NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	2636-26-2
Chemical Name	O-4-cyanophenyl O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate; Cyanophos
Substance ID	R02-B-054-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
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	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" based on a flash point of 104 deg C (HSDB (Access on May 2020)).
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 (P-O) present in the molecule, but because it is classified in Division 6.1 in UNRTDG (UN3018), 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	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
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	- -	-	-	It contains a metalloid (P), but it was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not react vigorously with water from water solubility data of 46 mg/L (30 deg C) (HSDB (Access on May 2020)).
13	Oxidizing liquids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine), which is chemically bonded to the element other than carbon or hydrogen (P). However, the classification is not possible due to no data.
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) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: males: 580 mg/kg, females: 610 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), HSDB (Access on May 2020), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)) (2) LD50 for rats: 610 mg/kg (IPCS PIM G001 (1998)) (3) LD50 for rats: males: 710 mg/kg, females: 730 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), HSDB (Access on May 2020)) (4) LD50 for rats: 215 mg/kg (GESTIS (Access on May 2020))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 3	Danger	H311	P302+P352 P361+P364 P280 P312 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 3 from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: males: 560 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)) (2) LD50 for rats: 800 mg/kg (GESTIS (Access on May 2020)) (3) LD50 for rats: females: > 1,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)) (4) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017))
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)	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] The category could not be determined from (1), (2), and it was classified as "Classification not possible." Besides, because exposure concentrations were higher than the saturated vapor pressure concentration (0.01 mg/L), a reference value in the unit of mg/L was applied as mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 1.09 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)) (2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 1.50 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)) (3) Vapor pressure of this substance: 0.000791 mmHg (20 deg C) (Japan Crop Protection Association (1993)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 0.01 mg/L)
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) An eye irritation test and a skin irritation test with rabbits were conducted, and no eye or skin irritation was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) In a skin irritation test by 4-hour occlusive application of this substance (0.5 mL) to the rabbit skin, no erythema or edema was observed (Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (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), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) An eye irritation test and a skin irritation test with rabbits were conducted, and no eye or skin irritation was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) In an eye irritation test in which this substance (0.1 mL) was applied to the rabbit eye, no irritation reactions were observed in the cornea, iris, or conjunctiva (Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)).
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) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test), no skin sensitization was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test, intradermal administration 5%), it was reported to be negative for sensitization (Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 14 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1993)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (3). [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, it was reported to be negative in micronucleus tests using bone marrow cells from rats and mice and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with rat hepatocytes (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) As for in vitro, there were reports on 2 negative results and 1 positive result in bacterial reverse mutation tests and 1 positive result in a chromosomal aberration test with hamster ovary-derived cells (same as the above). (3) It is described in the Risk Assessment Report (Food Safety Commission of Japan) that it was considered that it did not have genotoxicity that could pose a problem in vivo (same as the above).
6	Carcinogenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] There were no classification results by domestic and international organizations. There was no available report in humans. It was classified as "Not classified" from (1). [Evidence Data] (1) In combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity tests by 2-year diet administration of this substance to male and female rats and mice, neoplastic lesions whose incidences were increased by treatment were not observed in either species (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), although effects on offspring were observed at a dose of maternal toxicity, the extent of the effects could not be determined, and therefore, it was considered that classification was not possible. A new information source was used and the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) In a two-generation reproduction toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding, at a dose at which reduced body weight gain, etc. were observed in female parent animals (P and F1 generations), a decrease in survival rate on day 21 of lactation (without significant difference), prostration (without significant difference), dwarf body, and reduced body weight gain (without significant difference in females) were observed in F1 offspring (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). The Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017) determined that findings without significant difference which were observed in the above offspring to be an effect of the administration of the test substance. [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6 to 15 of gestation, no effect was observed in fetuses even at a dose at which maternal toxicity (vellication, a decrease in body weight, a decrease in food consumption) was observed (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 19 of gestation, no effect was observed in fetuses even at a dose at which maternal toxicity (deaths (4/18 animals), ataxia, salivation, miosis, lacrimation, expiratory wheezing, etc.) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory organs)	Danger	H370	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was reported that effects on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, and respiratory organs were observed in humans. Based on (2), it was reported that effects on the nervous system at doses within the range for Category 1 were observed in experimental animals. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory organs). With the addition of new information sources, the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) Multiple cases of organophosphorus pesticide poisoning were reported in humans exposed to this substance. Common symptoms of organophosphorus pesticide poisoning were headache, giddiness, nervousness, blurred vision, weakness, nausea, cramps, diarrhea, anddiscomfort in the chest, etc. Signs were sweating, miosis, tearing, salivation and other excessive respiratory tract secretion,vomiting, cyanosis, papilledema, uncontrollable muscle twitches followed by muscular weakness; and serious cases were convulsions, coma, loss ofreflexes, and loss of sphincter control, etc. It was reported that cardiac arrhythmias, various degrees of heart block, and cardiac arrest sometimes occurred. It was also reported that, in autopsy, acute emphysema, pulmonary edema, pink froth in the trachea and bronchi, considerable congestion of the organs, and petechial hemorrhages in the organs were observed (HSDB (Access on May 2020)). (2) In multiple oral toxicity tests with rats, at or above 25 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), effects on the nervous system, such as muscle spasms, tremor, ataxic gait, salivation, piloerection, exophthalmos, dyspnea, miosis, incontinence of urine, etc. were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) In a dermal exposure test with rats, at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), there were deaths, and such symptoms as exophthalmos, tremor, ataxic gait, hypersensitivity to tactile or external stimulation, deep breathing, muscle spasms, and gait unsteadiness were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (4) In a 4-hour inhalation exposure test (mist aerosol) with rats, at doses up to the maximum dose of 1.50 mg/L (within the range for Category 2), irregular breathing, deep breathing, a decrease in locomotor activity, muscle spasms, lacrimation, nasal discharge, salivation, incontinence of urine, excitement, miosis, and inhibition of brain and erythrocyte cholinesterase activity were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (nervous system)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] There was no report on repeated exposure of humans to this substance, but based on information in (1), effects on the nervous system were observed as general effects of organophosphorus pesticides, and based on information in (2) and (3), effects on the nervous system were observed in test animals at a dose of Category 1 or Category 2, and therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system). [Evidence Data] (1) In humans, all organophosphorus pesticides had a cumulative effect by progressive inhibition of cholinesterase (ChE). The symptoms of chronic poisoning due to organophosphorus pesticides included headache, weakness, feeling of heaviness in head, decline of memory, fatigue, disturbed sleep, loss of appetite, and loss of orientation. It was reported that psychic disorders, nystagmus, trembling of the hands, and other nervous system disorders could be observed in certain cases, and sometimes neuritis, paresis, and paralysis developed (HSDB (Access on May 2020)). (2) It was reported that in a 90-day test with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 20 ppm (males/females: 1.35/1.70 mg/kg, within the range for Category 1 in both cases), piloerection, and inhibition of brain and erythrocyte ChE activity were observed; and at 100 ppm (males: 7.25 mg/kg; females: 8.83 mg/kg, within the range for Category 1 in both cases), tremor, toe walking, an increase in contact reaction, wasting, straub tail, upward bending of the backbone, etc. were observed. It was also reported that in a 21-day inhalation exposure test with rats (2 hours/day), at 0.2% (about 0.01 mg/L, within the range for Category 1), inhibition of brain and erythrocyte cholinesterase activity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (3) In a four-week oral toxicity test with dogs dosed by capsules, at or above 3 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), inhibition of brain and erythrocyte ChE activity was observed; and at or above 30 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2), miosis, tremor, vomiting , and salivation 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 = 0.097 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Document for registration standards for agricultural chemicals set by the Minister of Environment to prevent harm to animals and plants in areas of public waters, 2018).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 1	Warning	H410	P273 P391 P501	Reliable chronic toxicity data were not obtained. It was classified in Category 1 because it was not rapidly degradable (a 4-week degradation rate by BOD: 45% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 2001)), and it was classified in Category 1 in acute toxicity. The classification result was changed from the previous classification by reviewing information used to judge rapid degradability.
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