NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	56-23-5
Chemical Name	Tetrachloromethane
Substance ID	R03-B-024-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	FY2018 FY2009 FY2006
Download of Excel format	Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION

Item	Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
UN GHS document (External link)	UN GHS document
Definitions/Abbreviations (Excel file)	Definitions/Abbreviations
Model Label by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
Model SDS by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
OECD/eChemPortal (External link)	eChemPortal

PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Explosives	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
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 is not combustible (ICSC(2000), Merck(2015), GESTIS (Access on Aug 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 not combustible (ICSC(2000), Merck(2015), GESTIS (Access on Aug 2021)).
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is not combustible (ICSC(2000), Merck(2015), GESTIS (Access on Aug 2021)).
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)	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing chlorine (but not fluorine or oxygen) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
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. Besides, there is information that carbon tetrachloride becomes corrosive to metals by combining with water (Hommel(1996)).
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 (5), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 2,500 mg/kg (SIAP (2011), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)) (2) LD50 for rats: 2,350 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) (3) LD50 for mice: 7,749 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) (4) LD50 for rats: between 2,800 to 10,180 mg/kg (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)) (5) LD50 for rats: 2,800 mg/kg (ACGIH (2001), Patty (2012))
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: > 20,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: 15,000 mg/kg (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)) (3) LD50 for rats: 5,070 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) [Reference Data, etc.] (4) LD50 for guinea pigs: > 2,130 mg/kg (SIAP (2011), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)) (5) LD50 for guinea pigs: 15,000 mg/kg (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), ACGIH (2001), EPA Risk Evaluation (2020))
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)	Category 4	Warning	H332	P304+P340 P261 P271 P312	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified in Category 4. Also, since the exposure concentration was lower than 90% of the saturated vapor pressure concentration (108,000 ppm), it was judged to be in a vapor state, and classified based on the reference value in units of ppmV. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 (6 hours) for rats: 7,228 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 8,852 ppm) (SIAP (2011), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Aug. 2021)) (2) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: 8,000 ppm (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) (3) LC50 (6 hours) for rats: 7,300 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 8,900 ppm) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)) (4) LC50 (4 to 6 hours) for rats: 7,300 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 7,300 to 8,900 ppm) (ACGIH (2001))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. Also, the category could not be judged from the findings of (1) to (3), and therefore, the classification result was changed. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In a test in which three volunteers dipped a thumb into this substance for 30 minutes, moderate erythema was observed, but it regressed 1 or 2 hours after exposure. Volunteers also complained of burning feeling in the thumb just after dipping it, but the symptom was relieved within 10 minutes (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), DFG MAK (2002)). (2) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test (24-hour application, observation for 72 hours) with rabbits, as a result of judgement made at 24 hours and 72 hours after application, moderate dermal irritation was observed (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005), EHC 208 (1999)). (3) It was reported that, in a skin irritation test (24-hour application) with rabbits and guinea pigs, moderate dermal irritation was observed (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), EHC 208 (1999), ATSDR (2005)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. Also, the category could not be judged from the findings of (1) and (2), and therefore, the classification result was changed. