GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

Japanese



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 1330-78-5
Chemical Name Tritolyl phosphate
Substance ID R03-B-014-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 Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year FY2008  
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.
2 Flammable gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
3 Aerosols Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Not aerosol products.
4 Oxidizing gases Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
5 Gases under pressure Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
6 Flammable liquids Not classified
-
-
- - It was classified as "Not classified" from a flash point of 210 deg C (closed cup) (HSDB in PubChem (Accessed June 2021)).
7 Flammable solids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
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.
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not classified
-
-
- - It is estimated that it does not correspond to pyrophoric liquids, hazards of the highest precedence, because the substance containing more than 3 wt.% o-isomers is classified in Division 6.1, PG II in UNRTDG (UN 2574). Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified."
10 Pyrophoric solids Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - Liquid (GHS definition)
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - 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 is estimated that it does not react vigorously with water from the observation result that it is insoluble in water (CAMEO Chemicals in PubChem (Accessed June 2021)).
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)
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
-
-
- - No data available.
17 Desensitized explosives Not classified (Not applicable)
-
-
- - There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.

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]
Based on (1) to (6), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rats: 3,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005))
(2) LD50 for rats: > 4,640 mg/kg (EHC 110 (1990), AICIS IMAP (2018))
(3) LD50 for rats: 5,190 mg/kg (EHC 110 (1990), NTP TR433 (1990), AICIS IMAP (2018))
(4) LD50 for rats: > 15,750 mg/kg (REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021))
(5) LD50 for rats: > 15,800 mg/kg (EHC 110 (1990), NTP TR433 (1990), AICIS IMAP (2018))
(6) LD50 for rats: > 20,000 mg/kg (REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021))
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) LD50 for rabbits: 3,700 mg/kg (AICIS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021))
(2) LD50 for rabbits: > 7,900 mg/kg (EHC 110 (1990), NTP TR433 (1990), AICIS IMAP (2018))
(3) LD50 for rabbits: > 10,000 mg/kg (AICIS IMAP (2018))
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) Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, the exposure concentration was higher than the saturated vapor pressure concentration (0.00007 mg/L) and it was judged to be in a mist state. New information was added and the classification was changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: > 5.2 mg/L (OECD TG 403, GLP) (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021))

[Reference Data, etc.]
(2) LC50 (1 hour) for rats: > 11.1 mg/L (converted 4-hour equivalent value: > 2.78 mg/L) (AICIS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021))
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (4), it was classified as "Not classified."

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n=6) (occlusive, 24-hour application, observation for 72 hours), the primary dermal irritation index (PDII) at 72 hours after application was 0.5, and irritative changes that were observed at 4 hours after removal of patches resolved within 24 hours (AICIS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)).
(2) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n=6) (occlusive, 24-hour application, observation for 72 hours), the primary dermal irritation index (PDII) at 72 hours after application was 0.04 (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)).
(3) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n=6) (application on the abraded skin and intact skin for 24 hours, observation for 72 hours), erythema was observed in the abraded skin of one animal at 24 hours after application but disappeared within 72 hours. None of the animals showed edema on either the abraded or intact skin (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(4) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test with guinea pigs, o- and p-isomers were moderately irritating to the skin of guinea pigs and m-isomer was slightly irritating, but the isomer mixture was not irritating to the skin (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=9) (group with unwashed eyes: 6 rabbits, group with irrigated eyes: 3 rabbits), the average stimulation index values at 24/48/72 hours after treatment were 0.7/0.3/0.0, respectively, and the observed irritation effects resolved within 72 hours (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)).
(2) In an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=9) (group with unwashed eyes: 6 rabbits, group with irrigated eyes: 3 rabbits), irritation effects were observed in 2 of 6 rabbits with unwashed eyes but resolved within 48 hours. It was reported that, in 3 rabbits with washed eyes, no irritation effects were observed (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed July 2021)).
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]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 1. Also, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) There was a case report about the allergic contact dermatitis induced by contacting bandages which contain this substance as an ingredient. It was also reported that, in a maximization test with male human subjects, this substance was a moderately strong sensitizer (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(2) It was reported that, in a Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) with mice (n=4/group) (OECD TG 429, GLP), the stimulation index (SI) values were 3.7 (25%), 3.4 (50%), 5.4 (100%) (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)).
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, based on the new findings, the category was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) As for in vivo, in an unscheduled DNA synthesis test for this substance (TCP: unspecified composition) using the rat hepatocytes, negative results were reported (ACGIH (7th, 2016), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(2) As for in vitro, in bacterial reverse mutation assays for this substance (TCP (having the same composition as in the NTP carcinogenicity study) and Kronitex TCP), negative results were observed, and in chromosomal aberration tests using the cultured mammalian cells (Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO), V79 lung fibroblasts, mouse lymphoma cells), negative (partially uncertain or positive) results were obtained (NTP TR433 (1994), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2013), ACGIH (7th, 2016), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
6 Carcinogenicity Not classified
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, based on the new findings, the category was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a 2-year carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding with this substance (79% TCP esters (21% m-isomer, 4% p-isomer, < 1% o- isomer, unidentified tricresyl phosphate esters)), at doses up to 300 ppm (males: 13 mg/kg/day, females: 15 mg/kg/day), no treatment-related increased incidences of neoplasms were observed (NTP TR433 (1994), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2013), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(2) In a 2-year carcinogenicity study with mice dosed by feeding with this substance, at doses up to 300 ppm (males: 27 mg/kg/day, females: 37 mg/kg/day), no treatment-related increased incidences of neoplasms were observed (NTP TR433 (1994), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2013), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
7 Reproductive toxicity Category 1B


