To: roadguy513 who wrote (54266 ) 12/14/2025 12:35:28 PM From: roadguy513 7 RecommendationsRecommended By
Read Replies (4) | Respond to Got it ?? I’ll do the side-by-side comparison — this makes the situation very clear. 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
Camfil & 3M design around the regulation Zentek challenged the regulation “Improves indoor air quality” “Captures airborne particles” “Inhibits microbial growth on the filter” “Kills viruses” “Deactivates pathogens” “Reduces disease transmission” Competitors cannot copy claims without approval Hospitals gain regulatory confidence Zentek becomes reference standard, not just another filter 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 Explain why Health Canada is internally inconsistent on this issue Show how one wording change could unblock the entire market Lay out what a regulatory win would do to Zentek’s valuation vs peers
