NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	96-33-3
Chemical Name	Methyl acrylate
Substance ID	23B5521
Classification year (FY)	FY2011
Ministry who conducted the classification	Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)/Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
New/Revised	Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year	FY2006
Download of Excel format	Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION

Item	Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link)	Physical Hazards & Health Hazards: GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government (July, 2010) Environmental Hazards: UN GHS Document (4th revised edition)
UN GHS document (External link)	UN GHS document
Definitions/Abbreviations (Excel file)	Definitions/Abbreviations
Model Label by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
Model SDS by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
OECD/eChemPortal (External link)	eChemPortal

PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Explosives	Not applicable	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
2	Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
3	Aerosols	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.
4	Oxidizing gases	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
5	Gases under pressure	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
6	Flammable liquids	Category 2	Danger	H225	P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501	It corresponds to Category 2 from a flash point of -3 deg C [closed-cup] (Ullmanns (E) (6th, 2003)), which is < 23 deg C, and an initial boiling point of 80.3 deg C (Ullmanns (E) (6th, 2003)), which is > 35 deg C. Stabilized ones are classified in Class 3, PG II in UNRTDG (UN1919).
7	Flammable solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Type G	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties (unsaturated bond) present in the molecule, but commercial products contain a stabilizer and are classified in Class 3 in UNRTDG (UN1919) and correspond to Type G.
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 468 deg C (CRC (91st, 2010)).
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Test methods applicable to liquid substances are not available.
12	Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases	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).
13	Oxidizing liquids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
14	Oxidizing solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
15	Organic peroxides	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure.
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