Danger
H360 P308+P313
P201
P202
P280
P405
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 1B. Besides, in (1) and (2), at a dose at which no general toxicity effects were observed in parental animals, effects on fertility (adverse effects on spermatozoa and the male and female reproductive organs, lower conception rate) were observed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a one-generation reproductive toxicity test with rats dosed by gavage with this substance (containing < 9% o-isomer) as a test substance (for 56 days before breeding (males), for 14 days before breeding and throughout the 10-day breeding period (females)), in males, a significant increase in abnormal sperm morphology was observed at or above 100 mg/kg/day and decreased sperm motility and sperm concentration and abnormal findings in the testes (degeneration and necrosis of seminiferous tubules, increased immature spermatids in the seminiferous tubules) and the epididymis (hypospermia, increased immature spermatids in the duct of epididymis) were observed at 200 mg/kg/day. In females, lower fertility rate (1/24 females delivered only 3 pups at 400 mg/kg/day), dose-dependent diffuse vacuolation of ovarian interstitial cells and increased follicles and corpora lutea were observed at or above 200 mg/kg/day. There was no description about adverse effects on development of pups after birth (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), AICIS IMAP (2013), ACGIH (7th, 2016)).
(2) In a continuous breeding study with mice dosed by feeding with this substance (containing < 9% o-isomer) as a test substance (for 7 days before breeding and for 98 days during the breeding period), a dose-dependent decrease in the number of litters and a decrease in sperm motility were observed at a dose at which no general toxicity effects were observed in parental animals, and atrophy of seminiferous tubules and decreased testis and epididymal weight were also observed in parental animals at a high dose. In a crossover breeding group of males and females in a high-dose group and the control group, impaired fertility was observed, with greater effect in females. In pups, a decreased proportion of liveborn pups and lower body weight were observed only in a high-dose group (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), AICIS IMAP (2013), ACGIH (7th, 2016)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(3) It was reported that, in a developmental toxicity study with rats dosed by gavage with this substance (unspecified composition) as a test substance (days 0 to 19 of gestation), no developmental toxicity effects were observed (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), AICIS IMAP (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 (3), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system) since o-isomer contained in this substance showed a neurotoxic action.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a case of severe acute intoxication in a 4-year-old boy child who ingested a lubricant containing this substance (TCP), the observed clinical findings were vomiting, diarrhea, weakness, drowsiness, delayed cholinergic crisis and depressed nerve velocity, but they resolved within 4 weeks (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(2) The o-isomer of this substance causes a severe neuropathy called OPIDN (organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathy), which is known to be a toxic action by saligenin cyclic phosphate ester (2-(o-cresyl)-4H-1-3-2-benzodioxaphoran-2-one) which is a metabolite, but m- and p-isomers do not produce such a cyclic phosphate ester and do not cause OPIDN. Among isomers of this substance, those with one o-tolyl group have the highest toxicity and the toxicity decreases as the o-tolyl group increases. It is considered that OPIDN is caused not by cholinesterase inhibition but by neurotoxic esterase (NTE) inhibition (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
(3) Commercial TCP contains 1% TOCP which is an o-isomer. Recently, the TOCP content has been controlled to a level of 0.3% or less and certain products do not contain o-isomer at all. These commercial TCPs are a heterogeneous mixture of isomers and belong to organic phosphorus compounds which induce delayed neurotoxicity (ACGIH (2016)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(4) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test for this substance (TCP: Containing 19.5% m-isomer, 2.4% p-isomer) as a test substance with rats (females), significant inhibition of serum, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase activity was observed at 2,000 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2) (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 1 (nervous system), Category 2 (adrenal gland, ovary)


Danger
Warning
H372
H373
P260
P264
P270
P314
P501
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1) to (7), it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system) because the findings on humans suggested effects on the nervous system and several animal tests also showed effects on the nervous system within the dose range for Category 1. In addition, based on (4) to (7), it was classified in Category 2 (adrenal gland, ovary) because effects on the adrenal gland and ovary were observed within the dose range for Category 2 in the animal tests. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system) and Category 2 (adrenal gland, ovary). New information was added and the classification was changed from the previous classification.

