<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>TSCA Nanoscale Rule on Nanoclay Guide</title><link>https://nanoclayguide.com/tags/tsca-nanoscale-rule/</link><description>Recent content in TSCA Nanoscale Rule on Nanoclay Guide</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://nanoclayguide.com/tags/tsca-nanoscale-rule/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>When Your Nanoclay Triggers "Nano" Reporting: Labeling and Disclosure Rules by Region</title><link>https://nanoclayguide.com/blog/nanoclay-nano-reporting-labeling-disclosure-by-region/</link><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://nanoclayguide.com/blog/nanoclay-nano-reporting-labeling-disclosure-by-region/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Most companies working with nanoclay understand the first layer of compliance: the substance has to be on the relevant chemical inventory. Bentonite is. Montmorillonite is. That box is usually ticked before anyone thinks hard about it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second layer is the one that catches people. A growing set of nano-specific obligations sits on top of ordinary chemical law, and they are triggered not by &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; the substance is but by &lt;em&gt;what form&lt;/em&gt; it is in. The uncomfortable part is that &amp;ldquo;nano enough to trigger reporting&amp;rdquo; has no single definition. It has at least four, and they don&amp;rsquo;t agree.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>