HEALTH HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Acute toxicity (Oral)	Category 3	Danger	H301	P301+P310 P264 P270 P321 P330 P405 P501	There are three LD50 values for rats (277 mg/kg (SIDS (2003)), 300 mg/kg (DFGMAK-Doc. 6 (1994)), 765 mg/kg (SIDS (2003))), two correspond to Category 3, and one corresponds to Category 4. It was classified in Category 3, to which most corresponded.
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 4	Warning	H312	P302+P352 P362+P364 P280 P312 P321 P501	It was classified in Category 4 based on an LD50 value of 1,243 mg/kg for rats (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)).
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Category 3	Danger	H331	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P311 P321 P405 P501	All five LC50 values for rats (750-1000 ppm (ECETOC JACC 37 (1998)), 1,350 ppm (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)), 1,620 ppm, 1,850 ppm, 994 ppm (the above three, SIDS (2003))) correspond to Category 3. Besides, because all the LC50 values were lower than 90% of the saturated vapour pressure concentration (131579 ppm), the reference value of gasses was applied.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
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 a test in which the undiluted test substance was applied to six rabbits for 4 hours (OECD TG 404), necrosis was seen in one animal at 1-hour after application, five at 48 hours, and all the animals at day 7, all six animals showed the severest edema (grade 4) at 1 hour after application, and it was assessed to be highly irritating (SIDS (2003)). Also, in another test in which 0.5 mL of the undiluted test substance was applied to six rabbits for 4 hours, scores for erythema and edema were grade 4 at 4, 24, 48 hours after application, and chemical burns, subdermal hemorrhages, and necroses over the entire application site were found in all the animals. The primary irritation index was 8, the most severe (/8), and it was judged as corrosive (SIDS (2003)). From the above, it was classified in Category 1.
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 1	Danger	H318	P305+P351+P338 P280 P310	In a test in which 0.01 mL of the undiluted test substance was instilled into the rabbit eye, moderate corneal damage, slight iritis, and moderate to severe lesions of the conjunctivae were seen during the first day after instillation, no recovery was observed in the course of the 7-day observation period, and it was assessed to be severely irritating with the eye irritation score (equivalent to AOI) of 66 (maximum 110) (SIDS (2003)). Furthermore, by considering the circumstances where the number of animals was decreased from originally-planned six to one due to the results above on the first day in the test (SIDS (2003)), it was classified in Category 1. Besides, this substance was classified in Category 1 (corrosive) in skin corrosion/irritation.
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Data are lacking. Besides, it is reported that a case-crossover study on workers was conducted in a chemical manufacturing plant in Texas, the United States to investigate a relationship between exposure and bronchial hyper-responsiveness, and no changes were observed in spirometry and methacholine challenge testing, which are lung function tests and were performed before, during, and after work (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
4	Skin sensitization	Category 1A	Warning	H317	P302+P352 P333+P313 P362+P364 P261 P272 P280 P321 P501	It was classified in Category 1A because the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) classified it in occupational skin sensitizers Group 2 (Recommendation of Occupational Exposure Limits Vol. 52 (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 2010)). Also, it is listed as a contact allergen in Contact Dermatitis (Frosch) (Contact Dermatitis (4th, 2006), corresponding to List 1). Besides, many reports suggest that this substance is a skin sensitizer, including case reports in which allergic reactions in the skin were observed after contact or exposure in humans (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009), PATTY (5th, 2001), DFGMAK-Doc. 16 (2001)). On the other hand, in animals, a guinea pig maximization test was positive (2/6) (SIDS (2003)), and it was reported to be positive in tests by Polak method, Epicutaneous method, and Split Adjuvant method with guinea pigs, which are not approved by OECD (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from negative results in two micronucleus tests with bone marrow cells by oral or inhalation to mice (in vivo somatic cell mutagenicity tests) (SIDS (2003)). Besides, it was also reported to be positive in a micronucleus test with bone marrow cells by intraperitoneal administration to mice (in vivo somatic cell mutagenicity test), but it is mentioned that purity of the substance, etc. are unknown, and the reproducibility is questionable (SIDS (2003)). Furthermore, as for in vitro tests, an Ames test was negative (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008), SIDS (2003)), and a positive result was reported in a mouse lymphoma test (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Classification not possible" because it was classified in Group 3 for carcinogenicity by IARC (IARC 71 (1999)) and A4 by ACGIH (ACGIH (2001)). Besides, there is little information in humans, and there is a report of an epidemiological survey in occupational exposure, but no findings suggest the relationship between this substance and carcinogenicity (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)). Also, in experimental animals, there is only a report of a 2-year inhalation exposure test with rats, in which it was concluded that there were no treatment-related tumors (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It is reported that in a developmental toxicity test by inhalation exposure of rats on gestational days 6-20, maternal animals showed pronounced decreases in weight gain and food consumption at or above 50 ppm, but there were no treatment-related increases in embryo/fetal mortality and no fetal malformations, and effects were limited to significantly reduced fetal body weight (SIDS (2003)). Therefore, no adverse effects were observed on the development of offspring, but because data are insufficient, and effects are unknown for sexual function and fertility, it was classified as "Classification not possible."
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 1 (systemic toxicity), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation)	Danger Warning	H370 H335	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501 P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312	After oral administration to rats, death occurred at or above 759 mg/kg with signs of staggering and prone position, and necropsy revealed lesions of the gastric mucosa. After oral administration of 180-280 mg/kg to rabbits, symptoms of apathy, dyspnea, tremor, and cyanosis, gastro-intestinal petechiae and edema, and congestion in the lung were observed (SIDS (2003)). Eye and nasal irritation and dyspnea were seen after inhalation exposure of rats, mice, and hamsters (vapour: 1.2-9.8 mg/L/4 hours), and in dead animals, dilatation of the heart, congestion, hyperemia, and edema of the lung were found (SIDS (2003)). From the above results, oral doses correspond to the guidance value range for Category 2, and inhalation doses correspond to those for Category 1, but effects were also seen in dead animals, signs were non-specific, and it was difficult to specify the target organ. Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (systemic toxicity). Furthermore, as for strong eye and nasal irritation found in the inhalation exposure tests with rats, mice, and hamsters, and recovery was seen in surviving animals, and also in humans, it is reported that irritation in the upper respiratory tract and conjunctiva was observed after exposure (Initial Risk Assessment Report 95 (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (upper respiratory tract), Category 2 (kidney)	Danger Warning	H372 H373	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	After 12-week inhalation exposure of rats (vapour), keratinisation of the transitional epithelium between respiratory and olfactory epithelium was observed as well as degeneration and vacuolization of the olfactory epithelium at or above 0.86 mg/L/6 hours/day (SIDS (2003)). Also, in a 2-year inhalation exposure test with rats, a significant increase in basal cell hyperplasia, accompanied by loss of olfactory and ciliated cells in the nasal passage, was observed in males and females in the groups at or above 0.173 mg/L/6 hours/day (SIDS (2003)).In the above 12-week inhalation exposure test, animals developed labored breathing and irritation of the mucosa, hemorrhagic discharge from the eye and nose became increasingly severe at 2.23 mg/L/6 hours/day above the guidance value range, and all the animals of this group died due to strong irritation (hyperemia in the trachea and lung along with bronchopneumonia). From the above results, because effects on the upper respiratory tract were seen at or above doses corresponding to the guidance value range for Category 1, it was classified in Category 1 (upper respiratory tract). On the other hand, after 13-week oral administration to rats, changes in the kidney characterized by dilated renal tubules and eosinophilic cast formation were found in males and females at 20 mg/kg/day corresponding to the guidance values for Category 2, and the severity and incidence increased compared to the control group (SIDS (2003)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (kidney).
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Acute)	Category 2	- -	H401	P273 P501	It was classified in Category 2 from 96-hour LC50 = 1.1 mg/L for fish (Cyprinodon variegatus) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Category 3	- -	H412	P273 P501	If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 3 due to being rapidly degradable (a 2-week degradation rate: by BOD: 37%, by TOC: 100%, by HPLC: 58.3% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1975)), and 21-day NOEC = 0.36 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia pulex) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 7 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009)). If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified as "Not classified" due to being rapidly degradable (a 2-week degradation rate: by BOD: 37%, by TOC: 100%, by HPLC: 58.3% (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1975)), and a low bioaccumulation estimate (log Kow = 0.8 (PHYSPROP Database, 2009)), despite 96-hour LC50 = 1.1 mg/L for fish (Cyprinodon variegatus) (Initial Risk Assessment (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2008)). By drawing a comparison between the above results, it was classified in Category 3.
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	This substance is not listed in the Annexes to the Montreal Protocol.

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.

To GHS Information