NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	333-41-5
Chemical Name	O,O-Diethyl-O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) thiophosphate; Diazinon
Substance ID	R02-B-084-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 FY2016
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 104.4 deg C (closed cup) (GESTIS (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	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	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of > 400 deg C (HSDB (Access on May 2020)).
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 40 mg/L (25 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) - (6). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 300 mg/kg (ATSDR (2008), IPCS PIM G001 (1998)) (2) LD50 for rats: 300-850 mg/kg (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989)) (3) LD50 for rats: 300 - > 2,150 mg/kg (JMPR (2016)) (4) LD50 for rats: females: 485-822 mg/kg, males: 521-868 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)) (5) LD50 for rats: 1,000 mg (MAK (DFG) (2017)) (6) LD50 for rats: 1,160-1,250 mg/kg (EPA Pesticides RED (2006)) [Reference Data, etc.] (7) LD50 for rats: males: 250 mg/kg, females: 285 mg/kg (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989), ATSDR (2008))
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) - (5). Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification by reviewing information. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: females: 876 mg/kg, males: 1,670 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 1,000 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2003)) (3) LD50 for rats: males: 1,440 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)) (4) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (MAK (DFG) (2017)) (5) LD50 for rats: > 2,150 mg/kg (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989)) [Reference Data, etc.] (6) LD50 for rats: females: 455 mg/kg, males: 900 mg/kg (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989), ACGIH (7th, 2003), ATSDR (2008))
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)	Category 4	Warning	H332	P304+P340 P261 P271 P312	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 4 from (1), (2). Besides, because exposure concentrations were higher than the saturated vapor pressure concentration (0.00148 mg/L), a reference value in the unit of mg/L was applied as mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 3.1 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)) (2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 3.5 mg/L (MAK (DFG) (2017), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), ACGIH (7th, 2003)) (3) Vapor pressure of this substance: 9.01E-005 mmHg (25 deg C) (HSDB (Access on May 2020)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 0.00148 mg/L) [Reference Data, etc.] (4) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 2.33 mg/L (MAK (DFG) (2017), EPA Pesticides RED (2006))
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was slightly irritant to the rabbit skin (EHC 198 (1998), HSDB (Access on May 2020)). (2) This substance was slightly irritating to the rabbit skin (JMPR Report (2016), GESTIS (Access on May 2020), Canada Pesticides (2007)). (3) This substance was not irritating to the rabbit skin (MAK (DFG) (2017), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (4) It is reported that in a skin irritation test with rabbits according to EPA OPPTS 870.2500, the maximum irritation score was 2.8, and it was a slight irritant (EPA pesticides RED (2006)). [Reference Data, etc.] (5) Short-term exposure to this substance irritated the eye and skin, and as acute symptoms, redness and pain in the eye and skin, and pupillary constriction were seen (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (6) In a skin irritation test with rabbits on this substance (1/10 dilution) (Draize test), slight erythema was observed but disappeared by 2 days (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 14, No. 1 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1989)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was not irritant to the rabbit eye (EHC 198 (1998), HSDB (Access on May 2020)). (2) This substance was slightly irritating to the rabbit eyes (JMPR Report (2016), GESTIS (Access on May 2020), MAK (DFG) (2017), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (3) This substance was minimally irritating to the rabbit eye (Canada Pesticides (2007)). (4) It was reported to be minimally irritating in an eye irritation test with rabbits according to EPA OPPTS 870.2400 (EPA Pesticides RED (2006)). [Reference Data, etc.] (5) Short-term exposure to this substance irritated the eye and skin, and as acute symptoms, redness and pain in the eye and skin, and pupillary constriction were seen (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (6) In an eye irritation test with rabbits on this substance (1/10 dilution) (Draize test), transient and very mild conjunctival redness was observed but disappeared by 2 days (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 14, No. 1 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1989)).
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). Besides, positive and negative results were mixed in guinea pig tests, but by considering a difference in sensitivity of test methods, it was classified in Category 1. [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was reported to be positive in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test) (JMPR Report (2016), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 14, No. 1 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1989)). (2) This substance was a skin sensitizer (Canada Pesticides (2007)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) This substance was not sensitizing to the skin (EHC 198 (1998), HSDB (Access on May 2020)). (4) This substance was reported to be negative in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (modified Buehler test, application concentration 10%) (ACGIH (7th, 2003)). (5) There was a report on contact dermatitis in farm workers exposed to this substance, but according to another report, this substance (1%) in a skin patch did not elicit irritation or cause sensitization (ATSDR (2008)). (6) It was reported to be negative in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs according to EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Buehler test) (EPA pesticides RED (2006)). (7) Allergic skin reactions due to exposure to this substance were very rare, and neither a patch test on 294 skin patients and healthy persons nor a study on guinea pigs demonstrated any irritating or sensitizing potentials (GESTIS (Access on May 2020)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (3). New information was added, and the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, it was reported to be negative in a dominant lethal test in mice. It was reported to be negative in micronucleus tests with rat peripheral blood and mouse bone marrow cells and positive in a micronucleus test with rat peripheral blood. It was reported to be positive in DNA damage tests with rabbit liver or kidney, and negative in chromosomal aberration tests using spermatogonial cells, spermatocytes, or bone marrow cells from mice, and a sister chromatid exchange test with mouse bone marrow cells (IARC 112 (2017), EHC 198 (1998), JMPR addendum (2016)). (2) As for in vitro, it was reported to be negative in a bacterial reverse mutation test and a sister chromatid exchange test, and it was reported to be positive and negative in mouse lymphoma tests, micronucleus tests, and chromosomal aberration tests using cultured mammalian cells (IARC 112 (2017), EHC 198 (1998), JMPR addendum (2016), ACGIH (7th, 2003), ATSDR (2008), Patty (6th, 2012), JMPR (1993), CEBS (Access on May 2020)). (3) It is described that it was considered that this substance did not have genotoxicity that could pose a problem in vivo (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017), JMPR (2016)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) It is reported that chromosomal aberrations were found in peripheral blood from workers exposed to this substance (IARC 112 (2017)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Category 2	Warning	H351	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Due to the latest classification results by other organizations (Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH)) in (1), and because both epidemiological studies and animal tests suggested that there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in (2), (3), it was classified in Category 2. The classification result was changed based on the latest classification results by other organizations. [Evidence Data] (1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified in Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) (proposed in 2018)), Group 2A by IARC (IARC 112 (2017)), A4 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2003)), and NL (Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans) by EPA (EPA Annual Cancer Report 2019 (Access on September 2020): classified in 1997)). (2) In humans, positive associations were observed between exposure to this substance and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, and cancer of the lung, but the number of studies available was relatively small, and confounding by other pesticides as an explanation for the increased risks could not be fully excluded. Therefore, IARC concluded that there was limited evidence for carcinogenicity in humans (IARC 112 (2017)). (3) As for experimental animals, among two tests by diet administration to rats, in one test, an increase in the incidence of leukemia or lymphoma (combined) (males only, no dose relationship) was observed, and in a test by diet administration to mice, an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma was found in males in the lowest dose group (IARC 112 (2017)). Because the above findings were seen only in males and lacked dose relationship, and they were not considered as effects clearly associated with the administration of the test substance, the IARC working group concluded that there was limited evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (IARC 