GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 556-61-6
Chemical Name Methyl isothiocyanate
Substance ID H27-B-14-METI/M-030B_P
Classification year (FY) FY2015
Ministry who conducted the classification Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)/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 (Ver. 1.1))
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
-
-
- - 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). Besides, as a liquid, from a flash point of 32 deg C (Hommel (1997)), it is classified in Category 3.
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- - It is estimated that it corresponds to Category 1 because it is very combustible from a flash point of 32 deg C (Hommel (1997)), but the classification is not possible because test data on the rate of burning was not obtained.
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 applicable
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
10 Pyrophoric solids Not classified
-
-
- - Because it is classified as poisonous material, Division 6.1 (Subsidiary Risk 3: flammable), PG I (UN 2477) in UNRTDG, it is estimated that it does not correspond to hazard class of the highest precedence, pyrophoric solid.
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - Test methods applicable to solid (melting point <= 140 deg C) 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
-
-
- - Solid (GHS definition).
14 Oxidizing solids Not applicable
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine
15 Organic peroxides Not applicable
-
-
- - Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - It is solid with a melting point of 55 deg C or lower, but the classification is not possible due to no data.

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
Based on a report of an LD50 value of 200 mg/kg (OECD TG 423 compliant (GLP)) for rats (JECDB (Access on November 2015)), it was classified in Category 3.
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Category 1


Danger
H310 P302+P352
P361+P364
P262
P264
P270
P280
P310
P321
P405
P501
As for rats, there are a report of LD50 values of approximately 1,000 mg/kg (male) and 1,930 mg/kg (female) (Evaluation of effect for the food safety (Food Safety Commission, 2015)), and three reports of 2,780 mg/kg (HSDB (Access on January 2016), Evaluation of effect for the food safety (Food Safety Commission, 2015), Pesticide safety information (Japan Crop Protection Association): Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science Vol. 15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)). Two reports correspond to Category 4, and three correspond to "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification), thus, for rats, the data with the largest number of reports correspond to "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification). As for rabbits, there is a report of an LD50 of 33 mg/kg (HSDB (Access on January 2016)), and this corresponds to Category 1. By comparing categories for rats and rabbits, it was classified in Category 1 with higher hazard.
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) Category 2


Danger
H330 P304+P340
P403+P233
P260
P271
P284
P310
P320
P405
P501
Based on a report of an LC50 value (1 hour) of 1.9 mg/L (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 0.475 mg/L) for rats (HSDB (Access on January 2016), Evaluation of effect for the food safety (Food Safety Commission, 2015), Pesticide safety information (Japan Crop Protection Association): Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science Vol. 15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, the reference value of the dust was applied because the test substance is a solid.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Category 2


Warning
H315 P302+P352
P332+P313
P362+P364
P264
P280
P321
Based on a description that this substance is severely irritating to the skin (HSDB (Access on January 2016)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, there is a report that in a test with rabbits, as a result of a 4-hour semi-occlusive application of the product (Trapex 40) containing 40% of this substance, the primary irritation score was 4.2, and a strong corrosive effect was observed (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science Vol.15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)). In addition, this substance was classified as "Skin. Corr. 1B H314" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on January 2016)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 2A


Warning
H319 P305+P351+P338
P337+P313
P264
P280
There is a report that in an eye irritation test with rabbits, as a result of an application of 100 mg of this substance, severe inflammation with corneal opacity, and iritis were observed (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science Vol.15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)). In addition, there is a description that this substance is severely irritating to the eyes (HSDB (Access on January 2016)). From the above, it was classified in Category 2A.
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. Besides, there is a report that in a maximization test with guinea pigs, as a result of an application of the product (Trapex 40) containing 40% of this substance, mild sensitization was observed (Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science Vol.15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)). In addition, this substance was classified as "Skin sens. 1 H317" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on January 2016)).
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, a micronucleus test with mouse bone marrow cells was positive. As for in vitro, bacterial reverse mutation tests, and a mammalian cell gene mutation test and a sister chromatid exchange test with mammalian cultured cells were negative, chromosomal aberration tests with mammalian cultured cells were positive, chromosomal aberration tests with human lymphocytes were negative (JECDB (Access on November 2015), Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015), Pesticide safety information (Japan Crop Protection Association): Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science vol. 15, No. 2 (Pesticide Science Society of Japan, 1990)).
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is no information on carcinogenicity in humans. As for experimental animals, in a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in which this substance was administered by drinking water to rats or mice for 2 years, no increase in incidence of tumors associated with the administration of this substance was observed in either rats or mice, and Food Safety Commission evaluated that no carcinogenicity of this substance was observed (Food Safety Commission (2015)). However, there is no information on carcinogenicity in routes other than the oral route, and also there are no classification results by other organizations. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible" for this hazard class.
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is no information on reproductive effects in humans. As for experimental animals, in a reproductive toxicity test in which rats were dosed by drinking water with this substance for two generations, in the parental animals, decreased pituitary weight in the females at 50 ppm (corresponding to 4.76 mg/kg/day) in F0 generation, and decreased body weight gain in the males at 50 ppm (3.40 mg/kg/day) in F1 were observed, however, there is no abnormality in the pups in either F1 or F2 generation, and no effect on fertility of the parent animals was observed either (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)). In addition, in a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 422) with rats dosed by the oral route, at the high dose of 8 mg/kg/day, although there was no change in mating and gestation results, lactation disorder of maternal animals' neglecting lactation after delivery was observed in 2/12, and in one case, all the pups died. However, because at this dose in both males and females, no symptoms except for transient salivation after administration occurred, and autopsy results also showed only thickening and edema of the forestomach mucosa (JECDB (Access on January 2016)), it is unlikely that it is a dose where severe toxicity findings as a whole were caused.
On the other hand, in developmental toxicity tests (rats: 2 strains in 2 tests, rabbits: 2 strains in 3 tests) in which pregnant rats or pregnant rabbits were dosed by gavage during organogenesis period (rats: gestational day 6-15, rabbits: gestational day 6-18 or 7-19), in rats, at doses (5-30 mg/kg/day) equal to or higher than the dose at which decreased body weight gain was observed in maternal animals, minor developmental effects such as low body weight, reduced crown-rump length and delayed ossification were observed in the fetuses. In rabbits, at doses (3-10 mg/kg/day) where maternal toxicity (death, decreased body weight gain, decreased food consumption) was manifested, low body weight and reduced crown-rump length were observed in the fetuses, but in one of the three tests (the strain (chinchilla rabbits) different from that of the other two tests (NZW)), no adverse effect was shown in the fetuses (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)).
From the above, developmental toxicity effects by administration to pregnant animals were only minor effects considered to be outside the scope of the evidence for classification in both rats and rabbits. On the other hand, in a two-generation reproductive toxicity study with rats, it is concluded that there is no effect on fertility of parent animals (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)). However, since the general toxic effects (decreased pituitary weight (F0 female), decreased body weight gain (F1 male)) of the parental animals in the high dose group are mild or of poor toxicological significance, it is conceivable that the doses to the parental animals (equivalent to 3.40-4.76 mg/kg/day) were insufficient to conclude reproductive toxicity effect assessment. In addition, at the high dose of 8 mg/kg/day, poor lactation after delivery was observed in 2/12 of maternal animals, authors of the original literature regarded this as a reproductive effect (reported as NOEL = 2mg/kg/day), but there was no effect on fertility because pregnancy was established in all of the females, there was no case of a difficult delivery (JECDB (Access on January 2016)), and the cause of poor lactation after delivery is unknown, and the relationship to administration of this substance cannot be also said to be clear. Therefore, it was classified as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data for fertility assessment for this hazard class.
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation)



Danger
Warning
H370
H335
P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P312
This substance is severely irritating to the mucosa (HSDB (Access on January 2016)). In humans, there is a report of convulsive seizure, coma, cardiorespiratory arrest in the case of one adult who ingested 50 g of this substance (HSDB (Access on January 2016)). As for experimental animals, hyperreflexia, prone position, irregular respiration, piloerection, tremor, convulsions, dyspnea, sedation, gait ataxia, incomplete paralysis and spasm in oral administration to rats and mice (corresponding to Category 1), tremor, staggering gait, sedation and dyspnea in dermal application to rats (corresponding to Category 1) and hyperactivity, dyspnea, hypoactivity and convulsions in inhalation exposure to rats (corresponding to Category 2) were reported (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015), JECDB (Access on November 2015)).
From the above, this substance is irritating to the respiratory tract and has effects on the central nervous system, and it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation).
The data from the information source listed in List 3, which was used in the previous classification, was not used.
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 1 (liver)


Danger
H372 P260
P264
P270
P314
P501
As for experimental animals, in a 90-day toxicity test with mice dosed by gavage, in the group of 5 mg/kg/day within the range of Category 1, hepatocellular fatty degeneration and an abnormality of spermatogenesis in the testes, etc. in males and hepatic haemorrhage, etc. in females were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)). In a 90-day toxicity test with dogs dosed by gavage, in females and males of the group of 2 mg/kg/day within the range of Category 1, hepatocellular vacuolation and fatty degeneration in the periportal area, etc. were observed, and in a one-year toxicity test with dogs dosed by gavage, at 2 mg/kg/day, which is within the range of Category 1, increases in absolute and relative liver weight, and hepatocellular fatty degeneration in the periportal area were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)). In addition, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with mice dosed by drinking water, at 200 ppm (male: 25.7 mg/kg/day), which is within the range of Category 2, a decrease in the erythrocyte count, increased reticulocytes, an increase in the absolute and relative spleen weight, etc. were observed (Risk Assessment Report (Pesticides) (Food Safety Commission of Japan, 2015)).
From the above, effects on the liver and testes in the range of Category 1 and effects on the haemal system in the range of Category 2 were observed. As for the abnormality of spermatogenesis seen in the 90-day test with mice, because it was not observed at the same dose in a similar 90-day study with mice which is one of a series of tests, and it was not observed either in the 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with mice, it was not adopted. In addition, also as for effect on the haemal system, since it was seen only in the males in one of the two-year tests with mice, it was not adopted as an effect.
Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (liver).
Besides, since the information from RTECS which is listed in List 3 was not used, the classification result was different from the previous one.
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
From 48-hour EC50 = 0.12 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna), and 96-hour LC50 = 0.12 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (both Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2003)), it was classified in Category 1.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501
If chronic toxicity data are used, then it is classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable (non-biodegradable, a degradation rate by 28-day BOD = 0% (Official Bulletin of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2003)), and 72-hour NOEC = 0.027 mg/L and for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2003)).
If acute toxicity data are used for a trophic level for which chronic toxicity data are not obtained, then it is classified in Category 1 due to being not rapidly degradable, 48-hour EC50 = 0.12 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna), and 96-hour LC50 = 0.12 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (both Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2003)).
From the above results, it was classified in Category 1.
12 Hazardous to the ozone layer Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data available.


NOTE:
* A blank or "-" in a cell of classification denotes that the classification of the hazard class was not conducted.
* Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement will show when hovering the mouse over a code of Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement.
Hazard_statement_and/or_Precautionary_statement are also provided in the Excel file.
* Classification was conducted by relevant Japanese Ministries in accordance with GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government,
and is intended to provide a reference for preparing GHS labelling and SDS for users.
* This is a provisional English translation of classification results and is subject to revision without notice.
* The responsibility for any resulting GHS labelling and SDS referenced from this site is with users.
* Codes assigned to each of the hazard statements and codes for each of the precautionary statement are
based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) in United Nations.

To GHS Information