corrosive test success, page-4

Boppy I'm with you in thinking it will be a while for the first product to bring in real cash... contact lenses were supposed to be launched in 07 after all. But that's the downside with R&D companies trying to commercialise products. But when the cash comes in, It will have been worth holding I am confident of that.

Why did u say "It seems we are not competitive against established products in preventing biofilm formation."
I thought BOS was very competitive at this?

Biotechdaily on brr.com.au thought the SP should have moved a lot more than closing neutral. They must think this is an important result for the company. I just think not too many people follow it. I mean, this is the most popular forum for it I have found and it's fairly inactive.

And 20ppm for 4 days activity does sound very good now from what you said, particularly with the added benefit of no toxicity (therefore less associated costs). Plus from what I understand the furanones are biodegradable so it will be easier to remove from the oil? Any chance of posting what you found out about comparative products activity?

I have a limited understanding from this ann but it shows that the compound is on par/slightly better than other biocides, but is not toxic. This is a competitive advantage that I think will hold the product in very good stead within the industry. Who wouldn't switch to this product, if it has all (or more) benefits, with no toxic risk to personnel and enviroment (with associated handling & disposal costs?)

Hopefully the compound will continue its success with the next round of tests. I imagine it will at least increase the efficacy of existing biocides when used in tandem. I understand traditional biocides are not all that good at removing biofilms, but with biosignal's compounds it might weaken them enough to be removed with these.

I'm watching the SP over the next month.