Latest GHS Classification Results by the Japanese Government (edited by NITE)
GENERAL INFORMATION
REFERENCE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
NOTE:
GENERAL INFORMATION
| Item | Information |
|---|---|
| CAS RN | 96-33-3 |
| Chemical Name | Methyl acrylate |
| Substance ID | m-nite-96-33-3_v3 |
| 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) |
| 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) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (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) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (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) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (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 | Category 2 |
 Danger |
H225 | P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501 |
It was classified in Category 2 based on a flash point of -3 deg C (closed cup) and a boiling point of 80 deg C (NFPA (14th, 2010)). Besides, it is classified in Class 3, PG II in UNRTDG (UN1919). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 7 | Flammable solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 8 | Self-reactive substances and mixtures | Type G |
- |
- | - | There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties, an unsaturated bond, present in the molecule, but commercially available products, stabilized, are classified in Class 3 in UNRTDG (UN1919) and are considered to be not applicable to self-reactive substances and mixtures, hazards of the highest precedence. Therefore, this substance was classified in Type G. | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 9 | Pyrophoric liquids | Not classified |
- |
- | - | It was classified as "Not classified" because it is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 468 deg C (NFPA (14th, 2010)). | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 10 | Pyrophoric solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition). It was classified as "Not classified." | FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 11 | Self-heating substances and mixtures | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification is not possible because 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). 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) |
- |
- | - | The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is 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)) |
| 14 | Oxidizing solids | Not classified (Not applicable) |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition). 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 not possible due to lack of data. | 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) | Category 4 |
 Warning |
H302 | P301+P312 P264 P270 P330 P501 |
In preparation. Check the Japanese version. | FY2022 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.1)) |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Category 4 |
Warning |
H312 | P302+P352 P362+P364 P280 P312 P321 P501 |
[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 4 from (1) - (4). [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbits: 1.3 mL/kg (1,239 mg/kg) (ACGIH (7th, 2014)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: 1,243 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2014), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2004)) (3) LD50 for rabbits: 1,250 mg/kg (SIAR (2008), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), AICIS IMAP (2014)) (4) LD50 for rats: 1,300 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 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] 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) | Category 3 |
 Danger |
H331 | P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P311 P321 P405 P501 |
[Rationale for the Classification] It was classified in Category 3 from (1) - (7). Besides, because exposure concentrations were lower than 90% of the saturated vapor pressure concentration (113,956 ppm), the reference value in units of ppm was applied as a vapor with little mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,000 ppm (ACGIH (7th, 2014)) (2) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,350 ppm (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2004), Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2016), ACGIH (7th, 2014), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)) (3) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 1,600 ppm (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2016), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)) (4) LC50 for rats (vapor, 4 hours): 5.7 mg/L (1,618.8 ppm) (SIAR (2008), AICIS IMAP (2014)) (5) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 6.5 mg/L (1,846 ppm) (SIAR (2008)) (6) LC50 for rats (4 hours): 750-1,810 ppm (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)) (7) LC50 for rats (nose exposure, 4 hours): < 3,000 mL/m3 (3,000 ppm) (MAK (DFG) (2019)) (8) Vapor pressure of this substance: 86.6 mmHg (25 deg C) (HSDB (Access on April 2020)) (converted value for the saturated vapor pressure concentration: 113,956 ppm) |
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 | Category 1 |
 Danger |
H314 | P301+P330+P331 P303+P361+P353 P305+P351+P338 P304+P340 P260 P264 P280 P310 P321 P363 P405 P501 |
In preparation. Check the Japanese version. | FY2022 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.1)) |
| 3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 1 |
Danger |
H318 | P305+P351+P338 P280 P310 |
In preparation. Check the Japanese version. | FY2022 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.1)) |
| 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 1A |
Warning |
H317 | P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501 |
In preparation. Check the Japanese version. | FY2022 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.1)) |
