standard ironing board cover_birthday table cover

The aim of this work was to examine particularly the Degussa P25 titanium dioxide nanoparticles (P25TiO₂NPs) because they are among the most employed ones in cosmetics. In fact, all kinds of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO₂NPs) have gained widespread commercialization over recent decades. This white pigment (TiO₂NPs) is used in a broad range of applications, including food, personal care products (toothpaste, lotions, sunscreens, face creams), drugs, plastics, ceramics, and paints. The original source is abundant in Earth as a chemically inert amphoteric oxide, which is thermally stable, corrosion-resistant, and water-insoluble. This oxide is found in three different forms: rutile (the most stable and substantial form), brookite (rhombohedral), and anatase (tetragonal as rutile), of these, both rutile and anatase are of significant commercial importance in a wide range of applications [3]. Additionally, the nano-sized oxide exhibits interesting physical properties, one of them is the ability to act as semiconducting material under UV exposure. In fact, TiO₂NPs are the most well-known and useful photocatalytic material, because of their relatively low price and photo-stability [4]. Although, this photoactivity could also cause undesired molecular damage in biological tissues and needs to be urgently assessed, due to their worldwide use. However, not all nanosized titanium dioxide have the same behavior. In 2007, Rampaul A and Parkin I questioned: “whether the anatase/rutile crystal form of titanium dioxide with an organosilane or dimethicone coat, a common titania type identified in sunscreens, is appropriate to use in sunscreen lotions” [5]. They also suggested that with further study, other types of functionalized titanium dioxide could potentially be safer alternatives. Later, Damiani found that the anatase form of TiO₂NPs was the more photoactive one, and stated that it should be avoided for sunscreen formulations, in agreement with Barker and Branch (2008) [6,7].

As early as sixty years ago, zinc sulphide was first thought of as a pigment for coloring India rubber and a patent for the process of its manufacture was issued in England. But it was not until twenty years later that zinc sulphide and its manufacture was seriously considered as a pigment for paint, and in 1874 a patent was issued for a process of manufacturing a white pigment, composed of zinc sulphide and barium sulphate, known as Charlton white, also as Orr's white enamel. This was followed in 1876 by a patent issued to a manufacturer named Griffith and the product, which was similar in character to Charlton white, was known as Griffith's patent zinc white. In 1879 another patent for a more novel process was obtained by Griffith & Cawley, the product made under this process proving the best of the series placed upon the market up to that date. After that time many new processes were patented, all, however, tending to the same object, that of producing a white pigment, composed of zinc sulphide and barium carbonate, the results, however, in many cases ending with failure.