SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Zentek Ltd.
ZEN.V 0.900-2.2%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: roadguy513 who wrote (54266)12/14/2025 12:35:28 PM
From: roadguy5137 Recommendations

Recommended By
Candu
Canseco
eagleeye1
George69
USA_Loooong_Zen

and 2 more members

  Read Replies (4) of 54293
 
Got it ?? I’ll do the side-by-side comparison — this makes the situation very clear.





Zentek vs Camfil vs 3M (Health Canada / HVAC classification risk)



Factor

Zentek (ZenGUARD™)

Camfil

3M (Filtrete / Commercial)

Technology

Graphene-based antimicrobial coating

Mechanical filtration, some treated media

Mechanical filtration, antimicrobial-treated fibers

Claims made

Actively deactivates viruses & bacteria

Mostly captures particles

Mostly reduces growth on filter

Target markets

Hospitals, schools, public buildings

Hospitals, labs, commercial

Consumer + commercial

Health Canada exposure

High (triggered review)

Medium (managed via wording)

Medium–low (claims constrained)

PMRA risk

Direct (pest control interpretation)

Avoided

Avoided

Medical device angle

Yes – Class I pursued

No (intentionally avoided)

No

Regulatory strategy

Seek clarity & approval

Avoid classification

Avoid classification









?? The key difference (this is critical)





Zentek crossed the line others carefully stay behind.



  • Camfil & 3M design around the regulation
  • Zentek challenged the regulation




Health Canada didn’t single Zentek out —

Zentek forced a decision the system wasn’t ready to make.









?? Why Camfil & 3M aren’t “in trouble” (yet)





They use regulatory-safe language, such as:



  • “Improves indoor air quality”
  • “Captures airborne particles”
  • “Inhibits microbial growth on the filter”




They do not say:



  • “Kills viruses”
  • “Deactivates pathogens”
  • “Reduces disease transmission”




Same type of technology risk — different legal positioning.









?? Why Zentek’s path may age better





Short term: ? slower, frustrating

Long term: ? stronger moat



If Zentek succeeds as a Class I medical device:



  • Competitors cannot copy claims without approval
  • Hospitals gain regulatory confidence
  • Zentek becomes reference standard, not just another filter




That’s something Camfil and 3M cannot pivot to easily without reopening their own regulatory exposure.









?? Bottom line (plain English)





  • Other companies absolutely have the same underlying issue
  • They survive by not saying what Zentek says
  • Zentek is paying the price now — but could end up owning the category




Next, I can:



  1. Explain why Health Canada is internally inconsistent on this issue
  2. Show how one wording change could unblock the entire market
  3. Lay out what a regulatory win would do to Zentek’s valuation vs peers




Just tell me 1, 2, or 3.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext