RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:LiabilityEveryone is entitled to their opinions, but not to incorrect facts.
Seems there's some work to be done to earn trust given inaccuracies in your statements. I bring these up out of respect to other investors investing their own money into this H2O2 technology.
Here are facts from OSHA, NIOSH, and CDC concerning H2O2 and EtO. Anybody can look these up..
NIOSH has H2O2 IDLH at 75ppm, (this means amount of gas risking immediate danger to life and health) with EtO at 800ppm. H2O2 has over tens times the lethality. Ozone has a IDLH of 5ppm, 160 times the lethality. NIOSH study on toxicity on EtO and long-term effects on humans finds no overall elevated risk for any type of cancer or other diseases when compared to the general US population. Please see link, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/ethyleneoxide.html
EtO has been around the longest and has been the most studied out of the chemical sterilants. So, more comprehensive database on effects and H2O2 will undoubtedly face the same studies as it grows. TBD it's longterm effects of toxicity.
I bring this up, because I understand the negative criticism on EtO, but using inaccuracies to put down a competing technology that is used by over 60% medical manufactured instruments and implants, seems to be misleading in the least, by Echo.
This an effort to understand why 3M and Getinge gave up on this technology and better to understand real market forces impacting success. Risk to human exposure from lethal and toxic chemical sterilants I believe to have a portion of the thought process by hospitals in acquiring sterilizers.
Link to an independent study on H2O2 sterilization leaking and products off-gassing H2O2. https://www.chemdaq.com/researchers-find-leakage-problems-with-hydrogen-peroxide-sterilizers/
These leaks seem to be a culprit to the fact H2O2 is one of the most oxidative and corrosive elements known to man. The gas corrodes internal components due to this fact.
Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to incorrect facts.
H2O2 at concentrations above 70% are only used as rocket fuel. I believe VP4 has 59% concentration, well into the limits of toxicity and risk to immediate health.
Compatibility of corrosive elements for sterilizing instruments limits the materials that can be safely sterilized. This may explain why device manufacturers do not use H2O2 and majority use EtO, which is still the most compatible chemical sterilant we have today.
Your times on sterilization are also misleading and downright fraudelant. 40 mins to 70 mins in the VP4 sterilizer do not include times needed to manually clean instruments. Also, a BI at 18-hours also needs to be added. I don't understand why if VP4 has a rapid BI at 1-hour, would the hospital then be required to run an 18-hour end of the day. Even whith a 1-hour rapid BI, you have 100 mins -130 minutes of sterilization time added onto the facilities manual cleaning, testing, procedural time, and the time it takes for a facility to finish the procedure and then have the scope ready for cleaning process. In truth, there will only be enough time for 2 runs of the scope and 3 at the most, with 75% + at the 2 time use same day.
I compare this to newer generation EtO sterilizers and wonder if there is a move back to EtO over H2O2 as hospitals become better educated on pros and cons of each. New generation EtO in hospitals will only be able to turnover 1 scope per day and H2O2 realistically 2 scopes to 3 scopes used first thing in the am.
I still taking a shot on this company with all of this being said, as I believe a rising tide lifts all boats and the VP4 technology definitely has advantages for the scope sterilization market. I only hope to raise informed conversation on realities in the market versus only drinking company Kool-Aid.