The Evolution of AI in the Coatings Industry: From Subjective Observation to Predictive Analysis Author: Giovanni Cicatiello With the passage of time, Artificial Intelligence and its remarkable developments are increasingly permeating various aspects of our daily lives. Regardless of the ethical or practical debates surrounding AI, its widespread adoption—especially in professional sectors—is now a reality, revolutionizing traditional operational methods. Companies in the coatings sector must proactively approach these new AI-driven solutions to integrate their workflows (production, R&D, safety, marketing, etc.) into a global labor market transformed by the digital revolution. In the field of Paint and Coatings R&D , AI tools are already proving invaluable for enhancing the design of new formulations and evaluating laboratory and application results. While the efficacy of a coating was once tested exclusively through subjective observation, today the integration of Computer Vi...
Paint and Coatings:
titanium dioxide is no dangerous
No more worry for the paint industry: the EU Court annuls the carcinogenic classification of TiO₂!
On 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a long-awaited ruling, rejecting the appeals lodged by the French Republic and the European Commission.
This decision confirms the annulment of the classification of titanium dioxide (TiO₂) powder, in certain forms, as a carcinogenic substance. The ruling marks a significant relief for numerous industries, particularly for the paint and coatings sector, whose producers and raw material distributors had been anxiously awaiting this judgment.
A long and complex controversy
The titanium dioxide saga began in May 2016, when the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) proposed to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) that titanium dioxide be classified as a category 1B carcinogen by inhalation. The following year, in 2017, the ECHA Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) issued a favorable opinion to classify TiO₂ as a category 2 carcinogen, with the hazard statement "H351 (inhalation)."
Based on this opinion, in October 2019 the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217, amending the CLP Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 to classify and label titanium dioxide powder containing 1% or more of particles with a diameter equal to or less than 10 μm as suspected of causing cancer in humans by inhalation. The changes were to apply from 1 October 2021.
The EU General Court’s intervention and reasons for annulment
This classification was promptly challenged by a broad coalition of producers, importers, downstream users and suppliers of titanium dioxide, including names such as CWS Powder Coatings, Billions Europe, Brillux, Daw SE, Evonik Operations, Kronos Titan, Precheza, Tayca Corp., Tronox Pigments, Venator Germany, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, Ettengruber GmbH, TIGER Coatings, Rembrandtin Coatings, and major industry associations such as Cefic, CEPE, the British Coatings Federation and the American Coatings Association.
On 23 November 2022, the General Court of the European Union annulled the disputed classification and labeling. The main reason was that the Commission had made a manifest error in assessing the acceptability and reliability of a key scientific study, known as the Heinrich study.
In particular, the Court found that the RAC had made a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the characteristics of the particles tested, such as their nanometric size and tendency to agglomerate, as well as the lower density of agglomerates in calculating pulmonary overload. This error deprived the RAC’s conclusion of plausibility.
Definitive confirmation by the Court of Justice
France and the European Commission appealed against the General Court’s judgment. However, on 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice rejected their appeals, definitively confirming the annulment of the classification in question.
The Court acknowledged that, although the General Court had exceeded the limits of its judicial review in part of its reasoning (since it was not for the General Court to decide whether the density value adopted by the RAC was appropriate, a matter requiring scientific assessment), the annulment of the classification and labeling remained justified.
This was because the General Court had correctly found that the RAC had not taken into account all the relevant factors for assessing the scientific study in question. In particular, the RAC had not adequately evaluated the impact of nanoparticle agglomeration on the density to be used in calculating pulmonary overload. The uncertainties relating to this phenomenon did not exempt the RAC from examining it, on the basis of the most reliable scientific studies, to ensure that the density value chosen was appropriate.
No more worry for the paint industry
This decision represents significant relief for the paint and coatings industry, which makes extensive use of titanium dioxide.
TiO₂ is an inorganic chemical substance used in paints as a white pigment, highly valued for its exceptional coloring and covering properties, essential for the production of white coatings and many other colors. Its cost-effectiveness and wide market availability make it an irreplaceable ingredient in current formulations.
Sources do not explicitly explore the availability of technical alternatives that offer the same performance and cost-effectiveness as titanium dioxide. However, the broad and active participation of companies and industry associations in the legal proceedings underscores the critical importance of this substance and the major economic and technical challenges that industry would have faced if the classification had been maintained.
The difficulty of finding a substitute that matches TiO₂’s balance of technical properties, cost, and availability has made this ruling a welcome milestone for market stability and predictability.
The judgment closes a long period of uncertainty, enabling the industry to plan with greater confidence. The formal alignment of EU legislation is now expected through the correction of Annex VI to the CLP Regulation by the European Commission.
Commenti
Posta un commento