Item | Information |
---|---|
CAS RN | 127-51-5 |
Chemical Name | 3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-3-en-2-one |
Substance ID | m-nite-127-51-5_v1 |
Download of Excel format | Excel file |
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) | |
Sample SDS by MHLW (External link) | |
OECD/eChemPortal (External link) | To OECD/eChemPortal (External link) |
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. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
2 | Flammable gases | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
3 | Aerosols | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Not aerosol products. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
4 | Oxidizing gases | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
5 | Gases under pressure | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
6 | Flammable liquids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | A flash point was 110.3 deg C ( 968.5 hPa, closed-cup) (ECHA (Accessed June 2020)). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
7 | Flammable solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
8 | Self-reactive substances and mixtures | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties (ethylene group) present in the molecule, but the classification is not possible due to no data. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
9 | Pyrophoric liquids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 254 deg C (ECHA (Accessed June 2020)). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
10 | Pyrophoric solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | 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 liquid substances are not available. | FY2020 | 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). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
13 | Oxidizing liquids | 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. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
14 | Oxidizing solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) | FY2020 | 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. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
16 | Corrosive to metals | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data available. | FY2020 | 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. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
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) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)) |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbits: > 5,000 mg/kg (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)) |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." |
FY2020 | 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. |
FY2020 | 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. |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
2 | Skin corrosion/irritation | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1) - (5). [Evidence Data] (1) It is reported that in a patch test in 28 persons (pilot test group 5, full test group 23), after 24-hour occlusive application of 0.5 mL of a 10% solution of this substance (alcohol, w/v), no irritation reactions were found after 24 hours (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (2) It is reported that in a patch test in 37 persons, no irritation reactions were seen after 24-hour occlusive application of 0.5 mL of 12.5% solution of this substance to the upper arm (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (3) It is reported that in a patch test in 12 persons, no skin irritation was found after 24-hour occlusive application of 0.3 mL of a 60% solution of this substance (diethyl phthalate: ethanol (3:1)) to the back (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (4) It is reported that in a patch test in 106 persons, an irritation reaction was observed in one person after 9-time 24-hour occlusive applications of 0.3 mL of a 60% solution of this substance (diethyl phthalate: ethanol (3:1)) to the back over 3 weeks (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (5) It is reported that in a skin irritation test with rabbits (n = 4) (semi-occlusive, 4-hour application, 72-hour observation), there was no skin irritation (mean erythema/eschar score: 1.4, mean edema score: 1.5) (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 2B |
Warning |
H320 | P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 |
[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 2B from (1), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) It is reported that in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n = 3), no corneal opacity or iritis was seen, but conjunctivitis involving chemosis and discharge was observed at 24, 48, and 72 hours after application, and eyes that were applied with this substance became normal after 7 days (corneal opacity score: 0/0/0, iritis score: 0/0/0, conjunctival redness score: 2.3/2.3/2.3, chemosis score: 1.7/1.7/1.7) (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (2) It is reported that in an eye irritation test with rabbits (n = 3), no corneal opacity or iritis was seen in any animal, but conjunctival irritation involving chemosis and discharge was observed at 1-4 days after application, and eyes that were applied with this substance became normal after 7 days (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). |
FY2020 | 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. |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
4 | Skin sensitization | Category 1B |
Warning |
H317 | P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501 |
