What do consumers look for in toilet papers - strength, absorbency, softness or cleanliness?
The Consumer Council has put to test 26 toilet papers to assess these various product attributes to assist consumers in their choice.
Uppermost in the mind of many a consumer is probably the strength of the toilet paper - both in terms of resistance to tearing and tensile strength when dry and wet.
Out of the 26 models, according to the test, the paper strength of three models (all were 2-ply) was found to be less satisfactory than the others.
On microbiological analysis to find out its "total bacterial count", the test showed that with no exception, all samples were found with a "total bacterial count" of varying degrees. It is nevertheless true that we live in a world full of micro-organisms virtually everywhere.
Accordingly, one sample in the first batch of samples was found marginally in excess of the 600 cfu/g (colonies forming units per gram) stipulated by the Enterprise Standard of the Mainland (QB2500-2000). It was detected with 720 cfu/g.
But, in the second batch of samples, all toilet papers came within the standard below 600 cfu/g.
On the findings of the two batches, only two samples were found to have a "total bacterial count" between 300 cfu/g and 500 cfu/g. The rest were largely under 200 cfu/g.
There is, however, no cause for concern. First, none of the samples were detected with the following micro-organisms, i.e. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococci haemolyticus or total Coliform, an indication that the samples were relatively free of harmful bacteria.
Second, even taking into account the Enterprise Standard QB2500-2000, the "total bacterial count" of all samples was insignificant in quantity given that the most stringent value for certain food category of the Microbiological Guidelines for Ready-to-eat Food of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) allows 1,000 cfu/g of bacteria.
Nonetheless, it is not unlikely that the quantity of bacteria could multiply rapidly in poor humid conditions if toilet rolls have been contaminated.
Consumers are, therefore, advised to observe good hygiene practice and refrain from habitual misuse of toilet paper for purposes other than what it is intended.
It is not advisable to use toilet paper for holding food to eat. It is not unusual to find some eateries in Hong Kong providing toilet rolls on the tables for use of their customers. Contrary to their intention, this is not in the best interest of consumers.
Other product attributes on which the overall score was based included absorption measuring both the rate and capacity of water absorbency; softness as assessed by a panel of users for comfort; creases and stains; disintegration reflecting the time it took the toilet paper to break up in swirling water - fast in integration is especially important to avoid clogging of drainpipes.
Overall, in terms of quality, the 3-ply samples fared better. Seven of these samples shared the limelight of top overall score with an award of 4-1/2 points on a scale of 5.
With such a wide variety to choose from in the market, consumers may find it difficult to find the toilet paper that offers quality and good value for money.
The price per roll is, however, not a good indicator of value as the total length per roll of the tested samples varied substantially from 15.4 m to 39.6 m, a difference of 24.2 m, let alone difference in quality.
A more accurate indicator is in the cost per 10 square metres: varying from $5.7 to $11.1 for the 3-ply samples, and $4.0 to $9.4 for the 2-ply.
For full results of the test, consumers are urged to consult this June issue of CHOICE.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE Magazine and Online CHOICE ( https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/ ).