Materials 2025 , 18 , 228
15of 17
elements that indicate that this product should have such a high softness, meaning that the results obtained with the TSA, SUB, and KES methods make complete sense, clearly suggesting that the OPT method has overestimated it. 4. Conclusions In this work, four different experimental assessment methodologies were used for the evaluation of softness on a set of 29 different tissue paper products. A simple procedure was implemented to compare all methods by simply analyzing the positions of the products on a ranking table, without the need to thoroughly explore the huge amount of data obtained from each one of the used methods. From the performed comparisons, it was found that the methods that were least concordant were the SUB and the OPT, whereas the methods that were most concordant were the KES and the OPT. For this latter, the best, worst, and highest difference cases were analyzed in detail. For the worst and for the best cases, it was found that the TSA method gave results very similar to the KES and the OPT methods. As for the remaining SUB method, the evaluation of the best case was generally in agreement, with a value perfectly in line with the others, but the worst case was completely off, with a value that was clearly overestimated. With regard to the case of the product with the highest difference, the TSA, the SUB, and the KES methods were generally in agreement with their corresponding evaluations, but the OPT method was completely off, having performed an overestimation of the product. The reason for this was having taken too much into account the thickness of the tissue product, and too less other of its aspects. In summary, through this work, it becomes clear the importance of having different assessment approaches available for the evaluation of softness. This happens because softness is clearly a very difficult and complex feature to evaluate, depending on various aspects. By combining all methods together, it is possible to obtain a very complete evaluation of the tissue products, by taking into consideration the best that all have to offer, and better understand what happened on the specific cases on which differences of softness were detected between methods. In this way, it is always possible to confirm the actual grades of softness given to the tissue paper products, and, in case one or more of the methods differ, understand exactly why that happened. As the focus of future research, the application of this procedure on a vaster set of tissue paper products should be considered in order to further analyze which characteristics of the products are more and less valued by the four tested methodologies. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.d.O.M. and P.T.F.; methodology, A.d.O.M., A.M.C. and P.T.F.; software, A.d.O.M. and P.T.F.; validation, A.d.O.M., A.M.C. and P.T.F.; formal analysis, A.d.O.M., A.M.C. and P.T.F.; investigation, A.d.O.M., J.C.V., A.M.C., A.P.C. and P.T.F.; resources, A.d.O.M., A.M.C. and P.T.F.; data curation, A.d.O.M. and P.T.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.d.O.M. and P.T.F.; writing—review and editing, A.d.O.M., J.C.V., A.M.C., J.M.R.C., M.E.A., A.P.C. and P.T.F.; visualization, A.d.O.M., J.C.V., A.M.C., J.M.R.C., M.E.A., A.P.C. and P.T.F.; supervision, P.T.F.; project administration, A.M.C., A.P.C. and P.T.F.; funding acquisition, A.M.C., A.P.C. and P.T.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of this work, carried out under the Project InPaCTus—Innovative Products and Technologies from Eucalyptus, Project Nº 21874, funded by Portugal 2020 through European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the frame of COMPETE 2020 nº 246/AXIS II/2017. The authors are also very grateful for the support granted by the Research Unit of Fiber Materials and Environmental Technologies (FibEnTech-UBI), through the Project Reference UIDB/00195/2020, funded by the Fundaç ã o para a Ci ê ncia e a Tecnologia, IP/MCTES through
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator