NITE - Chemical Management Field

Latest GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government (edited by NITE)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	119-61-9
Chemical Name	Benzophenone
Substance ID	m-nite-119-61-9_v2
Download of Excel format	Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION

Item	Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link)	To Guidance List
UN GHS document (External link)	To UN GHS document
FAQ（GHS classification results by the Japanese Government）	To FAQ
List of Information Sources (Excel file)	List of Information Sources
List of Definitions/Abbreviations	Definitions/Abbreviations
Sample Label by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
Sample SDS by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
OECD/eChemPortal (External link)	To OECD/eChemPortal (External link)

PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification	Classification year (FY)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government
1	Explosives	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
2	Flammable gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
3	Aerosols	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
4	Oxidizing gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
5	Gases under pressure	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
6	Flammable liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
7	Flammable solids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available. Besides, there is information that it is combustible (GESTIS (Accessed Oct 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
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.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 560 deg C (GESTIS (Accessed Oct 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Test methods applicable to solid (melting point <= 140 deg C) substances are not available.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
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).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
13	Oxidizing liquids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Solid (GHS definition)	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
14	Oxidizing solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
15	Organic peroxides	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It is a solid with a melting point of 55 deg C or lower, but the classification is not possible due to no data.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
17	Desensitized explosives	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))

HEALTH HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification	Classification year (FY)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government
1	Acute toxicity (Oral)	Category 4	Warning	H302	P301+P312 P264 P270 P330 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified in Category 4 by adopting the category with the higher hazard. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 1,900 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), NTP TR533 (2006)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 10,000 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), AICIS IMAP (2015), NTP TR533 (2006))	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
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 rabbits: 3,535 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), NTP TR533 (2006)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: > 2,000 mg/kg (AICIS IMAP (2015))	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified."	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), 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 acute dermal irritation/corrosion test (OECD TG 404, GLP, 2 to 100% (undiluted solution), semiocclusive, 4-hour application, observation for 72 hours) with rabbits (n = 4), no signs of skin irritation were observed at concentrations up to 100 % (AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, based on the new findings, the classification result was changed. [Evidence Data] (1) In an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=3), slight-to-moderate erythema was observed in the conjunctiva and nictitating membrane at 1 hour after application, and persisted for 24 hours. It was reported that slight erythema was observed in only one animal by 48 hours, and all eyes were normal by 14 days (Patty (6th, 2012)). (2) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n=6), only a slight reaction was caused (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021), AICIS IMAP (2015)). (3) It was reported that, in an eye irritation test with rabbits, no eye irritation was observed (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
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 sensitization test with 25 volunteers using a 6% solution of this substance, no positive reactions were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)). (2) In a Maximization test with guinea pigs (n=20) (intradermal injection: 1% solution), all animals showed no positive reactions (AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) It was reported that, in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (n = 10) by a modified Draize method (intradermal injection: a 1% solution was applied four times), no sensitizing response was observed (AICIS IMAP (2015), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." Also, the classification result was changed in accordance with the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government. [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, negative results were obtained in all of four micronucleus assays using the bone marrow cells of mice of three strains (single intraperitoneal injection (500 to 2,000 mg/kg or 100 to 600 mg/kg), a 3-day intraperitoneal injection test (200 to 500 mg/kg) and a 14-week feeding test (1,250 to 20,000 ppm (200 to 4,200 mg/kg/day)) (AICIS IMAP (2015), EFSA (2017), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)). (2) As for in vitro, negative results were obtained in a bacterial reverse mutation assay, and a gene mutation assay using the L5178Y mouse lymphoma cell line (AICIS IMAP (2015), EFSA (2017), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)). [Reference Data, etc.] (3) Based on the available test results, this substance is not considered to be genotoxic, and genotoxicity is not considered relevant to the mode of action of carcinogenicity of this substance (EFSA (2017), CLH Report (2019), ECHA RAC Opinion (2020)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
6	Carcinogenicity	Category 1B	Danger	H350	P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), an increase in the incidence of tumors including malign ones was observed in two animal species, and there was considered to be sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animal studies, and therefore, this substance was classified in Category 1B. Besides, the classification result was changed according to the new assessment. [Evidence Data] (1) In a carcinogenicity study with rats dosed by feeding (312 to 1,250 ppm) for two years, increased incidences of renal tubule adenoma (high-dose group) and mononuclear cell leukemia (low- and middle-dose group) were observed in males, and increased incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (middle-dose group) was observed in females (IARC 101 (2013)). In addition, in the assessment by the EU including the EFSA, an increase in histiocytic sarcoma (rare carcinoma) was also added in females (NTP TR533 (2006), EFSA (2017), CLH Report (2019), ECHA RAC Opinion (2020), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)). (2) In a carcinogenicity study with mice dosed by feeding (312 to 1,250 ppm) for two years, the total increase in incidence of hepatocellular adenoma alone, and hepatocellular adenoma and hepatocellular carcinoma were observed in males, and an increase in histiocytic sarcoma (rare carcinoma) was observed in females (IARC 101 (2013)). In addition, in the assessment by the EU including the EFSA, an increase in hepatoblastoma (rare carcinoma) was also added in males (NTP TR533 (2006), EFSA (2017), CLH Report (2019), ECHA RAC Opinion (2020), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)). (3) Based on (1) and (2), evidence of carcinogenicity was obtained in two animal species, including increased incidence of the rare tumor histiocytic sarcoma in female mice and female rats. The RAC of the ECHA concluded that, although the incidence was low, histiocytic sarcoma was associated with the exposure to this substance and was of biological significance, and the incidence of rare carcinoma hepatoblastoma was also observed in male mice, and therefore, it was appropriate to change the category from Category 2 to Category 1B (ECHA RAC Opinion (2020)). (4) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, the IARC classified this substance in Group 2B (IARC 101 (2013)), and the Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) classified it in Group 2B (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2020)). [Reference Data, etc.] (5) In a carcinogenicity study by 120-week dermal administration to female mice (5 to 50%, twice a week), there was no increase in the incidence of tumor even in treated areas (IARC101 (2013), EFSA (2009), EU REACH CoRAP (2018), CLH Report (2019), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Government of Canada (2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
