Item | Information |
---|---|
CAS RN | 130000-40-7 |
Chemical Name | N-[2,6-dibromo-4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-2-methyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-5-Thiazolecarboxamide; Thifluzamide |
Substance ID | m-nite-130000-40-7_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) | 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) |
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. It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
2 | Flammable gases | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
3 | Aerosols | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Not aerosol products. It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
4 | Oxidizing gases | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
5 | Gases under pressure | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
6 | Flammable liquids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
7 | Flammable solids | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data available. | FY2020 | 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. It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
9 | Pyrophoric liquids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
10 | Pyrophoric solids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from information that it is stable to heat at up to 150 deg C (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
11 | Self-heating substances and mixtures | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data 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). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
13 | Oxidizing liquids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Solid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | 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 fluorine and oxygen (but not chlorine) which are chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen. It was classified as "Not classified." | 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. It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
16 | Corrosive to metals | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification is not possible because test methods applicable to solid substances are not 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. It was classified as "Not classified." | 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), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: > 5,000 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)) (2) LD50 for rats: > 6,500 mg/kg (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)) |
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 (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)) |
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] Solid (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) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1). [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): > 5.0 mg/L (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)) |
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). [Evidence Data] (1) No irritation was observed in a skin irritation test with rabbits (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). |
FY2020 | 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] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1). [Evidence Data] (1) In an eye irritation test with rabbits, the mean score at 24/48/72 hours after application was <= 1, and slight irritation was observed but disappeared at 72 hours after application (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). |
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 | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" because the data in (1) or (2) did not meet the criteria for Category 1B. [Evidence Data] (1) It was negative in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (Buehler test) (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014), Agricultural Chemicals Times supplement, Agricultural chemicals technology information No. 30 (Japan Crop Protection Association, 2001)). (2) It is reported that in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (maximization test, intradermal administration 5%), the positive rate was 20%, and it was slightly sensitizing (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). |
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 (1) to (3), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, in a micronucleus test using the bone marrow cells of mice dosed by single intraperitoneal administration and a chromosomal aberration test using the bone marrow cells of rats dosed by single oral administration, negative results were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). (2) As for in vitro, in a bacterial reverse mutation test, a gene mutation test and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test using the cultured mammalian cells, negative results were obtained (Same as above). |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
6 | Carcinogenicity | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] There are no classification results by domestic and international organizations. There was no report available on humans. Based on (1) and (2), it was classified as "Not classified." [Evidence Data] (1) In a two-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with male and female rats dosed by feeding, there was no neoplastic lesion for which the incidence increased by administration, and no carcinogenicity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (2) In an 18-month carcinogenicity study with male and female mice dosed by feeding, there was no neoplastic lesion for which the incidence increased by administration, and no carcinogenicity was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). |
FY2020 | 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." [Evidence Data] (1) In a two-generation reproduction study with rats dosed by feeding, centrilobular/midzonal vacuolation of hepatocytes, etc. were observed in parental animals and reduced body weight gain was observed in pups, but no effect on fertility was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (2) In a developmental toxicity study with female rats dosed by gavage on days 6 to 15 of gestation, at a dose at which alopecia, salivation, and a decrease in body weight/reduced body weight gain were observed in maternal animals, lower body weight was observed in fetuses (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (3) In a developmental toxicity study with female rabbits dosed by gavage on days 7 to 19 of gestation, at a dose at which maternal toxicity effects (emaciation, reduced body weight gain, and a decrease in food consumption) were observed, lower body weight was observed in fetuses (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] There was no report on acute exposure effects of this substance in humans. In experimental animals, based on (1) to (4), any of the tests in the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes did not show any findings by which target organs could be identified at doses at which classification was possible, and therefore, it was classified as "Not classified." In (4), incrustation was observed, but no other symptoms of poisoning including abnormal respiratory sound were observed. Also, in the skin irritation test and the acute dermal application test with rabbits, no skin irritation was observed. Therefore, the incrustation around the nose and the eyes was considered to be due to the drying of secretion from the nose and the eyes, and it was determined that the finding could not identify the target organ. [Evidence Data] (1) In an acute oral toxicity test with rats, at or above 2,000 mg/kg (the upper limit of Category 2), stained fur around the urogenital organs, red staining around the muzzle, a decrease in locomotor activity, loose stool, diarrhea, mucous stool, loss of fur around the urogenital organs/on the hindlimbs, ataxia, secretion around the eyes, decreases in feces/urine, and a fall of body temperature were observed; and at 6,500 mg/kg (exceeding Category 2), multiple ulcers and erosion in the forestomach were observed in males (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (2) In an acute oral toxicity test with rats, at 5,000 mg/kg (exceeding Category 2), transient colored feces and urine, a decrease in feces, poor grooming, and dark-colored face were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (3) In an acute dermal application test with rabbits, at 5,000 mg/kg (exceeding Category 2), there was no death case, and no apparent toxicity effect was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (4) In a four-hour inhalation exposure test with rats, at or above 4.3 mg/L (within the range for Category 2), red/brown scabs around the nose and incrustation around the eyes were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019), A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)) |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (liver) |
Danger |
H372 | P260 P264 P270 P314 P501 |
[Rationale for the Classification] There was no report on hazard by repeated exposure to this substance in humans. In experimental animals, based on (1) to (3), at doses for Category 1, effects on the liver were observed. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (liver). In (1) and (2), effects on the blood system were also observed but only in one sex. Therefore, the information was determined to be not sufficient for identifying the target organ. [Evidence Data] (1) It was reported that in a 90-day oral toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 200 ppm (males/females: 13.4/16.9 mg/kg/day, both within the range for Category 2), centrilobular hepatocyte vacuolation was observed in males; and at or above 1,000 ppm (males/females: 67.3/82.3 mg/kg/day, both within the range for Category 2), an increase in ALP and an increase in relative liver weight in males, and decreases in hematocrit and mean corpuscular volume (MCV), an increase in mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), an increase in cholesterol (Chol), increases in absolute and relative liver weight, and centrilobular hepatocyte vacuolation in females were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (2) It was reported that in a one-year oral toxicity test with dogs dosed by capsules, at or above 100 mg/kg/day (within the range for Category 2), increases in ALP and Chol were observed, and furthermore, in males, an increase in MCHC was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (3) It was reported that in a two-year oral administration study with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 100 ppm (males/females: 4.75/6.54 mg/kg/day, both within the range for Category 1), centrilobular fatty changes of hepatocytes was observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). The Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019) indicated that centrilobular fatty changes of hepatocytes suggested hepatotoxicity. [Reference Data, etc.] (4) It was reported that in a 90-day oral toxicity test with rats dosed by feeding, at or above 5,000 ppm (males: 322 mg/kg/day, females: 382 mg/kg/day, both exceeding Category 2), a decrease in feces, increases in gamma-GT and BUN, and decreases in glucose and pyelonephritis were observed, and furthermore, in females, a death (1 case), an increase in neutrophils, an increase in ALP, an increase in inorganic phosphates, a decrease in albumin, and renal tubular enlargement/cysts were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). (5) It was reported that in a one-year oral toxicity test with dogs dosed by capsules, at 1,000 mg/kg/day (exceeding Category 2), an increase in MCV, lack of visual stimulus response, lower strength of legs/ataxic gait, abnormal posture response, and nystagmus were observed, and furthermore, an increased degree of fragmentation/degeneration of nerve fiber axons and breakdown/degeneration of myelin in the spinal cord, and spongiform degeneration of the inferior cerebellar peduncle tract were observed in males, and an increase in MCHC was observed in females (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2019)). |
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 = 1.4 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). | 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 |
If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 2 because it is not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN) and due to 72-hour NOErC = 1 mg/L for algae (Raphidocelis subcapitata) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 2 because it is not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN) and due to 48-hour EC50 = 1.4 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (A pesticide abstract and evaluation report (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2014)). From the above results, it was classified in Category 2. |
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)) |
|