Materials 2025 , 18 , 228
5of 17
handfeel of 68 is obtained on C. For this method, the products should be rearranged as indicated in Table 1. Table1. Rearrangement of the tissue products A, B, and C based on their TSA results.
TSA Handfeel High (91) Low(50)
Rearrangement of the Tissue Products
TSA Handfeel Low(50)
TSA Rank
Product ID
Product ID
Rougher
1 2 3
A B C
B C A
Intermediate (68)
↓
Intermediate (68)
Softer
High (91)
Now, let us suppose that a second method, for instance, a subjective evaluation, is used on the same 3 tissue products A, B, and C. Through this second method, which uses a different evaluation scale, A is evaluated, let us say, with a 5, as being soft, B is evaluated with a 1, as being rough, and C is evaluated with a 3, as being mild. For this second method, the 3 products should be rearranged as indicated in Table 2.
Table2. Rearrangement of the tissue products A, B, and C based on their subjective evaluations.
Subjective Evaluation
Rearrangement of the Tissue Products
Subjective Evaluation Rough (1)
Subjective Rank
Product ID
Product ID
Soft (5)
Rougher
1 2 3
A B C
B C A
Rough (1)
Mild (3) Soft (5)
↓
Mild (3)
Softer
Finally, the comparison of both methods becomes very easy to perform by simply looking to the position of the rearranged tissue products in Tables 1 and 2, without the need to compare their initial evaluation values, although, in this particular case, it would be easy due to the simplicity of the presented examples. Specifically, both methods have been shown to be concordant with no deviations in the given ranks. B scored 1 out of 3, C scored 2 out of 3, and A scored 3 out of 3, the best of the three products in terms of softness, for both methods. This is precisely the same procedure that is going to be used in the presentation of the results in the next section of this work for the set of the 29 tested tissue products.
3. Results 3.1. Comparison Between Methods
The first step regarding the interpretation of the results to our set of samples would be to rearrange them based on the values that were obtained through the reference method, the TSA equipment. Thus, the 29 finished tissue products that compose the set were rearranged from the rougher to the softer, as shown in Table 3. The first column of Table 3 presents the designation of each one of the tested tissue products, starting with the product T01, and ending with the product T29. The second column indicates their ranks based on the measurements that were obtained with the TSA equipment. The first product T01 shows a TSA rank of 21, meaning that this product had a high value of handfeel, 21 being the highest out of a maximum of 29, and it should go down in the table, toward the softer side, as indicated on the last two columns of Table 3. On the other hand, the last product T29 coincidently shows a TSA rank of 29, meaning that this particular product is in the correct position in the second column of Table 3. It also means that this product, ranked the maximum of 29 in terms of softness, is indeed the softer of the entire set, according to the TSA equipment. The same analysis was conducted for all the remaining tissue products, originating their rearrangement, as can be seen in Table 3.
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator