NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	4685-14-7
Chemical Name	1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium (synonym: Paraquat)
Substance ID	R03-B-017-MHLW
Classification year (FY)	FY2021
Ministry who conducted the classification	Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)
New/Revised	Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year	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)
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	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
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 (HSDB in PubChem(Accessed Oct 2021)).
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 (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is considered that it does not ignite at normal temperatures because it is estimated that it does not decompose up to 175 deg C from information that it decomposes at 175-180 deg C (HSDB in PubChem(Accessed Oct 2021)).
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	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine.
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	- -	-	-	Test methods applicable to solid substances are not available. Besides, there is information that it is corrosive to metals (HSDB in PubChem(Accessed Oct 2021)).
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)	Category 3	Danger	H301	P301+P310 P264 P270 P321 P330 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified in Category 3. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 100 mg/kg (ACGIH (2018)) (2) LD50 (paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5)) for rats: between 112 to 350 mg/kg (converted paraquat ion value: between 81.1 to 253 mg/kg) (JMPR (2003)) (3) LD50 for rats: between 100 to 300 mg/kg (JMPR (2003)) [Reference Data, etc.] (4) In the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Act, as a formulation containing 1,1'-Dimethyl-4,4'-dipyridinium hydroxide, its salts, or preparations containing some of them, it is designated as a poisonous substance.
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 3	Danger	H311	P302+P352 P361+P364 P280 P312 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 3. Also, the classification results were changed based on the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbits: 240 mg/kg (ACGIH (2018)) [Reference Data, etc.] (2) LD50 for rats: between 80 to 660 mg/kg (JMPR (2003)) (3) LD50 for rats (males): 80 mg/kg (ACGIH (2018)) (4) LD50 for rats (females): 90 mg/kg (ACGIH (2018)) (5) In the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Act, as a formulation containing 1,1'-Dimethyl-4,4'-dipyridinium hydroxide, its salts, or preparations containing some of them, it is designated as a poisonous substance.
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. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Act, as a formulation containing 1,1'-Dimethyl-4,4'-dipyridinium hydroxide, its salts, or preparations containing some of them, it is designated as a poisonous substance.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Category 1	Danger	H330	P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 1. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: between 0.0006 to 0.0014 mg/L (JMPR (2003), ACGIH (2018)) [Reference Data, etc.] (2) In the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Act, as a formulation containing 1,1'-Dimethyl-4,4'-dipyridinium hydroxide, its salts, or preparations containing some of them, it is designated as a poisonous substance.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Category 1	Danger	H314	P301+P330+P331 P303+P361+P353 P305+P351+P338 P304+P340 P260 P264 P280 P310 P321 P363 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified in Category 1. [Evidence Data] (1) In workers who conducted spraying of this substance, irritation and ulceration of the skin occurred within 3 days, and kidney, liver, and respiratory symptoms were evident by 5 days (ACGIH (2018)). (2) As for the formulation of this substance (cation content: 33%), in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n=3) (4-hour application, observation for 34 days), very slight erythema (score: 0.7 to 1.0 (full score: 4)) was observed in all 3 animals, very slight edema (score: 1.0 (full score: 4)) was observed in 1 animal, and desquamation, thickening, and scabbing were observed in 1 animal. The primary dermal irritation score was 0.5 at 72 hours. The regression time for erythema was 2 to 3 days in 2 animals and 27 days in 1 animal. It was reported that the regression time for edema was 7 days and the regression time for other signs was 34 days (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (3) As for the formulation of this substance (cation content: 33%), in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n=3), mild erythema that resolved by 4 days occurred in 2 animals, but effects observed in remaining 1 animal persisted for at least 23 days (ACGIH (2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) In a survey of 134 workers who conducted spraying of this substance, the workers reported skin rashes and burns (53%), eye injuries with conjunctivitis from splash injuries (42%), and nail damage (58%) over the previous 24 months (ACGIH (2018)). (5) As for 0.5 to 2% solutions of this substance, as a result of a single and 21-day repeated dermal toxicity tests with mice and rats, dose-related toxic dermatitis (erythema, edema, desquamation, necrosis) was observed (EHC 39 (1984)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 1	Danger	H318	P305+P351+P338 P280 P310	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified in Category 1. [Evidence Data] (1) It was classified in Category 1 for skin corrosion/irritation. (2) As a result of instillation of this substance at 5 concentrations from 6.25 to 100% into the rabbit eye, 6.25 and 12.5% solutions caused severe conjunctival reactions, and 25 and 50% solutions caused even iritis and pannus. At 50%, corneal opacification, iritis, and conjunctivitis were observed. All rabbits receiving 0.2 mL of a 100% undiluted solution in 1 eye or 0.2 mL of a 50% diluted solution in both eyes died within 6 days (EHC 39 (1984)). (3) As for the formulation of this substance (cation content: 33%), in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=3) (observation for 28 days), corneal effects (slight or mild opacity involving 1/4-1/2 of the cornea), and conjunctival effects (slight to severe redness and discharge, and slight or mild chemosis) were observed, and corneal effects were cleared by day 17. It was reported that, as for conjunctival effects, chemosis regressed by day 14, and redness regressed by day 28, but discharge did not regress within the observation period in 2/3 animals (EPA Pesticides (1997)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) In a survey of 134 workers who conducted spraying of this substance, the workers reported skin rashes and burns (53%), eye injuries with conjunctivitis from splash injuries (42%), and nail damage (58%) over the previous 24 months (ACGIH (2018)).
