gravimetric analysis of titanium dioxide supplier
2. The preparation of the lining powder: The above-mentioned final immersion liquid 1000 ml in a 2000 ml beaker, heated to 98 ° C, and then added 4 g of ammonium persulfate with a magnetic stirrer stirring 0. 5h, after the oxidation of the solution, adding polyacrylamide 02%。 The solution, the volume of the solution is 0.02%. After lh filtration, the obtained filtrate is subjected to sulfurization and impurity removal, and zinc powder is substituted to obtain a zinc sulfate ammonia refining complex liquid. 122. 9g of antimony sulfide (without water) and 21. 7g of sodium sulfide (without water) are mixed and dissolved in distilled water to obtain a metathesis reaction solution, and a nonionic surfactant 0P-10 (for nonylphenol and epoxy) is added to the solution. The condensate of acetamidine) 0. 2g, the reaction temperature is 40 ° C, the stirring speed is 15m / s, stir well for 40min, then slowly added to 1000ml zinc sulfate ammonia refining complex, continue to stir for 30min and then add quality The fractionation is 30% 3⁄40 2 of desulfurization bleaching, and after bleaching, the nZnS-BaS0 4 crystal filter cake is separated by filtration.
On November 23, 2022, the General Court of the European Union reversed the conclusion that titanium dioxide was carcinogenic and released a statement (1,2):
“First, the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment of the reliability and acceptability of the study on which the classification was based and, second, it infringed the criterion according to which that classification can relate only to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.”
As part of our mission at CRIS we base our safety assessments on the currently available scientific evidence and consider many variables (e.g., study quality, journal of publication, etc.), even if it goes against previous conclusions. Evidence-informed decisions making is critical to ensure that the laws and regulations put into place are for the benefit of the population.
The EU General Court maintains that the scientific evidence presented wasn’t the complete picture for the ingredient, “in the present case, the requirement to base the classification of a carcinogenic substance on reliable and acceptable studies was not satisfied.”
“First, the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment of the reliability and acceptability of the study on which the classification was based and, second, it infringed the criterion according to which that classification can relate only to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.”
As part of our mission at CRIS we base our safety assessments on the currently available scientific evidence and consider many variables (e.g., study quality, journal of publication, etc.), even if it goes against previous conclusions. Evidence-informed decisions making is critical to ensure that the laws and regulations put into place are for the benefit of the population.
The EU General Court maintains that the scientific evidence presented wasn’t the complete picture for the ingredient, “in the present case, the requirement to base the classification of a carcinogenic substance on reliable and acceptable studies was not satisfied.”