NITE - Chemical Management Field

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

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	62-73-7
Chemical Name	Dimethyl 2,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate; Dichlorvos
Substance ID	m-nite-62-73-7_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.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
2	Flammable gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
3	Aerosols	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
4	Oxidizing gases	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
5	Gases under pressure	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
6	Flammable liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	From a flash point of 177 deg C (open-cup) (NFPA (14th, 2006)), it could be judged to exceed 93 deg C in the prescribed closed-cup test. Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified."	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
7	Flammable solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It contains no chemical groups associated with explosive properties but contains a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties (unsaturated bond), but there are no data.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from the description of being practically non-flammable (Merck (14th, 2006)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from the description of being practically non-flammable (Merck (14th, 2006)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
12	Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases	Not classified	- -	-	-	The substance is a compound containing phosphorus (P), but from water solubility data (about 1 g/100 mL (Merck (14th, 2006))), it was thought to be stable in water.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
13	Oxidizing liquids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen which is chemically bonded to an element other than carbon or hydrogen, but the classification is not possible due to no data.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
14	Oxidizing solids	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
15	Organic peroxides	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available. Besides, it is described that it is corrosive to iron and mild steel (HSDB (2010)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
17	Desensitized explosives	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-

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 3	Danger	H301	P301+P310 P264 P270 P321 P330 P405 P501	Among five LD50 values for rats [17 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)), 30 and 65 mg/kg (EHC 79 (1989)), 58.8 and 97.5 mg/kg (ATSDR (1997))], two correspond to Category 2, and three correspond to Category 3. It was classified in Category 3, to which most corresponded.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 2	Danger	H310	P302+P352 P361+P364 P262 P264 P270 P280 P310 P321 P405 P501	An LD50 value for rabbits [205 mg/kg (EHC 79 (1989))] corresponds to Category 3, and an LD50 value of 113 mg/kg for rats (EHC 79 (1989))] corresponds to Category 2. By adopting a category with a higher hazard for rats, it was classified in Category 2.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not classified (Not applicable)	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Category 1	Danger	H330	P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501	Both two LC50 values by 4-hour exposure of rats [1.66 ppm (EHC 79 (1989)) and 12.2 ppm (PATTY (5th, 2001))] correspond to Category 1. Besides, because the LC50 values were lower than 90% of the saturated vapour pressure concentration (15.8 ppm), the reference value of gasses was applied as a vapour with little mist.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Category 2	Danger	H330	P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501	Among four LC50 values by 4-hour exposure of rats [0.65 mg/L, 0.523 mg/L, and 0.447 mg/L (the above, PATTY (5th, 2001)), 0.34 mg/L (EHC 79 (1989))], two correspond to Category 2, and two correspond to Category 3. By adopting a category with a higher hazard, it was classified in Category 2. Besides, because the LC50 values were higher than the saturated vapour pressure concentration (0.143 mg/L), the reference value of mists was applied.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Category 2	Warning	H315	P302+P352 P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321	It was classified in Category 2 because it is reported that severe irritation was seen in a test in which 5-20% aqueous solutions of this substance were applied to the rabbit skin (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2B	- Warning	H320	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264	It was classified in Category 2B because it was a mild irritant in a primary eye irritation test with rabbits (EPA RED (2006)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
4	Skin sensitization	Category 1	Warning	H317	P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501	It was classified in Category 1 because, in a maximization test in which 0.5% of this substance was applied to guinea pigs, erythema was observed in 35% of the animals, and it was judged as moderately sensitizing (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is reported that it was all negative in dominant lethal tests by oral, inhalation, or intraperitoneal administration to mice (in vivo heritable germ cell mutagenicity tests) (IARC 53 (1991)), and all negative in chromosomal aberration tests with spermatogonial cells or spermatocytes after oral or inhalation administration to mice (in vivo germ cell mutagenicity tests) (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and all negative in micronucleus tests with bone marrow or peripheral blood after intraperitoneal administration to mice (in vivo somatic cell mutagenicity tests) (IARC 53 (1991), NTP DB (Access on Aug. 2011)). Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified." Besides, it is reported that it was negative in a sister chromatid exchange test with mice, DNA damage tests and DNA-binding tests with mice or rats, which are in vivo genotoxicity tests (IARC 53 (1991), NTP DB (Access on Aug. 2011)), and it was positive in an Ames test, an in vitro test (IARC 53 (1991), NTP DB (Access on Aug. 2011)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
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 (malignant fibrous histiocytoma in male rat, forestomach tumor in female mice), and in animal studies, it was considered that there was sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity, and therefore, this substance was classified in Category 1B. [Evidence Data] (1) In a carcinogenicity study with rats and mice dosed by feeding for 80 weeks (after the dosing period, rats were observed for 30 weeks and mice were observed for 12 to 14 weeks before sacrifice), a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of malignant fibrous histiocytoma was observed in male rats (0, 150, 1,000/300 ppm). But there was no significant increase in tumors in female rats and male and female mice (Initial Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2013), IARC 53 (1991), ACGIH (2014)). (2) In a carcinogenicity study with rats and mice dosed by gavage for 2 years (5 days/week), in the test with rats (males and females: 0, 4, 8 mg/kg/day), dose-dependent increases in the incidences of pancreatic acinar cell adenomas and mononuclear cell leukemia in males and mammary gland tumors with mammary gland fibromas and fibroadenomas combined in females were observed. The NTP concluded that some evidence of carcinogenicity for male rats and equivocal evidence for female rats were obtained. In contrast, in the test with mice (males: 0, 10, 20 mg/kg/day, females: 0, 20, 40 mg/kg/day), a dose-dependent increase in forestomach papillomas was observed in both males and females. At 40 mg/kg/day, a significant increase in the incidence of forestomach papillomas was observed in females compared to controls, and squamous cell carcinomas were also observed in 2/50 animals. The NTP concluded that some evidence of carcinogenicity for male mice and clear evidence for female mice were obtained (NTP TR342 (1989), Initial Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2013), IARC 53 (1991), ACGIH (2014)). (3) This substance is a target substance in the public announcement on guidelines in order to prevent the impairment of worker's health caused by the chemical substances decided by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare based on paragraph (3) of Article 28 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (guidelines in order to prevent the impairment of worker's health, announcement No. 27 on February 7, 2020). (4) As for the classification results by domestic and international organizations, the IARC classified this substance in Group 2B (IARC 53 (1991)), the Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH) classified it in Group 2B (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2021): proposed in 2001), the EPA classified it in S (EPA OPP Annual Cancer Report (2020): 2000), and the ACGIH classified it in A4 (ACGIH (2014): proposed in 2000). [Reference Data] (5) The ACGIH assessed the test results including (1) and (2) and concluded that the tumors observed in rats and mice were inconsistent and the relevance of forestomach tumors, etc. to humans was unclear. Therefore, it was classified in A4 (ACGIH (2014)).	FY2021	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0))
7	Reproductive toxicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is reported that in two-generation and three-generation reproductive toxicity tests with rats, except for erythrocyte and plasma cholinesterase inhibition observed at or above 0.488-0.577 mg/kg/day and abnormal estrous cycling in the high dose group (7.592 mg/kg/day), which was only a statistically significant effect of reproductive toxicity (EPA RED (2006)), there were no adverse effects on reproductive parameters of mating, gestation, fertility, and delivery and the development of offspring (ACGIH (2002), IARC 53 (1991)). In developmental toxicity tests by oral administration to rats, mice, or rabbits during the gestation period or organogenesis period and a developmental toxicity test by inhalation exposure of rabbits, no adverse effects on the development of offspring, including teratogenicity, were observed (IARC 53 (1991), ATSDR (1997), EPA RED (2006)). From the above, no adverse effects on sexual function/fertility were found in multiple-generation reproductive toxicity tests, and no adverse effects on the development of offspring were seen in developmental toxicity tests. Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified."	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (nervous system)	Danger	H370	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501	On oral administration to rats, decreased activity, irregular breathing, clonic convulsions, fasciculations, prostration, decreased righting reflex, and salivation were observed at 35 mg/kg, and significant cholinesterase inhibition in the brain and erythrocytes was found at or above 5 mg/kg (EPA RED (2006)). Furthermore, cholinergic signs such as restlessness, increased salivation, muscle fasciculations, and involuntary urination occurred at or above 11 mg/kg after oral administration to dogs (ACGIH (2002)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system). Besides, as for humans, it is reported that irritation of the throat, rhinorrhea, and substernal chest pain were seen in a test on male volunteers exposed to dichlorvos, but no effects were seen in pupil diameter and visual acuity, and there was a relationship between the reduction in plasma cholinesterase activity and the dichlorvos level (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (nervous system, liver)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	In 90-day oral administration tests with rats, significant reductions in plasma and erythrocyte cholinesterase activities at or above 1.5 mg/kg/day and cholinergic signs of tremors, salivation, and exophthalmos at or above 7.5 mg/kg/day were observed (ACGIH (2002)), and also in a 90-day oral administration test with dogs, decreased plasma and erythrocyte cholinesterase activities were reported at or above 1 mg/kg/day (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). From the above, because all the doses were within the guidance values for Category 1, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system). Furthermore, after 2-year diet administration to rats, surviving rats in the 500 ppm (12.5 mg/kg/day) group showed focal vacuolar degeneration and fatty degeneration of hepatocytes, hepatocellular swelling, and bile stasis, and the males and females in the 100 ppm (2.5 mg/kg/day) group had focal vacuolar degeneration (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)), and in a 2-year diet administration test with dogs, enlargement and vacuolization of hepatocytes were seen at or above 0.8 mg/kg/day (JMPR 859 (1993)). Because the doses were within the guidance values for Category 1, it was classified in Category 1 (liver). Besides, as for human exposure, it is reported that plasma cholinesterase activities decreased by 40% in a test in which volunteers were given 60-day repeated oral administration at 1.5 mg/person/day (Initial Risk Assessment Report 86 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）

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 1	Warning	H400	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 1 from 48-hour EC50 = 0.00007 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia pulex) (U.S. EPA: RED, 2006, etc.).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment Long term (Chronic)	Category 1	Warning	H410	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (BIOWIN), and 21-day NOEC = 0.0000058 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (U.S. EPA: RED, 2006).	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol.	FY2011	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government （July, 2010）

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