| Title |
It is worth 10 million working hours a year to have your toilet paper folded?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12995-016-0126-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rickard Ljung, Hedvig Ljung, Harald Ljung |
| Abstract |
From our experience the toilet paper is folded in the bathrooms in rooms in branded hotels. We aimed to study the total time yearly spent in the world on folding hotel toilet paper. Three investigators clocked 60 folding toilet paper events and calculated the mean time. The mean folding time was 5.73 s (interquartile range 4.50-6.56). Using the calculated extra time it takes to fold the toilet paper and the number of hotel nights spent we estimated the total time spent in the world each year to fold the toilet paper. For sensitivity analyses we used different assumptions on number of hotel beds, occupancy rate and folding time. Assuming an extra 10 s spent on folding toilet paper, approximately 10 million hours are globally spent on folding toilet paper every year. This corresponds to more than 5000 man-years of work. In a hotel with yearly full coverage of 200 beds skipping folding the toilet paper corresponds to around 200 h of time that could be spent elsewhere. To take away unnecessary duties from hotel room cleaners would increase their health and well-being and save time that could be better spent. Is it really defendable and appropriate that someone else has spent time on folding the toilet paper you are just about to use? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Hungary | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 81% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 56% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,182,315
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#23
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,443
of 421,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them