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) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) In a Maximization test with guinea pigs, no dermal sensitization was observed (JMPR (2003)). (2) In a dermal sensitization test with guinea pigs, no dermal sensitization was observed (EHC 39 (1984), ACGIH (2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) As for the formulation of this substance (cation content: 33%), in a Maximization test with guinea pigs, no dermal sensitization was observed (EPA Pesticides (1997)).
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 tests using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance, negative results were reported in all of a chromosomal aberration test using the bone marrow cells of rats (single gavage administration, paraquat cation: 15 to 150 mg/kg), a dominant lethal test with mice (mated with non-treated females after 5-day gavage administration, paraquat cation: 0.04 to 4.0 mg/kg/day), and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with rats (single gavage administration, paraquat cation: 45 to 120 mg/kg) (EPA Pesticides (1996)). (2) As for in vitro tests using paraquat dichloride as the test substance, negative results were reported in a bacterial reverse mutation test, weakly positive (S9+) results were reported in a mouse lymphoma test using the mouse lymphoma cells L5178Y, and weakly positive results were reported in a chromosomal aberration test using the human lymphocytes (EPA Pesticides (1996)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) Paraquat has been tested extensively in a broad range of in vitro and in vivo assays for genotoxicity, with mixed results. Studies more commonly gave positive results when DNA damage or clastogenicity were the end-points. Paraquat is known to produce active oxygen species and the available evidence indicates that it is probably this property that is responsible for its genotoxicity. Consequently, there is a threshold below which genotoxic activity will not be evident, provided that normally functioning antioxidant defense mechanisms have not been overwhelmed. The JMPR concluded that paraquat is unlikely to pose a genotoxic risk to humans (JMPR (2003)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, based on the new information source, the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) is classified in Group C by the initial assessment of the EPA (IRIS (1988)), and later in Group E by re-assessment as a pesticide (EPA OPP Annual Cancer Report (2020)), and salts containing paraquat cation (CAS RN 4685-14-7) and dichloride are classified in A4 by the ACGIH (ACGIH (2018)). (2) It was reported that, in a carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding for two years (25 to 150 ppm), a significant increase in the incidence of tumor in the head was observed in males and females in a high-dose (150 ppm) group in the initial assessment by the EPA (IRIS (1988)). However, in the subsequent re-assessment as a pesticide, it was considered that the tumor in the head was assessed as the incidence of tumor considering 4 sites of the head such as the nasal cavity, oral cavity, skin, which are morphologically and physiologically different, as one site, and when each site was statistically processed independently, no significant difference in the incidence of tumor was observed, and it was concluded that this substance did not cause an increase in the incidence of tumor in the head (EPA Pesticides (1997)). According to the assessment by the JMPR, in the above test, lung adenocarcinoma was observed in a few animals in each dose group of males, and an increase in the incidence of lung adenoma was observed in a high-dose group of females, but in a carcinogenicity study with rats which was subsequently submitted, no increase in the incidence of lung tumor was confirmed. Since an increase in the incidence of tumor was observed only in one out of three long-term studies in total, it was concluded that, based on the weight of the evidence, this substance was not carcinogenic in rats (JMPR (2003)). (3) In a carcinogenicity study in which mice were dosed by feeding for 35 weeks (12.5 to 100 ppm), and then 125 ppm was given to the treated group for the remainder of life, no increase in the incidence of tumor was observed (IRIS (1988)). The assessment by the JMPR also concluded that this substance was not considered to be tumorigenic in mice in two studies including this study (JMPR (2003)). (4) The ACGIH concluded that, in one test with rats dosed by feeding for two years and one of two tests with mice dosed by feeding for two years, lung adenoma and adenoma-like hyperplasia of the lung were detected in a high-dose (rats: 150 ppm, mice: 100 ppm) group, but the incidence of lung adenoma in the group which ingested this substance did not exceed that in the control group, and paraquat did not cause a significant increase in lung tumors after lifetime feeding in rats and mice, and therefore, the ACGIH classified this substance in A4 (ACGIH (2018)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] In (1), increased mortality in pups that was associated with lung injury was observed, but details were unknown, and in some test results, no reproductive developmental effects of concern were observed even at a dose at which general toxicity effects appeared in parent animals as shown in (2) to (7), and considering the above, classification was not possible. Based on the new information source, the classification result was reviewed. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In a developmental toxicity study with mice dosed by gavage or by intraperitoneal injection, results showed that the possibility of teratogenicity was low. Paraquat bound to lung tissue of fetal rats when given during later stages of gestation (day 21), but not at earlier periods (days 8-16). In a reproduction toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding (100 to 300 ppm), no effects on fertility or neonatal morbidity and mortality were observed. In a reproduction toxicity study with mice, maternal feeding with 125 ppm caused increased mortality in pups that was related to lung injury (ACGIH (2018)). (2) Three studies of reproductive toxicity in rats were reported (one of them is (2)), and the overall NOAEL for parental toxicity was 1.67 mg paraquat ion/kg bw per day, and the NOAEL for pup toxicity was 5.0 mg paraquat ion/kg bw per day. Impaired fertility was not seen in these studies. In contrast, in two studies of developmental toxicity in rats and two in mice ((3) to (6)), the lowest NOAELs observed for both maternal and developmental toxicity in rats were 1 mg/kg/day on the basis of systemic symptoms and reduced body-weight gain in the dams, and lower fetal body weight and retarded ossification in the fetuses. Higher NOAELs for maternal and developmental toxicity were seen in mice. Teratogenicity was not seen in any study in either rats or mice. (JMPR (2003)). (3) In a multigeneration reproduction toxicity study with rats using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance (25 to 150 ppm, converted value to paraquat ion: 1.25 to 7.5 mg/kg/day), an increased incidence of alveolar histiocytosis in the lungs was observed in F0 to F2 male and female parent animals at or above the mid-dose (75 ppm), and an increase in mortality due to lung injuries (congestion, edema, fibrosis, hyaline membrane formation, inflammatory cell infiltration, hyperplasia) was observed in F0 to F2 female parent animals in a high-dose (150 ppm) group. However, no reproductive toxicity effects were detected up to the high-dose group (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (4) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance (days 7 to 16 of gestation, converted value to paraquat ion: 1 to 8 mg/kg/day), neither maternal nor developmental toxicity was observed up to the highest dose (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (5) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance (days 6 to 15 of gestation, 1 to 10 mg/kg/day), as maternal toxicity, symptoms (piloerection, thin and hunched appearance), and decreased body weight gain were observed at or above the middle mid-dose, and 6 dead animals deaths (out of 29 or 30 animals), and lung and kidney lesions were observed at the high dose, but in fetuses, only delayed ossification (forelimb and hindlimb digits) was observed as minor effects at or above the middle mid-dose (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (6) In a developmental toxicity study with female mice dosed by gavage using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance (days 6 to 15 of gestation, converted value to paraquat ion: 7.5 to 25 mg/kg/day), at a high dose where at which marked maternal toxicity (death, systemic symptoms (such as piloerection, labored respiration, hunched posture, hypothermia), decreases in body weight, body weight gain, etc.) was observed, a tendency of trend towards a decrease in the pregnancy rate was observed, and in fetuses, only minor developmental effects, such as lower body weight, delayed ossification (occipital, caudal centra), or non-ossification (astragalus in the hindlimb), and skeletal variations (extra 14th ribs) were observed (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (7) In a developmental toxicity study with female mice dosed by gavage using paraquat dichloride (CAS RN 1910-42-5) as the test substance (days 6 to 15 of gestation, 1 to 10 mg/kg/day), minor developmental effects (an increase in partially ossified 4th sternebrae) were observed in fetuses at a high dose where at which reduced body weight gain was observed in dams (EPA Pesticides (1997)). (8) In the case reports on two pregnant women who ingested paraquat in the 28th week and 7th month of pregnancy, both mothers and fetuses died, but no signs related to associated with paraquat poisoning were observed in dead fetuses. Meanwhile, in the case of a mother who ingested paraquat in the 20th week of pregnancy, the pregnancy was allowed to continue after the ingestion, and the mother gave birth. The infant was followed up to the age of 3 years, and no abnormalities were observed in the development, which suggested