GHS Classification Result
GENERAL INFORMATION
REFERENCE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
NOTE:
GENERAL INFORMATION
| Item | Information |
|---|---|
| CAS RN | 98-01-1 |
| Chemical Name | Furfural |
| Substance ID | H29-B-110 |
| 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 |
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) | |
| 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 3 |
 Warning |
H226 |
P303+P361+P353
P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501 |
A flash point is 60 deg C (closed cup) (ICSC (J) (2012)). Besides, it is classified in Division 6.1, Subsidiary risk 3, PGII in UNRTDG (UN 1199). |
| 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 315 deg C (ICSC (J) (2012)). |
| 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 |
- |
- | - | The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen. |
| 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 3 |
 Danger |
H301 |
P301+P310
P264 P270 P321 P330 P405 P501 |
Based on reported LD50 values for rats of 50-100 mg/kg (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989)), 50-149 mg/kg (EU-RAR (2008)), 125 mg/kg (DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998)), and 122-158 mg/kg (CICAD 21 (2000)), it was classified in Category 3. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Dermal) | Category 3 |
Danger |
H311 |
P302+P352
P361+P364 P280 P312 P321 P405 P501 |
There is a report of an LD50 value of > 310 mg/kg for rats (EU-RAR (2008)). In addition, there are reports that in a dermal exposure test with rabbits, the lethal dose was 620 mg/kg, and that there were no death cases at 500 mg/kg, but all died at 1,000 mg/kg (both in EU-RAR (2008)). From these pieces of information, it is considered that the LD50 value falls in the range of 310-1,000 mg/kg, which corresponds to Category 3. Therefore, it was classified in Category 3. |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases) | Not applicable |
- |
- | - | Liquid (GHS definition) |
| 1 | Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours) | Category 2 |
Danger |
H330 |
P304+P340
P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501 |
There are a total of 5 reports of 189 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 95 ppm) (CICAD 21 (2000), DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998)) and 1,037 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 519 ppm) (CICAD 21 (2000), EU-RAR (2008)) as LC50 values in 1-hour inhalation exposure tests with rats, 0.6 mg/L (153 ppm) (EU-RAR (2008)) and 235 ppm (CICAD 21 (2000), DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), EU-RAR (2008)) as LC50 values in 4-hour inhalation exposure tests with rats, and 175 ppm (converted 4-hour equivalent value: 214 ppm) (CICAD 21 (2000), DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), EU-RAR (2008)) as an LC50 value in a 6-hour inhalation exposure test with rats. One case among them corresponds to Category 1, 3 cases to Category 2, and the other case to Category 3. By adopting the category with the largest number of cases, it was classified in Category 2. Besides, since the exposure concentrations were lower than 90% of the saturated vapour concentration (2,917 ppm), the reference value in the unit of ppm was applied as vapour with 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 2 |
 Warning |
H315 |
P302+P352
P332+P313 P362+P364 P264 P280 P321 |
Based on descriptions that in two skin irritation tests with rabbits, when 500 mg of this substance was applied for 24 hours, it was irritating, and when 45-500 mg/kg bw of this substance was applied for 48 hours, slight irritation was found (both in EU-RAR (2008)), and that it is irritating to the skin in humans (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989), IARC 63 (1995), CICAD 21 (2000)), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, this substance is classified as "Skin Irrit. 2, H315" in the EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on August 2017)). |
| 3 | Serious eye damage/eye irritation | Category 2A |
Warning |
H319 |
P305+P351+P338
P337+P313 P264 P280 |
Based on descriptions on eye irritation tests with rabbits that irritation such as corneal opacity was observed by the application of 0.09-1 mL of this substance but this resolved after 9 days (EU-RAR (2008)), and that redness and swelling were observed in the eyelids and conjunctiva by the instillation of a 10% aqueous solution of this substance into eyes, but this resolved after 24 hours (ACGIH (7th, 2001)), it was classified in Category 2A. Besides, this substance is classified as "Eye Irrit. 2, H319" in the EU CLP classification (ECHA CL Inventory (Access on August 2017)). |
| 4 | Respiratory sensitization | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. |
| 4 | Skin sensitization | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | In two skin sensitization tests (a Buehler method and a maximization test, both compliant with OECD TG 406) with guinea pigs, sensitization was not observed in either of the tests, and it was concluded that this substance was not a skin sensitizer in these test methods (EU-RAR (2008)). As for humans, there is a description that skin sensitization was caused by prolonged exposure (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989)). Since there was conflicting information, it was classified as "Classification not possible." |
| 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, gene mutation tests with the liver of transgenic mice, chromosomal aberration tests with mouse bone marrow cells, sister chromatid exchange tests, and unscheduled DNA synthesis tests with liver cells of rats and mice were all negative (EU-RAR (2008), IARC 63 (1995), DFGOT Vol.9 (1998), JECFA FAS 46 (Access on September 2017), NTP DB (Access on August 2017)). As for in vitro, there were many negative results, but also some positive results in bacterial reverse mutation tests, and mouse lymphoma tests, chromosomal aberration tests, and sister chromatid exchange tests with mammalian cultured cells were all positive (EU-RAR (2008), IARC 63 (1995), DFGOT Vol.9 (1998), JECFA FAS 46 (2000), NTP DB (Access on August 2017)). |
| 6 | Carcinogenicity | Category 2 |
 Warning |
H351 |
P308+P313
P201 P202 P280 P405 P501 |
There is no information on carcinogenicity in humans. As for experimental animals, in carcinogenicity studies in which rats and mice were dosed by gavage for 2 years, cholangiocarcinoma was found in 2/50 males at the high dose (60 mg/kg/day) in rats, its incidence was higher than that of the background data (3/2,145 (0.1%)), and it was judged as an effect due to the administration of this substance (NTP TR 382 (1990), IARC 63 (1995), DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), EU-RAR (2008)). In the test with mice, at the high dose (175 mg/kg/day), an increased incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and hepatocellular carcinoma in males and an increased incidence of hepatocellular adenomas in females were observed, and in addition, increased incidence of forestomach papilloma was observed in females in the same group (NTP TR 382 (1990), IARC 63 (1995), DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), EU-RAR (2008)). It is concluded in NTP that there was some evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats, no evidence in female rats, clear evidence for male mice, and some evidence in female mice (NTP TR 382 (1990)). IARC classified it in Group 3 because there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals including test data other than NTP (IARC 63 (1995)). In contrast to this, in the EU, the CMR working group concluded that this substance was classified in Category 3 (corresponding to Carc. 2 in the current CLP classification) (EU-RAR (2008)). In addition, ACGIH classified it in A3 based on the NTP test results of this substance, and in addition, on the basis that in a 2-year inhalation exposure test (NTP TR 482) of furfuryl alcohol (CAS RN 90-00-0), from which this substance is formed as the main metabolite, an increase in nasal cavity tumours (adenoma, carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma) was observed in male rats (ACGIH (7th, 2017)). From the above, the classification results of EU and ACGIH, which are newer than IARC classification, were adopted, and it was classified in Category 2 for this hazard class. |
| 7 | Reproductive toxicity | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | In a developmental toxicity test with pregnant rats dosed by gavage, deaths were observed in 3/25 cases at the medium dose, (100 mg/kg/day) and 16/25 cases at the high dose (150 mg/kg/day) in maternal animals, however, only low fetal body weight was seen even at 150 mg/kg/day in fetuses (EU-RAR (2008), SIAP (2008)). Since in addition to this result, no adverse effects on the reproductive organs were seen in the 2-year oral dose carcinogenicity test by NTP, the EU CMR working group concluded that this substance should not be classified as a reproductive toxicant (EU-RAR (2008)), and there is a similar description also in SIAP that this substance is not considered to be a reproductive toxicant (SIAP (2008)). Other than these, there is a description that in a developmental toxicity study in which rats were dosed by feeding at up to 300 mg/kg/day, the effect on the fetuses was only a low value of body weight even at 300 mg/kg/day, which was a LOAEL of the maternal animals (ACGIH (7th, 2017)). From the above, based on the results of developmental toxicity tests, it was considered that this substance did not show serious developmental toxicity, but there were no results from any test that examined the effects on fertility or sexual function, therefore it was classified as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data. |
| 8 | Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure | Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver) |
Danger |
H370 |
P308+P311
P260 P264 P270 P321 P405 P501 |
As for humans, there is a report that nose and throat irritation was caused by a single inhalation exposure to this substance (DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), CICAD 21 (2000), ACGIH (7th, 2017), EU-RAR (2008), OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989)). As for experimental animals, there is a report that in a single oral administration to rats of 50 mg/kg corresponding to Category 1, scattered eosinophilic globules and a significant increase in the number of mitotic hepatocytes were observed in the liver, most prominently after 6 hours, but the number decreased after that, and neither necrosis of the liver nor death was seen (DFGOT Vol. 9 (1998), EU-RAR (2008)). In addition, there is a report that in a single inhalation exposure study with rats, moderate congestion and perivascular edema were observed in the lung after 1-hour exposure at 0.37 mg/L (IARC 63 (1995), CICAD 21 (2000), ACGIH (7th, 2017)). The converted 4-hour equivalent value for the dose in this test is 0.185 mg/L, which corresponds to Category 1. From the above, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver). |
| 9 | Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure | Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver) |
Danger |
H372 |
P260
P264 P270 P314 P501 |
As for humans, there is a report that in a survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), fatigue, headache, nasal bleeding, burning sensation of the eyes, irritation of the nose and throat, shortness of breath, chest tightness, rash, burning sensation of the skin, sunlight hypersensitivity were observed in workers who used a binder of this substance in a graphite manufacturing factory, and the personal exposure value of workers exposed to high concentrations of this substance was 2-4.2 ppm. In addition, workers at another factory handling resins containing this substance were exposed to 1.6-2.1 ppm of this substance, and headache, throat irritation, and ocular hyperaemia were reported (ACGIH (7th, 2017)). Besides, there is a report that although symptoms such as hypoesthesia of the tongue and mucous membranes of the mouth, absence of taste sense, and dyspnea were observed in workers at the furfural plant with inappropriate ventilation, the environmental concentration in the workplace was unknown (OEL Documentations (Japan Society For Occupational Health (JSOH), 1989), ACGIH (7th, 2001)). Besides, the report on hypoesthesia of the tongue and mucous membranes of the mouth, and absence of taste sense, etc. mentioned above was described in ACGIH (7th, 2001), but is not described in ACGIH (7th, 2017) issued later. As for experimental animals, in a 28-day inhalation toxicity test (6 hours/day, 5 days/week) with rats, at or above 20 mg/m3 (converted guidance value: 0.004 mg/L) within the guidance value range for Category 1 (vapour), squamous metaplasia and hyperplasia of the respiratory epithelium of the nasal cavity were observed (EU-RAR (2008)). In addition, in a 13-week oral dose toxicity test with rats, at or above 11 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 7.9 mg/kg/day) within the guidance value range for Category 1, centrilobular hepatocellular vacuolation was observed (EU-RAR (2008), NTP TR 382 (1990)). From the above, in humans, other than the irritating effects on the skin, mucous membranes, and respiratory organs, hypoesthesia of the tongue and mucous membranes of the mouth, absence of taste sense, and dyspnea, etc. were seen. However, these were considered to be due to irritation rather than the effects on the nervous system because no other effects on the nervous system were observed. In addition, since the effects on the respiratory organs and liver were observed within the guidance value range for Category 1 in experimental animals, it was classified in Category 1 (respiratory organs, liver). Besides, since the effect on the liver was reported from a dose lower than the dose described in the previous classification, the classification result was different from the previous classification. |
| 10 | Aspiration hazard | Classification not possible |
- |
- | - | Classification not possible due to lack of data. Besides, the kinematic viscosity is calculated to be 1.37 mm2/sec (25/20 deg C) from numerical data (viscosity: 1.587 mPa*s (25 deg C), density: 1.1594 g/cm3 (20 deg C)) listed on HSDB (Access on August 2017). |
| Hazard class | Classification |
Pictogram Signal word |
Hazard statement (code) |
Precautionary statement (code) |
Rationale for the classification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Acute) | Category 3 |
- |
H402 |
P273
P501 |
From 96-hour LC50 = 24 mg/L for fish (Gambusia affinis) (EU-RAR: 2008, WHO IPCS CICAD: 2000), it was classified in Category 3. |
| 11 | Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term) | Not classified |
- |
- | - | Due to being rapidly degradable (readily biodegradable, a degradation rate by BOD: 93.5% (J-CHECK, 1976)), no bioaccumulation (LogKow: 0.41 (SRC PhysProp Database: 2017)), and 21-day NOEC (reproduction, growth) = 1.9 mg/L for crustacea (Daphnia magna) (EU-RAR: 2008), it was classified as "Not classified." |
| 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. |