GHS Classification Result

日本語で表示



GENERAL INFORMATION
Item Information
CAS RN 120-83-2
Chemical Name 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Substance ID H28-B-09-METI, M-011B
Classification year (FY) FY2016
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 FY2008  
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).
7 Flammable solids Classification not possible
-
-
- -  No data available. Besides, it is written in HSDB (Access on October 2016) that it is combstible.
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
-
-
- -  It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 500 deg C (ICSC (2010)).
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
-
-
- -  The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen and chlorine (but not fluorine) which are chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
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 a substance 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) Not classified
-
-
- -  Based on four reported LD50 values for rats of 2,830 mg/kg (males), 3,670 mg/kg (males), 4,500 mg/kg (females) (SIDS (2008), NTP TR353 (1989)), and about 4,000 mg/kg (males and females) (SIDS (2008), EHC 93 (1989)), it was classified as "Not classified" (Category 5 in UN GHS classification).
 Besides, an LD50 value for rats of 580 mg/kg (EHC 93 (1989), NTP TR353 (1989)) was obtained, but it was not used for the classification because fuel oil was used as vehicle and the data is regarded as reliability 3 (not reliable) in SIDS (2008).
1 Acute toxicity (Dermal) Category 3


Danger
H311 P302+P352
P361+P364
P280
P312
P321
P405
P501 		 Based on a report of an LD50 value of 780 mg/kg (SIDS (2008)) for rats (OECD TG 402), it was classified in Category 3.
 
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 3


Danger
H331 P304+P340
P403+P233
P261
P271
P311
P321
P405
P501 		 Based on an LC50 value (4 hours, according to OECD TG 403) for rats of 0.97 mg/L(SIDS (2008)), it was classified in Category 3.
 
2 Skin corrosion/irritation Category 1


Danger
H314 P301+P330+P331
P303+P361+P353
P305+P351+P338
P304+P340
P260
P264
P280
P310
P321
P363
P405
P501 		 It is reported that strong irreversible necrosis was observed after applying this substance (80% aqueous solution) to rabbit skin for 15 minutes (SIDS (2008)). In addition, many cases of deaths of workers exposed to this substance were reported (SIDS (2008), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances (Ministry of the Environment) Vol. 8 (2010)). It is described that contact with only 1% of the body surface may lead to death. From the above, this substance was classified in Category 1. Besides, it is classified as "Skin Corr. 1B H 314" in the EU CLP classification (ECHA C&L Inventory (Access on June 2015)).
 
3 Serious eye damage/eye irritation Category 1


Danger
H318 P305+P351+P338
P280
P310 		 It is reported that severe eye damage was observed after application of this substance to the eyes of rabbits (SIDS (2008)). In addition, this substance was classified in Category 1 in the skin corrosion/irritation. From the above, it was classified in Category 1.
 
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
-
-
- -  Because it was not possible to classify a substance as "Not classified" according to the revised GHS classification guidance for the Japanese Government, this substance was classified as "Classification not possible." As for in vivo, it was negative in a mouse spot test, negative in a micronucleus test using mouse bone marrow cells, negative in sister chromatid exchange tests using the testes and bone marrow cells of mice, positive in a DNA damage test using the stomach and colon of mice (SIDS (2008), ATSDR (1999), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)). As for in vitro, negative in bacterial reverse mutation tests, positive in a mouse lymphoma test, negative gene mutation tests, positive or negative in chromosome aberration tests, and positive in a sister chromatid exchange test using cultured mammalian cells were noticed (SIDS (2008), ATSDR (1999), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010), NTP DB (Access on October 2016)).
 
6 Carcinogenicity Classification not possible
-
-
- -  In carcinogenicity studies in which rats and mice were administered by feeding for 2 years, since there was no increase in test-substance-related tumor incidence in both male and female of either rats or mice, NTP concluded that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity (NTP TR353 (1989)). Though IARC described in assessment of carcinogenicity of polychlorophenols or their salts that there is evidence to suggest that this substance is not carcinogenic in experimental animals, it did not classify it (IARC 71 (1999)).Therefore, the classification is not possible for this hazard class due to no classification results by other organizations.
 
7 Reproductive toxicity Classification not possible
-
-
- -  In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats dosed by feeding, F0 and F1 parent animals showed suppressed body weight gain at 2,000 ppm or higher, staining of the hair of the lower abdomen and perigenital region, and increased relative kidney weight at 8,000 ppm, but no effect was observed on fertility. However, in F1 and F2 pups at 8,000 ppm, delayed development (lowered eye opening rate on postnatal day 14), retardation of sexual maturation (delay in preputial separation, low body weight at vaginal opening: F1 only) and increased uterus weight and reduced thymus weight at weaning were observed (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010), SIDS (2008)). Also in a 1-generation test in which mice were dosed by drinking water, there were no effects on fertility (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010), SIDS (2008)). In addition, in a test in which pregnant rats were dosed by gavage during organogenesis period (gestation day 6-15), even at the level with maternal toxicity (4/34 rats died, suppressed body weight gain, rales), only slight developmental toxicity (delayed ossification) was seen in fetuses (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010), SIDS (2008)).
 As described above, since this substance had no adverse effect on fertility in experimental animals, and its developmental effect was slight, but in the 2-generation study using rats, delays in development and sexual maturation of pups were noted at the general toxicity level of parent animals. Therefore, the substance was classified as "Classification not possible" because it could not be classified as "Not classified."
8 Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure Category 1 (central nervous 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 		 In humans, 4 cases were reported including the case in which workers who had acute exposure to vapor or solution of this substance to the skin due to accidents, lost consciousness and died within about an hour. Based on this information, US EPA and OSHA jointly issued a warning that dermal exposure to this substance in liquid form may cause death even in a relatively small amount (about 1% of body surface area) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010), SIDS (2008)). In experimental animals, it was reported that in a single oral dose test in mice, all animals showed ataxia, loss of righting reflex, tremors, salivation, labored breathing, and depression, and the LD50 value was 1,276-1,352 mg/kg which is within the range of Category 2 (SIDS (2008)). Also, it was reported that in a single dose dermal toxicity test in rats, a marked decrease in motor activity and respiratory impairment were observed at 300 mg/kg equivalent to Category 1, and that they were still present up to 6 and 9 days respectively after exposure (SIDS (2008)). Based on the above, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system), Category 3 (narcotic effects). Furthermore, it was described that in a single inhalation exposure test in rats, there was nasal mucosa irritation in addition to eye irritation at non-lethal doses and they disappeared after 24 hours (SIDS Dossier (2008)) Therefore, it was classified as Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation).
9 Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure Classification not possible
-
-
- -  As for humans, it is reported that 29 cases of chloracne and 11 cases of porphyrinuria were found in a survey conducted in a factory in the USA that produced this substance and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 3 cases of them had obvious porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) (Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)). However, these cases are considered to be due to trichlorophenols and dioxins as impurities (BUA 31 (1988)).
 As for experimental animals, 13-week repeated oral dose tests using rats and mice were conducted, and the bone marrow atrophy and a decrease in erythroid and myelocytic elements were observed at 10,000 ppm (guidance value equivalent: 500 mg/kg/day) or higher, which is the dose exceeding Category 2, as main findings in rats (NTP TR353 (1989), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)). Also in mice, hepatocellular necrosis at 2,500 ppm (guidance value equivalent: 375 mg/kg/day) or higher and multinucleated hepatocytes at 10,000 ppm (guidance value equivalent: 1,500 mg/kg/day) or higher, bogh of which are the dose exceeding Category 2, were seen (NTP TR353 (1989), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)). In addition, in a 6-month repeated dose toxicity study using mice dosed by feeding, hypertrophy of hepatocytes, infiltration of interstitial small round cells, and thinning of adrenal cortex were observed at doses exceeding Category 2 while in a 90-day repeated dose toxicity study using mice dosed by drinking water, no effects were observed at the doses exceeding Category 2 (NTP TR353 (1989), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)). In addition, two-year repeated dose toxicity studies using rats and mice dosed by feeding were conducted, in rats, effects on the respiratory organs were observed at doses exceeding Category 2, and in mice, effects on the liver was noticed at doses exceeding Category 2. However, both findings were also seen in the control group, and they were not serious effects (NTP TR353 (1989), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol.8 (Ministry of the Environment, 2010)).
 As above, it is considered to correspond to "Not classified" in the oral route, but there is no data in other routes. Therefore, the substance was classified as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data.
 
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 2
-
-
H401 P273
P501 		 From 48-hour LC50 = 1.4 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (SIDS, 2008), it was classified in Category 2.
11 Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) Category 1


Warning
H410 P273
P391
P501 		 Because it is not rapidly degradable (a degradation rate by BOD: 0 % (Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Results of Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances Control Law, 1982)), and its 21-day NOEC (reproduction) = 0.052 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (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.
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