GHS Classification Result
GENERAL INFORMATION
REFERENCE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
NOTE:
GENERAL INFORMATION
| Item | Information |
|---|---|
| CAS RN | 107-13-1 |
| Chemical Name | Acrylonitrile |
| Substance ID | H27-B-033/C-069B_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 |
| 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 - 1 degrees C (closed cup), and a boiling point of 77 degrees C (ICSC (2001)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, it is classified in class 3, subsidiary risk 6.1, PGI in UNRTDG (UN1093, 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 corresnponds to Type G because it is classified in class 3 (6.1) in UNRTDG (UN1093) which 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 481 degrees C (ICSC (2001)). |
| 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 that does not contain oxygen, fluorine, or chlorine. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
From reported LD50 values for rats of 72 mg/kg (EHC 28 (1983)), 78 mg/kg (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003); EHC 28 (1983); IARC 19 (1979); JECFA FAS 19; JMPR (1965)), 82 mg/kg (males), 86 mg/kg (females), 84 mg/kg (EHC 28 (1983)), 93 mg/kg (ATSDR (1990), EHC 28 (1983), IARC 19 (1979), JMPR (1965)), 101 mg/kg, 128 mg/kg, 186 mg/kg (EHC 28 (1983)), 72 to 186 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); EU-RAR (2004); NICNAS (2000)), 78 to 150 mg/kg (NTP TR506 (2001)), it was classified in Category 3. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Category 2 |
Danger |
H310 | P302+P352 P361+P364 P262 P264 P270 P280 P310 P321 P405 P501 |
Four LD50 values of 148 mg/kg (JECFA FAS 19), 148 mg/kg, 282 mg/kg (EHC 28 (1983)), 148 to 282 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); EU-RAR (2004); NICNAS (2000)) were reported for rats. Because two correspond to Category 2, and one each corresponds to Category 3 and "Classification not possible," the Category for rats is Category 2 to which most of the data correspond. Four LD50 values of 43 mg/kg (IARC 19 (1979)), 226 mg/kg (EU-RAR (2004)), <200 to 226 mg/kg (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)), 226 to 250 mg/kg (ATSDR (1990)) were reported for rabbits. Because two correspond to Category 3, and one each corresponds to Category 1 and "Classification not possible," the Category for rabbits is Category 3 to which most of the data correspond. By drawing a comparison between the classification for rats and rabbits, it was classified in Category 2 with the higher hazard. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | "Liquids" according to GHS definition. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Category 2 |
Danger |
H330 | P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501 |
Five LC50 values (4 hours) of 470 mg/m3 (216 ppm) (EU-RAR (2004), EHC 28 (1983)), 333 ppm (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003)), 1,030 mg/m3 (474 ppm), 1,210 mg/m3 (557 ppm) (EU-RAR (2004)), 138 to 558 ppm (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); NICNAS (2000)) were reported for rats. Because three correspond to Category 2, and the category cannot be determined for one, it was classified in Category 2 to which most of the data correspond. The remaining one was not included in a number for the classification due to being a summarized data from multiple data. Besides, a reference value in the unit of ppm was applied as vapour without mist because the LC50 values are lower than the saturated vapour pressure concentration (1,085,883 ppm). |
| 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 that in a skin irritation test using rabbits, erythema and edema were observed after 24-hour application of 0.5 mL this substance, and a skin irritation score was 3.6 (maximum 4) (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)). Moreover, also in humans, multiple cases of skin irritation by acute exposure were reported (CICAD 39 (2002)). From the above, 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 1 |
 Danger |
H318 | P305+P351+P338 P280 P310 |
There are multiple reports on eye irritation tests using rabbits, and it is reported that after 1-hour application of 0.1 mL this substance, moderate corneal opacity, moderate iritis, and severe conjunctival irritation were observed, and corneal opacity with vascularization was found even 21 days after application (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)), and that severe burns of the cornea were observed after application of 0.02 mL this substance (duration of application: unknown) (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)). From the above results, the substance was classified in Category 1. Besides, it is classified in "Eye Dam. 1 H318" 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 |
It is reported that in a maximization test (in compliance with OECD TG) using guinea pigs, sensitization (a positive sensitization rate: 95%) was observed after application of this substance (0.5% or 1%). (EU-RAR (2004); CICAD 39 (2002); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); DFGOT vol.24 (2007)) Moreover, it is reported that in a patch test in humans, all of five people to whom this substance was applied showed positive reaction while eight in a control group did not show any reaction (EU-RAR (2004), DFGOT vol.24 (2007)), and it is concluded in DFGOT that this substance is a sensitizer (DFGOT vol.24 (2007)). From the above, it 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 dominant lethal test in rats in oral administration and a dominant lethal test in mice in intraperitoneal administration and inhalation exposure were negative, a micronucleus test and a chromosomal aberration test using bone marrow cells of rats and mice after oral, intraperitoneal administration or inhalation exposure were all negative, an HPRT gene mutation test in rat spleen T cells after drinking water administration was positive, a sister chromatid exchange test in mouse bone marrow cells in intraperitoneal administration was negative, an unscheduled DNA synthesis test in rat brain and spermatocytes after oral administration was negative, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test in rat liver after oral administration was negative (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 3, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2004); CICAD 39 (2002); IARC 71 (1999); EU-RAR (2004); ACGIH (7th, 2001)). However, it is reported that positive results in gene mutation tests using somatic cells are inappropriate (EU-RAR (2004)). As for in vitro, a bacterial reverse mutation test, a mouse lymphoma test, a gene mutation test, a chromosomal aberration test, and a sister chromatid exchange test in cultured mammalian cells were all positive. (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 3, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2004); CICAD 39 (2002); IARC 71 (1999); EU-RAR (2004); ACGIH (7th, 2001)) From the above, due to no appropriate positive information from in vivo tests, the substance was classified as "Classification not possible" in accordance with the GHS classification guidance for the Japanese government. |
| 6 | Carcinogenicity | Category 1B |
 Danger |
H350 | P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501 |
As carcinogenicity classification by other organizations, the substance was classified in 2B by IARC (IARC vol. 71 (1999)), A3 by ACGIH (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), 2A by Japan Society for Occupational Health (in 1988: (The Recommendation of Acceptable Concentration of the Japan Society for Occupational Health (2015))), B1 by the US EPA (in 1999: (IRIS Summary (Access on July 2015))), R by NTP (in 1991: (NTP RoC (13th, 2014))), 1B by EU (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on July 2015)). As above, on Classification Guidance, IARC and ACGIH correspond to Category 2, NTP to Category 1B to 2, and Japan Society for Occupational Health and others correspond to Category 1B. As epidemiological data in humans, at the international meeting in 1997, it was agreed to separate and analyze "the old studies" and "new studies," and IARC classified in "Group 2B" by claiming that there is insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans because carcinogenic evidence was not presented in any of 4 "new study data" newly added for evaluation of epidemiological data. On the other hand, by EU's investigating mainly "new studies" of published literature by 1998, the excess risk of bladder cancer was indicated in in three "new data," however, the excess was regarded to be associated with excess exposure to aromatic amines, not effects of exposure to acrylonitrile. Moreover, it is thought that excess risk of lung cancer has little relationship to acrylonitrile exposure. However, as for relatively rare brain tumors and prostate cancer for which consistency across the available study data is easy to evaluate, in assessing data for these tumors, it is impossible to completely deny that acrylonitrile is a causative substance of cancer in acrylonitrile workers, and by assessing these together with data in experimental animals, it is written in EU-RAR that classification in "Category 1B" (" Category 2" in DSD classification) is appropriate (EU-RAR (2004)). In NTP RoC (13th, 2014), literature (2004 to 2008) published after IARC (1999) was additionally listed, and it is reported that in a large-scale international case-control study of lung cancer, a smoking-adjusted risk of lung cancer increased significantly with increasing acrylonitrile exposure, and that a risk of lung cancer was associated with increasing exposure levels in a meta-analysis. Moreover, it is reported that in a follow-up of a cohort study in the Netherlands, excess risk of brain tumors was observed in some population, and all of the above reports suggest carcinogenicity. At the same time, as negative information, it is written that in a 50-year follow-up study of a US textile worker cohort, an association between acrylonitrile exposure and cancer was not found regardless of tumor sites (NTP RoC (13th, 2014)). As for experimental animals, because in an oral (drinking water) or inhalation route, increased tumor formation in central nervous system (glioma, microglioma), Zymbal gland, and forestomach in rats and increased tumor formation in lung and harderian gland in mice were observed, in carcinogenicity evaluation by all of these organizations, it is concluded that there is solid evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals (IARC 71 (1999), EU-RAR (2004), NTP RoC (13th, 2014)). As above, due to sufficient evidence in experimental animals, and because the possibility of carcinogenicity in humans cannot be denied from epidemiological studies, the substance was classified in "Category 1B" in this hazard class. |