| 5 | Germ cell mutagenicity | Not classified |
- |
- | - | [Rationale for the Classification] It was classified as "Not classified" from (1), (2). [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vivo, it was reported to be negative in two micronucleus tests in bone marrow cells after oral or inhalation administration to mice (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), SIDS Dossier (2008), SIAR (2008)). Besides, there is also a report that it was positive in a micronucleus test in bone marrow cells after intraperitoneal administration to another strain of mice, but the test details are unknown, and there was no dose-dependency in increased incidences of micronuclei (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), SIAR (2008)). (2) As for in vitro, it is reported that most bacterial reverse mutation tests gave negative results, and it was negative and positive in gene mutation tests in cultured mammalian cells and positive in a chromosomal aberration test (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), SIDS Dossier (2008), SIAR (2008)). |
FY2020 | 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] There is no information on carcinogenicity in humans. There are classification results by other organizations as described in (1), and no carcinogenicity was observed in mice, but 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. Also, in rats, tumors in the nasal cavity occurred in both males and females, and IARC concluded that there was sufficient evidence in experimental animals for carcinogenicity. From the above, by giving weight to the fact that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare issued the public announcement after discussion by the small committee of hazard evaluation of MHLW from concerns for carcinogenicity in humans, it was classified in Category 1B. [Evidence Data] (1) As for classification results by domestic and international organizations, it was classified in Group 2B by IARC (IARC 122 (2019)), A4 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), Group 2B by the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH)) (proposed in 2004)), and D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) by EPA (IRIS) (IRIS (1990)). (2) 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 (Notification No. 27, February 7, 2020). (3) In a carcinogenicity test by 104-week inhalation exposure to this substance of male and female rats, tumor formation in the nasal cavity was seen in both males and females, and there was a significant increase in the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity found in males. In females, there was squamous cell carcinoma in the nasal cavity, which was not a significant increase, but this was a rare tumor that was not observed in the historical data. From the results, it was concluded that there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats, and there was some evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats (Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2017), IARC 122 (2019)). (4) In a carcinogenicity test by 24-month inhalation exposure to this substance of male and female rats, there were significant increases in the incidences of sarcoma of the soft tissue (skin or subcutis) and malignant leukemic tumors (leukemia, lymphoma, lymphosarcoma) in males, and there was a significant increase in the incidence of adenoma of the pituitary gland in females (IARC 122 (2019)). (5) In a carcinogenicity test by inhalation exposure to this substance of male and female mice for 94 weeks (males) or 97 weeks (females), no increase in the incidence of any neoplasm was found in males or females (Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2017), IARC 122 (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), no reproductive toxicity was observed. Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified." Since the new pieces of information (1) and (3) were obtained, the classification result was changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) In a two-generation reproduction toxicity test with rats exposed to this substance in the inhalation route (OECD TG 416), even at doses at which parental toxicity effects (reduced body weight gain, a decrease in food consumption, histopathological damage to the nasal area) were observed, no effect on fertility was observed, but reduced body weight gain was observed in pups (MAK (DFG) (2019)). (2) In a developmental toxicity study by inhalation exposure in female rats on days 6 to 20 of gestation, at doses at which maternal toxicity effects (reduced body weight gain, a decrease in food consumption) were observed, a significant decrease in fetal body weight was observed. In one fetus of the highest dose group, a malformation was observed, which was not considered to be caused by this substance. There was no effect on embryo/fetal mortality or malformations (Risk Assessment Report (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2016), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2004), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), SIDS (2003), MAK (DFG) (2019)). (3) In a developmental toxicity study by inhalation exposure in female rabbits on days 6 to 28 of gestation, even at doses at which maternal toxicity effects (degeneration and atrophy of the olfactory epithelium) were observed, no developmental effects were observed (MAK (DFG) (2019)). |
FY2020 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.0)) |
| 8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 3 (Respiratory tract irritation) |
Warning |
H335 | P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501 |
In preparation. Check the Japanese version. | FY2022 | GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2019 revised edition (Ver. 2.1)) |
| 9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (respiratory organs) |
Danger |
H372 | P260 P264 P270 P314 P501 |
[Rationale for the Classification] There was information that based on (1) and (2), effects on the respiratory organs were observed in humans, and based on (3) to (5), effects on the respiratory organs were observed in test animals at a dose of Category 1, and it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs). In the previous classification, the kidney was also one of the target organs, but no sufficient evidence of effects in humans was obtained. As a result of a review of the information, the classification result was changed from the previous classification. [Evidence Data] (1) Subjective symptoms were examined in 195 workers at a chemical fiber plant, which consisted of 51 people in group A who were exposed at the average exposure concentrations of 21.3 mg/m3 for this substance and 1.0 mg/m3 for acrylic acid (CAS RN 79-10-7), 62 people in group B exposed at 4.7mg/m3 for this substance and 5.2 mg/m3m for acrylic acid, 22 people in group C exposed to only acrylic acid (11.2 mg/m3), and 60 people in control group who were not exposed. As a result, cough, shortness of breath, sputum, and sore throat were observed only in group A exposed mainly to this substance. In addition, in group A, there was also a significantly higher incidence of hyperemia of the pharynx and pulmonary markings observed in a chest X-ray (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)). (2) In a prospective epidemiological study conducted at an acrylic ester production plant (exposure group: 60 people, control group: 60 people, average age of both groups: 40 years old, average exposure period: 13 years), about 40% in the exposure group had complaints of burning sensations of the eyes and throat, irritative cough, headache, nausea, dizziness, and discomfort in the skin; and increases in triglyceride and monocytes were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)). (3) In a 90-day inhalation exposure test with rats, irritation to the eyes and nose, dyspnea, and atrophy and necrosis of the olfactory epithelium of the nasal cavity were observed at or above 242 ppm (equivalent to 0.852 mg/L, [converted guidance value: 0.568 mg/L], within the range for Category 2); and tracheitis, pulmonary hyperemia, and bronchopneumonia were observed at 626 ppm (equivalent to 2.2 mg/L [converted guidance value: 1.47 mg/L], within the range exceeding Category 2) (MAK (DFG) (2019)). (4) In a two-year inhalation exposure test with rats, atrophy of the olfactory epithelium was observed at or above 15 ppm (equivalent to 0.0528 mg/L, within the range for Category 1), and hyperplasia of basal cells of the nasal mucosa was observed at 45 ppm (equivalent to 0.158 mg/L, within the range for Category 1) (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2004)). (5) In a 104-week inhalation exposure test of this substance with rats, atrophy and regeneration of the olfactory epithelium, hyperplasia of basal cells and goblet cells of the respiratory epithelium, and metaplasia in the respiratory epithelium were observed at or above 40 ppm (equivalent to 0.141 mg/L, within the range for Category 1); and hyperplasia of the squamous epithelium and transitional epithelium, metaplasia in the squamous epithelium, inflammation of the transitional epithelium and olfactory epithelium, degeneration of the gland, inflammatory polyps, and adhesion and mineral deposits in the turbinate were observed in the nasal cavity at 160 ppm (equivalent to 0.563 mg/L, within the range for Category 2) (Results from Carcinogenicity Studies (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2016)). [Reference Data, etc.] (6) In a case-crossover study for over 8 weeks at a chemical products manufacturing plant involving 10 production workers, 4 intermittently exposed workers, and one industrial hygienist with previous very low exposure, there were no changes in the results of a spirometry inspection, which was one of pulmonary function tests, and a methacholine inhalation test before, during, and after the work. According to a preliminary study, however, 50% of the target workers of the study and 60% of all workers involved in manufacturing complained of bronchial hypersensitivity at the start of the study (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2004), MAK (DFG) (2019)). (7) In a 13-week toxicity test of this substance with rats dosed by drinking water, renal damages such as renal tubular enlargement and formation of acidophilic casts were observed at 20 mg/kg (within the range for Category 2). However, these damages were spontaneous renal lesions which commonly occur in the strain of rats used in the test, and they were not considered to be related to the administration (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). |
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 96-hour LC50 = 1.1 mg/L for fish (Cyprinodon variegatus) (SIAR, 2003). | 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 (a 28-day degradation rate by BOD, OECD TG301D: 59.8% (SIAR, 2003)) and due to 21-day NOEC = 0.36 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Environment Agency in Japan (Environment Agency, 1999), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2011), Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 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 2 because it is not rapidly degradable (a 28-day degradation rate by BOD, OECD TG301D: 59.8% (SIAR, 2003)) and due to 96-hour LC50 = 1.1 mg/L for fish (Cyprinodon variegatus) (SIAR, 2003). From the above results, it was classified in Category 2. The classification result was changed from the previous classification by reviewing the information used in judgment on rapid degradability. |
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)) |
NOTE:
|