![]() Even in the former system (DPD), a list with legally binding classifications for chosen substances existed. “Legal classifications”: In this context, the European Union is the most active authority.Thus, the UN allowed implementation of different CLVs for the following hazards: respiratory and skin sensitization, carcinogenicity, reproduction toxicity, and specific target organ toxicity.ĭue to this difference, there may be mixtures which have to be classified as skin sensitizing in China, Canada or the USA, but not in the EU or Singapore. However, for a group of specific hazard classes an agreement for CLVs didn’t seem to be possible. Concentration limit value (CLV): The CLVs for most of the hazard classes are fixed by the GHS standard of the UN.Example: The category 3 of the hazard “Skin irritation” exists in these countries, but not the EU, Canada, Singapore or the USA. Other countries like China and Mexico implemented GHS without any deviation from the GHS model of the United Nations. Countries with an established classification and labeling system tried to implement GHS with the intention to conserve the former rules and conditions as much as possible. Each country may decide individually about the implementation of the hazard categories. Hazard categories: The biggest differentiation potential can be found here.Further, so-called “hazards not otherwise classified“ were created to account for the prior national classifications systems. Hazard classes: Differences to the GHS specified hazard classes can be found in Canada and the USA: The application of environmental hazard classes is voluntary.Amongst others, one difference is the application and wording of the precautionary statements. But most countries have currently implemented the 3rd, 4th or 5th revision. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |