GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 140-88-5
Chemical Name Ethyl acrylate
Substance ID H27-B-032/C-068B_P
Classification year (FY) FY2015
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 FY2014   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 present in the molecule associated with explosive properties.
2 Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
3 Aerosols Not applicable
-
-
- - Not an aerosol product.
4 Oxidizing gases Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
5 Gases under pressure Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
6 Flammable liquids Category 2


Danger
H225 P303+P361+P353
P370+P378
P403+P235
P210
P233
P240
P241
P242
P243
P280
P501
Based on a flash point of 9 degrees C (closed cup), and a boiling point of 99 degrees C (ICSC (2003)), it was classified in Category 2.
Besides, it is classified in class 3, PGII in UNRTDG (UN1917, stabilized).
7 Flammable solids Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
8 Self-reactive substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is an unsaturated bond (olefins) in the chemical structure, but the classification is not possible due to no data. Besides, a stabilized one corresponds to Type G because it is classified in class 3 in UNRTDG (UN 1917) and it does not correspond to hazards of the highest precedence, self-reactive substances and mixtures.
9 Pyrophoric liquids Not classified
-
-
- - It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an ignition point of 372 degrees C (HSDB (Access on July 2015)).
10 Pyrophoric solids Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
11 Self-heating substances and mixtures Classification not possible
-
-
- - No established test method suitable for liquid substances.
12 Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases Not applicable
-
-
- - Not containing metals or metalloids (B, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sn, Sb, Te, Bi, Po, At).
13 Oxidizing liquids Not applicable
-
-
- - It is an organic compound which does not contain fluorine or chlorine but contains oxygen, and the oxygen is not chemically bonded to the elements other than carbon or hydrogen.
14 Oxidizing solids Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
15 Organic peroxides Not applicable
-
-
- - It is an organic compound that does not contain bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16 Corrosive to metals Classification not possible
-
-
- - Due to no data, the classification is not possible.

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
P264
P270
P330
P501
Nine LD50 values for rats were reported within a range of 500 to 5,000 mg/kg. It was classified in Category 4 to which most of the data (4) correspond (about 550 mg/kg (DFGOT vol. 6 (1994); ECETOC JACC28 (1994)), 800 mg/kg (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)), 1,020 mg/kg (about 1,000 mg/kg) (ACGIH (7th, 2001); DFGOT vol. 6 (1994); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); NTP TR259 (1986); IARC 19 (1979)), 1,120 mg/kg (SIDS (2008)). Besides, one corresponds to "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification)), and one corresponds to "Classification not possible." Moreover, three were not included in a number for the classification due to being a summarized value from multiple data.
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Category 4


Warning
H312 P302+P352
P362+P364
P280
P312
P321
P501
Four reported LD50 values for rats were 2,000 to 5,000 mg/kg (ECETOC JACC28 (1994); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007)), 3,049 mg/kg (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)), > 5,000 mg/kg (ECETOC JACC28 (1994)). Because two (one of them corresponds to Category 5 in UN GHS classification) correspond to "Not classified," and the remaining two correspond to "Classification not possible," the Category for rats is "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification).
Six LD50 values for rabbits were reported within a range of 461 to 3,049 mg/kg. For rabbits, it is classified in Category 4 to which most of the data (2) correspond (1,790 mg/kg (about 1,800 mg/kg) (PATTY (6th, 2012); ACGIH (7th, 2001); DFGOT vol. 6 (1994); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); NTP TR259 (1986)), 1,950 mg/kg (IARC 19 (1979))). Besides, one corresponds to Category 3, and one corresponds to "Not classified," and two were not included in a number for the classification due to being a summarized value from multiple data.
By drawing a comparison between the Category for rats and rabbits, it was classified in Category 4 by adopting the classification of the higher hazard for rabbits.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) Not applicable
-
-
- - "Liquids" according to GHS definition.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) Category 3


Danger
H331 P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P311
P321
P405
P501
Seven reported LC50 values (4 hours) for rats were 1,000 to 2,000 ppm (PATTY (6th, 2012); ACGIH (7th, 2001); NTP TR259 (1986)), 1,414 ppm (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)), > 1,500 ppm (ECETOC JACC28 (1994)), 2,180 ppm (SIDS (2008); ECETOC JACC28 (1994)), 2,180 ppm (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)), < 1,000-2,000 ppm (IARC 39 (1986)), and 1,000 to 2,180 ppm (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007)). It was classified in Category 3 to which all correspond except one report for which the Category cannot be determined.
1 Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) Classification not possible
-
-
- - Due to lack of data, the classification is not possible.
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Category 2


Warning
H315 P302+P352
P332+P313
P362+P364
P264
P280
P321
It is reported in two skin irritation tests using rabbits (OECD TG 404) that slight to moderate erythema was observed but resolved within 14 days (SIDS (2008)), and severe erythema and severe edema were found 1, 24, 48, 72 hours after application but resolved within 14 days, and a primary irritation score was 8 (SIDS (2008)). Moreover, in another report, after 4-hour occlusive application of this substance in rabbits, severe erythema and edema with eschar, necrotic mass, and scar persisted for two weeks, and corrosiveness was shown (ECETOC JACC28 (1994)). Besides these, there are multiple pieces of information without details that this substance is severely irritating to human skin (ACGIH (7th, 2001); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan, Tentative hazard assessment sheet (2003); NTP TR259 (1986); PATTY (6th, 2012)). As above, because reversibility was observed within 14 days in two reports from tests according to Guideline, the substance was classified in Category 2. Besides, it is classified in "Skin. Irrit. 2 H315" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on September 2015)).
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 2A


Warning
H319 P305+P351+P338
P337+P313
P264
P280
It is reported that in a Draize test using six rabbits, after application of 0.1 mL this substance, slight to severe conjunctival irritation, corneal opacity, and iritis were observed, and one animal was slaughtered due to severe symptoms, and the other five showed alleviation of signs after 72 hours (SIDS (2008)). Moreover, it is reported that in the other eye irritation test using rabbits, after application of 0.1 mL this substance, necrosis was found after 24 hours (ECETOC JACC28 (1994); SIDS (2008)). Besides these, there are multiple pieces of information without details that this substance is severely irritating to human eyes (ACGIH (7th, 2001); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan, Tentative hazard assessment sheet (2003); NTP TR259 (1986); PATTY (6th, 2012)). From the above reports, the substance was classified in Category 2A. Besides, it is classified in "Eye. Irrit. 2 H319" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on September 2015)).
4 Respiratory sensitization Classification not possible
-
-
- - Due to lack of data, the classification is not possible.
4 Skin sensitization Category 1


Warning
H317 P302+P352
P333+P313
P362+P364
P261
P272
P280
P321
P501
Positive results were reported in a Buehler test (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); ECETOC JACC28 (1994)) and a maximization test (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007)) both using guinea pigs. Moreover, it is reported to be sensitizing also in another sensitization test using guinea pigs (Freund's complete adjuvant test) (SIDS (2008)). On the other hand, it is reported to be not sensitizing in a maximization test using guinea pigs (SIDS (2008)), but it is written in SIDS (2008) that this substance is likely to be sensitizing (SIDS (2008)).
As for humans, it is reported that in a skin sensitization test (a maximization test) in 24 volunteers, 10 of them showed sensitization after 48-hour occlusive application of vaseline containing 4% this substance (ACGIH (7th, 2001); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); NTP TR259 (1986); DFGOT vol.16 (2001)). Because it is reported to be sensitizing in many case studies besides this (DFGOT vol.16 (2001)), in DFGOT, this substance is classified as a sensitizer (DFGOT vol.16 (2001)).
As above, due to positive reports from a Buehler test and a maximization test as well as reports as sensitizing also in humans, the substance was classified in Category 1. Besides, it is classified in "Skin Sens. 1 H317" in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on September 2015)).
5 Germ cell mutagenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - As for in vivo, a micronucleus test using mouse bone marrow cells resulted in positive and negative (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); SIDS (2008); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); IARC 39 (1986); IARC 71 (1999)), and a micronucleus test and a sister chromatid exchange test using mouse spleen cells were negative (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); SIDS (2008); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); IARC 71 (1999)), a DNA breakage test using rat forestomach and mouse peripheral blood and a DNA adduct formation test using rat forestomach and liver were all negative (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); SIDS (2008); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); IARC 71 (1999)). As for in vitro, a bacterial reverse mutation test was negative, and as tests in cultured mammalian cells, a mouse lymphoma test was positive, an HGPRT gene mutation test was negative, and a chromosomal aberration test and a sister chromatid exchange test resulted in positive and negative (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); ECETOC JACC28 (1994); IARC 39 (1986); IARC 71 (1999)). From the above, it is written in SIDS that the positive information in an in vivo micronucleus test is doubtful, and by adopting the judgment in SIDS, the substance was classified as "Classification not possible" in this hazard class from negative in vivo test results and other in vitro information in accordance with the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government.
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - There is no carcinogenicity information in humans. As for experimental animals, in a 2-year carcinogenicity test using rats and mice in gavage administration, dose-dependent increased incidences of squamous cell carcinomas or papillomas of the forestomach were observed in both sexes of both species (ACGIH (7th, 2001); NTP TR259 (1986)), and also in an additional test in male rats in 12-month gavage administration followed by 12-month recovery, slaughter, and necropsy, an increased incidence of forestomach squamous cell tumors was found (ACGIH (7th, 2001); IARC 71 (1999)). On the other hand, in carcinogenicity tests in rats or mice in inhalation of the vapour of this substance for 27 or 21 months (a 6-month recovery period after exposure), increased tumor formation was not found in in various organs including respiratory organs in any test except increased thyroid follicular adenomas observed in male mice (ACGIH (7th, 2001)). Besides, by quoting that the authors of the original literature claimed that thyroid tumors are not changes related to exposure to this substance, ACGIH described that this substance does not show carcinogenicity in an inhalation route, and classified this substance in A4 in carcinogenicity (ACGIH (7th, 2001)).
Besides this, as the classification results in carcinogenicity by other organizations, IARC classified in Group 2B because forestomach tumors were confirmed in an oral route by the additional test (IARC 71 (1999)), and Japan Society for Occupational Health classified in Group 2B (The Recommendation of Acceptable Concentration of the Japan Society for Occupational Health (2015)). On the other hand, NTP classified this substance as R substance first. However, stating that forestomach tumors observed in an oral route were induced by local irritation to mucous membrane and cellular proliferation by repeated irritation which occurred in gavage administration at high concentrations of this substance and will not occur in humans, NTP removed from the list of carcinogens in the 9th Report on Carcinogens in 2001 (SIDS (2008); NTP (2001)), and listed as "Substances delisted" in the Appendix of the recent version (NTP RoC 13th (2014)).
From the above, the previous classification was Category 2 based on the classification result of IARC (1999), but allowing for the following NTP's reassessment result mentioned above and the information that IARC plans for reevaluation (SIDS (2008)), the substance was classified as "Classification not possible" in this evaluation due to lack of data.
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- - The classification is not possible due to lack of data. Besides, in 2 developmental toxicity tests in pregnant rats in inhalation exposure during an organogenetic period (day 6 to 15 or 20 of gestation), weight gain reduction and decreases in food and water consumption in maternal animals and an increased trend of malformations (not statistically significant) in fetuses were found at a 150 ppm concentration in one test (ACGIH (7th, 2001); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)). In the other test, maternal toxicity did not occur in even exposure at up to 200 ppm, and no malformation but only lower fetal weight were found at 200 ppm (SIDS (2008)).
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (respiratory organs), Category 3 (narcotic effects)



Danger
Warning
H370
H336
P308+P311
P260
P264
P270
P321
P405
P501
P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P312
This substance is severely irritating to the respiratory and digestive organs in humans, and causes burning sensation, cough, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, pharyngalgia, and lethargy in inhalation exposure, and nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea in oral ingestion (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013)). Moreover, it is written that effects in humans are respiratory tract irritation and gastrointestinal tract irritation (ACGIH (7th, 2001); ECETOC JACC 28 (1994); DFGOT vol. 6 (1994); IARC 19 (1979); IARC 39 (1986); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); PATTY (6th, 2012)).
As for experimental animals, irritation to respiratory organs and dyspnea (corresponding to Category 1) in rats in inhalation exposure, prone position (corresponding to Category 2) and severe stomach irritation (a dose: not mentioned) in rats in oral administration, decreased activity and incoordination (corresponding to Category 2) in rats in dermal application were reported.
From the above, because narcotic effects and severe irritation to respiratory organs were observed for this substance, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory system), Category 3 (narcotic effects).
Findings of tremors in the previous classification were not adopted because they were observed before death and the dose is unknown, and the nervous system was not adopted for the classification. By adding new information, the previous classification was revised.
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs)


Danger
H372 P260
P264
P270
P314
P501
As for humans, in 33 workers exposed to 4 to 58 mg/m3 of this substance and 50 mg/m3 of butyl acrylate for 5 years on average, 14 complained of autonomic and neurotic signs, but there were no abnormal electroencephalograms (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); PATTY (6th, 2012); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007)).
As for experimental animals, in a 12-month inhalation toxicity test using rats, weight gain reduction, nasal mucosa inflammation, and olfactory epithelial degeneration were observed at 25 ppm (0.104 mg/L) or higher (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007)). In a 27-month inhalation toxicity test using rats, hyperplasia of the basal cells in the nasal mucosa and respiratory epithelial metaplasia of the olfactory epithelium were found at 25 ppm (0.104 mg/L) or above. In a 27-month inhalation toxicity test using mice, hyperplasia of the Bowman's glands and respiratory epithelial metaplasia of the olfactory epithelium were observed at 25 ppm (0.104 mg/L) or higher (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2007); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2013); ACGIH (7th, 2001); SIDS (2008)).
As above, effects on the nervous system were found in humans although in mixed exposure, and effects on nasal cavity were observed within a range of Category 1 in experimental animals.
Therefore, the substance was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory system).
10 Aspiration hazard Classification not possible
-
-
- - Due to lack of data, the classification is not possible.

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
From 96-hour LC50 = 1.16 mg/L for fish (Oryzias latipes) (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE, 2007; Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan, 2013), it was classified in Category 2.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 2


-
H411 P273
P391
P501
Due to being rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by 14-day BOD = 51.5%, a degradation rate by TOC = 92.6%, a degradation rate by GC =100% (Official Bulletin of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, 1975)), and 21-day NOEC (GRO/REP) = 0.19 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 11, Ministry of the Environment in Japan, 2013), it was classified in Category 2.
12 Hazardous to the ozone layer Classification not possible
-
-
- - No data.


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