GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 3347-22-6
Chemical Name 2,3-dicyano-1,4-dithiaanthraquinone; Dithianon
Substance ID R02-B-072-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)
-
-
- - 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 Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
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 oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is 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) - (6).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: females: about 300 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010))
(2) LD50 for rats: females: 472 mg/kg, males: 541 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012))
(3) LD50 for rats: females: 492 mg/kg, males: 528 mg/kg (Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 9 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1991))
(4) LD50 for rats: 638 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012), GESTIS (Access on May 2020), HSDB (Access on May 2020))
(5) LD50 for rats: females: 678 mg/kg, males: 720 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012))
(6) LD50 for rats: 702 mg/kg (JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012))
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012), GESTIS (Access on May 2020))
(2) LD50 for rats: > 3,200 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 9 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1991))
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) Category 2


Danger
H330 P304+P340
P403+P233
P260
P271
P284
P310
P320
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 2 from (1) - (6).
Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification due to the use of new information sources.
Because exposure concentrations were higher than the saturated vapor pressure concentration (3.2E-010 mg/L), a reference value in the unit of mg/L was applied as dust.

[Evidence Data]
(1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): males: 0.280 mg/L, females: 0.368 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018))
(2) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): males: 0.31 mg/L, females: 0.58 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012))
(3) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): 0.33 mg/L (JMPR (2010))
(4) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): males: 1.8 mg/L, females: 2.4 mg/L (JMPR (2010))
(5) LC50 for rats (4 hours): males: 1.82 mg/L, females: 2.36 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018))
(6) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): 2.1 mg/L (JMPR (2010), HSDB (Access on May 2020))
(7) Vapor pressure of this substance: 2.03E-011 mmHg (25 deg C) (HSDB (Access on May 2020)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 3.2E-010 mg/L)
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (4).

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a skin irritation test with rabbits on this substance according to OECD TG 404 (4-hour occlusive application), it was not irritating (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
(2) This substance was not irritating in a skin irritation test with rabbits (4-hour occlusive application) (JMPR (2010)).
(3) This substance was not irritating to the rabbit skin (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(4) This substance was not irritating in a skin irritation test with rabbits (24-hour occlusive application) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 9 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1991)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(5) This substance may cause severe skin irritation in sensitive individuals (HSDB (Access on May 2020)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 1


Danger
H318 P305+P351+P338
P280
P310
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 1 from (1). The classification result was changed due to new data obtained.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In an eye irritation test with rabbits, corneal opacity, iridial hyperemia, and conjunctival erythema and edema were observed, and these persisted for 21 days in 2/6 animals (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(2) It is reported that this substance caused severe or irreversible irritation in eye irritation tests with rabbits (JMPR (2010)).
(3) This substance was severely irritating to the rabbit eye (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(4) In an eye irritation test with rabbits, corneal opacity, iridial hyperemia, and conjunctival erythema and edema were shown, and it was judged as a severe irritant (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 9 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1991)).
(5) It was classified in Eye Dam. 1 (H318) in EU-CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on August 2020)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Category 1


Warning
H317 P302+P352
P333+P313
P362+P364
P261
P272
P280
P321
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 1 from (1), (2).

[Evidence Data]
(1) In skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs (maximization test), this substance was slightly or severely sensitizing (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement "Agricultural chemicals technology information" No. 9 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 1991)).
(2) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs by an open application, this substance was reported to be positive for sensitization (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) In a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test, intradermal administration 1%), this substance was reported to be sensitizing (positive rate 15.8%) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
(4) In skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs on this substance (maximization test), there are reports as both positive and negative for sensitization (JMPR (2010)).
(5) It was classified in Skin Sens. 1 (H317) in EU-CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on August 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 is reported that it was negative in micronucleus tests by oral administration to rats or mice, negative in a chromosomal aberration test by oral administration to rats, negative in an unscheduled DNA synthesis test by oral administration to rats (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)), and comet assays with kidney cells after oral administration to rats gave negative or equivocal results (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010)).
(2) As for in vitro, it is reported that there were positive and negative results in bacterial reverse mutation tests, and as for test systems in cultured mammalian cells, there was a positive result in a chromosomal aberration test and positive, negative, and equivocal results in gene mutation tests (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
6 Carcinogenicity Category 2


Warning
H351 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
It was classified in Category 2 based on (1) - (3). An investigation was conducted by using new information sources, and the classification result was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, EPA classified it in S (suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity) (EPA Annual Cancer Report 2019 (Access on August 2020): classified in 2006).
(2) In a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity test by 2-year diet administration of this substance to male and female rats, a significant increase in the incidence of renal cell adenoma was observed in females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(3) In a carcinogenicity test by 18-month diet administration of this substance to male and female mice, no increase in the incidence of treatment-related neoplastic lesions was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Category 2


Warning
H361 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), no effect on fertility was observed, but based on (2) to (5), effects on fetuses were observed at a dose of maternal toxicity, and therefore, it was classified in Category 2. A new information source was used and the classification results were changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a two-generation reproductive study with rats dosed by feeding, no effect on offspring or fertility was observed even at a dose at which reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption were observed as parental toxicity (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(2) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6 to 15 of gestation, an increase in post-implantation embryo loss, increased number of intrauterine deaths, and reduced ratio of the number of live fetuses to the number of implantations were observed in fetuses at doses at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(3) In a developmental toxicity study with female mice dosed by gavage on days 6 to 15 of gestation, delayed ossification, low body weight, and a decrease in placenta weight were observed in fetuses at doses at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(4) In a developmental toxicity study with female rabbits dosed by gavage on days 6 to 18 of gestation, maternal toxicity (reduced body weight, miscarriage (3 animals)) was observed, and an increase in post-implantation embryo loss and reduced number of live fetuses due to increased early resorptions, and a decrease in placenta weight were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(5) In a developmental toxicity study with female rabbits dosed by gavage on days 6 to 18 of gestation, an increase in early resorption, an increase in post-implantation embryo loss, a decrease in placenta weight, and reduced number of fetuses were observed at a dose at which maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption) was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs, kidney)


Danger
H370 P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
There was no report on single exposure to this substance in humans. Based on (1) to (6), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs, kidney). A new information was used and the classification results were changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that, in an oral toxicity test with rats, apathy, diarrhea, abnormal gait, quickening of respiration, abnormal posture, and catalepsy were observed at 30 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(2) It was reported that, in an oral toxicity test with rats, sedation and stained fur were observed at or above 100 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1); dyspnea, hunchback position, diarrhea, and wasting were observed at or above 400 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2); and ataxia, tremor, and chromodacryorrhea were observed at or above 1,000 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
(3) It was reported that, in an inhalation exposure test with rats, sedation, dyspnea, piloerection, reddish tear, lying on belly, hunchback position, wasting, and death were observed at doses up to 3.584 mg/L (aerosol, within the range for Category 2); and in dead animals, foam discharges from the lung, bronchus, and nose, and partial darkening, mottled dark reddening, and dysfunction of the lung were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
(4) It was reported that, in an inhalation exposure test with rats, at 0.25 mg/L (dust, within the range for Category 1) to 1.26 mg/L (dust, within the range for Category 2), bradypnea followed by hyperpnea, abnormal respiration sound, crouching position, piloerection, apathy, and death were observed,; and in dead animals, edema in the lung, and dark reddening of the all pulmonary lobes were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
(5) It was reported that, in a dermal exposure test with rats, stained fur, wasting, and dark red foci in the lung were observed at 2,000 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
(6) It was reported that, in a 7-day test with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 600 ppm (60 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1), hydropic degeneration of the proximal tubular epithelium followed by regeneration of the renal tubular epithelial cells, and damages of mitochondria in the renal tubular epithelial cells were observed. Based on in vivo kinetics of this substance and the extent of the findings, it was determined that these findings might be caused by a single oral administration, etc. (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 2 (blood system, liver, kidney)


Warning
H373 P260
P314
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
There was no report on repeated exposure to this substance in humans. Based on (1) to (3), in experimental animals, at doses for Category 2, effects on the blood system, liver, and kidney were observed. Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (blood system, liver, kidney). Increased severity of chronic nephropathy was observed in females starting from a dose of Category 1, but this was due to increased severity of age-related changes, and as rationale for the classification of the kidney, the findings observed in a 90-day test in (2) were adopted. With the addition of new information, the classification results were changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that in a 2-year test with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 120 ppm (equivalent to 6 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1), increased severity of chronic nephropathy in females, and increases in gamma-GTP and glucose in males were observed; and at 600 ppm (30 mg/kg as an average ingestion amount of the test substance, within the range for Category 2), in males and females, decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin concentration, hematocrit level, and mean corpuscular volume, and an increase in blood urea nitrogen were observed, and additionally in males, increased severity of chronic nephropathy and parathyroid hyperplasia were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010)).
(2) It was reported that in a 90-day test with rats dosed by feeding, at 1,080 ppm (males/females: equivalent to 86.7/99.5 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2 in both cases), in males and females, decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin concentration, and hematocrit level, and an increase in reticulocyte count were observed, and additionally in females, increases in absolute weight of the kidney and adrenal gland, hydropic degeneration of the kidney, and hyperplasia of the tubular epithelial cells were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), JMPR (2010)).
(3) It was reported that in a 2-year test with dogs dosed by feeding, at or above 400 ppm (males/females: equivalent to 13.8/13.6 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2 in both cases), an increase in absolute liver weight and hepatocyte hypertrophy were observed; and at 1,000 ppm (males/females: equivalent to 35.7/27.7 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2 in both cases), decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin concentration, and hematocrit level, an increase in platelet count, increases in ALP, total proteins, and beta-globulin, an increase in relative liver weight, and hepatocyte hypertrophy with inflammatory cell infiltration and brown pigment (lipofuscin) deposit were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
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 = 0.0596 mg/L for fish (Cyprinus carpio) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 1 because it was not rapidly degradable (a 4-week degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 2001)) and due to 72-hour NOErC = 0.025 mg/L for algae (Raphidocelis subcapitata) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 1 because it was not rapidly degradable (a 4-week degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 2001)) and due to 96-hour LC50 = 0.0596 mg/L for fish (Cyprinus carpio) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2012)).
From the above results, it was classified in Category 1.
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