GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 88-06-2
Chemical Name 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Substance ID R02-B-028-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 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 (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. Besides, there is information that it is combustible (ICSC (2019)). The category was revised because the information was changed from the one: it is not combustible, described in the previous classification, to the one: it is combustible in 2019's version.
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 Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available. The category was revised because the information was changed from the one: it is not combustible, described in the previous classification, to the one: it is combustible in 2019's version.
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). 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) Category 4


Warning
H302 P301+P312
P264
P270
P330
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 4 from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: 820 mg/kg (EHC 93 (1989), NTP TR155 (1979), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), HSDB (Access on April 2020))
(2) LD50 for rats: 2,800 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), HSDB (Access on April 2020))
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
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 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]
It was classified in Category 2 from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) This substance is severely irritating to the eye, skin, and respiratory tract and causes erythema and pain in the eye and skin (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), GESTIS (Access on April 2020)).
(2) This substance causes very slight irritation (EHC 93 (1989)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) It was classified in Skin Irrit. 2 (H315) in EU-CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on June 2020)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 2


Warning
H319 P305+P351+P338
P337+P313
P264
P280
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 2 from (1), (2). The category was changed because sufficient information for sub-categorization could not be obtained.

[Evidence Data]
(1)This substance is severely irritating to the eye, skin, and respiratory tract and causes erythema and pain in the eye and skin (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), GESTIS (Access on April 2020), HSDB (Access on April 2020)).
(2) Workers exposed to this substance reported eye irritation more frequently than unexposed workers (ATSDR (1999)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) It was classified in Eye Irrit. 2 (H319) in EU-CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on June 2020)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
From (1), (2), it was classified as "Not classified" based on expert judgment.

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for in vivo, it is reported that it was negative in a micronucleus test in the bone marrow after intraperitoneal administration to mice, negative in a replicative DNA synthesis test in mouse hepatocytes, negative in a DNA damage test (hepatocytes) by oral administration to rats (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)), and weakly positive in a somatic cell mutation test (mouse spot test) by intraperitoneal administration to mice (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), IRIS (1991), ATSDR (1999), HSDB (Access on April 2020), EHC93 (1989)).
(2) As for in vitro, it is reported that there were negative and positive results in bacterial reverse mutation tests (IARC 117 (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), ATSDR (1999), HSDB (Access on April 2020)). And it is reported in test systems in cultured mammalian cells that there were negative and positive results in gene mutation tests and negative and positive results in chromosomal aberration tests, and it was negative in a sister chromatid exchange test and positive in a micronucleus test and an aneuploidy test (IARC 117 (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), ATSDR (1999)).
6 Carcinogenicity Category 2


Warning
H351 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 2 from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified in Group 2B by IARC (IARC 117 (2019)), Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), proposed in 2018)), B2 (probable human carcinogen) by EPA (IRIS (1991)), R (Reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens) by NTP (NTP RoC (14th, 2016)), and 2 in EU CLP (EU CLP classification (Access on May 2020)).
(2) In a carcinogenicity test by 2-year diet administration of this substance to male and female rats and mice, the incidence of monocytic leukemia and the combined incidence of malignant lymphoma and monocytic leukemia significantly increased in male rats, and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma or adenoma significantly increased in male and female mice. Therefore, it was concluded that this substance was carcinogenic in males rats and male and female mice (NTP TR155 (1979), IARC 117 (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) In a test in which male and female mice were given 8-week gavage administration or intraperitoneal administration of this substance and were checked for lung tumors at 24 weeks after the initial dose, there was no significant increase in the incidence of lung tumors (IARC 117 (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 14 (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)).
(4) In humans, there is an epidemiological study report on soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and there was no clear causal relationship between exposure to this substance and incidences of these tumors. Therefore, IARC concluded that data are insufficient to draw a conclusion on carcinogenicity (IARC 117 (2019)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Category 2


Warning
H361 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), there was no description on maternal toxicity, and there were findings that suggested effects on fertility, and therefore, it was classified in Category 2.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a test in which female rats were dosed by drinking water from 3 weeks of age and mated with untreated males, and then dosed by drinking water again until parturition, a decrease in litter size was observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), ATSDR (1999)). In this test, there was no description on maternal toxicity (ATSDR (1999)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(2) In a test in which male rats were dosed by gavage for 11 weeks and mated with untreated females, even at a dose of toxicity in male parent animals (death, reduced body weight gain), no effects were observed in the reproductive organs and sexual function of males, and neither in fetal development (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), EHC 93 (1989)).
(3) In a test in which female rats were dosed by gavage for 2 weeks and mated with untreated males, and then dosed by gavage again until day 21 of gestation, followed by an examination of fertility of females, maternal toxicity (death, reduced body weight gain) and low body weight at birth, which was considered to be a secondary effect of maternal toxicity, were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), EHC 93 (1989)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation)



Danger
Warning
H370
H335
P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P312
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation) was considered to be a target organ, and based on (2) to (4), Category 1 (central nervous system) was considered to be a target organ. In the cases in (2), kidney lesions were observed, but since the finding was only in one case, it was determined that this was not sufficient evidence for considering the kidney to be a target organ. Based on new data, the classification results were changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) Trichlorophenol was used as a tracer gas for tests for gas masks, and there were complaints of irritation of the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract at tests (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)).
(2) In a case of poisoning in which a person orally ingested a wood preservative containing this substance, the cause of death was presumed to be CNS disturbances, but the autopsy showed swelling of the mucous membranes in the digestive tract, slight pulmonary edema, and necrosis of the renal tubules (GESTIS (Access on April 2020)).
(3) Drinking water supplies contaminated with chlorophenols (mainly this substance) and low concentration of phenol for several days resulted in gastrointestinal disturbances, headache, rash, and general illness (poor physical condition) in a large number of people (GESTIS (Access on April 2020)).
(4) In rats orally dosed with this substance, poisoning symptoms typical for chlorophenols (restlessness, increased respiratory rate, motor weakness, tremors, clonic convulsions, dyspnea, coma) which indicated disturbances to the nervous system, were observed. Based on LD50 values (800-2,800 mg/kg), it was presumed that symptoms appeared from the dose of Category 2 (GESTIS (Access on April 2020)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 1 (respiratory organs)


Danger
H372 P260
P264
P270
P314
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), there was information that effects on the lung were observed in humans, and therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs). With the addition of new information sources, the classification result was changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) This substance was used as a tracer gas for tests for gas masks. In a survey conducted with 7 workers engaged in tests for gas masks, 4 workers (57%) complained of wheezing in the chest like the one of a cold, and this was higher than the incidence in the control group of 126 workers (10%). In pulmonary function tests, a decrease in maximum expiratory flow at 75% (MEF75), an increase in closing volume, an increase in intrapulmonary pressure, and shaded images in chest radiographs were reported (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)).
(2) In a small group of workers who were exposed to vapors of this substance over 2-10 years for leakage tests for gas masks, irritation to the eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract, and evidence of impaired lung function were observed, and in one case, even pulmonary fibrosis was confirmed (EHC 93 (1989), GESTIS (Access on April 2020)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) In a 90-day test by oral administration of this substance to rats, at or above 240 mg/kg (within the range exceeding Category 2), an increase in serum albumin and increases in liver and kidney weight were observed; and at or above 720 mg/kg (within the range exceeding Category 2), salivation, stained fur with urine, increases in adrenal gland and testis weight, increases in total protein of serum and ALT (GPT), and lower urine pH were observed, but no pathological changes were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016)).
(4) In a 7-week test by oral administration of this substance to rats dosed by feeding, at or above 1% (converted guidance value 272 mg/kg, within the range exceeding Category 2), reduced body weight gain was observed; and at 4.6% (converted guidance value 1,252 mg/kg/day equivalent, within the range exceeding Category 2), extramedullary hematopoiesis of the spleen and midzonal cytoplasmic vacuolar degeneration of hepatocytes were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances, Vol. 14, (Ministry of the Environment, 2016), EHC 93 (1989)).
(5) In a 106-107-week test by oral administration of this substance to rats dosed by feeding, leukocytosis and monocytosis of the peripheral blood and hyperplasia of the bone marrow were observed, but these findings were due to aging, and the incidence was within the normal range (NTP TR155 (1979)).
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 = 0.3 mg/L for fish (Lepomis macrochirus) (EHC 93, 1989).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic) Not classified
-
-
- - Reliable chronic toxicity data were not obtained. It was classified as "Not classified" because it was rapidly degradable (a 3-week degradation rate by BOD: 82.5% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 1978)) and due to a low bioaccumulation estimate (log Kow = 3.69 (HSDB, 2020)).
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