NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	1897-45-6
Chemical Name	Tetrachloroisophthalonitrile; Chlorothalonil
Substance ID	R02-B-093-MHLW
Classification year (FY)	FY2020
Ministry who conducted the classification	Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)
New/Revised	Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year	FY2006 FY2019
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	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (GESTIS (Access on June 2020)).
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	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (GESTIS (Access on June 2020)).
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from information that it is not combustible (GESTIS (Access on June 2020)).
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 (but not fluorine or oxygen) 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)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (7). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 5,000 mg/kg (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994)) (2) LD50 for rats: 10,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), GESTIS (Access on June 2020)) (3) LD50 for rats: 15,000 mg/kg (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994), Food sanitation research Vol. 51, No. 11 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 2001)) (4) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)) (5) LD50 for rats: males: > 10,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)) (6) LD50 for rats: > 10,000 mg/kg (Canada Pesticides (2011), EHC 183 (1996), EPA Pesticides RED (1999), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), HSDB (Access on June 2020)) (7) LD50 for rats: > 15,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 2,500 mg/kg (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994), HSDB (Access on June 2020)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)) (3) LD50 for rats: > 10,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)) (4) LD50 for rabbits: > 10,000 mg/kg (EHC 183 (1996), MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), GESTIS (Access on June 2020))
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) - (4). Besides, because exposure concentrations were higher than the saturated vapor pressure concentration (8.2E-006 mg/L), a reference value in the unit of mg/L was applied as dust. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 0.09 mg/L (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994)) (2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): females: 0.0925 mg/L, males: 0.094 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)) (3) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 0.10 mg/L (EHC 183 (1996), HSDB (Access on June 2020)) (4) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 0.110 mg/L (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994)) (5) Vapor pressure of this substance: 5.7E-007 mmHg (25 deg C) (HSDB (Access on May 2020)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 8.2E-006 mg/L)
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (4). The classification result was changed due to new data obtained. [Evidence Data] (1) In a skin irritation test with rabbits by 4-hour semi-occlusive application of this substance, no dermal response was observed, and it was concluded that it was not irritating (JMPR Addendum (2019)). (2) Short-term exposure irritates the eye, skin, and respiratory tract, and pain and erythema in the eye, blurred vision, and erythema in the skin occur as acute symptoms (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (3) In a skin irritation test, slight erythema was seen at 72 hours after application but cleared by day 4 (EPA Pesticides RED (1999)). (4) This substance caused slight skin irritation but severe eye irritation in rabbits, and corneal clouding was still present two weeks later (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2A	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 2A from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) Short-term exposure irritates the eye, skin, and respiratory tract, and pain and erythema in the eye, blurred vision, and erythema in the skin occur as acute symptoms (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (2) In an eye irritation test with rabbits (modified Draize test) on this substance, ocular irritation occurred, and corneal opacity persisted to day 14 (EHC 183 (1996)). (3) In an eye irritation test with rabbits on this substance (purity 96%), it caused severe irritation with persistent corneal opacity, iris effects, and conjunctival irritation. And another test found irritation and corneal opacity, and the substance was considered corrosive (EPA Pesticides RED (1999)). (4) This substance caused slight skin irritation but severe eye irritation in rabbits, and corneal clouding was still present two weeks later (MAK (DFG) vol.6 (1994), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Category 1A	Danger	H334	P304+P340 P342+P311 P261 P284 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 1A from (1). Because it was classified in occupational sensitizers to the airway Group 2 by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH), the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was classified in occupational sensitizers to the airway Group 2 and occupational skin sensitizers Group 1 by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (OEL Documentations (Occupational Sensitizer classification) (Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH), 2012)).
4	Skin sensitization	Category 1A	Warning	H317	P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 1A from (1), (2). Because it was classified in occupational skin sensitizers Group 1 by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH), the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) This substance was classified in occupational sensitizers to the airway Group 2 and occupational skin sensitizers Group 1 by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (OEL Documentations (Occupational Sensitizer classification) (Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH), 2012)). (2) In a plant manufacturing this substance, contact dermatitis occurred in 19 out of 103 workers, and 60% of the workers handling the substance showed some kind of skin abnormality compared with 18.5% of workers not working with the substance. After the hygiene conditions in the plant were improved, the proportion of skin abnormalities fell to 20%. And in 14 out of 20 workers in a plant manufacturing wooden window frames using wood preservatives containing 0.5% of this substance, itchiness, erythema, and edema in the eyelids and other face parts and dermatitis, including rashes, in the arms and hands were observed, 14 persons who developed dermatitis were patch tested by applying a 0.01% solution of this substance in acetone, and positive reactions were seen in 7 (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) Long-term or repeated exposure to this substance may cause dermatitis and skin sensitization (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (4) In skin sensitization tests with guinea pigs (maximization tests) on this substance, there was a report that it was a strong sensitizer, while no conclusion was reached in another report (EHC 183 (1996)). (5) This substance (purity 96%) was not a dermal sensitizer (EPA Pesticides RED (1999)). (6) This substance was reported to be negative in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (Buehler test) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
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 a dominant lethal test by oral administration to mice and micronucleus tests using peripheral blood from rats or hamsters. There were reports that it was negative in multiple chromosomal aberration tests using bone marrow cells from mice or rats, but it was reported to be weakly positive, equivocal, and negative in chromosomal aberration tests with hamster bone marrow cells. And it was reported to be positive in a DNA damage test with rat liver (EHC 183 (1996), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), IARC 73 (1999)). (2) As for in vitro, there were multiple reports that it was negative in bacterial reverse mutation tests. On the other hand, it was reported to be positive and negative in mouse lymphoma tests, sister chromatid exchange tests, and chromosomal aberration tests in cultured mammalian cells (EHC 183 (1996), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018), IARC 73 (1999), CEBS (Access on June 2020)). (3) It is reported that it was considered that this substance did not have genotoxicity that could pose a problem in vivo (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
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) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified in Group 2B by IARC (IARC 73 (1999)), Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH)) (proposed in 2001)), L (Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans) by EPA (EPA Annual Cancer Report 2019 (Access on September 2020): classified in 1997), and Carc.2 in EU CLP classification (EU CLP classification (Access on May 2020)). (2) In two combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity tests by 2-year diet administration of this substance to male and female rats, increased incidences were observed in papilloma or squamous cell carcinoma in the forestomach in males and females in one test, and in the other test, increased incidences were found in renal tubule adenoma and adenocarcinoma, papilloma in the forestomach in males and females and squamous cell carcinoma in the forestomach in females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (3) In a carcinogenicity test by 2-year diet administration of this substance to male and female rats, squamous cell carcinoma in the forestomach was observed in one male and one female, and increased incidences were found in papilloma in the forestomach and renal tubule adenoma and adenocarcinoma in males and females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (4) In two carcinogenicity tests by 2-year diet administration of this substance to mice, in one test, increased incidences were observed in papilloma and squamous cell carcinoma in the forestomach (combined) in females, and squamous cell carcinoma in the forestomach and renal tubule adenoma and adenocarcinoma in males, but in the other test, there were no neoplastic lesions with a treatment-related increase in incidences (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Additional category for effects on or via lactation	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), toxicity in offspring via breast milk was generally suggested at a general toxic dose in parent animals, and therefore, it was classified in "additional category: effects on or via lactation." The increase in early embryo deaths in a teratogenicity test with rats, which was the rationale for the previous classification, was considered to be the data from (3). Since this test was regarded as reference data due to many deaths in the dams, the classification result was changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) In a three-generation reproductive study with rats dosed by feeding, wasting, hunchback position, reduced body weight gain, etc. were observed in male and female parent animals of all generations at or above 15,000 ppm (P generation: males: 942 mg/kg/day, females: 967 mg/kg/day; F1 generation: males: 1,420 mg/kg/day, females: 1,580 mg/kg/day; F2 generation: males: 1,400 mg/kg/day, females: 977 mg/kg/day); and squint, hunchback position, reduced body weight gain, kidney lesions, etc. were observed in F1 and F2 offspring at the above dose levels. Greened renal cortex and dilatation of the cecum were observed in F2 male and female parent animals at or above 1,500 ppm (males: 110 mg/kg/day, females: 130 mg/kg/day); and reduced body weight gain, hunchback position, squint (weaning period), squamous epithelium thickening in the esophagus and forestomach, and renal tubular epithelium vacuolation were observed in F3 offspring at the above dose levels. Reduced body weight gain was observed in F2 offspring at 1,500 ppm at which no parental toxicity was observed. Focusing on reduced body weight gain in offspring, cross-fostering between a group treated at 15,000 ppm and a control group was carried out for the first litter of F1 and F2 generations. As a result, reduced body weight gain was not observed in offspring when offspring of the group treated at 15,000 ppm was fostered by females of the control group (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In a two-generation reproductive study with rats dosed by feeding, in parent animals, squamous epithelial cell hyperplasia of the forestomach in males and females, and renal tubular epithelium hyperplasia, tubular hypertrophy, clear cell hyperplasia, etc. in males were observed in a group treated at or above 500 