Vanadium trichloride oxide

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

With the physico-chemical property (HCl generation) and the weight of evidence (industrial practise), VOCl3 is considered as corrosive and tests for irritation/ corrosion of skin/ eyes or respiratory tract are not relevant and not done for animal welfare considerations.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

skin corrosion: in vitro / ex vivo

Data waiving:

study scientifically not necessary / other information available

Justification for data waiving:

other:

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

adverse effect observed (corrosive)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Data waiving:

study scientifically not necessary / other information available

Justification for data waiving:

other:

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

adverse effect observed (irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

Justification for selection of skin irritation / corrosion endpoint:

With the physico-chemical property (HCl generation) and the weight of evidence (industrial practice), VOCl3 is considered as corrosive and tests for skin irritation or corrosion are not necessary.

Justification for selection of eye irritation endpoint:

With the physico-chemical property (HCl generation) and the weight of evidence (industrial practise), VOCl3 is considered as corrosive and tests for eye irritation are not necessary.

Effects on skin irritation/corrosion: corrosive

Effects on eye irritation: corrosive

Justification for classification or non-classification

With the physico-chemical property (HCl generation) and the weight of evidence (industrial practise), VOCl3 is considered as corrosive on the criteria basis of the CLP regulation.

It is not possible to assign a sub-category on basis on physico-chemical effects, and it makes no differences in classification or any other aspect in supply systems based on GHS whether a corrosive substance is category 1A, 1B or 1C as the symbol, the signal word and hazard assessment are all the same.

But these corrosive sub-categories apply to some authorities and in transport, assigning or changing the packing group is particularly significant as it determines the requirements for the containment system and downstream consequences relating to the transport operation. The relationship between ADR (Agreement on Dangerous goods by Road) classification and GHS corrosive classification has been evaluated by the Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of classification and Labelling of Chemicals, on 21 June 2012 (ref. UN/SCETDG/41/INF.53 and UN/SCEGHS/23/INF.18).

The committee concluded on the alignment for packing group II (and hazard class 8, the ADR classification for VOCl3) with Skin corrosion Cat 1A.

.