Item | Information |
---|---|
CAS RN | 110-86-1 |
Chemical Name | Pyridine |
Substance ID | H29-B-105 |
Classification year (FY) | FY2017 |
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 |
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) | |
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 associated with explosive properties present in the molecule. |
2 | Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
3 | Aerosols | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Not aerosol products. |
4 | Oxidizing gases | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
5 | Gases under pressure | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (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 20 deg C (closed cup), and a boiling point of 115 deg C (ICSC (J) (2000)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, it is classified in Class 3, PGII in UNRTDG (UN 1282). |
7 | Flammable solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
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 classified |
- |
- | - | It is estimated that it does not ignite at normal temperatures from an autoignition temperature of 482 deg C (ICSC (J) (2000)). |
10 | Pyrophoric solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
11 | Self-heating substances and mixtures | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Test methods applicable to liquid 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 |
- |
- | - | Organic compounds containing no oxygen, fluorine or chlorine |
14 | Oxidizing solids | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
15 | Organic peroxides | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule |
16 | Corrosive to metals | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data available. |
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 |
Based on reports of LD50 values for rats of 891 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2004), PATTY (6th, 2012)), 1,500 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2004)), and 1,580 mg/kg (ATSDR (1992)), it was classified in Category 4. |
1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Category 4 |
Warning |
H312 |
P302+P352
P362+P364 P280 P312 P321 P501 |
There are two reports of LD50 values for rabbits of 1,120 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2004)) and 1,121 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012)) from different original sources, and these correspond to Category 4. There are two reports of LD50 values for guinea pigs of 1,000 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2004), ChemID (Access on January 2018)) and 2,000 mg/kg (ACGIH (7th, 2004)), one case corresponds to Category 3, and the other corresponds to Category 4. It was classified in Category 4 by adopting the category with the largest number of cases. The category was changed from the previous classification because of using a new information source. |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Category 4 |
Warning |
H332 |
P304+P340
P261 P271 P312 |
Based on reports of LC50 values of 8,800 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 4,400 ppm) (ACGIH (7th, 2004)) and 9,000 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 4,500 ppm) (ACGIH (7th, 2004), PATTY (6th, 2012)) in 1-hour inhalation exposure tests with rats, and an LC50 value of 4,900 ppm in a 4-hour inhalation exposure test with rats (PATTY (6th, 2012)), it was classified in Category 4. Besides, since exposure concentrations are lower than 90% of the saturated vapor pressure concentration (27,452 ppm), a reference value in the unit of ppm was applied as vapour without little mist. |
1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists) | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
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 |
Based on a description that it was corrosive in a skin irritation test with rabbits (ACGIH (7th, 2004)), it was classified in Category 1. Besides, there are reports that this substance is irritating (PATTY (6th, 2012), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)), and that it is slightly irritating (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). |
3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 1 |
Danger |
H318 |
P305+P351+P338
P280 P310 |
It was classified in Category 1 for skin corrosion/irritation. There are the following descriptions: in an eye irritation test (OECD TG 405 compliant), the eye irritation index MMAS (Modified Maximum Average Score: corresponding to AOI, Maximum 110) was 45.0 after one day, and it was moderately irritating (ECETOC TR48 (2) (1998)); in another test with rabbits, the eye irritation was grade 7 (maximum value 110), and was moderately irritating (PATTY (6th, 2012)); damage by severe eye irritation occurred by application of this substance to the rabbit eyes (ACGIH (7th, 2004)). Therefore, 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 |
- |
- | - | There is a report of being positive in an LLNA test with mice (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)), while there is a report that no sensitization was observed in a skin sensitization test with guinea pigs (ACGIH (7th, 2004), PATTY (6th, 2012)). Since they are conflicting test results, it was classified as "Classification not possible." |
