NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	138261-41-3
Chemical Name	1-(6-Chloro-3-pyridylmethyl)-N-nitroimidazolidin-2-ylidenamine (synonym: Imidacloprid)
Substance ID	R03-A-011-METI, MOE
Classification year (FY)	FY2021
Ministry who conducted the classification	Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)/Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
New/Revised	New
Classification result in other fiscal year
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)
Model SDS by MHLW (External link)
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	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with explosive properties (nitro group) present in the molecule, and the calculated oxygen balance is -131, higher than the criteria: -200, but the classification is not possible due to no data.
2	Flammable gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
3	Aerosols	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.
4	Oxidizing gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
5	Gases under pressure	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
6	Flammable liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
7	Flammable solids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available. Besides, there is information that it is combustible (GESTIS (Accessed May 2021)).
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with explosive properties, a nitro group, present in the molecule, but the classification is not possible due to no data.
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
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).
13	Oxidizing liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
14	Oxidizing solids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing chlorine and oxygen (but not fluorine) which is chemically bonded to the element other than carbon or hydrogen (N). However, the classification is not possible due to no data.
15	Organic peroxides	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to solid substances are not available.
17	Desensitized explosives	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with explosive properties, a nitro group, present in the molecule, but the classification is not possible due to no data.

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] Based on (1) to (10), it was classified in Category 4. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats (males): 440 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)) (2) LD50 for rats (females): 410 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)) (3) LD50 for rats (males): 424 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)) (4) LD50 for rats (females): in the range from 450 mg/kg to 475 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)) (5) LD50 for rats: 424 mg/kg (OECD TG 401, GLP) (CLH Report (2018)) (6) LD50 for rats: 642 mg/kg (OECD TG 401, GLP) (CLH Report (2018)) (7) LD50 for rats: 379 mg/kg (OECD TG 401, GLP) (CLH Report (2018)) (8) LD50 for rats (females): in the range from 300 mg/kg to 2,000 mg/kg (OECD TG 423, GLP) (CLH Report (2018)) (9) LD50 for rats: in the range from 380 mg/kg to 650 mg/kg (JMPR (2001)) (10) LD50 for rats: 500 mg/kg (EFSA (2008))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 2,000 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), JMPR (2001)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008), HSDB in PubChem (Accessed May 2021))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] No category could be identified from (1), and classification was not possible due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (mist, 4 hours, nasal exposure): > 0.069 mg/L (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008)) [Reference Data, etc.] (2) LC50 for rats (dust, 4 hours, nasal exposure): > 5.32 mg/L (GLP) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008)) (3) Since the particle diameter was large and the percentage of particles that could be inhaled was small in (2), the test was performed in the form of a mist in (1) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)).
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in an acute dermal irritation/corrosion test (OECD TG 404, GLP, semi-occluded, 4-hour application, 7-day observation) with rabbits (n=3), no skin irritation was observed (erythema and scab score：0/0/0, edema score：0/0/0) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (2) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test with rabbits, no skin irritation was observed (JMPR (2001)). (3) This substance was not a skin irritant (EFSA (2008)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in an acute eye irritation/corrosion test (OECD TG 405, GLP, 7-day observation) with rabbits (n=3), no eye irritation was observed (cornea opacity score: 0/0/0, iris score: 0/0/0, conjunctivae redness score: 0/0/0, chemosis score: 0/0/0) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (2) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits, no eye irritation was observed (JMPR (2001)). (3) This substance was not an eye irritant (EFSA (2008)).
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] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in a maximization test (GLP, intracutaneous administration: 1% solution) with guinea pigs (n=20), the positive rates at 48 and 72 hours after challenge were both 0% (0/20 cases) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (2) In a maximization test with guinea pigs, the result was negative (JMPR (2001)). (3) This substance was not a skin sensitizer (EFSA (2008)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (8), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) In a micronucleus test (GLP) using the bone marrow cells of mice (80 mg/kg dosed once by gavage), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008), JMPR (2001)). (2) In a chromosomal aberration test (GLP) using the bone marrow cells of hamsters and spermatogonia of mice (2,000 mg/kg dosed once by gavage and 80 mg/kg dosed once by gavage each), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (3) In a sister chromatid exchange (SCE) test (GLP) using the bone marrow cells of hamsters (up to 2,000 mg/kg dosed once by gavage), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), JMPR (2001)). (4) In a bacterial reverse mutation test (GLP), negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (5) In a mammalian cell gene mutation test, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (6) In a UDS test (GLP) using the primary cultured cells of rats, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (7) In a chromosomal aberration test (GLP) using the human lymphocytes, positive results were obtained (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008)). (8) In an in vitro chromosomal aberration test in (7), positive results were reported, however, since all results were negative in an in vivo test, it was considered that imidacloprid had no genotoxicity that might become a problem for a living organism (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, the EPA classified this substance in Group E (Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans) (EPA OPP Annual Cancer Report 2020 (Accessed May 2021): Classification in 1993). (2) In a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats (dosed by feeding), no evidence of carcinogenicity was observed at doses up to the highest dose of 1,800 ppm (male/female: 103/144 mg/kg/day) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008), JMPR (2001)). (3) In a 2-year carcinogenicity study with mice (dosed by feeding), no evidence of carcinogenicity was observed at doses up to the highest dose of 2,000 ppm (male/female: 414/424 mg/kg/day) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008), JMPR (2001)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in a two-generation reproduction toxicity study (GLP) with rats dosed by feeding, reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption were observed in parent animals (P females/males) at 700 ppm, and lower body weight was observed in offspring, but no effects on fertility were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008)). (2) It was reported that, in a developmental toxicity study (GLP, days 6 to 15 of gestation) with rats dosed by gavage, at 100 mg/kg/day, reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption were observed in parent animals, and increased incidence of non-ossification was observed in offspring, but no teratogenic potential was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008)). (3) In a developmental toxicity study (GLP, days 6-18 of gestation) with rabbits dosed by gavage, at 72 mg/kg/day, decreased numbers of implantations and fetuses caused by noticeable toxic effects (death (2/16 cases, 12.5%), abortion (1 case), complete embryo resorption (2 cases)) were observed in parent animals, and lower body weight and an increase in skeletal abnormalities (sternebra asymmetry, fusion, etc.) were observed in offspring. Besides, it was reported that no teratogenicity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EFSA (2008), JMPR (2001)). (4) In a developmental neurotoxicity test (GLP, day 0 of gestation to day 21 of lactation) with rats dosed by feeding, at 750 ppm, a decrease in food consumption (during the gestation and lactation periods) was observed in parent animals, and reduced body weight gain (lactation and post-weaning feeding periods) and decreases in motility and locomotion performance (day 17 (males) and 21 (females) after birth) were observed in offspring. Besides, it was reported that, in a functional observational battery and a neurohistopathological study for offspring, no treatment-related effects were observed, and no developmental neurotoxicity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)).
