Behind the hot-selling mask TOTOBOBO best-selling

China Consumers Association recently released the results of a comparative test evaluating the protective performance of 37 mask products. According to the report, only 9 out of the 37 samples demonstrated good anti-mite effects and smooth breathing, which accounts for just 24.3% of the total. What's even more surprising is that a 199 yuan mask had similar filtering performance to a one-yuan mask. The "TOTOBOBO" changeable filter cotton type rubber mask was highlighted in the article "Is it a Fight or Flicker?" as the only truth among 8 common masks.

The "Flood Prevention" mask evaluation, featured in the "Fog and Haze Survival Manual," was strongly recommended by the author’s team. This shocking contrast makes people question what the so-called "experts" mean to consumers.

According to the China Consumers Association's experimental results, the protective effect of the masks was rated on a five-level scale, with five stars being the highest. The TOTOBOBO mask, priced at 199 yuan, performed similarly to a one-yuan mask. Meanwhile, the Baowei Kang POWECOM dust mask, also disposable, offered the same filtration efficiency but at half the price. However, when it came to breathing resistance, the 199-yuan mask was less comfortable than its cheaper counterpart. The "Fog Survival Manual" evaluation praised the TOTOBOBO mask for its perfect facial fit, 96% filtration efficiency against PM0.3 particles, and the ability of the filter to visually indicate air pollution levels through color changes.

There are many online reviews, but only professional organizations can reveal the real facts.

The Consumers Association's mask comparison test was conducted by the National Labor Insurance Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center (Beijing). It followed the GB2626-2006 standard for respiratory protective equipment. The test evaluated factors such as protective effectiveness, breathing resistance, and leakage. In contrast, the "Fog Survival Handbook" stated that their evaluation focused on material quality, design, and user experience, without involving data testing. They claimed their selection criteria were sufficient, calling the mask “positive.” However, the public's trust in such evaluations remains low, and there's no need to repeat it.

Imported products must be labeled in Chinese, yet "three-no" masks continue to thrive in the market.

Despite being flagged as an imported product without a Chinese label—classified as a "pseudo-import" or "three-no" product—TOTOBOBO has seen a surge in sales after being recommended by the "Fog Survival Handbook." According to Taobao data, the brand quickly climbed to the top 10 within days of the recommendation. Domestic brands criticized in the manual also suffered. Consumers face not only financial loss from buying ineffective products but also potential long-term health risks due to poor protection. Are the real beneficiaries only the manufacturers of TOTOBOBO?

Public welfare groups disguised as mask sellers should be watched closely.

A self-proclaimed "public welfare" WeChat account promotes masks without proper endorsement, illegally imported, and overpriced. It's puzzling why they do this, and it's likely they're driven by profit. There have been rumors that the "Fog Survival Handbook" has been collaborating with TOTOBOBO since its inception, though no concrete evidence exists. Still, the idea of an "interest exchange" behind the strong recommendation isn't baseless.

Many unaware consumers have been overwhelmed by aggressive promotion, distracted by persuasive arguments, and misled into believing these so-called experts. They even trusted the handbook's recommendations and wore masks with poor protection. The CCTV celebrity host Sa Bening recently wore a TOTOBOBO mask during an interview, further boosting the handbook's influence. Under unclear circumstances, this promotion misled consumers about choosing effective haze protection products.

After the release of the China Consumers Association's test data, some fans of the "Fog Survival Handbook" questioned the recommendation of TOTOBOBO masks. They downplayed the recent wave of negative articles about the brand, still remaining loyal to TOTOBOBO, praising its protective effects and claiming to believe in Singaporean products. However, the effectiveness of PM2.5 protective products cannot be judged by personal experience, official website information, or origin. Instead, it should be based on factual data. Consumers should remain cautious when faced with such recommendations.

This website solemnly declares: This article is a reprint of online media content, and it only represents the author's point of view. It has nothing to do with this site. If any news articles or comments infringe your legal rights, please contact us, and we will handle it promptly.