Tofu Cat Litter: the full laboratory test report

This page publishes, in full, the third-party laboratory test results for the tofu cat litter we sell as Kopipets. All seventeen test items are here, with the result, the limit each was measured against, and the test method — not a selected two or three.

We publish the whole table for a simple reason. A brand that quotes one flattering line from a test report is telling you about the line it chose, not about the product. A brand that publishes the whole report is telling you about the product, including the parts that are merely adequate. The report number and the laboratory's own verification code are below so that you can check this against the laboratory's database rather than against our word.

What was tested, and by whom

Laboratory: Centre Testing International (Qingdao) Co., Ltd.
Laboratory accreditation: CNAS L4157, operating under the ILAC-MRA mutual recognition arrangement
Report number: A2250276330101001C
Verification code: SEA9
Verify at: https://mycti.cti-cert.com (enter the report number and verification code)
Sample: Tofu cat litter, 500 g, solid form
Sample received: 25 April 2025 · Tested: 25 April – 8 May 2025 · Report issued: 8 May 2025
Standard applied: T/CIQA 11-2020, Specification for Tofu Cat Litter

Who commissioned it. The report was commissioned by Xingtai Nuode Pet Products Co., Ltd., our supplier for this product; the litter is produced by Hebei Jiangchong Pet Supplies Co., Ltd. We are publishing it here with our supplier's permission. We say this explicitly because the report does not carry our name on it, and a company that reproduces a laboratory report without explaining whose report it is has already told you something about how carefully it handles evidence.

The Chinese original was translated into English by Skyline Business Consulting Pte. Ltd. (Singapore, Reg. No. 201331722N), certified translation no. 1420625, dated 30 June 2025.

The results

Test item	Result	Limit	Method	Verdict
Sensory	Free from mould and unpleasant odours	Free from mould and unpleasant odours	T/CIQA 11-2020	Conforming
Formaldehyde	Not detected (< 0.1 mg/kg)	≤ 1.5 mg/kg	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.14	Conforming
Pulverisation rate	0.36%	≤ 1% conforming / ≤ 0.8% first grade / ≤ 0.5% premium	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.9	Premium
Powder content	0.66%	≤ 1.5% conforming / ≤ 1% first grade / ≤ 0.5% premium	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.8	First grade
Clump weight	41.7 g per 20 g	≤ 50 g	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.4	Conforming
Clump strength	94.1%	≥ 75%	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.5	Conforming
Clump height	4.9 cm	≤ 5 cm	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.2	Conforming
Moisture	5.9%	≤ 12%	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.11.1	Conforming
Water absorption	92%	≥ 66%	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.3	Conforming
Hardness	55 N	≥ 35 N	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.10	Conforming
Collapsibility	47 s	≤ 60 s	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.6	Conforming
Lead	0.19 mg/kg	≤ 10.0 mg/kg	GB/T 13080-2018, 7.2	Conforming
Arsenic	0.0517 mg/kg	≤ 10.0 mg/kg	GB/T 13079-2022	Conforming
Total mould count	< 10 CFU/g	≤ 4 × 10⁴ CFU/g	GB 13092-2006	Conforming
Salmonella	Not detected in 25 g	Shall not be detected	GB 13091-2018	Conforming
Aflatoxin B₁ *1	Not detected (< 2.0 µg/kg)	—	NY/T 2071-2011	Conforming
Deodorisation effect	40.2 ppm	—	T/CIQA 11-2020, 6.13	Conforming

^*1 The laboratory marks the aflatoxin B₁ item as lying outside the scope of its CNAS accreditation. The other sixteen items, including formaldehyde, are not marked. We reproduce the laboratory's own footnote rather than quietly dropping it.

What these numbers actually mean

Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde was not detected — meaning it was below the method's detection limit of 0.1 mg/kg, against a permitted limit of 1.5 mg/kg. We write it that way, rather than as "formaldehyde-free", because "not detected below 0.1 mg/kg under method 6.14" is a statement of fact and "formaldehyde-free" is a promise about every particle in every bag. Under Singapore's Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, the difference between those two sentences is not stylistic.

Dust. Powder content came in at 0.66% and the pulverisation rate at 0.36%. T/CIQA 11-2020 does not set one limit for these; it sets three bands. For powder content they are 0.5% for premium, 1% for first grade and 1.5% for conforming, which puts our 0.66% in the first-grade band and not the premium one. For pulverisation the bands are 0.5%, 0.8% and 1%, which puts our 0.36% in the premium band. Pulverisation rate reflects the formulation and the hardness of the pellet; powder content reflects how well the factory screens and finishes the product before it goes into the bag. Read together, the honest conclusion is that our formulation sits in the top band and our finishing sits one band below it. We quoted these figures against the loosest of the three bands for months before setting it out properly here. Both sit inside the standard. Only one of them sits in its top band, and we would rather say which one than average them into a compliment. Neither is zero. No clumping litter made from compressed plant material is genuinely dust-free, and we would rather print the two real figures than round them into a slogan.

Clumping. Clump strength of 94.1% against a 75% minimum is the number that matters most day to day: it is the difference between lifting a clump out intact and having it break apart in the scoop, which is how a litter box goes from a two-minute job to a ten-minute one. Collapsibility of 47 seconds against a 60-second limit is the flushability-relevant figure.

Heavy metals. Lead at 0.19 mg/kg and arsenic at 0.0517 mg/kg are roughly fifty and two hundred times below their respective 10 mg/kg limits. Cats groom litter dust off their paws, so this is a real exposure route and not a theoretical one.

The limits of this report — stated plainly

A test report is only useful if you also know what it does not cover. Three things:

It applies to the sample that was tested. The laboratory states this on the report itself: the client provides the sample information, and the results are specific to the tested samples only. It is evidence about a production batch and a formulation, not a certificate covering every bag ever made. Anyone who tells you otherwise about any test report is overselling it.

It is not a certification. The laboratory notes that the testing was carried out for purposes such as research, teaching, internal quality control and product development. It is a measurement, not a mark of approval, and no government body has endorsed this product on the strength of it.

We do not host the PDF. The report carries conditions on reproduction, and a photocopy of it without the laboratory's red seal is not a valid copy in any case. Publishing a scan would add nothing you could rely on. What we have published instead is the complete set of results, the laboratory's own caveats, and the report number and verification code — which lets you check the original against the laboratory's own database at mycti.cti-cert.com, which is a stronger form of proof than a picture of a document.

If you want to see the certified English translation in person, or you are a retailer or media outlet who needs to verify it formally, email info@kopipets.com.sg and we will arrange it.

Published by Surplus Media Pte. Ltd. (UEN 202448810R), Singapore, owner of the Kopipets brand. Last updated 31 July 2026.