| 7 | Reproductive toxicity | Category 1B |
Danger |
H360 | P308+P313 P201 P202 P280 P405 P501 |
There is no reproductive toxicity information in humans. As for experimental animals, it is reported that in a three-generation reproductive toxicity test using rats in an oral route (drinking water), a decreased survival rate and lower body weight in offspring of F1 to F3 generation were observed at 100 ppm or higher, but there were no effects on fertility in parent animals of F0 to F2 generation, and NOAEL (fertility) = 522 ppm (about 35 mg/kg/day) (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003)). As developmental toxicity, it is written that in a test in pregnant rats in gavage administration (day 6 to 20 of gestation), at the dose (65 mg/kg/day) with marked maternal toxicity (weight gain reduction, salivation, and thickening of glandular stomach), and decreased fetal weight, decreased crown-rump length, an increased incidence of malformations (short tails, missing vertebrae, short trunk, imperforate anus, split sternebra and so on) were observed in fetuses (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); DFGOT vol. 24 (2007)). Moreover, in a test in pregnant rats in inhalation exposure (day 6 to 15 of gestation, 6 hours/day), at the dose (40 ppm) where maternal animals showed weight gain reduction, there were no toxic effects in fetuses except for only delayed ossification found at 80 ppm (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003); DFGOT vol. 24 (2007)). Similarly it is written that in an inhalation exposure test (day 6 to 20 of gestation, 6 hours/day) using pregnant rats, maternal animals showed weight gain reduction at doses of 25 ppm or higher, but fetal toxicity and malformation were not observed up to 100 ppm of the highest concentration (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); DFGOT vol. 24 (2007)). Besides these, after single intraperitoneal administration in pregnant hamsters on day 8 of gestation and slaughter on day 14 of gestation, at the doses (80 mg/kg/day or above) where maternal animals showed severe signs such as dyspnea, decreased muscular coordination, convulsions, and hypothermia, an increased incidence of malformations such exencephaly, rib fusions and bifurcations were found in fetuses (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); DFGOT vol. 24 (2007)). As above, although toxic effects on fertility were not reported so far, in a developmental toxicity test using pregnant rats in an oral route, at the doses where maternal toxicity occurred, fetal toxicity and teratogenicity were shown. As a content of teratogenicity, severe malformations such as missing vertebrae and imperforate anus happened. Because the extent of toxicity effects in fetuses is severer than that of maternal toxicity, it is difficult to think that teratogenicity is secondary effects of maternal toxicity. Therefore, the substance was classified in Category 1B in this hazard class. Besides, it is not classified as a reproductive toxicant in EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on July 2015)). |
| 8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 1 (nervous system, liver, kidney, haemal system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects) |
Danger Warning |
H370 H335 H336 |
P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501 P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312 |
There are many pieces of information in humans and experimental animals for this substance. Effects in humans and experimental animals are mainly those of this substance itself and its metabolite, cyanide (EU-RAR (2004), CEPA (2000), CICAD 39 (2002), ATSDR (1990), NICNAS (2000)). In poisoning cases in humans, respiratory tract irritation, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, lassitude of limbs, liver enlargement, jaundice, anemia, increased leukocytes, and kidney injury were reported in inhalation exposure, and in severe cases, tremors, convulsions, cyanosis, tachycardia, loss of consciousness, respiration failure, and death were observed, and dizziness, nausea, vomiting, hallucinations, and convulsions were reported in dermal exposure (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Rationale for setting the Recommendation of Acceptable Concentration of the Japan Society for Occupational Health (1988); EU-RAR (2004); Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003); CICAD 39 (2002); NICNAS (2000); IARC 71 (1999); PATTY (6th, 2012); DFGOT vol. 24 (2007)). As for experimental animals, the course of symptoms starting from an excitatory phase immediately after administration of this substance, after showing cholinergic signs such as salivation, lacrimation, urination, and defecation, via clonic convulsion, leading to paralysis and death is reported (EU-RAR (2004)). Signs in rats and mice in oral administration, inhalation exposure are hemorrhagic gastritis of the forestomach, excitement, rapid breathing, respiratory depression, cholinergic nervous system effects such as salivation, lacrimation, miosis, urination, disturbance of defecation, and convulsions, paralysis of extremities, coma and so on (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Rationale for setting the Recommendation of Acceptable Concentration of the Japan Society for Occupational Health (1988); EU-RAR (2004)). These signs were observed at the doses corresponding to Category 1. Moreover, the main target organ by single administration of this substance is the nervous system (central, peripheral), and effects on the lung, liver, kidney, adrenal gland, stomach, duodenum, spleen, and blood were reported besides this (EU-RAR (2004); Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); Rationale for setting the Recommendation of Acceptable Concentration of the Japan Society for Occupational Health (1988)). However, the details of effects on the lung, adrenal gland, spleen, and duodenum were unknown. From the above, because this substance showed effects on the nervous system, liver, kidney, and blood system in addition to respiratory tract irritation and narcotic effects, the substance was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, liver, kidney, blood system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects). By adding new information, the previous classification was revised. |
| 9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory organs, haemal system, liver, kidney, testis) |
Danger |
H372 | P260 P264 P270 P314 P501 |
As for humans, in mixed exposure with other substance, not this substance alone, pain in eye, nose, throat, and respiratory tract, dizziness, lassitude of limbs, slight liver enlargement, and jaundice (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)), decreases in hemoglobin level/erythrocyte count/leukocyte count and immune suppression (EU-RAR (2004)) were listed. As for experimental animals, in an inhalation route, in a 2-year inhalation toxicity test using rats, suppurative rhinitis, hyperplasia of respiratory epithelium in the nasal turbinate, focal erosion and squamous epithelial metaplasia/metaplastic proliferation in the mucosa of respiratory epithelium, extramedullary hematopoiesis in the liver and spleen, focal necrosis in the liver, and focal gliosis and perivascular cuffing in the brain were observed at 80 ppm (0.18 mg/L) (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)). In a 24-week inhalation toxicity test using rats, time- and concentration-dependent decreases in motor nerve conduction velocity, sensory nerve conduction velocity, and sensory action potential were found at 110 mg/m3 (0.11 mg/L), which were partially reversible (Result of the initial environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Vol. 2, Ministry of the Environment in Japan (2003); CICAD 39 (2002)). In an 8-week inhalation toxicity test using rats, slight lethargy, hemosiderosis in the spleen, hyaline casts in the renal straight collecting tubules, and subacute bronchopneumonia were found at 100 ppm (converted to a Guidance value equivalent: 0.067 mg/m3) (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)). In an oral route, in a 2-year drinking water administration toxicity test using rats, decreases in hemoglobin/hematocrit/erythrocytes were observed in females at 100 ppm (males: 8.36 mg/kg/day, females: 10.9 mg/kg/day) (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005)). In a 60-day gavage administration toxicity test using mice, degeneration of sperm cells with seminiferous tubule atrophy, pyknosis, and multinucleated giant cells and interstitial edema in testis were found at 10 mg/kg/day (converted to a Guidance value equivalent: 6.7 mg/kg/day) (Initial Risk Assessment, NITE (2005); CICAD 39 (2002)). From the above, the nervous system, respiratory organs, blood system, liver, kidney, and testis are thought to be target organs, and effects in experimental animals were observed within a range corresponding to Category 1 in Guidance values. Besides, findings in the spleen were thought to be secondary findings related to anemia. Therefore, the substance was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, respiratory system, blood system, liver, kidney, testis). |
| 10 | Aspiration hazard | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | The classification is not possible due to lack of data. Besides, kinematic viscosity is calculated to be 0.424 mm2/sec (viscosity: 0.83 mPa*s (25 degrees C), density (specific gravity): 0.8004 (25 degrees C)) from the numerical data listed in HSDB (Access on August 2015). |
| 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 = 1.18 mg/L for fish (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (CEPA, 2000; CICAD 39, 2002), it was classified in Category 2. |
| 11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) | Category 2 |
 - |
H411 | P273 P391 P501 |
Due to being not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by 14-day BOD (NO2) (inherent degradation test with a device for volatile substances) = 74, 67, 41% (Official Bulletin of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, 1988), BOD by a test conducted according to OECD TG 301D: 0%, BOD by a test conducted according to OECD TG 301C: 14.7% (both EU-RAR, 2004)), and 35-day NOEC (20% reduction in wet weight) = 0.34 mg/L for fish (Pimephales promelas) (CEPA, 2000; CICAD 39, 2002), 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. |