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 TinO2n−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).
Titanium dioxide can amplify and brighten white opacity because of its exceptional light-scattering properties. In food and drugs, these properties help to define colors clearly and can prevent products from UV degradation.


Lithopone B301, Lithopone B311 powder is also called C.I. 77115; Pigment White 5; Barium zinc sulfate sulfide and belongs to Product Categories of Inorganic & organic chemicals; uvcbs-inorganic. Lithopone B301, Lithopone B311 powder is used in water-based paints because of its excellent alkali resistance. It is widely utilized as a whitener and reinforcing agent for rubber and as a filler and whitener for paper. Lithopone B301, Lithopone B311 powder is considered to be poisonous because it is able to liberate hydrogen sulfide upon decomposition by heat, moisture, and acids. When heated to decomposition Lithopone B301, Lithopone B311 powder emits highly toxic fumes of SOx, ZnO, and H2S.
As a food additive, titanium dioxide and its nanoparticles in particular have been associated with DNA damage and cell mutations, which in turn, have potential to cause cancer. When used as a food coloring, it is known as E171.
TiO2 absorbs UV light. This property makes it appear bright white under light, unlike other white materials that can look slightly yellow.


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.”