NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	140-88-5
Chemical Name	Ethyl acrylate
Substance ID	R02-B-021-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	Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year	FY2006 FY2014 FY2015
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)	- -	-	-	Liquid (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)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
5	Gases under pressure	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
6	Flammable liquids	Category 2	Danger	H225	P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501	It was classified in Category 2 based on a flash point of 8 deg C (closed cup) and a boiling point of 100 deg C (Hommel (1991)). Besides, it is classified in Class 3, PG II in UNRTDG (UN1917).
7	Flammable solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Type G	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties, an unsaturated bond, present in the molecule, but because a stabilized one is classified in Class 3, PG II in UNRTDG (UN1917), and it is considered to be not applicable to self-reactive substances and mixtures, hazards of the highest precedence, it was classified in Type G.
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 372 deg C (NFPA (14th, 2010)).
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	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	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)	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen. It was classified as "Not classified."
14	Oxidizing solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition). 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	- -	-	-	No data 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)	Category 4	Warning	H302	P301+P312 P264 P270 P330 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 4 from (1) - (11). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 461-731 mg/kg (CLH Report (2019)) (2) LD50 for rats: 500-5,000 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)) (3) LD50 for rats: 500-2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010)) (4) LD50 for rats: 554 mg/kg (SIAR (2008), CLH Report (2019)) (5) LD50 for rats: 760-1,120 mg/kg (AICIS IMAP (2015)) (6) LD50 for rats: 0.83 mL/kg (767 mg/kg bw) (JECFA FAS 54 (2006)) (7) LD50 for rats: 800 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), CLH Report (2019)) (8) LD50 for rats: > 900 mg/kg (CLH Report (2019)) (9) LD50 for rats: 1,020 mg/kg (JECFA FAS 54 (2006), SIAR (2008), CLH Report (2019), ACGIH (7th, 2001)) (10) LD50 for rats: 1,120 mg/kg (SIAR (2008), CLH Report (2019)) (11) LD50 for rats: 2,000 mg/kg (SIAR (2008))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 4	Warning	H312	P302+P352 P362+P364 P280 P312 P321 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 4 by using knowledge in rabbits from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbits: 126-2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: 1,790 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001)) (3) LD50 for rabbits: 1,790-2,000 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)) (4) LD50 for rabbits: 1,800 mg/kg (CLH Report (2019)) [Reference Data, etc.] (5) LD50 for rats: 1,800-5,000 mg/kg (AICIS IMAP (2015)) (6) LD50 for rats: 2,000-5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)) (7) LD50 for rats: 3,049 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), CLH Report (2019), SIAR (2008)) (8) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (SIAR (2008), CLH Report (2019))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Category 3	Danger	H331	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P311 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 3 from (1) - (10). Besides, because exposure concentrations were lower than 90% of the saturated vapor pressure concentration (50,793 ppm), the reference value in units of ppm was applied as a vapor with little mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,000-2,000 ppm (ACGIH (7th, 2001)) (2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,000-2,180 ppm (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)) (3) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 4.1-8.2 mg/L (1,002 ppm-2,004 ppm) (CLH Report (2019)) (4) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,414 ppm (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013)) (5) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,500-2,180 ppm (AICIS IMAP (2015)) (6) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 1,500 ppm (SIAR (2008)) (7) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 2,180 ppm (SIAR (2008), CLH Report (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013)) (8) LC50 for rats (4 hours): < 9.137 mg/L (2,233 ppm) (CLH Report (2019)) (9) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 25.8 mg/L (6,305 ppm) (CLH Report (2019)) (10) LC50 for rats (4 hours): < 165 mg/L (40,322 ppm) (CLH Report (2019)) (11) Vapor pressure of this substance: 38.6 mmHg (25 deg C) (HSDB (Access on April 2020)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 50,793 ppm)
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	Category 2	Warning	H315	P302+P352 P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321	[Rationale for the Classification] From (1) - (4), by prioritizing results of animal tests according to OECD TG, it was classified in Category 2. [Evidence Data] (1) In a skin irritation test by 4-hour occlusive application of this substance to the rabbit skin, severe erythema and edema were observed. And it was irritating to the human skin (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010), SIDS Dossier (2008), ECETOC JACC 28 (1994)). (2) This substance is irritating to the skin and mucous membranes of the eyes (MAK (DFG) (2018), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), ATSDR (2001)). (3) In a skin irritation test with rabbits according to OECD TG 404, the average score at 24 to 72 hours after application for erythema and edema was 2.2 and 0, respectively, and the reactions were reversible within 14 days (SIDS Dossier (2008), AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Access on June 2020)). (4) Skin disorder or irritation of mucous membranes due to exposure to this substance was described in Article 35 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Labor Standards Act (Notification No. 33 (1996)). [Reference Data, etc.] (5) In a skin irritation test by 4-hour occlusive application of this substance to the rabbit skin, severe erythema and edema with eschar, sloughing, and scar formation persisted for 2 weeks, and the substance was corrosive (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (6) In an in-vitro skin corrosion test using reconstructed human epidermis model according to OECD TG 431, viability after exposure of 3 minutes and 60 minutes was 88% and 7%, respectively, and it was judged as corrosive (Category 1B/C) (SIDS Dossier (2008), AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Access on June 2020)). (7) It was classified in Skin Irrit. 2 (H315) in EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on July 2020)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2A	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 2A from (1) - (6). [Evidence Data] (1) In an eye irritation test in which this substance (0.1 mL) was applied to rabbits, it was moderately irritating. And it is irritating to the human eye (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010)). (2) This substance is irritating to the skin and mucous membranes of the eyes (MAK (DFG) (2018), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), ATSDR (2001)). (3) In an eye irritation test in which this substance (0.1 mL) was applied to the rabbit eye, necrosis was seen after 24 hours (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (4) In an eye irritation test (Draize test) in which this substance (0.1 mL) was applied to the rabbit eye, mild to severe conjunctival inflammation, corneal opacity, and iritis were seen at 24 hours, and one animal was killed due to the severity of lesions, but the other animals recovered by 72 hours. The mean score at 24/48/72 hours after application for corneal opacity, iris, conjunctival redness, and chemosis was 0.07, 0.07, 2, 1, respectively (SIDS Dossier (2008), AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Access on June 2020)). (5) Skin disorder or irritation of mucous membranes due to exposure to this substance was described in Article 35 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Labor Standards Act (Notification No. 33 (1996)). (6) This substance is highly irritating to the skin, eye, and mucous membranes (Patty (6th, 2012)). (7) It was classified in Eye Irrit. 2 (H319) in EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on July 2020)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Category 1A	Warning	H317	P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Data indicating Category 1, Category 1A, or Category 1B were mixed, but because the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) assigned it in occupational skin sensitizers Group 2 in (1), it was classified in Category 1A in accordance with the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government. [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was assigned in occupational skin sensitizers Group 2 by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2017)). (2) In skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs (a Buehler test and an FCA test), this substance was sensitizing, but negative results were reported in a maximization test and a non-occlusive patch test. Besides, in the Buehler test with a positive judgment, a positive rate was 60% at an application concentration of 0.4% (MAK (DFG) vol.16 (2001), SIDS Dossier (2008), ECETOC JACC 28 (1994)). (3) This substance was sensitizing in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (Buehler test). And it showed cross-sensitization with various acrylates (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010)). (4) It is reported that sensitization was seen in 39 out of 194 persons against 1% of this substance in methanol, about half of persons in a 48-hour patch test using a 5% solution, and 10 out of 24 persons against 4% in petrolatum (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010)). (5) This substance was reported to be positive in several patch tests in humans (MAK (DFG) (2018)). (6) Positive results were obtained in skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs (a Buehler test and a maximization test). Besides, a 5% solution was negative in a mouse local lymph node assay (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (7) In a mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) according to TG 429, it was judged as positive, and EC3 was reported to be 36.8% (REACH registration dossier (Access on June 2020)). (8) It was classified in Skin Sens. 1 (H317) in EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on July 2020)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, it was reported to be positive and negative in micronucleus tests with the mouse bone marrow cells (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), SIAR (2008), IARC 122 (2019)). Besides, it is described that there were methodological deficiencies in the micronucleus test that gave a positive result (SIAR (2008)). It is reported that it was negative in a micronucleus test and a sister chromatid exchange test with the mouse spleen cells (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), SIAR (2008), IARC 122 (2019)) and negative in DNA break tests with the rat forestomach or mouse peripheral blood and DNA adduct formation tests with the forestomach or liver of rats (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), IARC 122 (2019)). (2) As for in vitro, it is reported that it was negative in a bacterial reverse mutation test, positive in a mouse lymphoma test with the cultured mammalian cells, negative in an HGPRT gene mutation test, and positive and negative in chromosomal aberration tests and sister chromatid exchange tests (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), SIAR (2008), IARC 122 (2019)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) IARC did not deny a genotoxic mechanism of carcinogenesis by this substance, but it is reported that there was strong evidence that this substance altered cell proliferation and cell death (IARC 122 (2019)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Category 2	Warning	H351	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] From (1) - (3), it was classified in Category 2 based on the most recent classification results by other organizations, IARC and the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH). [Evidence Data] (1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified in Group 2B by IARC (IARC 122 (2019)), A4 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), and Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) (proposed in 1991, reassessed in 2019)). (2) In tests by 103-week gavage administration of this substance to male and female rats or mice, dose-dependent increases in the incidences of squamous cell carcinoma or papilloma of the forestomach were observed in both sexes of both the species (IARC 122 (2019), ACGIH (7th, 2001)), and also in an additional test in which male rats were dosed with this substance by gavage for 12 months, followed by 12 months of recovery and necropsy, an increased incidence of squamous cell tumors of the forestomach was found (IARC 122 (2019)), ACGIH (7th, 2001)). (3) In carcinogenicity tests by 27-month inhalation exposure of male and female rats or mice to the vapor of this substance, there was an increase in the incidence of follicular cell adenoma of the thyroid in male mice, and there was a significant increase in the incidence of follicular cell adenoma or carcinoma (combined) of the thyroid in male rats (IARC 122 (2019)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) It is described in ACGIH that as for inhalation exposure, no increase was seen in the tumor incidences of organs, including respiratory organs, in any test except for a test in male mice in which an increase in thyroid follicular adenoma was shown, the authors concluded that the thyroid tumors were probably not due to exposure to this substance, and ACGIH concluded that this substance was not carcinogenic in the inhalation route (ACGIH (7th, 2001)). (5) NTP classified this substance in R (reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen) at first, but this substance was removed from the 9th Report on Carcinogens in 2001 because the forestomach tumors observed in the oral route were only seen when this substance was administered by gavage at high concentrations, which were induced by local irritation to the mucosa and cell proliferation effect by repeated stimulation and do not occur in humans (SIAR (2008), NTP (2001)), and this substance was listed in Substances Delisted from the Report on Carcinogens in the appendix of the latest version (NTP RoC 14th (2016)). (6) It was also concluded in MAK that this substance is not classified in one of the categories for carcinogens (MAK (DFG) (2018)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), no developmental effects were observed. However, because there was no data on reproductive function and fertility, classification was not possible due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) In a developmental toxicity study by inhalation exposure of female rats on days 6 to 15 of gestation, at a dose at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain, reduced food consumption, etc.) was observed, a slight increase in malformations without statistically significant difference was observed in fetuses (ACGIH (7th, 2001), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), MAK (DFG) (2018), NTP TR259 (1986)). As for effects in fetuses in this study, the Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007) stated that no effect was observed in fetuses, and the Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013) considered that effects in fetuses were