 233 mg/kg/day, in the range corresponding to "Not classified"), systemic effects and skin irritation were not observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(6) It was reported that in 90-day and 1-year chronic toxicity studies with dogs dosed by feeding (GLP), at the maximum doses of 2,000 ppm (58 mg/kg/day (male), 64 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2) and 1,500 ppm (55 mg/kg/day (male), 61 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), only reductions in body weight gain and food consumption were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
(7) It was reported that in an 18-month oral toxicity test with mice dosed by feeding (GLP), at 400 ppm (65.6 mg/kg/day (male), 75.9 mg/kg/day (female), within the range for Category 2), an increase in relative weight of the liver was observed in females; and at 1,200 ppm (186 mg/kg/day (male), 215 mg/kg/day (female), in the range corresponding to "Not classified"), hypertrophy of the hepatocytes, and an increase in relative weight of the liver in males were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2014), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2015)).
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 Short term (Acute) Category 1


Warning
H400 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 from 96-hour LC50 = 0.066 mg/L for crustacea (Mysidopsis bahia) (EPA OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database, 2018).
Besides, the same numerical value was reported as 96-hour EC50 in EU CLP CLH, 2018, which was thought to be from the same source. Because the exposure time was 96 hours, and it is described in EU CLP CLH that no mortality was observed only in the lowest concentration, the value was judged as 96-hour LC50 by adopting the safe-side interpretation.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 because it was not rapidly degradable (not readily degradable, a 28-day degradation rate in a test according to OECD TG301B: 27% (EU CLP CLH, 2018)) and due to 28-day NOEC = 0.0025 mg/L for crustacea (Mysidopsis bahia) (EPA OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database, 2021).
12 Hazardous to the ozone layer Classification not possible
-
-
- - This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol.


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