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). [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in an acute neurotoxicity test with rats dosed once by gavage, decreased motility was observed at or above 151 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), and trembling, increased reactivity, ataxia, underactivity, and effects on the FOB were observed in males at or above 151 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) and in females at 307 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (2) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with rats, sedation, trembling, abnormal breathing, and spasms were observed at or above 260 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (3) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with rats, apathy, transient labored breathing and accelerated breathing, decreased motility, transient staggering gait, narrowed eyelids, and transient trembling and spasms were observed in males at 100 mg/kg and in females at or above 250 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013), EU CLH report (2018)). (4) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with mice, sedation, trembling, abnormal breathing, spasms, straub tail, and chick-like cry were observed in males at 46 mg/kg and in females at or above 60 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (5) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with mice, apathy, transient labored breathing and staggering gait, decreased motility, and transient trembling were observed in males at 71 mg/kg and in females at or above 100 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 2 (nervous system)	Warning	H373	P260 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified in Category 2 (nervous system). Effects on the liver, etc. were also observed in (5), (7), and (8), however, since they were considered to be adaptive responses to the administration, they were not included. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in a 90-day oral toxicity study with dogs dosed by feeding, trembling, a decrease in body weight, and a decrease in food consumption were observed in males at 45.3 mg/kg/day and in females at 45.9 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (2) It was reported that, in a 90-day subacute neurotoxicity test with rats dosed by feeding, irregular righting reflex was observed in females at 150 ppm (9.3 mg/kg/day (males), 10.5 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2), and reduced body weight gain and a decrease in food consumption were observed in females and males at 1,000 ppm (63.3 mg/kg/day (males), 69.9 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016)). (3) It was reported that, in a repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study with dogs, ataxia and trembling were observed in females and males at 180 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) (EFSA (2008)). (4) It was reported that, in a 21-day dermal toxicity test with rabbits, as a result of doses up to 1,000 mg/kg (in the range corresponding to “Not classified”), there were no toxicological findings (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (5) It was reported that, in a 28-day subacute inhalation (dust) toxicity test with rats, a significant induction of N-demethylase was observed in females at 0.0305 mg/L (within the range for Category 1), however, it was within the range of background data. It was also reported that, at 0.191 mg/L (within the range for Category 2), reduced body weight gain, an increase in GDH, and the induction of liver drug metabolic enzymes (O-demethylase, N-demethylase, P450) were observed in males; and prolonged blood clotting time, increases in ALT, ALP, GDH, and T.Bil, the induction of liver drug metabolic enzymes, and an increase in relative liver weight were observed in females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). [Reference Data, etc.] (6) It was reported that, in a 90-day oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding, reduced body weight gain, etc. were observed in males at 600 ppm (60.9 mg/kg/day (males), 83.3 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (7) It was reported that, in a 1-year chronic toxicity study with dogs dosed by feeding, at 62.5 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2), an increase in cytochrome P450 of the liver was observed in females and males, and an increase in T.Chol was observed in females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)). (8) It was reported that, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding, increased mineral deposits in the thyroid colloid was were observed in males at or above 300 ppm (16.9 mg/kg/day (males), 24.9 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2), and reduced body weight gain, and increased mineral deposits in the thyroid colloid were observed in females at 900 ppm (51.3 mg/kg/day (males), 73.0 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticide) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2016), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2013)).
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	This substance is a neonicotinoid insecticide and is known to have a specific sensitivity distribution. Based on expert judgment, it was classified in Category 1 from 96-hour EC50 = 0.00102 mg/L for crustacea (Cloeon dipterum) (EU CLP CLH, 2018).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 1	Warning	H410	P273 P391 P501	This substance is a neonicotinoid insecticide and is known to have a specific sensitivity distribution. It was classified in Category 1 based on expert judgment, because it is not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Evaluation information (Evaluation summary sheet) under the Chemical Substances Control Law (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), 2019), CAS RN 105827-78-9)), and due to 28-day NOEC = 0.000024 mg/L for crustacea (Caenis horaria) (EU CLP CLH, 2018).
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