I've not a spare moment for iteration, so I'm directing my readers to my comment posts on various other blogs submitted in response to the EC's NM edict, which affirms the position posited by me on this blog in a September 2011 posting { Surely, Size Does Matter }.

To illustrate and elucidate, I've embedded visuals below which demonstrate why NP size is paramount, especially vis-à-vis the nanoparticle-protein corona complex (Faunce and others have already shown this to be so). Now concentration can be placed on swiftly proceeding to computational re-calibrations according to shape and surface interaction and compliance enforcement.

Respectfully, no one who claims to be serious about nanotoxicity should be asking what NP size has to do with aggregation and agglomeration. It has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with these, as much as dispersion.

As complex as this all appears to be, it really is just as simple as that.

The EC is spot on; its ``cross-cutting`` parametres bridge the risk and hazard lacunae between the cell isolation and nanotox camps.

http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=4885#comments

http://2020science.org/2011/10/18/ec-adopts-cross-cutting-defintion-of-nanomaterials-to-be-used-for-all-regulatory-purposes/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechnology/the-ec-defines-a-nanomaterial-now-what#comments

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69475170/NanoClast-blog-response-19-Oct-2011