7	Reproductive toxicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." Besides, based on (1), at a general toxicity dose in dams, increased incidences of abortion/early delivery were observed, and findings suggesting early termination of pregnancy were observed, but these were considered to be attributed to maternal toxicity. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) In a developmental toxicity study with female rabbits dosed by gavage (days 6 to 29 of gestation, 5 to 45 mg/kg/day), an increase in the incidence of early termination of pregnancy (abortion or early delivery) was observed (0/24, 0/24, 3/22 (4.5%), and 7/19 (36.8%) in a control group, a low-dose group, a middle-dose group, and a high-dose group, respectively) at or above a middle dose (25 mg/kg/day) at which maternal toxicity (death (2/24), reduced body weight gain, reduced food consumption) was observed. It was reported that in fetuses, only lower body weight was observed in a high-dose group (EFSA (2009; 2017), AICIS IMAP (2015), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021), NTP (2004)). (2) In a two-generation reproduction toxicity study (OECD TG 416, 100 to 2,000 ppm) with rats dosed by feeding, in F0 and F1 parent animals, effects on the liver (increased weight, hepatocellular hypertrophy: adaptive change) were observed at or above 100 ppm (6.5 mg/kg/day (males), 8.4 mg/kg/day (females)), and reduced body weight gain, reduced food consumption, and effects on the kidney (increased weight, proximal tubule dilatation, regeneration of proximal tubule epithelium) were observed at or above 450 ppm (29 mg/kg/day (males), 38 mg/kg/day (females)), but no effects on fertility were observed. It was reported that, in F1 and F2 offspring, only reduced body weight gain was observed at 2,000 ppm (130 mg/kg/day (males), 167 mg/kg/day (females)) (EFSA (2009; 2017), AICIS IMAP (2015), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)). (3) It was reported that, in a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage (days 6 to 19 of gestation, 100 to 300 mg/kg/day), delayed ossification (unossified sternebrae) was observed at and above a low dose at which maternal toxicity (weight loss, clinical signs (lethargy, piloerection), increased liver and kidney weight) was observed; skeletal variations (extra ribs) were observed at and above a middle dose; and lower fetal body weight per litter was observed at a high dose (EFSA (2009; 2017), AICIS IMAP (2015), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Government of Canada, Screening Assessment (2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, (1) was not adopted as evidence data because those effects were observed near lethal doses. [Reference Data, etc.] (1) It was reported that, in an acute oral toxicity test with mice, sedation, progressive depression of motor activity, unstable gait, tremors, and respiratory impairment were observed in lethal doses. Also, the LD50 was 2,895 mg/kg (REACH registration dossier (Accessed Dec. 2021)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 2 (liver, kidney)	Warning	H373	P260 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) to (4), it was classified in Category 2 (liver, kidney). Besides, based on (1), effects on the blood system were observed, but in (3), they were not observed in the range corresponding to the category in a longer test with the same species of animals, and therefore, the blood system was not adopted as the target organ. The classification result was changed in accordance with the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that, in a repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding, reduced body weight gain, higher serum albumin, increased absolute and relative liver weight, increased relative kidney weight, hepatocellular hypertrophy, higher urea nitrogen (males), a decrease in red blood cell count (females), lower hematocrit level (females), total bilirubin (females), and higher total protein (females) were observed at 100 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 31.1 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), Government of Canada (2021)). (2) It was reported that, in a repeated dose 14-week oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding, , lower body weight (females), effects on the liver (increased weight, centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, cytoplasmic vacuolization, induction of liver microsomal cytochrome P450 2B (females)), and effects on the kidney (increased weight, tubule epithelial regeneration) were observed at 75 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) (AICIS IMAP (2015), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), EFSA (2009, 2017), EU REACH CoRAP (2018)). (3) It was reported that, in a 105-week oral toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding, centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, renal tubule hyperplasia, thyroid C-cell hyperplasia, pelvic transitional epithelium hyperplasia (males), exacerbation of nephropathy (males), and chronic active hepatitis/bile duct hyperplasia (females) were observed at 312 ppm (15.6 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); and chronic active hepatitis (males), cystic degeneration of the liver (males), hyperplasia of the parathyroid (males), mineralization in the glandular stomach (males), lower body weight (females), and exacerbation of nephropathy (females) were observed at 625 ppm (31.3 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), AICIS IMAP (2019), EFSA (2009; 2017), EU REACH CoRAP (2018)). (4) It was reported that, in a 105-week oral toxicity test with mice dosed by feeding, centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, multinucleated hepatocytes (males), chronic active inflammation of the liver (males), exacerbation of nephropathy (males), hyperplasia of lymphoid follicles in the spleen (males), reduced body weight gain (females), nephropathy (females), mineralization of the kidney (females), hyperplasia of lymphoid follicles in the spleen (females), and hematopoietic cell proliferation (females) were observed at 312 ppm (15.6 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); necrosis of hepatocytes (males), cystic degeneration of the liver (males), and renal cortical cyst (males) were observed at 625 ppm (31.3 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2); and respiratory epithelial metaplasia in the olfactory epithelium, clear cell foci of altered hepatocytes (males), mineralization of the testis (males), and exacerbation of nephropathy (females) were observed at 1,250 ppm (62.5 mg/kg/day, within the range for Category 2) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment, 2019), AICIS IMAP (2019), EFSA (2009; 2017), EU REACH CoRAP (2018)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification	Classification year (FY)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Short term (Acute)	Category 2	- -	H401	P273 P501	From 72-hour ErC50 = 3.53 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Environment Agency in Japan (Environment Agency, 1998), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 6 (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)), it was classified in Category 2.	FY2016	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2013 revised edition (Ver. 1.1))
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 because it is not rapidly degradable (Non-biodegradable, a degradation rate by BOD: 0 % (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1980)), and its 21-day NOEC = 0.2 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Environment Agency in Japan (Environment Agency, 1998), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 6 (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)). 　If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 3 because it is not rapidly degradable (Non-biodegradable, a degradation rate by BOD: 0 % (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1980)), and its 96-hour LC50 = 10.9 mg/L for fish (Pimephales promelas) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 6 (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)). 　It was classified in Category 2 from the above results.	FY2016	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2013 revised edition (Ver. 1.1))
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.	FY2016	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2013 revised edition (Ver. 1.1))

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