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=3), conjunctival redness, and chemosis were observed 1 to 24 hours after application, but there was no abnormality 48 hours after application (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sep. 2021)). (2) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test (observation for 14 days) with rabbits, eye irritant reaction was observed 24, 48, and 72 hours after application, but recovery was complete by day 14 after application (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), EHC 208 (1999), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sep. 2021)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Category 1B	Warning	H317	P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 1B. Also, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in a Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) (OECD TG 429, GLP) with mice (n=4/group), the Stimulation Index (SI values) were 1.51 (25%), 2.39 (50%), and 6.10 (100%), and the EC3 value was calculated to be 58% (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sep. 2021)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, this substance was all negative in a chromosomal aberration test, a chromatid exchange test and a micronucleus test using liver cells of rats, and a micronucleus test using the bone marrow cells of mice (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), ATSDR (2005)). In addition, negative results were reported in multiple unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) tests using the hepatocytes of rats, and a DNA damage test (comet assay) with various organs (liver, stomach, kidney, bladder, lung, brain, bone marrow) of mice as the target organs; positive results were reported in DNA adduct formation (Iipid peroxidation) in the liver of rats and hamsters; and positive results were reported in covalent binding of the liver of rats, hamsters, and mice to DNA (ATSDR (2005)). (2) As for in vitro, negative (partly positive) results were obtained in most of bacterial reverse mutation tests, and negative, positive, and ambiguous results were obtained in test systems in cultured mammalian cells (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), Mutagenicity Test Data of Existing Chemical Substances based on the toxicity investigation system of the Industrial Safety and Health Law, Accessed August 2021)), and in most of the positive tests, the effects can be explained more likely by oxidative DNA damage, secondary to cytotoxicity of this substance (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) It was concluded that most of the reliable studies (bacterial reverse mutation test, in vivo micronucleus assay/chromosomal aberration test, tests on transgenic animals) gave negative results. Positive results were obtained with DNA damage tests (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). (4) The EPA has concluded that genotoxic effects of this substance have been observed in a consistent and close relationship with cytotoxicity, lipid peroxidation, and/or oxidative DNA damage. Mutagenic effects, if they occur, are likely to be generated through genotoxicity mechanisms resulting from oxidative stress or lipid peroxidation products. Under highly cytotoxic conditions, bioactivated materials of this substance can exert genotoxic effects. These tend to be modest in magnitude and are manifested primarily as DNA breakage and related sequelae. Chromosome loss leading to aneuploidy may also occur to a limited extent (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Category 1B	Danger	H350	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified in Category 1B. Induction of liver tumors (benign and malignant tumors) by this substance was observed in two species of test animals and two exposure routes. [Evidence Data] (1) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, the IARC classified this substance in Group 2B (IARC 71 (1999)), the ACGIH classified it in A2 (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), the EPA classified it in L (IRIS (2010)), the NTP classified it in R (NTP RoC (14th, 2016)), the Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) classified it in Group 2B (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH)) (proposed in 1986)), the EU classified it in Carc. 2 (EU-CLP Classification Results (Accessed August 2021)). (2) In carcinogenicity studies, in which necropsy was carried out after observation for 32 weeks for rats and 12 weeks for mice after 78-week gavage administration to rats or mice (5 days/week), neoplastic nodules and carcinomas of the liver were observed in rats, and hepatocellular carcinomas and adrenal gland tumors were observed in mice (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), IRIS (2010), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). Also, in a test with mice dosed by gavage for 120 days, a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of liver carcinoma (hepatoma) was observed at or above 20 mg/kg/day (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). (3) In carcinogenicity studies with rats or mice by 104-week inhalation exposure (6 hours/day, 5 days/week), in rats, significant increases in the incidences of hepatocellular adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatocellular adenoma plus carcinoma were observed in males and females of a high dose group (125 ppm); and in mice, significant increases in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma (females only) from a low dose (5 ppm) and the incidences of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatocellular adenoma plus carcinoma at a middle dose (25 ppm) or higher were observed; and an increase in the incidence of pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland was also