GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government

Japanese



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 148-24-3
Chemical Name 8-Quinolinol
Substance ID R03-C-045-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 FY2018   FY2009  
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 -
-
-
- - -
2 Flammable gases -
-
-
- - -
3 Aerosols -
-
-
- - -
4 Oxidizing gases -
-
-
- - -
5 Gases under pressure -
-
-
- - -
6 Flammable liquids -
-
-
- - -
7 Flammable solids -
-
-
- - -
8 Self-reactive substances and mixtures -
-
-
- - -
9 Pyrophoric liquids -
-
-
- - -
10 Pyrophoric solids -
-
-
- - -
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures -
-
-
- - -
12 Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases -
-
-
- - -
13 Oxidizing liquids -
-
-
- - -
14 Oxidizing solids -
-
-
- - -
15 Organic peroxides -
-
-
- - -
16 Corrosive to metals -
-
-
- - -
17 Desensitized explosives -
-
-
- - -

HEALTH HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
1 Acute toxicity (Oral) -
-
-
- - -
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) -
-
-
- - -
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) -
-
-
- - -
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) -
-
-
- - -
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) -
-
-
- - -
2 Skin corrosion/irritation -
-
-
- - -
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 1


Danger
H318 P305+P351+P338
P280
P310
[Rationale for the Classification]
Based on (1), it was classified in Category 1. Besides, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that, in an acute eye irritation/corrosion test (OECD TG 405, GLP, 20-day observation) with rabbits (n=3), no effects on the cornea were observed in two animals, while one animal showed effects on the cornea that persisted until day 20 (corneal opacity score: 1/0/0, iritis score: 0/0/0, conjunctival redness score: 1/1.3/1.3, chemosis score: 0.3/0.3/0.7) (ECHA RAC Opinion (2015), CLH Report (2014), AICIS IMAP (2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(2) In an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=8), no eye irritation was observed (corneal opacity score: 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0, iritis score: 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0, conjunctival redness score: 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0, chemosis score: 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0) (CLH Report (2014), AICIS IMAP (2019)).
(3) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=6), 5 animals had ocular irritation, with corneal opacity in 4 of the animals (AICIS IMAP (2019)).
(4) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits, mild irritation that was reversible in 4 days was observed and the primary irritation index was 15.3 (full scale: 110) (AICIS IMAP (2019)).
(5) In the ECHA, it was classified in Eye Dam. 1.
4 Respiratory sensitization -
-
-
- - -
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) to (3), it was classified in Category 1. Besides, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed.

[Evidence Data]
(1) It was reported that, in three patch tests using this substance in humans, the rates of positive response were 4.7%, 8%, and 6% (ECHA RAC Opinion (2015), CLH Report (2014), AICIS IMAP (2019)).
(2) It was reported that, in a skin patch test series for the determination of contact eczema caused by drugs, hypersensitivity to this substance was observed only in three patients out of 450. In this report, this substance was considered to be a weak allergen (ECHA RAC Opinion (2015), CLH Report (2014), AICIS IMAP (2019)).
(3) It was reported that, in the three skin sensitization studies in humans in (1), although all positive response rates were considered high frequency (>= 0.2% of general population, >= 1% of un-selected dermatitis patients, >= 2% of selected dermatitis patients), sub-categorization was considered not to be possible due to the lack of information with regards to grade of exposure, duration of studies and mode of application (ECHA RAC Opinion (2015)).

[Reference Data, etc.]
(4) In the ECHA, it was classified in Skin Sens. 1.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity -
-
-
- - -
6 Carcinogenicity -
-
-
- - -
7 Reproductive toxicity -
-
-
- - -
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure -
-
-
- - -
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure -
-
-
- - -
10 Aspiration hazard -
-
-
- - -

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