not the basis for NOAEL. The NTP TR259 (1986) stated that no teratogenicity was observed. (2) In a developmental toxicity study by inhalation exposure of female rats on days 6 to 20 of gestation, at a dose at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain) was observed, only lower fetal weight was observed, and no malformation was observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), MAK (DFG) (2018), SIAR (2008)). (3) In a developmental toxicity study in which female rats were dosed by gavage on days 0 to 19 of gestation followed by a Caesarean delivery or a natural delivery, at doses at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain, thickening of the forestomach, adhesion of the stomach with other organs) was observed, an increasing tendency in fetal death was observed, but there was no increase in the incidence of abnormalities of the shape, skeleton, and internal organs of fetuses. No effect was observed in the development of newborns up to postnatal day 21 (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 3 (narcotic effects, respiratory tract irritation)	Warning	H336 H335	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3) and (6), the narcotic effects and respiratory tract irritation were observed in humans, and based on (4) and (5), the narcotic effects and respiratory tract irritation were observed in experimental animals. Therefore, it was classified in Category 3 (narcotic effects, respiratory tract irritation). [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that in humans, sleepiness, headaches, and nausea were observed after exposure to 50 to 75 ppm (mL/m3) of this substance (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (2) It was reported that 9 men and 10 women (average age of 25.2 and 22.4 years, respectively) were exposed to this substance at either a constant concentration of 0, 2.5 or 5 mL/m3 or a variable concentration of 0 to 5 mL/m3 (time-weighted average concentration (CTWA) 2.5 mL/m3) and 0 to 10 mL/m3 (CTWA 5 mL/m3) each for 4 hours, and as a result, they complained of odor intensity and annoyance at all the exposure conditions, and neurogenic inflammation of the nasal cavity and effects on parameters of behavioral effects were observed at both the constant and variable concentration conditions of CTWA 5 mL/m3 (MAK (DFG) (2018)). (3) This substance was irritating to the skin, mucous membranes of the eyes, and respiratory tract in humans (MAK (DFG) (2018)). (4) In an acute oral toxicity test with rats, at or above 710 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2, lethal doses) which was the minimum exposure concentration, central nervous system depression (passiveness, ataxia) and/or respiratory depression (cyanosis, abdominal breathing) were observed (SIDS Dossier (2008)). (5) It was reported that in an acute inhalation exposure test with rats, at or above 1,538 ppm (6.30 mg/L equivalent, within the range for Category 1, lethal doses) which was the minimum exposure concentration, irritation of the eyes and respiratory organs was observed (SIDS Dossier (2008)). (6) As for this substance, Article 35 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Labor Standards Act described subjective symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and emesis, and skin lesions or irritation of mucous membranes (Ministry of Labour Notification No. 33 (1996)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (3), there was information that effects on the nervous system were observed in humans, and based on (2), there was information that effects on the respiratory organs were observed in test animals at a dose of Category 1. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs). [Evidence Data] (1) Fourteen of 33 workers who were exposed to this substance at 0.98 to 14.21 ppm and butyl acrylate at 9.54 ppm for an average of 5 years complained of autonomic dystonia (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (2) It was reported that in a 12-month inhalation exposure test with rats, at 25 ppm (0.104 mg/L, within the range for Category 1), inflammation of the nasal cavity mucosa and olfactory epithelium degeneration were observed. It was also reported that in a 27-month inhalation exposure test with rats, proliferation of the basal cells of the nasal cavity mucosa and respiratory epithelial metaplasia of the olfactory epithelium were observed at the same concentration (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). (3) As for this substance, Article 35 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Labor Standards Act described subjective symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and emesis, and skin lesions or irritation of mucous membranes (Ministry of Labour Notification No. 33 (1996)).
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 2	- -	H401	P273 P501	It was classified in Category 2 from 96-hour LC50 = 1.16 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 2	-	H411	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 2 because it was not rapidly degradable (not readily degradable, a 28-day degradation rate according to OECD TG301D: 57.3% (SIAR, 2008)) and due to 21-day NOEC = 0.19 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 11 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013), Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)).
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