observed in males at a middle dose or higher and in males and females at a high dose (125 ppm) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017), Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 1987), EU REACH CoRAP (2019), IRIS (2010)). (4) This substance is a target substance in the public announcement on guidelines in order to prevent the impairment of worker's health caused by the chemical substances decided by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare based on paragraph (3) of Article 28 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. [Reference Data, etc.] (5) The risk of cancer has been examined in five occupational populations. In three out of four studies that collected information on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (two cohort investigations and one independent nested case-control study), associations with exposure to this substance were suggested. However, not all of these studies distinguished exposure to CCl4 specifically, and the associations were not statistically significant. In the fourth study (another cohort investigation), few men were exposed to CCl4 and the risk of non-Hodgkin disease was not reported (IARC 71 (1999), EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). (6) Among the epidemiological studies showing an association between carbon tetrachloride exposure and brain tumors (astrocytoma, glioma, and glioblastoma), no data have been obtained to provide strong evidence of a mode of action (MoA) supporting the induction of these tumors (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)). (7) The EU REACH CoRAP (2019) suggested the carcinogenicity classification of this substance to be changed from Carc. 2 to Carc.1B.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Category 1B	Danger	H360	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 1B. Although it was a dose at which general toxic effects were observed in parent animals, animals with complete embryo resorption were observed, and therefore, the classification result was changed in consideration of severe reproduction toxicity effects observed. [Evidence Data] (1) In a developmental toxicity study with rats dosed by gavage (days 6 to 15 of gestation), animals with complete embryo resorption were observed at doses (50, 75 mg/kg/day) at which piloerection and reduced body weight gain were observed as slight effects in parent animals. As a result of studying on which day complete embryo resorption could be observed at a single oral dose (150 mg/kg) between days 6 to 12 of gestation, there were animals with complete embryo resorption after administration from day 6 to day 10 of gestation, but there were no such animals after administration on day 12 of gestation. As a result, it was suggested that susceptibility to the embryonic lethality effect was high when it was administered early in the pregnancy (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In a developmental toxicity study (days 6 to 15 of pregnancy) by inhalation exposure with rats, developmental effects (lower body weight and crown-rump length, an increase in the incidence of subcutaneous edema) were observed in fetuses from a low dose group (334 ppm) in which parental toxicity (an increase in serum GPT (ALT) activity, reduced body weight gain, and decreased food consumption) was observed, and an increase in the incidences of sternebral anomalies (bifid, retarded ossification) was observed in a high dose group (1,004 ppm) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), Patty (6th, 2012)). The EU judged that these developmental effects were unlikely to be changes of any biological significance (edema was not statistically significant in a high dose group, and the incidences of sternebral anomalies were also observed in a control group and varied considerably) (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)), and EPA judged that these were very likely to be the secondary effects associated with maternal toxicity (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)). (3) In a prospective cohort study which followed up a child born from a mother who was occupationally exposed to the chemical, there was no correlation between carbon tetrachloride exposure and the risk of having a dwarf when the child reached the gestational age, but this was a study report with a limited statistical power. There are no other reports on human reproduction and developmental effects of this substance (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)). (4) There is no reliable study to adequately assess effects of this substance on fertility (REACH CoRAP (2019)). It was reported that, in a three-generation reproduction toxicity study (50 to 400 ppm, 8 hours/day, 10.5 months) by inhalation exposure with rats, a decrease in reproductive performance was observed at a dose at which there were no deaths in parent animals (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017), ATSDR (2005)), but the original source was an old one written in 1936, and there is no similar or comparable study report. According to Patty, the results of this study show no evidence of reduced fertility or embryonic/fetal abnormalities (Patty (6th, 2012)). Since it was not adopted either in the latest assessment in the EU or the EPA, it was not adopted as evidence of the classification.
