IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
CLP Classification Concerns – Inconsistencies in SDS Labelling (Flash Point & Hazard Symbols)
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi everyone, I’d like to raise a concern regarding inconsistencies in Safety Data Sheets (SDS), particularly with products like screenwash and cleaning agents that contain flammable components such as ethanol and methanol. In one recent case, the SDS listed a flash point of 61°C and included hazardous ingredients (e.g. ethanol with H225, methanol with H301/H311/H370), but there were no CLP hazard pictograms shown on the label or SDS front page. This raised the question: If the hazardous substances are present—even in small percentages—but above the specific concentration limits, shouldn't CLP pictograms still apply? Or is there a threshold under which labelling is not mandatory, even if individual components are classified? Would appreciate if anyone could share guidance or similar experiences regarding: Thresholds for pictogram display under CLP Cases where flash point alone doesn't determine flammability classification How to verify whether an SDS is CLP-compliant
Thanks in advance for your input!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good morning Roundtuit I have now seen enough of the 'contributions' made by "Syed" whose other names if combined appear to mean "grace of the religion" [so an entirely honourable name for those from many cultures]. Even before opening a thread this morning, I took the time to remind myself of the detail of the Forum Rules, entirely aware that these were drafted years before the exponential expansion of social media and the introduction and then multiplication of bots into the equation. On balance I think the Rules manage to have remained relevant to this changing World. I have REPORTED "Syed" but have drawn attention to the aggregate of other postings by this "posting" citing Rule 13 (Spam) along with parts of Rules 3 and 4 as regards postings being "appropriate" and "relevant" [Rule 3] and being un"professional" and "deliberately provocative" [Rule 4]. "Syed" - I appreciate that your default language of choice here might be English US and hence you might think that I should not have included the letter U in "honourable". However, if you are a human and not a bot, please stop either posting to repeat what has already been said on a thread OR to take the questions and answers given on one thread to compose a new thread covering exactly the same subject matter. This is an unwelcome distraction for those who use these Forums to help them understand serious issues.
|
 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
CLP Classification Concerns – Inconsistencies in SDS Labelling (Flash Point & Hazard Symbols)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.