112 (2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) IARC concluded that there was strong evidence that this substance can operate as a human carcinogen in terms of the mechanism of action (it is possibly genotoxic in humans and induces oxidative stress) (IARC 112 (2017)). (5) JMPR and the Food Safety Commission of Japan assessed that this substance was not genotoxic or carcinogenic (JMPR, 2016, Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Category 1B	Danger	H360	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), at a dose at which parental toxicity was observed, decreases in mating rate, pregnancy rate, litter size, etc. were observed. Based on (2) and (3), male reproductive organ toxicity was observed, and it in turn supposedly caused a decrease in the conception rate, a decrease in the number of live fetuses/litter size, and an increase in the number of resorbed embryos was observed. Based on (4) and (5), at a dose at which maternal toxicity was observed, malformations, lower learning and memory in pups, etc. were observed. Accordingly, it was classified in Category 1B. New information sources ((3) to (5)) were used and the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) In a two-generation reproduction study with rats dosed by feeding, reduced body weight gain in parental animals, and death and reduced body weight gain in pups were observed at 100 ppm; and tremors, decreases in mating rate and pregnancy rate, and prolonged gestation period in parental animals, and decreases in litter size and live pups in offspring were observed at 500 ppm (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (2) Oral administration to male rats for 65 days resulted in decreased weight of the reproductive organs, increased percentage of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa, and a decrease in plasma testosterone level; and a decrease in the conception rate in mating with untreated females was observed (ATSDR (2008)). (3) In a four-week oral toxicity study with male mice, effects on different developmental stages of the sperms, histological changes in the seminiferous tubules, and a decrease in the concentrations of gonadotropic hormones were observed in parental animals at or above 4.1 mg/kg/day; and mating with untreated females led to a decrease in the number of live fetuses/litter and increases in early and late resorbed embryos and postimplantation embryo losses at 8.2 mg/kg/day (MAK (DFG) (2017)). (4) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6 to 15 of gestation, at or above 3.8 mg/kg/day, cholinergic symptoms (diarrhea, tremors, weakness, salivation, hypoactivity), reduced body weight gain, a decrease in brain weight, and reduced brain acetylcholinesterase (AChE) were observed in dams, and an increase in visceral anomalies (heart edema, visceral enlargement, pulmonary edema) was observed in fetuses; and at 7.6 mg/kg/day, decreased weight of the liver and pregnant uterus in dams, and an increase in postimplantation embryo losses, decreased number of live fetuses per litter, an increase in early resorptions, an increase in late resorptions, a decrease in body weight, a decrease in crown-rump length, increased number of external and skeletal malformations and visceral abnormalities (microsomia, visceral hernia, ophthalmological anomaly, cleft lip, limb anomaly, tail defect, dermal edema, short or absent ribs, reduced skull bones, limb deformity, reduced vertebrae, heart edema, distended ureter, visceral enlargement, pulmonary edema) were observed in fetuses (MAK (DFG) (2017)). (5) In a developmental neurotoxicity study (OECD TG 426) with female rats dosed by feeding from day 6 of gestation through day 21 postpartum, at or above 2.36 mg/kg/day, decreases in erythrocyte AChE (12.7%) and brain AChE (75.2%) in dams, and a decrease in erythrocyte AChE (58.7%) in pups were observed; and at 24.2 mg/kg/day, decreases in offspring body weight and body weight gain (postnatal day 4) in males and females, delayed preputial separation, lower learning and memory in a water maze test and a decrease in brain AChE activity (71.4%) in males, and delayed vaginal opening in females were observed (MAK (DFG) (2017)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (nervous system)	Danger	H370	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (5), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system). In addition, the findings in the respiratory organs were considered to be secondary effects of the effects on the nervous system and were not adopted. [Evidence Data] (1) This substance is a cholinesterase inhibitor, and acute symptoms observed in humans were redness and pain in the eyes and skin, miosis in the eyes, nausea, vomiting, suffocation, lapses of consciousness, and muscle spasticity. Inhalation caused cramps, dizziness, and salivation, and oral ingestion also caused gastrospasm and diarrhea (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (2) In 76 fatal cases caused by this substance, miosis, froth from the nose and mouth, acute pulmonary edema and congestion, acute ulcers, blood-stained gastric contents, hemorrhage from the central nervous system, and asphyxiation were observed (Patty (6th, 2012)). (3) In a woman who ingested this substance (an estimated dose of 1.5 mg/kg), cholinergic nervous system symptoms (nausea, epigastric pain, headache, miosis and unreactive pupils, tachycardia) were observed (Patty (6th, 2012)). (4) In five individuals who intentionally ingested this substance (240 to 986 mg/kg), bradycardia, tachycardia, clonus, stupor, profuse diaphoresis, sialorrhea, miosis, hyperreflexia, muscle weakness, dyskinesis, abdominal pain, nausea, coma, cramps, restlessness, and bronchospasm were observed (Patty (6th, 2012)). (5) In children who had eaten oatmeal contaminated with this substance (about 2.5 to 244 ppm), signs of organophosphate poisoning (profuse sweating, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps) were observed (Patty (6th, 2012)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (nervous system, blood system, liver, kidney, reproductive organs (male))	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (6), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, blood system, liver, kidney, reproductive organs (male)). For the doses that were found to be affected by the data on the rationale for the previous classification, the guidance values were applied, and the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) In a 13-week administration study with rats dosed by feeding, a decrease in serum cholinesterase (ChE) in males and females were observed at or above 0.3 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 1); a decrease in erythrocyte AChE in males and females and a decrease in brain AChE in females were observed at or above 15 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2); and hyperactivity, hypersensitivity to touch and sound, and soft feces in males and females, an increase in aggressiveness in males, and increases in leukocytes and reticulocytes, decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit, and an increase in liver weight in females were observed at 168 mg/kg/day (exceeding Category 2) (MAK (DFG) (2017)). (2) In a 90-day repeated dose toxicity study with dogs dosed by gavage, an inhibition of erythrocyte and brain AChE activity was observed at or above 3 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 1); hematological effects (decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin, and hematocrit), effects on the liver (hepatic periportal inflammatory cell infiltration and increases in AST, ALT, ALP, and gamma GT activity in males, proliferation of the hepatic bile duct in females), effects on the kidney (fatty changes of the renal proximal tubules in males, regeneration of the renal proximal tubular epithelium in females), etc. were observed at 10 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (3) In an 8-month oral administration study with dogs dosed by gavage, death, cholinergic findings such as vomiting, diarrhea and vellication, an increase in myelocytes, hepatic cirrhosis, focal necrosis of the liver, etc., testicular atrophy and inhibition of spermatogenesis, atrophy of the kidney, and nephritis with degeneration of the renal tubules and glomeruli were observed in a group treated at 10 or 20 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2017)). (4) In a three-week inhalation exposure test with rats (aerosol, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week), exophthalmos, diarrhea, and a decrease in brain AChE activity were observed at or above 151 mg/m3 (converted guidance value: 0.03 mg/L, within the range for Category 2); and salivation, piloerection, tonic convulsions, a decrease in food consumption, a decrease in erythrocyte AChE, and death were observed at or above 559 mg/m3 (converted guidance value: 0.09 mg/L, within the range for Category 2) (MAK (DFG) (2017)). (5) In a dominant lethal test with male rats orally dosed with this substance at 1.5 or 3.0 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 1.1 or 2.2 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1) for 65 days, decreased weight of the reproductive organs, an increase in the percentage of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa, and a decrease in plasma testosterone levels were observed (ATSDR (2008)). (6) In a four-week oral toxicity study with male mice, at or above 4.1 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 1.3 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1), effects on defferent developmental stages of sperms, histological changes in the seminiferous tubules, and a decrease in the concentrations of gonadotropic hormones were observed (MAK (DFG) (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 96-hour LC50 = 0.00020 mg/L for crustacea (Gammarus fasciatus) (EHC 198, 1998, EPA RED, 2006).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 1	Warning	H410	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 1 because it is not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN) and due to 21-day NOEC = 0.00017 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (EPA RED, 2006).
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