Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 7;18(2):228.
doi: 10.3390/ma18020228.

Tissue Paper Softness: A Comparison Between Different Experimental Assessment Approaches

António de O Mendes  1 , Joana C Vieira  1 , Ana M Carta  2 , Joana M R Curto  1 , Maria E Amaral  1 , Ana P Costa  1 , Paulo T Fiadeiro  1
Affiliations

Tissue Paper Softness: A Comparison Between Different Experimental Assessment Approaches

António de O Mendes et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

In this work, four different experimental assessment approaches, namely, the Tissue Softness Analyzer (TSA), a Subjective Evaluation (SUB), the Kawabata Evaluation System (KES), and an Optical System (OPT), were used for the evaluation of softness on a set of 29 different tissue paper products. After processing and the interpretation of the results given by each one of the used methods, a procedure was implemented in the current work to make a comparison between them. The procedure consists in tracking the position of the tissue paper products on a ranking table, regardless of what values were obtained through each one of the four used methods independently. This comparison revealed to be very useful in determining the differences verified between methods allowing to conclude which ones were the least and the most concordant, and, at the same time, enabling us to identify interesting cases of tissue paper products on the set that caught our attention for their distinctive characteristics.

Keywords: Kawabata evaluation system; optical system; softness; subjective evaluation; tissue paper; tissue softness analyzer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagram evidencing the composition of our set of samples, and the typical dimensions of the 2-ply, 3-ply, 4-ply, and 5-ply tissue products.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scheme of the methods implemented experimentally in the current work.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Graphical representation of the positions (ranks) of the 29 tested tissue products by each of the 4 used methods (TSA, SUB, KES, and OPT).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Graphical representation of the differences verified between experimental assessment methods for the 29 tested tissue products.
Figure 5
Figure 5
3D map obtained for the tissue product T15: (a) top view of front side; (b) perspective view of front side; (c) lateral view of front side; (d) top view of back side; (e) perspective view of back side; and (f) lateral view of back side.
Figure 6
Figure 6
3D map obtained for the tissue product T17: (a) top view of front side; (b) perspective view of front side; (c) lateral view of front side; (d) top view of back side; (e) perspective view of back side; and (f) lateral view of back side.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Images of the top surface of the tissue product T15: (a) global view; and (b) magnified view (4×) of the area contained in the red square.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Images of the top surface of the tissue product T17: (a) global view; and (b) magnified view (4×) of the area contained in the red square.
Figure 9
Figure 9
3D map obtained for the tissue product T20: (a) top view of front side; (b) perspective view of front side; (c) lateral view of front side; (d) top view of back side; (e) perspective view of back side; and (f) lateral view of back side.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Images of the surface of the front side of the tissue product T20: (a) global view; and (b) magnified view (4×) of the area contained in the red square.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hollmark H. Mechanical properties of tissue. In: Mark R.E., editor. Handbook of Physical and Mechanical Testing of Paper and Paperboard. Volume 1 Dekker; New York, NY, USA: 1983.
    1. Kimari O. Chapter 3—Tissue. In: Paulapuro H., editor. Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 18—Paper and Board Grades. Finnish Paper Engineers’ Association and TAPPI; Helsinki, Finland: 2000.
    1. Das R., Pan K., Green S., Phani A.S. Creped Tissue Paper: A Microarchitected Fibrous Network. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2021;23:2000777. doi: 10.1002/adem.202000777. - DOI
    1. Abbott J.C., Schnabel K. Hygiene papers. In: Levlin J.E., Söderhjelm L., editors. Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 17—Pulp and Paper Testing. Finnish Paper Engineers’ Association and TAPPI; Helsinki, Finland: 2000. Chapter 11.
    1. de Assis T., Reisinger L.W., Dasmohapatra S., Pawlak J.J., Jameel H., Pal L., Kavalew D., Gonzalez R.W. Performance and sustainability vs. the shelf price of tissue paper Kitchen Towels. BioResources. 2019;13:6868–6892. doi: 10.15376/biores.13.3.6868-6892. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources