Hebei Hankai seal hub

The basic scenario of resistive switching in TiO₂ (Jameson et al., 2007) assumes the formation and electromigration of oxygen vacancies between the electrodes (Baiatu et al., 1990), so that the distribution of concomitant n-type conductivity (Janotti et al., 2010) across the volume can eventually be controlled by an external electric bias, as schematically shown in Figure 1B. Direct observations with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) revealed more complex electroforming processes in TiO₂ thin films. In one of the studies, a continuous Pt filament between the electrodes was observed in a planar Pt/TiO₂/Pt memristor (Jang et al., 2016). As illustrated in Figure 1C, the corresponding switching mechanism was suggested as the formation of a conductive nanofilament with a high concentration of ionized oxygen vacancies and correspondingly reduced Ti³⁺ ions. These ions induce detachment and migration of Pt atoms from the electrode via strong metal–support interactions (Tauster, 1987). Another TEM investigation of a conductive TiO₂ nanofilament revealed it to be a Magnéli phase Ti_nO_2n−1 (Kwon et al., 2010). Supposedly, its formation results from an increase in the concentrations of oxygen vacancies within a local nanoregion above their thermodynamically stable limit. This scenario is schematically shown in Figure 1D. Other hypothesized point defect mechanisms involve a contribution of cation and anion interstitials, although their behavior has been studied more in tantalum oxide (Wedig et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2016). The plausible origins and mechanisms of memristive switching have been comprehensively reviewed in topical publications devoted to metal oxide memristors (Yang et al., 2008; Waser et al., 2009; Ielmini, 2016) as well as TiO₂ (Jeong et al., 2011; Szot et al., 2011; Acharyya et al., 2014). The resistive switching mechanisms in memristive materials are regularly revisited and updated in the themed review publications (Sun et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020).

On the other hand, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in their Final Administrative Order on Sunscreen Drug Products posted in September 2021 still accepts titanium dioxide up to 25% in the list of Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective (GRASE) in the main document, without further clarification on what kind or size of particles [9]. However, on page 24 (Sunscreen containing nanomaterials) FDA clearly “distinguish nanomaterials from other forms of these ingredients'' (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) and ask for comments on “any particular nanomaterials that you believe should not be permitted for use in OTC sunscreen products”. To the best of our knowledge, this Agency did not ban the use of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide in any form, even though it is mentioned on page 34 that the anatase form is the more photoactive one, due to the lack of evidence with real sunscreens OTC (over the counter) in vivo. Moreover, other regulations in Latin America (MERCOSUR agreement, 2006) do not state clearly their position on the use of nanoparticulate TiO₂NPs [10].