[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 1B from (1) - (5). [Evidence Data] (1) It is reported that after a 10% solution of this substance (petrolatum) was applied to 179 male and female patients suspected of cosmetic allergy for 72 hours in a patch test, positive reactions were seen in two, and the substance was sensitizing to the skin (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (2) It is reported that in a patch test in 100 persons, after induction by 9-time 24-hour occlusive applications of 0.3 mL of this substance to the left side of the back over 3 weeks followed by challenge by 24-hour application of 0.3 mL of this substance to the right side of the back about 2 weeks later, NOEL = 70,866 microg/cm2 was obtained, and there was skin sensitization (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (3) It is reported that in a patch test in 422 patients with suspected contact allergy, nine showed positive reactions after induction by occlusive application of a 5% solution of this substance (petrolatum) mostly to the face once followed by challenge, and the substance was considered to be sensitizing to the skin (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (4) This substance was listed in list B, one of the fragrance chemicals, which are less frequently reported and thus less documented as consumer allergen (14 substances), but it is reported that there are reports on 10-100 positive cases in humans (SCCS (2012)). (5) It is reported that in a local lymph node assay (LLNA) with mice (OECD TG 429), irritation index (SI) was 0.6 (2.5%), 0.6 (5.0%), 1.5 (10.0%), 3.4 (25.0%), 4.6 (50.0%), the EC3 value was calculated as 21.8%, and slight sensitization was found (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). |
FY2020 | 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 the data of (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) In a mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay (intraperitoneal injection), negative results were reported (EFSA (2015)). (2) In a bacterial reverse mutation assay, negative results were reported (EFSA (2015)). (3) In the Flavoring Group Evaluation, the EFSA Panel concluded that the concern with respect to genotoxicity could be ruled out for this substance (EFSA (2015)). |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
6 | Carcinogenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
7 | Reproductive toxicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. In (1), no reproduction toxicity was observed, and in (2), no developmental toxicity was observed. However, in (2), the substance was not administered at the dosage level where toxicity could be developed in maternal animals. Therefore, the test conditions were not regarded as adequate to evaluate developmental toxicity. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that in a reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test with rats dosed by gavage (OECD TG421, GLP, for up to 42 days from two weeks prior to pairing (males), from two weeks prior to pairing until day 13 of lactation (females)), no reproduction toxicity was observed at 500 mg/kg/day (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (2) It was reported that in a developmental toxicity study with rats dosed by gavage (gestational days 7 to 17), no developmental toxicity was observed at 30 mg/kg/day (REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020), NICNAS IMAP (2018)). |
FY2020 | 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. |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data. In the tests by oral route (1) and (2), it was not known whether the observed effects would appear at doses in the vicinity of the upper limit of Category 2. The effects observed in a dermal application test of (3) were local effects due to dermal irritation. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that in a 90-day oral toxicity study with rats dosed by feeding, no treatment-related gross pathological changes were observed at 3.55 mg/kg/day (males, within the range for Category 1) and 4.01 mg/kg/day (females, within the range for Category 1) (approximately 100 times the maximum estimated human dietary levels) (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (2) It was reported that in a repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study (OECD TG408, GLP) with rats, centrilobular hepatocyte enlargement (males and females), globular accumulations of eosinophilic material in the renal tubular epithelium (males), follicular cell hypertrophy in the thyroids (males) and adipose infiltration of the bone marrow (males) were observed at 500 mg/kg/day (in the range corresponding to "Not classified") and the NOAEL was determined to be 30 mg/kg/day. It was considered that the effects on the kidneys resulted from the accumulation of alpha 2-microglobulin in proximal tubular epithelial cells and were peculiar to the male rats (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). (3) In a 90-day dermal toxicity study with rats (nonocclusive application), dose-dependent erythema and edema with eschar formation were observed at or above 50 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2) in all dosage groups, and this substance was found to be a severe dermal irritant on repeated dermal exposure. It was also reported that at or above 580 mg/kg/day (in the range corresponding to "Not classified"), systemic effects such as reduced body weight gain and decreases in food consumption were reported (NICNAS IMAP (2018), REACH registration dossier (Accessed May 2020)). |
FY2020 | 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. |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
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 |
It was classified in Category 2 from 48-hour EC50 = 9 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (REACH registration dossier, 2021). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic) | Category 2 |
- |
H411 | P273 P391 P501 |
Reliable chronic toxicity data were not obtained. It was classified in Category 2 because it is not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN), and it was classified in Category 2 in acute toxicity. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
12 | Hazardous to the ozone layer | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
|