that the teratogenic risk of paraquat was low in humans (EHC 39 (1984)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (respiratory organs, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, central nervous system)	Danger	H370	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), there were respiratory organs, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, and central nervous system effects in the human findings, and based on (5) and (6), there were respiratory organs and kidney effects in the findings in animals, and therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, central nervous system). [Evidence Data] (1) In humans, low doses (< 20 mg/kg) cause local irritation to oral and GI mucosa, and moderate doses (20 < 40 mg/kg) initiate modest renal, liver, and lung damage, followed by pulmonary fibroplasia and respiratory failure leading to death within 2 to 3 weeks. It was reported that high doses larger than 40 mg/kg cause multiple organ damage that is rapidly progressive, with death ensuing in 1 to 7 days (ACGIH (2018)). (2) It was reported that an 81-year-old man died from renal and respiratory failure 6 days after a minimal dermal exposure (4% of total body surface) from spilling a paraquat solution onto his thigh and through his pants. It was also reported that the paraquat-soiled pants were not removed for 12 hours at which time dermal erosion had developed, and the patient was hospitalized with respiratory symptoms (ACGIH (2018)). (3) A 44-year-old man who did not work with pesticides inadvertently applied concentrated paraquat to his scrotum and perineum. It was reported that he was diagnosed with renal failure, respiratory distress, and hepatic injury 26 days later (ACGIH (2018)). (4) In humans, toxic myocarditis after paraquat ingestion was reported, and it was also reported that, after the ingestion of high-dose paraquat, anxiety, convulsions, ataxia, and semi-consciousness, as well as hemorrhagic leukoencephalopathy throughout the central nervous system were observed (EHC 39 (1984)). (5) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with rats, at 110 mg/kg (within the range for Category 1), after diarrhea, wheezing, and irregular breathing were observed, weight loss, pulmonary edema, congestion, and hemorrhage were evident on days 5 to 6, and pulmonary fibrosis was observed by 10 days (ACGIH (2018)). (6) It was reported that, in an acute inhalation exposure test with rats (dust, 6 hours), pale and swollen kidneys, and lung changes (congestion, occasional petechial hemorrhages, and increased number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes and histiocytes around the bronchi and vessels) were observed at 0.0135 mg/L (converted 4-hour equivalent value as paraquat ion: 0.0147 mg/L, within the range for Category 1) (EPA Pesticides (1997)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver, kidney, blood system)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), in human findings, effects on the respiratory organs, liver, and kidney were observed, and based on (2) to (4), effects on the respiratory organs and blood system were observed within the range for Category 1 and 2, and therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver, kidney, blood system). Besides, based on (5), the central nervous system was not adopted as the target organ. [Evidence Data] (1) Pulmonary edema and fibrosis, and renal and hepatic failures have been reported from intoxications from large exposures due to spills, leaky applicators, and accidental exposure to sprays that result in long-term contact to skin and closing. It was reported that the toxic potential for lung damage by exposure to airborne paraquat may be dependent on particle size (ACGIH (2018)). (2) In a repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding, effects on the lung (intra-alveolar hemorrhage, diffuse fibrosis, and proliferation of the epithelium) were observed at 300 ppm (15 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (ACGIH (2018)). (3) It was reported that, in a 1-year carcinogenicity study with mice dosed by feeding, at 100 ppm (5 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 1), an increase in mortality, decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin, and serum protein, and decreases in hematocrit, sugar, and red blood cell cholinesterase activities (males) were observed, and no ocular lesions were observed (EHC 39 (1984)). (4) It was reported that, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by drinking water, at 12.25 mg/kg/day (males, within the range for Category 2) and 15.59 mg/kg/day (females, within the range for Category 2), an increase in mortality, decreases in red blood cell count, hemoglobin, and serum protein, and decreases in hematocrit, sugar, and red blood cell cholinesterase activities (males) were observed, and no ocular lesions were observed (EHC 39 (1984)). (5) It is described that effects on the central nervous system were observed in animals when lethal doses are given, and in humans at a very high dose (EHC (1984)).
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