[Evidence Data]
(1) In a case of mass intoxication caused by contaminated food oil in Switzerland, signs of toxicity appeared after ingestion of 0.15 g of o-isomer of this substance, and severe neuropathy appeared after ingestion of 0.5 to 0.7g. However, some people did not show any symptom of intoxication even after ingestion of 1.5 to 2 g, and there was a large difference in sensitivity (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
(2) There was a report about a worker who developed permanent paralysis of the lower limbs at a plant manufacturing this substance (containing less than 1% o-isomer), and the worker was exposed to 6 to 10% o-isomer in the manufacturing process (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
(3) Three cases of polyneuropathy among workers who worked at a plant manufacturing o-isomer of this substance were reported, and the measured concentration of this substance in the air was reported to be 0.55 to 2.5 mg/m3. In a case of a high prevalence of polyneuropathy among workers at a synthetic leather shoe factory in Italy, this substance was not detected from the material, which was suspected to be the cause, and no inhibitory action of ChE was observed. However, there were clinical findings similar to intoxication by o-isomer of this substance and a high incidence of significant decreases in erythrocyte ChE and upper motor neuron lesion. Therefore, it was strongly suggested that the cause might be attributed to this substance as another case of polyneuropathy at a synthetic leather shoe factory was reported in the past. However, there was no definitive evidence for occurrence of polyneuropathy related to this substance at synthetic leather shoes factories, and exposure to other substances and interaction with them were also considered to be possible causes (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019)).
(4) It was reported that, in a repeated dose 13-week oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding with this substance (79% TCP esters (21% m-isomer, 4% p-isomer, < 1% o- isomer, unidentified tricresyl phosphate esters)), a decrease in serum cholinesterase (ChE) activity, vacuolization of the adrenal cortex, and increases in the incidence of hyperplasia and inflammation of ovarian interstitial cells were observed at or above 0.09% (55 mg/kg/day (males), 65 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2018), NTP TR433 (1994)).
(5) It was reported that, in a repeated dose 13-week oral toxicity study with mice dosed by feeding with this substance, a decrease in serum ChE activity and vacuolization of the adrenal cortex (females) were observed at or above 0.025% (45 mg/kg/day (males), 65 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2); vacuolization of the adrenal cortex (males) was observed at or above 0.05% (110 mg/kg/day (males), 130 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2); and an increase in axonal degeneration of the sciatic nerve and spinal cord, loss of myelin sheaths, and tremor were observed at higher doses of 0.21 to 0.42% (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2018), NTP TR433 (1994)).
(6) It was reported that, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding with this substance, a decrease in serum ChE activity (females) was observed at or above 0.0075% (3 mg/kg/day (males), 4 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 1), and a decrease in serum ChE activity (males), vacuolization of the adrenal cortex, and hyperplasia of ovarian interstitial cells (females) were observed at or above 0.03% (13 mg/kg/day (males), 15 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2018), NTP TR433 (1994)).
(7) It was reported that, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with mice dosed by feeding with this substance, a decrease in serum ChE activity was observed at or above 0.006% (7 mg/kg/day (males), 8 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 1), and ceroid pigmentation of the adrenal cortex and liver effects (increased incidence in clear cell foci, fatty change and ceroid pigmentation) were observed at 0.0125% and 0.025% (13 to 27 mg/kg/day (males), 18 to 37 mg/kg/day (females), within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), ATSDR (2012), AICIS IMAP (2018), NTP TR433 (1994)).
(8) The target organs for TCP are the adrenal gland and ovary in rats. The mechanisms by which these effects occur have not been elucidated, but possible mechanisms have been assumed: the mechanism by which, as a result of the inhibition by TCP of neutral cholesteryl ester hydrolase (nCEH) that catalyzes the conversion of stored cholesteryl ester to free cholesterol, cholesteryl esters are accumulated in adrenocortical and ovarian interstitial cells; and the mechanism by which TCP inhibits A: cholesterol acyl transferase (ACAT) in the adrenals, the cells store and conserve cholesterol in excess of that required for steroidogenesis and cytoplasmic lipid droplets (cholesteryl ester) are excessively accumulated (Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2019), ATSDR (2012)).
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - [Rationale for the Classification]
Classification not possible due to lack of data.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment Short term (Acute) Category 1


Warning
H400 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 from 48-hour EC50 = 0.25 mg for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
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 due to being not rapidly degradable (The biodegradability test of o- and p-isomer of this substance was carried out by Modified MITI Test (II) (TG 302C, Inherent Biodegradability test (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 2005)), and the result could not be used to determine that it was rapidly degradable. And in an aerobic biodegradation test of the m-isomer by Modified MITI Test (I) (TG 301C, standard method), the degradation rate by BOD (30.8%, 43.1%, Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 2005) had not reached the pass level (60%) and the predicted result of no easy-to-degradability (BIOWIN) was obtained.), and 72-hour NOEC = 0.088 mg/L for algae (Raphidocelis subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained (fish),
then it is classified in Category 1 because it was not rapidly degradable, and due to 96-hour LC50 = 0.84 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2000), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)).
From the above results, it was classified in Category 1. The classification result was revised from the previous classification by changing how to classify it in chronic toxicity and using new information.


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