Summary of Key Points
Recently, the focus of the "diaper formaldehyde incident" has shifted to the reliability of the tests conducted by the whistleblower, "Reliable Old Wang" (Wang Dongjian). He used a medical breath testing device (SPI-TOFMS) developed by his own company to test diapers, which has raised four major questions regarding his background, the suitability of the equipment, his motives for conducting the tests, and his relationship with third-party institutions. There are still many unresolved uncertainties in this matter, and further verification by official organizations is needed.
I. The Identity of the Whistleblower: The Contradiction Between His Companies and Business Suspicion
"Reliable Old Wang," whose real name is Wang Dongjian, owns four active companies, with the core being Shenzhen Burui Biotechnology, a company that specializes in human breath testing (for diseases such as tuberculosis and liver disease). Despite having only eight employees, the company has received tens of millions in funding from investors like Chunhua Capital.
- Public Doubts: Wang posted information about the testing device on REDnote and recruited parents with diaper-related issues, creating a "whitelist," leading to speculation that he was using negative public sentiment around diapers to promote his product.
- His Response: He denies any commercial motives, claiming that the diaper tests were merely "spontaneous internal experiments." However, his account was deleted, and media attempts to interview him were met with doors closed (he explained it was due to a lunch break), which adds to the suspicion.
II. The Testing Device: Is It Scientific to Use a Medical Instrument for Diaper Testing?
The SPI-TOFMS device used by Wang Dongjian is originally a medical breath testing instrument developed by Burui Biotechnology, the first of its kind in China to receive certification. It is designed to analyze volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath to assist in disease diagnosis.
- Technical Feasibility: Experts say that the mass spectrometer itself can detect formaldehyde (technically, there's no issue with that), but the question arises: The device was intended for human breath testing, not for consumer products. It's like using a thermometer to measure water temperature in a swimming pool—while it can do the job, is the accuracy and suitability for consumer product testing guaranteed? Additionally, Wang has raised concerns about whether his method controls variables such as temperature and environment during the testing process, casting doubt on the scientific validity of the results.
III. The Credibility of the Test Results: How Do They Compare to Conventional Methods?
The current standard methods for detecting formaldehyde involve gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or high-performance liquid chromatography, which require complex sample preparation (such as purification), resulting in accurate but expensive and time-consuming results.
- Wang's method is faster and cheaper, but questions remain about the standardization of sample collection and processing (for example, whether formaldehyde volatilization was prevented). Without this information, the credibility of his results is compromised.
Experts point out that while mass spectrometry technology is mature in medical applications, its application to consumer product testing requires verification of its suitability. Just because a substance can be detected does not necessarily mean the test results are reliable.
IV. Doubts About Potential Conflicts of Interest: The Relationship Between Third-Party Institutions and the Data
Wang claims that his data serves as a reference only, with final confirmation to come from official third-party organizations. However:
- The Shandong Public Health Clinical Center, responsible for the testing, has purchased equipment from Wang's company (for tuberculosis and liver disease projects), raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
- Some test data in the reports match those provided by Wang, suggesting that the data may have come directly from him rather than independent third-party tests. Does this undermine the credibility of the so-called "third-party verification"?
Recommendations for Consumers
1. Stay Calm: The incident is still unresolved, and the impact of formaldehyde on babies depends on the dose (current national standards do not set specific limits for formaldehyde in diapers).
2. Be Rational: Do not rely solely on the results from a single source; wait for official or authoritative third-party reports.
3. Be Vigilant: If issues are confirmed by official organizations, then consider changing brands to avoid being influenced by public opinion.
In summary, the core issue is not whether diapers contain formaldehyde, but whether the tests conducted by Wang Dongjian are credible. Until these doubts are clarified, it is safest to adopt a wait-and-see approach.