GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 82-68-8
Chemical Name Pentachloronitrobenzene
Substance ID H26-B-091, R-039
Classification year (FY) FY2014
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 for the Japanese Government (FY2013 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 Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is a chemical group associated with explosive properties (nitro group) present in the molecule, oxygen balance of -94.8 is higher than the criteria of -200, and it may correspond to explosives. However, the classification is not possible due to no data.
2 Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
3 Aerosols Not applicable
-
-
- - Not aerosol products.
4 Oxidizing gases Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
5 Gases under pressure Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
6 Flammable liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
8 Self-reactive substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is a chemical group associated with explosive properties (nitro group) present in the molecule, but the classification is not possible due to no data.
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
10 Pyrophoric solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data 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
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
14 Oxidizing solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - It is an organic compound which does not contain fluorine but contains chlorine and oxygen, and the oxygen is chemically bonded to the element other than carbon or hydrogen (N). However, the classification is not possible due to no data.
15 Organic peroxides Not applicable
-
-
- - It contains no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - Test methods applicable to solid substances are not available.

HEALTH HAZARDS
Hazard class Classification Pictogram
Signal word
Hazard statement
(code)
Precautionary statement
(code)
Rationale for the classification
1 Acute toxicity (Oral) Category 4


Warning
H302 P301+P312
P362+P364
P264
P270
P330
P501
There were 6 reports of LD50 values of 1,650 mg/kg (female), 1,710 mg/kg (male) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002), ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995), NTP TR325 (1987), EHC 41 (1984)), 1,740 mg/kg (male) (PATTY (6th, 2012)), 2,140 mg/kg (male, female) (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), >5,000 mg/kg (male, female) (JMPR (1995)), and >30,000 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995), EHC 41 (1984)) for rats. Since three cases each corresponded to Category 4 and "Not classified," it was classified in Category 4 by adopting the category to which the smallest LD50 value corresponded, from a safer point of view.
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Not classified
-
-
- - Based on a report of LD50 values of >4,000 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012), ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995), EHC 41 (1984)), and >5,000 mg/kg (JMPR (1995)) for rabbits, it was classified as "Not classified."
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) Not applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition)
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data. Although there was a report of an LC50 value (4 hours) of >1.7 mg/L for rats (JMPR (1995)), it could not be identified whether it was Category 4 or "Not classified," therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible." Besides, since the LC50 value was higher than the saturated vapor concentration (0.0008 mg/L), the reference value as a mist was applied.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Not classified
-
-
- - There is a description that no irritation was observed in a skin irritation test with rabbits (EHC (1984), JMPR (1995)). In addition, there is a report that no primary irritation was observed after application of this substance to 50 subjects (ACGIH (7th 2001), JMPR (1969)). From the above results, it was classified as "Not classified."
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Not classified
-
-
- - There is a description that in an eye irritation test with rabbits, eye discharge and blanching were observed and this was judged to be very slight irritation. The average eye irritation scores were 7/110 at 1 hour, 1.7/110 at 24 hours, and 0 at 48 hours (JMPR (1995)). From the above results, it was classified as "Not classified" based on the irritation scores.
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4 Skin sensitization Category 1