5 | Germ cell mutagenicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | It 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 and a chromosomal aberration test with mouse bone marrow cells, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis test with mouse liver cells were all negative (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), ATSDR (1992), PATTY (6th, 2012), IARC 77 (2000), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004), NTP DB (Access on August 2017)). As for in vitro, bacterial reverse mutation tests, mouse lymphoma tests, a gene mutation test and chromosome aberration tests with mammalian cultured cells were negative, and sister chromatid exchange tests were positive and negative results (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), IARC 77 (2000), Environmental Risk Assessment for Chemical Substances Vol. 3 (Ministry of the Environment, 2004), ATSDR (1992), PATTY (6th, 2012), NTP DB (Access on August 2017)). |
6 | Carcinogenicity | Category 2 |
Warning |
H351 |
P308+P313
P201 P202 P280 P405 P501 |
A slight excess of deaths due to lung cancers was observed among workers at a manufacturing plant where this substance was used as a starting material, however, there was no significant difference, so it was considered that there was no relevance to the exposure to specific chemical substances such as this substance (IARC 77 (2000)). As for experimental animals, in carcinogenicity tests where rats of two strains and mice of one strain were dosed by drinking water for two years, in male F344/N rats, increased incidences of renal tubule adenoma, increased combined incidence of renal tubule adenoma and carcinoma at 400 ppm, in females of the same strain, increased incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia at or above 200 ppm, and in Wistar rats (only males used), an increased incidence of interstitial cell adenoma of the testis was observed at 400 ppm (NTP TR470 (2000), ACGIH (7th, 2004)). In the test with mice, clearly increased incidences of malignant hepatocellular tumors including hepatoblastomas were observed in both females and males (NTP TR470 (2000), ACGIH (7th, 2004)). As evidence of carcinogenicity, it was concluded that malignant hepatocellular tumors in female and male mice were clear evidence, renal tubule tumors in male rats were some evidence, and others were equivocal evidence (NTP TR470 (2000)). Whereas, in a dermal application test with genetically modified female mice (maximum 6 mg/animal, 20-week administration (5 days/week)), no skin papilloma was observed in the group of application of this substance, however, skin papillomas were observed in all the cases (15/15 cases) in the positive control group. In addition, also in another test with genetically modified male and female mice (p53+/-) dosed by drinking water (maximum 500 ppm (female) or 1,000 ppm (male), 26-week administration), no increase in tumors was observed in the administration group. From the above, IARC classified it in Group 3 because there was limited evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (IARC 77 (2000)). On the other hand, ACGIH classified this substance in A3 because it caused tumors in rodents at relatively high doses (ACGIH (7th, 2004)). From the above, two tests with genetically modified mice were negative, however, since clear or some evidence of carcinogenicity was obtained in two species of usual animals, the classification result by ACGIH was supported, and it was judged as reasonable to be classified in Category 2. |
7 | Reproductive toxicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, there is a report that in 13-week tests with rats and mice dosed by drinking water, prolonged estrous cycles in female rats at the high dose (1,000 ppm: corresponding to 90 mg/kg/day), and decreased spermatozoal motility in mice at or above 250 ppm (corresponding to 50 mg/kg/day) were observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), IARC 77 (2000)). In the previous classification, it was classified in Category 2 based on the effects (atrophy of the testis and epididymis, prolonged estrous cycles) observed in repeated dose toxicity tests, however, neither was adopted as evidence of classification because the effects were slight. |
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 |
As for humans, there is a description that this substance is irritating to the skin, eyes, upper respiratory tract (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). The following cases are reported as symptoms: a woman who inhaled vapour from a spill of this substance for 15-20 minutes showed speech disorder (ACGIH (7th, 2004), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)); although the exposure concentration is unknown, headaches, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, abdominal discomfort, and dizziness were observed commonly in 10 people who were exposed by inhalation to the vapour due to breakage of a bottle containing this substance, and several of them complained of fever, perspiration, diarrhea, palpitations, light-headedness, weakness, chills, and heaviness in the head (PATTY (6th, 2012)); and transient headaches, dizziness, lethargy, tachycardia, and respiratory distress were observed in healthy adults (multiple) who were exposed to the vapour of this substance (concentration, exposure time were unknown) (ATSDR (1992), Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). As for experimental animals, the following are reported: in a single oral administration test with rats, toxic symptoms were inanimation, muscle weakness, dyspnea, sedation, coarse fur and death (ACGIH (7th, 2004), PATTY (6th, 2012)); in a single inhalation exposure test with rats, toxic symptoms were lacrimation, rhinitis, inactivity, hyperpnea, sedation, dyspnea and death (ACGIH (7th, 2004)); and in a single dermal exposure test with rabbits, lethargy and decreased body weight were observed at or above 500 mg/kg (PATTY (6th, 2012)). Moreover, in PATTY (6th, 2012), as a description of the general effect on experimental animals, there is a description that the major acute toxic effects observed in all exposure routes were narcotic effects and irritation. By summarizing the above information on humans and experimental animals, it was classified in Category 1 (central nervous system), Category 3 (respiratory tract irritation, narcotic effects). Chemical Substance Hazard Data (CERI, 2002) which was used as evidence of the effects on the respiratory system in humans in the previous classification, was not used because it is the information source in List 3 currently. Additionally, in Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007) which is the information source in List 1, there is a description that lung congestion, pulmonary edema, and bronchitis were observed in the autopsy after death in two cases of people who ingested this substance by mistake. However, in one case, it was considered to be due to aspiration of vomit, and the other case was an old one from 1893, and the details were unknown, so they were judged as insufficient as evidence of the classification. Therefore, the classification result was changed from the previous classification. |
9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (nervous system, liver, kidney, haemal system) |
Danger |
H372 |
P260
P264 P270 P314 P501 |
As for humans, in the case of using this substance as an epilepsia therapeutic drug, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, a feeling of abdominal distension, headaches, stupor, malaise, depressed state were observed during the dosing period in five epileptic patients who were orally administered for approximately 1 month at a dose of 1.85-2.46 mL per day. In addition, there is a report that in two of them, decreased total protein in the serum, azotemia, albuminuria, etc., were observed, and liver and kidney disorders were shown (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). Moreover, as the case of occupational exposure, there is a report that nausea, dizziness, headache, insomnia, nervousness, discomfort of the loins and abdomen with pollakiuria, and anorexia were observed in the workers who inhaled pyridine vapour at a concentration of about 125 ppm (405 mg/m3) for 4 hours a day for 1-2 weeks (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). As for experimental animals, in a 13-week test with rats dosed by drinking water, the following was observed: decreases in hemoglobin, red blood cell count and hematocrit value at or above 50 ppm (5 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 1, an increase in the liver weight at or above 100 ppm (10 mg/kg/day), pigment deposits in the liver at or above 250 ppm (25 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 2, an increase in bile acid, chronic inflammation and pigment deposits in the liver, and hypertrophy and degeneration of centrilobular hepatocytes at or above 500 ppm (55 mg/kg/day), death, increases in ALT and SDH, and prolonged estrus cycles at 1,000 ppm (90 mg/kg/day). Besides, in males, alpha 2u globulin in the kidney was positive in all cases, and protein casts, chronic inflammation, mineralization and renal tubule regeneration in the kidneys at or above 500 ppm, granular casts and hyaline degeneration in the kidney at 1,000 ppm were observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). Also, in a 103-104-week toxicity test with rats dose by drinking water, hyperplasia of the bile duct in the liver and pigmentation of the liver at or above 100 ppm (7 mg/kg/day) which is within the guidance value range for Category 1, decreased body weight gain, exacerbations of chronic nephropathy, centrilobular hepatocyte cytomegaly and vacuolization of hepatocytes in the liver at or above 200 ppm (14 mg/kg/day) which is within a guidance value range for Category 2, centrilobular hepatocyte degeneration and necrosis in the liver, and renal tubule epithelial hyperplasia were observed at 400 ppm (33 mg/kg/day) (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 1 (nervous system, liver, kidney, haemal system). Besides, since new information sources were used, the classification result was different from the previous classification. |
10 | Aspiration hazard | Category 1 |
Danger |
H304 |
P301+P310
P331 P405 P501 |
It was reported that as a result of autopsy of a case who showed severe vomiting, diarrhea, hyperpyrexia, and delirium after ingestion of several ounces (1 ounce = 28.35 g) and died, respiratory organ damages (pulmonary edema and tracheobronchitis) which were thought to be caused by aspiration were observed (Initial Risk Assessment Report (NITE, CERI, NEDO, 2007), HSDB (Access on August 2017)). Therefore, it was classified in Category 1. Besides, the classification result was changed based on new information sources after the previous classification. |
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 72-hour EC50 (rate method) = 0.10 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)), it was classified in Category 1. |
11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) | Category 1 |
Warning |
H410 |
P273
P391 P501 |
Due to being rapidly degradable (readily biodegradable, a degradation rate by BOD: 92, 94, 0% (J-CHECK, 1998)), no bioaccumulation (LogKow: 0.65 (SRC PhysProp Database: 2017)), and 72-hour NOEC (rate method) = 0.01 mg/L for algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) (Results of Aquatic Toxicity Tests of Chemicals conducted by Ministry of the Environment in Japan (Ministry of the Environment, 2017)), it was classified in Category 1. |
12 | Hazardous to the ozone layer | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | No data available. |
* 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. |