NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	71-36-3
Chemical Name	1-Butanol
Substance ID	25B0017
Classification year (FY)	FY2013
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)	GHS Classification Guidance by the Japanese Government (July, 2013)
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 3	Warning	H226	P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501	From a flash point of 29 deg C (closed cup) (ICSC (2005)), it was classified in Category 3. Besides, it is classified in Class 3, PG III (UN1120) in UNRTDG.
7	Flammable solid	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Not applicable	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups present in the molecule associated with explosive or self-reactive properties.
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Not classified	- -	-	-	It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 345 deg C (ICSC (2005)).
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Not classified	- -	-	-	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 in the molecule.
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)	Not classified	- -	-	-	There are reports on LD50 values for rats of 0.7 g/kg (EHC 65 (1987)), 790 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), SIDS (2005)), 2.1 g/kg (EHC 65 (1987)), 2,510 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), SIDS (2005)), 2,290 mg/kg (SIDS (2005)), 2,680 mg/kg (SIDS (2005)), 2,700 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)), and 4,360 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), SIDS (2005)). Because two corresponded to Category 4, and six corresponded to "Not classified" in the Classification JIS (Category 5 in UN GHS classification), it was classified as "Not classified" in the Classification JIS (Category 5 in UN GHS classification), to which most data corresponded. By adding the information in SIDS (2005), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005) obtained in this investigation, the category to which most data corresponded was adopted according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Not classified	- -	-	-	All of LD50 values for rabbits of 3,400 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)), 3,402 mg/kg (SIDS (2005)), 4.2 g/kg (EHC 65 (1987), PATTY (6th, 2012)), and 5,300 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), EHC 65 (1987), SIDS (2005)) corresponded to "Not classified." By adding the information in SIDS (2005), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005) obtained in this investigation, the classification was changed from Category 5 to "Not classified" according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" based on an LC50 value for rats of 8,000 ppm (converted value: 24.2 mg/L) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). Because the test concentration of 8,000 ppm was higher than the saturated vapour pressure concentration of 5,923 ppm (ICSC (2005)), it was judged to be a test on dust/mist, and a reference value in the unit of mg/L was applied. Besides, the classification was conducted based on data in the Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005) obtained in this investigation, by using a reference value of mists.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Category 2	Warning	H315	P302+P352 P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321	It is described in SIDS (2005), EHC 65 (1987), PATTY (6th, 2012), and DFGOT vol. 19 (2003) that moderate irritation was observed in a 24-hour patch test with rabbits. It is described in ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012) that dermatitis was found in occupational exposure. Furthermore, this substance is classified in "Xi; R37/38-41" in EU DSD classification and "Skin Irrit. 2 H315" in EU CLP classification. It was classified in Category 2 based on the above information.
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2A	Warning	H319	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264 P280	In a test with rabbits, moderate-great irritation was observed, the animals did not recover within seven days but completely recovered within 21 days, and the Modified Maximum Average Score (MMAS) was 60.8 (ECETOC TR 48 (1998)). It is described in the Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), SIDS (2005), EHC 65 (1987), ACGIH (7th, 2002), DFGOT vol. 19 (2003), PATTY (6th, 2012), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1987) that eye irritation such as inflammation of the cornea and conjunctiva was also found in occupational exposure (vapour exposure) in humans. Furthermore, this substance is classified in "Xi; R37/38-41" in EU DSD classification and "Eye Dam. 1 H318" in EU CLP classification. It was classified in Category 2A based on the above information.
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Classification not possible due to lack of data.
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Classification not possible" because it was not possible to classify a substance as "Not classified" according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. As for in vivo, it was reported to be negative in a micronucleus test with mouse erythrocytes (SIDS (2005), ACGIH (7th, 2001)). Furthermore, as for in vitro, it was negative in a bacterial reverse mutation test (SIDS (2005), ACGIH (7th, 2001), NTP DB (Access on June 2013), EHC 65 (1987)), and a mouse lymphoma test (EHC 65 (1987)), a chromosomal aberration test (EHC 65 (1987)), and a micronucleus test (SIDS (2005)) with cultured mammalian cells.
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Classification not possible" because it is classified in D in IRIS (1991). The category was changed according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	In an inhalation exposure test with pregnant rats, only slight skeletal malformations (rudimentary cervical ribs) were observed in fetuses at the dose where maternal animals showed marked toxicity (death (2/18 animals), reduced body weight gain) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), SIDS (2005), ACGIH (7th, 2001)). However, because of no information on the effects on sexual function and fertility of males and females, it was classified as "Classification not possible" according to the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects)	Warning	H335 H336	P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 P405 P501	From descriptions in PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005) that slight irritation of the throat was observed after inhalation exposure in humans, it was thought to be irritating to the respiratory tract, and it was classified in Category 3. Furthermore, from descriptions in EHC 65 (1987), ACGIH (7th, 2001), DFGOT vol. 19 (2003), PATTY (6th, 2012) that narcotic effects and central nervous system depression occurred in rats and mice in the inhalation route, and descriptions in the Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), PATTY (6th, 2012) that inhalation exposure caused headaches in humans, it was thought to cause narcotic effects, and it was classified in Category 3.
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 1 (central nervous system, auditory organ)	Danger	H372	P260 P264 P270 P314 P501	It is described in the OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1987), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), ACGIH (7th, 2001) that vertigo and headache were observed in occupational exposure cases in humans, and it is described in the OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1987), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005), PATTY (6th, 2012) that hearing loss was found in occupational exposure cases in humans. Therefore, the central nervous system and auditory organ were judged to be the target organs in the inhalation route, and Category 1 was given to both.
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Because it corresponds to normal primary alcohols with a composition of at least three carbon atoms but not more than 13; isobutyl alcohol, and ketones of with a composition of no more than 13 carbon atoms, it corresponds at least to Category 2 in UN GHS classification, but JIS does not adopt Category 2. And the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government was revised accordingly. It was classified as "Classification not possible" because there is no information on whether it corresponds to Category 1.

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)	Not classified	- -	-	-	It was classified as "Not classified" from 72-hour ErC50 > 1000 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata), 48-hour EC50 > 1000 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna), and 96-hour LC50 > 100 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (all from Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Environment Agency in Japan (Environment Agency, 1996)).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Not classified	- -	-	-	If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified as "Not classified" due to rapid degradability (BOD20: 92% (SIDS, 2005)), and 21-day NOEC = 4.1 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Environment Agency in Japan (Environment Agency, 1997), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 4 (Ministry of the Environment, 2005)). 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" because it was classified as "Not classified" in acute toxicity, and it is not water-insoluble (water solubility: 6.32x 10^4 mg/L at 25 deg C, HSDB, 2013). From the above results, it was classified as "Not classified."
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