Warning
H317 P302+P352
P333+P313
P362+P364
P261
P272
P280
P321
P501
There are reports that in a skin sensitization test (modified Buehler method) with guinea pigs, positive reactions were observed in all treatment groups (0.5%, 2.5%, 5%) (JMPR (1995)), and that in a skin patch test in which 75% of this substance in water was applied to 50 people, positive reactions were observed in 13 people (ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995)). In addition, there is a description that this substance was sensitizing (PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002)). From the above results, it was classified in Category 1. Besides, this substance was classified in "Xi; R43" in EU DSD classification and in "Skin Sens. 1 H317" in the EU CLP classification.
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - The substance 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 negative in dominant lethal tests with rats and mice (EHC 41 (1984), PATTY (6th, 2012)). As for in vitro, it was negative in bacterial reverse mutation tests, a gene mutation test, a sister chromatid exchange test and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with cultured mammalian cells, and positive in a chromosome aberration test and a sister chromatid exchange test with cultured mammalian cells (NTP DB (Access on September 2014), ACGIH (7th, 2001), NTP TR325 (1987), PATTY (6th, 2012), HSDB (Access on August 2014), EHC 41 (1984)).
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - Since it was classified in Group 3 by IARC Suppl. 7 (1987) and in A4 by ACGIH (7th, 2001), it was classified as "Classification not possible."
The category was changed according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
7 Reproductive toxicity Not classified
-
-
- - Effects on fertility were not observed even at doses where parental toxicity (suppressed body weight gain) was observed in a two-generation reproductive toxicity test with rats by the oral route (feeding) (JMPR (1995)). In addition, neither maternal toxicity nor reproductive toxicity was observed in a three-generation reproductive toxicity test with rats by the oral route (feeding) (PATTY (6th, 2012), ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995), EHC 41 (1984)).
In teratogenicity tests with rats, mice and rabbits by the oral route, even at doses where general toxicity or deaths were observed in maternal animals, no teratogenicity and no effects on the fetus were observed (PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002), ACGIH (7th, 2001), JMPR (1995), NTP TR 325 (1987), EHC 41 (1984)).
From the above, it was classified as "Not classified."
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 2 (haemal system)


Warning
H371 P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P405
P501
There are few human and experimental animal data on this substance. In humans, there was a report of decreased blood oxygen transporting ability and decreased function of the nervous system (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002)). As for experimental animals, there is a report that in an experiment with cats, which have an unusually high sensitivity due to this low rate of methemoglobin reductase activity, methemoglobinemia and erythrocytes containing Heinz bodies were increased by a single oral administration at the high dose of 1,600 mg/kg (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002), ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012)). Effects on hemal systems in cats were observed at doses within the range corresponding to Category 2. From the above, it was classified in Category 2 (hemal system).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 1 (liver)


Danger
H372 P260
P264
P270
P314
P501
There are no hazardous findings by repeated exposure in humans. In experimental animals, in a study in which dogs were administered by feeding for 2 years, cholestatic hepatopathy at 180 ppm (equivalent to 4.5 mg/kg/day) corresponding to Category 1, increased relative liver weight and increased serum ALP activities at 1,080 ppm (equivalent to 27 mg/kg/day) were observed (IRIS (1987), ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002)). US EPA selected this study as a key study to calculate the oral RfD value (IRIS (1987)). In addition, as for repeated oral administration to rats, there are descriptions that in a 13-week feeding study, increased relative liver weights were observed at 63.5 ppm (equivalent to 3.2 mg/kg/day: conversion was ppm value divided by 20) in males and at or above 635 ppm (equivalent to 32 mg/kg/day similarly as in the above) in females (ACGIH (7th, 2001), PATTY (6th, 2012), EHC 41 (1984)), and that in a 2-year feeding study, enlarged centrilobular hepatocytes at 100 ppm (equivalent to 5 mg/kg/day similarly as in the above), single-cell necrosis and fatty metamorphosis of hepatocytes with an increase in relative liver weight were observed at 400 ppm (equivalent to 20 mg/kg/day similarly as in the above) (JMPR (1995)).
From the above, since effects on the liver were observed from the doses of Category 1 in both dogs and rats by the oral route, it was classified in Category 1 (liver). Besides, although the target organs of both the previous classification and this classification were "liver" based on the data different from those in the previous classification, Category "2" was raised to "Category 1" based on the guidance value.
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - Classification not possible due to lack of data.

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 1


Warning
H400 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 from 96-hour LC50 = 0.012 mg/L for crustacea (Mysidopsis bahia) (RED, 2006).
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
It was classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 1% (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 1 (Ministry of the Environment, 2002))), and NOEC = 0.020 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) in an early life stage test (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2002)).
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