GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 500008-45-7
Chemical Name Chlorantraniliprole
Substance ID R02-A-014-MHLW, MOE
Classification year (FY) FY2020
Ministry who conducted the classification Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)/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. It was classified as "Not classified."
2 Flammable gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
3 Aerosols Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Not aerosol products. It was classified as "Not classified."
4 Oxidizing gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
5 Gases under pressure Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
6 Flammable liquids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
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. It was classified as "Not classified."
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
10 Pyrophoric solids Not classified
-
-
- - It was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from information that it is stable at up to 330 deg C (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 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 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). It was classified as "Not classified."
13 Oxidizing liquids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
14 Oxidizing solids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - The substance is an organic compound containing chlorine and oxygen (but not fluorine) which are chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen. It was classified as "Not classified."
15 Organic peroxides Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule. It was classified as "Not classified."
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. 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) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: males: > 5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 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: > 5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018))
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) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): > 5.1 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018))
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) No irritation was seen in a skin irritation test with rabbits (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1).

[Evidence Data]
(1) In an eye irritation test with rabbits, the mean score for corneal opacity and iris at 24/48/72 hours after application was less than 1 for all the animals, and the mean score for conjunctival redness and edema was less than 2 in all. Symptoms disappeared by 72 hours after application, and this substance was judged as slightly irritating (EPA's criteria) or not irritating (EEC classification) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018)).
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).

[Evidence Data]
(1) No sensitization was observed in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018)).
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for in vivo, in a micronucleus test using the bone marrow cells of orally dosed mice, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018).
(2) As for in vitro, in a bacterial reverse mutation test, a chromosome aberration test and a gene mutation test using cultured mammalian cells, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018).
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, the EPA classified this substance in NL (Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans) (EPA Annual Cancer Report 2019 (Access on October 2020): Classification in 2009).
(2) In a two-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study by oral administration of this substance to male and female rats dosed by feeding, no increase in the incidence of neoplastic lesions associated with the administration was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
(3) In an 18-month carcinogenicity study by oral administration of this substance to male and female mice dosed by feeding, no effect associated with the administration of the test substance was observed on the incidence of neoplastic lesions (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a two-generation reproduction study with rats dosed by feeding, at the highest dose of 20,000 ppm (P generation, males: 1,200 mg/kg/day, females: 1,590 mg/kg/day; F1 generation, males: 1,930 mg/kg/day, females: 2,180 mg/kg/day), no toxicity effects in parental animals and in pups and no effects on fertility were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
(2) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6 to 20 of gestation, no maternal toxicity or developmental toxicity was observed even at the highest dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
(3) In a developmental toxicity study with female rabbits dosed by gavage on days 7 to 28 of gestation, no maternal toxicity or developmental toxicity was observed even at the highest dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
There was no report on acute exposure effects of this substance in humans. In experimental animals, based on (1) to (4), there were no findings by which target organs could be identified in any of the tests in the oral, dermal, and/or inhalation routes. Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) In an acute oral toxicity test with female rats, no deaths or symptoms were observed at 5,000 mg/kg (exceeding Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
(2) In an acute dermal application test with rats, no deaths or symptoms were observed at 5,000 mg/kg (upper limit of Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
(3) In a four-hour inhalation test with rats (exposure of the nose), at 5.1 mg/L (exceeding Category 2), there was no death case, and secretion from the eyes and mouth in males and palpebral closure in females were observed immediately after the exposure, but in a macropathological examination, no change was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018)).
(4) In an acute neurotoxicity test with rats dosed by gavage (0, 200, 700, 2,000 mg/kg), no effects of the administration of the test substance were observed in any of mortality, general conditions, changes in body weight, a detailed observation of conditions, a function test, necropsy, or a histopathological examination (nerve tissues) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
There was no report on repeated exposure to this substance in humans. In tests in the oral route and dermal route with test animals, based on (1) to (3), there were no toxicity findings by which target organs could be identified at doses within the range for Category 1 and Category 2, therefore, it was considered to be "Not classified" in the oral route and dermal route. However, because there was no sufficient information on toxicity in the inhalation route, it was classified as "Classification not possible."

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that in an 18-month oral toxicity study with mice dosed by feeding, at 7,000 ppm (males/females: 935/1,150 mg/kg/day, both exceeding Category 2), increases in absolute and relative liver weight, centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy, and an increase in altered hepatocytes (acidophil cells) of the liver were observed in males (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017, JMPR (2008)).
(2) There were several reports of no toxicity findings in 90-day to two-year feeding studies in rats, mice, and dogs, at doses within the range for Category 1 and Category 2 (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), JMPR (2008)).
(3) It was reported that in a 29-day dermal exposure test with rats, at 1,000 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 320 mg/kg/day, exceeding Category 2), reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food efficiency were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
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 48-hour EC50 = 0.0116 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2018)).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 because it is not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN) and due to 21-day NOErC = 0.00286 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (ECOTOX, 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