ppm; and renal tubular epithelium hyperplasia, tubular hypertrophy, etc. in females were observed in a group treated at or above 1,500 ppm; and in offspring, reduced body weight gain was observed in a group treated at 3,000 ppm. No effect on fertility was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (3) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6-15 of gestation, an increase in early resorption (without significant difference) was observed at a dose (400 mg/kg/day) at which maternal toxicity (deaths (3/25 animals), mucous feces, loose stool, red vaginal discharge, reduced body weight gain, etc.) was observed, but no teratogenicity 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 7-19 of gestation, at a dose (20 mg/kg/day) at which maternal toxicity (death (1/20 animals), reduced body weight gain, a decrease in food consumption) was observed, no effect was observed in fetuses (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 3 (Respiratory tract irritation)	Warning	H335	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation). New information sources were used and the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) As acute symptoms in humans, pain and reddening of the eyes, blurred vision, and reddening of the skin were observed, and additionally, burning sensations and abdominal pains were observed by an oral administration, and burning sensations were observed by inhalation (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 4, Tentative Hazard Assessment Sheet (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). (2) In an acute inhalation exposure test with rats (the minimum dose at which effects were observed was not described, and it was assumed to be within the range for Category 1 at around LD50 values (males: 0.094 mg/L, females: 0.0925 mg/L)), respiratory failure, labored breathing, gasping, excessive discharges from the eye, nose, and mouth, partial and complete eyelid closure, hypoactivity, and moist and dry rales were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 2 (kidney)	Warning	H373	P260 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (7), it was classified in Category 2 (kidney). Effects on the digestive tract around the forestomach were also observed, but since they were considered to be changes due to an irritative effect of this substance, they were not adopted as rationale for the classification. As a result of examination using the new information, the classification results were changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data, etc.] (1) It was reported that, in a 90-day test with rats dosed by feeding, an increase in relative kidney weight, acute focal gastritis, proximal tubular epithelium hyperplasia, and neutral red positive inclusions in the proximal convoluted tubular epithelium in males and females, and proximal tubular epithelium hypertrophy and renal tubular basement membrane thickening in males were observed at or above 40 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (2) In a 90-day test with rats dosed by feeding, at 10.0 mg/kg/day (upper limit of Category 1), hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the forestomach mucosa in males and females, and increases in absolute and corrected kidney weight, and hypertrophy and hyperplasia of the proximal tubular epithelium in males were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (3) In a 90-day test with mice dosed by feeding, hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the forestomach squamous epithelium in males and females were observed at or above 50 ppm (males/females: 8.5/9.8 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1); hyperplasia of the proximal convoluted tubular epithelium in males, and ulcer of the forestomach mucosa in females were observed at or above 275 ppm (males/females: 47.7/21.4 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); and an increase in ALP, increases in absolute and relative kidney weight, and hyperplasia of the proximal convoluted tubular epithelium in females were observed at 750 ppm (males/females: 124/141 mg/kg/day, exceeding Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (4) It was reported that, in a 2-year chronic toxicity study with dogs dosed by feeding, an increase in thyroid weight in males and females, thyroid follicular epithelium pigmentation in males, and hypertrophy of the renal proximal convoluted tubular epithelial cells and gastritis in females were observed at or above 1,500 ppm (males/females: 45.0/44.1 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (5) It was reported that, as a result of a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats, epithelial hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis, ulceration, submucosal fibrosis, and inflammatory cells in the forestomach were observed in males and females at or above 60 ppm (females/males: 2.7/3.3 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1); renal basophilic cortical tubular dilatation and progressive glomerulonephritis in males and females, and increases in MCV and hemoglobin or erythrocyte count, and an increase in relative kidney weight in males were observed at or above 240 ppm (females/males: 10.6/13.9 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); and yellow stained fur in males and females, an increase in urinary protein concentration in males, and an increase in kidney weight in females were observed at 1,200 ppm (females/males: 54/70 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (6) It was reported that, as a result of a 2-year carcinogenicity study with rats, reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption, hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the esophageal mucosa, hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the forestomach mucosal epithelium, submucosal inflammation and ulcer of the forestomach, ulcer of the glandular stomach, thickening of the duodenum mucosa, increased severity of progressive chronic nephropathy, focal tubular epithelium hyperplasia, tubular epithelium hypertrophy, and tubular epithelium hyperplasia in males and females, and an increase in absolute kidney weight in males were observed at or above 40 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2); an increase in BUN in males, and an increase in kidney weight in females were observed at or above 80 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2); and dark yellow urine was observed in males and females at 175 mg/kg/day (exceeding Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2018)). (7) It was reported that, as a result of a 2-year carcinogenicity study with male mice, hyperkeratosis of the mucosa and hyperplasia of the squamous epithelium in the forestomach were observed at or above 40 ppm (5.35 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1); hyperplasia of the proximal convoluted tubular epithelium was observed at or above 175 ppm (23.2 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); and increases in absolute and relative kidney weight, karyomegaly of the proximal tubular epithelium, and mucosal cysts of the glandular stomach were observed at 750 ppm (99.7 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (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)	-	- -	-	-	-
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	-	- -	-	-	-
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	-	- -	-	-	-

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