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (central nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney)	Danger	H370	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), significant effects on the central nervous system, digestive tract, liver, and kidney were observed in humans, and therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system, digestive tract, liver, kidney) [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in humans, the main effects observed are depression of the central nervous system, hepatic disorders progressing to liver failure and renal damage that may progress to reversible renal tubulopathy (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). (2) It was reported that case reports of acute or long-term human occupational exposure to high-level carbon tetrachloride vapor provide information that shows hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic effects. Effects on the liver include jaundice, increased serum enzyme levels, and in fatal cases, necrosis of the liver, etc., and delayed effects on the kidney have also been reported in acute overexposure cases. It was reported that other effects are gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), and neurological effects indicative of central nervous system depression (headache, dizziness, weakness) (IRIS (2010)). (3) Most of the case reports of acute inhalation exposure to this substance describe initial dizziness and nausea, followed by abdominal discomfort, liver and kidney effects and subsequent renal failure and death, etc. Despite consistent findings across human acute studies, there are no reliable quantitative data (EPA Risk Evaluation (2020)). (4) In a case of inhalation exposure of six workers for about two hours in a fire accident and inhalation exposure of two workers for about six hours in another fire accident to high concentrations of this substance, which was contained in fire extinguishing solution, one worker in each group of workers showed anorexia, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever from a few hours after exposure, and developed severe liver damage and renal failure, and one worker was hospitalized after 4 days, and another worker was hospitalized after 8 days. The two workers recovered by hemodialysis treatment, etc. after three to four weeks, but five workers who were exposed under the same conditions at the same time in the fire accident showed slight respiratory tract and eye irritations at exposure (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)). [Reference Data, etc.] (5) It was reported that, in an acute inhalation exposure test with rats, at 45.93 mg/L (in the range corresponding to "Not classified"), paralysis of the central nervous system was observed, resulting in coma, and death (in all cases) (Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (central nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), effects on the digestive tract, liver, and central nervous system were observed in humans, and based on (4) and (5), effects on the liver and kidney were observed in animals. From the above, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system, digestive tract, liver, kidney). Also, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that occupational exposure (the concentration was unknown) to vapor of this substance for six weeks to three months resulted in gastro-intestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, anorexia), hepatic effects (jaundice), and neurological effects (headache, dizziness) (EU REACH CoRAP (2019)). (2) As a result of a cross-sectional study of hepatic function in 135 workers exposed to this substance in 3 chemical plants (control group: 276 unexposed workers), the effect of occupational exposure to carbon tetrachloride on hepatic serum enzymes was shown. It was reported that, specifically, serum enzyme changes suggested an exposure-related effect in medium and high exposure groups, and in a low exposure group, only a significant decrease in hematocrit was observed (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), DFG MAK (2002), SCOEL (2009)). (3) In 17 workers exposed to carbon tetrachloride vapor at concentrations between 45 and 97 ppm, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, epigastric discomfort or distention, depression, irritability, headache, or giddiness were observed. Symptoms typically occurred during the latter of the workweek and recovered by the weekend. It was reported that one worker, who was reporting these symptoms during a period of 2 years, had also an increased serum AST level. (EU REACH CoRAP (2019), DFG MAK (2002), SCOEL (2009)). (4) It was reported that, in 12-week inhalation exposure tests (vapor, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats and mice, significant increases in serum GPT and SDH, and a significant increase in hepatocellular necrosis were observed in rats at 0.63 mg/L (converted guidance value: 0.42 mg/L, within the range for Category 2) and in mice at 0.13 mg/L (converted guidance value: 0.0867 mg/L, within the range for Category 1) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)). (5) It was reported that, in a 104-week inhalation exposure test (vapor, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week), an eosinophilic change in the nasal cavity (females), and changes in nitrate ion and protein concentrations in the urine were observed at 0.03 mg/L (0.0214 mg/L, within the range for Category 1); reduced body weight gain, increases in serum GOT (AST) and GPT (ALT), fatty degeneration and fibrosis of the liver, exacerbation of chronic progressive nephropathy, abnormalities in urinalysis, an eosinophilic change in the nasal cavity (males), and altered foci (females) were observed at 0.16 mg/L (0.114 mg/L, within the range for Category 1); and a significant decrease in survival associated with exacerbation of chronic progressive nephropathy and increased tumor development, an increase in the incidence of uremic pneumonia, hepatic cirrhosis, and an increase in the incidence of basophilic foci (males) were observed at 0.786 mg/L (0.561 mg/L, within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017), Hazard Assessment Report (CERI, NITE, 2008), Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 1987), IRIS (2010)).
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 72-hour ErC50 = 0.46 mg for algae (Raphidocelis subcapitata) (AICIS IMAP, 2013, Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 2	-	H411	P273 P391 P501	If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 2 due to being not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 0% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, METI, 1979)) and 21-day NOEC = 0.49 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 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 2 due to being not rapidly degradable and 96-hour LC50 = 7.6 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2005)). From the above results, it was classified in Category 2. 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	Category 1	Warning	H420	P502	This substance is 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