Ga naar de hoofdinhoud
The 5 Most Error-Prone Sections of an SDS — and How to Get Them Right
Free webinar
Learn which SDS sections cause the most compliance errors, how to catch cross-section inconsistencies before they cost you, and get a first look at new acute toxicity automation in SDS Author Wizard.
Wednesday, September 16, 2026 | 45-minutes
Register for the webinar
Quick Summary
- Most SDS errors aren’t missing data — they’re consistency failures between sections, where a classification, a tox calculation, or a transport entry quietly contradicts the data sitting elsewhere in the same document.
- This 45-minute session walks through the five SDS sections where these errors happen most often, and unveils a new acute toxicity (ATE) automation feature built directly into SDS Author Wizard.
- SDS authors, EHS managers, and regulatory affairs professionals will come away knowing where automation genuinely belongs in SDS authoring, and where it doesn’t — and why that distinction matters for compliance.
- Why are cross-section consistency errors the most common — and most costly — mistakes in SDS authoring?
- How should acute toxicity (ATE) calculations for mixtures be handled, and where do most authoring tools get it wrong?
- Why can’t transport classification (Section 14) be automatically derived from hazard data alone?
What does the demo cover?
- The five SDS sections most prone to classification, data, and consistency errors
- A live look at new acute toxicity/ATE automation in SDS Author Wizard
- Where automation genuinely belongs in SDS authoring — and where human judgment still has to lead
What you will learn
Most SDS errors don’t come from missing information. They come from sections that quietly drift out of sync with each other — a Section 2 classification that doesn’t match the toxicological data in Section 11, a transport entry in Section 14 that assumes hazard data tells the whole story. Each one is a compliance exposure waiting to surface at an audit, a customs check, or worse, downstream in a customer’s own mixture.
This session walks through Sections 2, 3, 8, 11, and 14 — the areas where these failures happen most — and shows what good authoring software should actually automate versus where it should defer to a trained professional. We’ll unveil a new acute toxicity automation feature live, then show the deliberate contrast: why transport classification can’t be reduced to a formula the way acute toxicity can, and what responsible automation looks like when the answer requires judgment, not just math.
Who should attend?
SDS Authors and Content Specialists
EHS Managers and Regulatory Affairs Teams
Product Stewardship and Compliance Professionals
Those responsible for maintaining SDSs and Hazard Communication compliance
When you have the information early, you’re able to provide better information to the development teams to ensure that all required processes move smoothly and this allows us to capture market share earlier, as well as avoid costs from rework, rejection, or seizure due to non-conforming products.
Enhesa ROI survey respondentMeet the speakers
Veronica Marrero
Director of Professional Services & Regulatory Operations, TotalSDS by Enhesa
Certified in Multi-Modal Transportation Regulations and GHS Classification, Veronica brings deep expertise in hazard communication, SDS preparation, and global chemical regulatory compliance.
Alex Milan
Head of Sales – SDS, TotalSDS by Enhesa
With over a decade of expertise in sales and compliance solutions, Alex is dedicated to helping organizations streamline their safety programs and drive measurable efficiency.
Reserve your spot at the webinar
Learn which SDS sections cause the most compliance errors, how to catch cross-section inconsistencies before they cost you, and get a first look at new acute toxicity automation in SDS Author Wizard.
Wednesday, September 16, 2026 | 45-minutes