Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Machine Translated by Google
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia online
000 Available Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Materials Processing and Manufacturing

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Materials Processing and Manufacturing
(SMPM 2019)
(SMPM 2019)
Investigating the development of low-cost sanitary pads
Investigating the development of low-cost sanitary pads
Mpumelelo Nhlapo, Malebo Mashego, Michelle Low, David Ming, Kevin Harding*
Mpumelelo Nhlapo, Malebo Mashego, Michelle Low, David Ming, Kevin Harding*
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering,
Engineering,
University Witwatersrand,
1
of the Johannesburg,
Jan Smuts Avenue School
Braamfontein, of Chemical2050,
Johannesburg and Metallurgical
South Africa
1 Jan Smuts Avenue Braamfontein, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa

Abstract
Abstract

Feminine hygiene products are becoming increasingly expensive due to a shifting focus, by manufacturers, from Feminine hygiene products are becoming increasingly expensive due to
a shifting focus, by manufacturers, from cost effective products to more convenient and aesthetically pleasing products. To shift the focus back to producing cost effective products to more
convenient and aesthetically pleasing products. To shift the focus back to producing cost effective products, various materials and configuration options were explored to produce a
disposable sanitary cost effective products, various materials and configuration options were explored to produce a disposable sanitary pad prototype. A three-layer (permeable top sheet,
absorbent core and impermeable back sheet) and four-layer pad prototype. A three-layer (permeable top sheet, absorbent core and impermeable back sheet) and four-layer model
(permeable top sheet, transfer layer, absorbent core and impermeable back sheet) were explored for the model (permeable top sheet, transfer layer, absorbent core and impermeable
back sheet) were explored for the prototype. Prototypes A and B had four and three layers respectively with a cotton inner core, while prototype C had prototype. Prototypes A and B had
four and three layers respectively with a cotton inner core, while prototype C had three layers and a recycled paper inner core. Upon applying a scoring system that ranks the pads'
performance from three layers and a recycled paper inner core. Upon applying a scoring system that ranks the pads' performance from best to worst in terms of absorbency per amount of

money it costs, it was found that the three-layer model best to worst in terms of absorbency per amount of money it costs, it was found that the three-layer model performed best. Using
the scoring system, it was found that the best performing prototype was C, with a score of 2.33/ZAR whereas Prototypes A and C had scores of 0.36/ZAR and 2.09/ZAR respectively.
Prototype C did not, performed best. Using the scoring system, it was found that the best performing prototype was C, with a score of 2.33/ZAR whereas Prototypes A and C had scores
of 0.36/ZAR and 2.09/ZAR respectively. Prototype C did not, however, maintain integrity when wet and presented problems in terms of comfort, deeming Prototype B as the best however,
maintain integrity when wet and presented problems in terms of comfort, deeming Prototype B as the best option for a cheap biodegradable sanitary pad. All the prototypes had a similar
quality to their commercial option for a cheap biodegradable sanitary pad. All the prototypes had a similar quality to their commercial counterparts but were slightly more expensive due to
the high cost of producing bioplastic. This shows that it is counterparts but were slightly more expensive due to the high cost of producing bioplastic. This shows that it is possible to
produce a pad that matches present day standards and expectations, but there will often be a trade-off possible to produce a pad that matches present day standards and expectations,
but there will often be a trade-off between environment friendly products and the cost thereof. between environmentally friendly products and the cost thereof. © 2019 The Authors.
Published
SMPM 2019.by Elsevier BV © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
Keywords: Feminine hygiene; sanitary pads; menstrual management; low-cost; environment friendly
Keywords: Feminine hygiene; sanitary pads; menstrual management; low-cost; environment friendly

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +27-(0)11-717-7576; fax: +27-86-522-0616

E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding kevin.harding@wits.ac.za
Tel.: +27-(0)11-717-7576; fax: +27-86-522-0616
E-mail address: kevin.harding@wits.ac.za
2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019. 2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.05.083
Machine Translated by Google

590 Mpumelelo Nhlapo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594 Nhlapo et. al./
2 Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction
The age at which menarche begins has decreased over passing centuries [1]. For girls, puberty currently begins
at eleven years of age, however there is a lack of access to menstrual management products [2]. Menstrual
management is achieved by several products. There are those which are disposable or reusable, as well as those
which are used internally (inserted into the body) or are external absorbents, where only the latter are included in the
scope of this report (sanitary pads). Strides are being made towards the development of low-cost disposable sanitary
pads by using inexpensive production materials, or by making the pads simple enough to make at home from locally
sourced materials (such that labor costs are removed from the cost of sanitary pads) [3]. What should be noted
during the process of generating a low-cost sanitary management method is societal preference between disposable
and reusable products.
Upon conducting a survey of 50 women above the age of 18 (in South Africa), it was found that 92% of the women
preferred disposable menstrual management methods. Sixty nine percent preferred using disposable pads and 23%
preferred using tampons as opposed to other menstrual management methods (diva cup or reusable pads or
sponges). Of the brands that sell disposable pads, the most popular were Always®.
The women were also asked what quality they like about current commercially available menstrual management
products and what they would like to be added to a new product. Ten percent of the women commented that
menstrual management methods are too expensive. Some women also commented on the need for an environment
friendly pad. Our aim was therefore to develop a low-cost biodegradable sanitary pad to improve accessibility to
menstrual management products. Our objectives were to explore work previously done on developing various types
of feminine hygiene products and to explore the possibilities for materials of construction for a low-cost biodegradable
sanitary pad. Performance evaluations were made with respect to tests of maximum capacity, rate of absorption and
moisture retention.

2. Methods
The research was carried out by performing absorbency tests on commercial pads and on prototypes developed
using a blood substitute fluid. This fluid was made using a saline solution with 896 g of water and 164 g of salt which
was heated up to 37°C using a water bath. A drop of blue food coloring was added to the solution to make it easy to
observe runoff and the area of the pad that was wet during testing. The types of commercial pads that were tested
were the light, medium and heavy flow variations of Always®, Kotex® and ComfitexTM. The three prototypes
developed included a three-layer cotton core pad, a three-layer paper core pad and a four-layer cotton core pad.

2.1. Absorbency
Tests All tests were performed in triplicate.

Maximum Capacity Test

The maximum capacity of disposable pads was determined by weighing the dry pad, fully saturating it with blood
substitute and then weighing it again. The difference between the final mass and the dry mass was perceived as the
absorbed fluid mass at the pad's capacity.

Absorption Rate Test

A vertical wicking test was done by dipping the pad in 3 cm of blood substitute for two seconds. The rate of
absorption was perceived as the loss in beaker mass over time.

Moisture Retention Test

Each dry pad was weighed. 20 ml of blood solution was added at 2 ml/s, and the pad was reweighed. A 10 cm ×
25 cm piece of paper was placed on the surface of the wet pad and a 788 g weight was placed on top of the paper,
which was removed after 30 min. Each pad was re-weighed. The percentage of moisture left in the pad with respect
to that initially added was calculated and used as an indication of moisture retention.
Machine Translated by Google

Nhlapo et. al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 Mpumelelo

Nhlapo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594 3 591

2.2. Prototype Design

The prototypes' designs were based on the dimensions of an Always® Maxi pad for light flow (Fig. 1) as
Always® was established as the preferred brand in the group study. Prototype A consists of four layers, whereas
Prototypes B and C consists of three layers. Table 1 summarizes the configuration of these layers as well as the
materials used for each layer, with layer 1 being the part of the sanitary pad that comes into contact with the body
and layer 4 being the bottom of the sanitary pad.

Fig. 1: Dimension of Always® sanitary pad for light flow. The thickness of the filler material (layers 2 and 3 combined), as is applicable in each prototype, is 1cm.

Table 1: Materials of construction for each proposed prototype.

Layers Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

first 1 × Gauze 2 × Gauze 2 × Gauze

2 - -
Filter Paper

3 Cotton Cotton Recycled paper

4 Gauze embedded in bioplastic Gauze embedded in bioplastic Gauze embedded in bioplastic

The bioplastic serves as the fluid-impermeable bottom layer of all the prototypes. Each batch of bioplastic was
made using 45 g corn starch, 300 ml distilled water, 100 ml apple cider vinegar and 25 ml glycerine. The ingredients
were mixed in a 1 000 ml glass beaker and placed on a hotplate at 150°C for 20 min. The paste was immediately
spread onto gauze and allowed to cool into a solid plastic embedded with gauze over two days. Each batch covers
the bottoms of three pads.

2.3. Scoring System for Data Analysis

The results of the absorbency tests were used to gauge the efficiency of the analyzed pads, with respect to the
individual cost of each pad. A scoring system was adopted to compare the performance of the individual pads, as
follows.
Within the tests of each pad type (moisture retention test, maximum capacity test and absorption rate test of
light, medium and heavy flow variations of each brand of pad) the number of eligible results (those which are within
the bounds of the standards outlined by SANS 1043) were tallied [4]. The total number of eligible results was used as
Machine Translated by Google

592 Mpumelelo Nhlapo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594 Nhlapo et. al./
4 Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

the highest score for each test, such that the best performing pad was given the highest score. Ineligible results
results a score of zero. The worst performing pad (within the bounds of the standards) was given a score of unity,
and all intermediate results were similarly scored by ranking. The scores scored by each individual pad type for each
test were added up to create a total performance score for each pad type. The total performance score was compared
to the cost of each individual pad to gauge the efficiency of the pad versus its price ie the value of the pad.

3. Results and Discussions

Absorbency test results were taken and used to gauge the performance of both the commercial pads and the
prototypes with respect to the standards outlined and with respect to price (Table 2).

Table 2: Score results for commercial sanitary pads

Kiÿm TRA Pad Type Light Medium Heavy

Absorption Brand Average Score Average Score Average Score

Rate Absorption Rate Absorption Rate Absorption Rate
(ml/s) 9,357 (ml/s) 9.414 (ml/s) 3.225
ComfitexTM 3 3 2

8066 2 8,752 2 9.320 3

Always®

Kotex® 11,557 0 11,172 0 12,584 0

8,770 - - - -
Prototype A first

13,201 0 - - - -
Prototype B

4.464 2 - - - -
Prototype C

Standard [4] Max 10

Maximum Brand Average Score Average Score Average Score

Capacity Maximum Maximum Maximum
Capacity (ml) Capacity (ml) Capacity (ml)
ComfitexTM 55.716 first 69,700 first 25,438 first

69.424 2 106.389 2 113.503 2

Always®

Kotex® 92,182 3 124.510 3 159.058 3

87.515 2 - - - -
Prototype A

89,298 3 - - - -
Prototype B

72.878 - - - -
Prototype C first

Standard [4] Min. 5

Moisture Brand Average Moisture Score Average Score Average Score

Retention Retention Ratio Moisture Moisture
(%) Retention Ratio Retention Ratio
(%) 98,034 (%) 91,183
ComfitexTM 98.561 2 first first

98.511 first 98.558 3 98,429 3

Always®

Kotex® 98.624 3 98.525 2 98,343 2

97.543 - - - -
Prototype A first

98.669 3 - - - -
Prototype B

98.635 2 - - - -
Prototype C
Machine Translated by Google

Mpumelelo Nhlapo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594 Nhlapo et. al./ 593
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

It is evident that the prototypes performed similarly to their commercial counterparts in terms of absorbency
(Table 2), however the bioplastic could not withstand when the prototypes were fully saturated. Although results
were obtained from all the tests, a more realistic simulation of menstrual flow would be required to determine how
long the wearer could keep the sanitary pad on. The current recommended wearing time is eight hours, and it is
apparent that for a sanitary pad made using bioplastic it would have to be much less (approximately three to four
hours).
The absorbency of each pad with respect to price was analyzed to determine the relative worth of each pad
(Table 3).

Table 3: Score per unit price for commercial sanitary pads

Pad Type Light Medium Heavy

Brand Cost Total Score/ Cost Total Score/ Cost Total Score/
(ZAR) Performance ZAR (ZAR) Performance ZAR (ZAR) Performance ZAR
Score Score Score
ComfitexTM 1.70 6 3.54 1.70 5 2.95 2.20 4 1.82

2.50 5 2.00 2.50 7 2.80 2.62 8 3.05

Always®

Kotex® 1.75 6 3.43 2.50 5 2.00 2.50 5 2.00

14.08 5 0.36 - - - - - -
Protype A

2.87 6 2.09 - - - - - -
Prototype B

1.72 4 2.33 - - - - - -
Prototype C

ComfitexTM pads for light flows are optimal (Table 3), as they offer the highest performance score of the light
pads despite their low price of ZAR1.70 per pad. The lowest performing pad is the ComfitexTM pad for heavy flows:
it has the lowest absorption rate, moisture retention ratio and maximum capacity of all the commercial pads tested
(Table 2), yet it costs more than the aforementioned ComfitexTM high-performance pad. This shows that the price
of the pad is not certainly an indication of its quality. Always®, the commonly preferred pad brand, has an
intermediate performance with respect to the other tested brands, in all tests performed, and adheres to the
standards provided by SANS 1043 [4].
From Table 3 it is can be seen that the cost of the prototype with filter paper (Prototype A) as part of the inner
core is high compared to the other prototypes and the commercial disposable pads, because the cost of the filter
paper alone is ZAR11 .22 per pad, which is significant higher than the price of the other pads. None of the prototypes
proposed have a price which competes with the cheapest commercial pad tested. What is notable is that the cost of
the bioplastic was calculated as ZAR1.69 per pad, which is approximately the price of the ComfitexTM pad for light
flows. The proposed starch-based bioplastic is, thus, limited in its application to a low-cost sanitary pad investigation.
Alternate bioplastics, such as cellulose-based plastics, are recommended for further investigations.
It can also be noted that Prototype A's performance is not worth its price: it performs poorly with respect to
Prototype B (Table 3), yet it costs almost five times the price. Prototype B achieves the best total performance score
of the prototypes, however, the price is too high to compete with commercial pads.
An observation that was made during the testing of the prototypes was that for Prototype C, the paper core tore
in the middle after pressure was exerted. This is due to the rigid nature of the paper and the fact that paper fibers
are shorter than cotton fibers and therefore tend to break more easily [5]. One of the concerns of the women who
took part in the survey was that some pads do not maintain integrity during wear, and this should be kept in mind
when selecting a best-performing prototype. So, although Prototype C has the highest Score/ZAR, it would not be
feasible to continue testing it as a potential low-cost sanitary pad.

4. Conclusion
In the group survey women highlighted the need for a cheaper, more environmentally friendly sanitary pad. The
request for a cheaper sanitary pad is corroborated by the fact that the most preferred brand, Always®, is the most
expensive across all pad types (light, medium and heavy). Always® pads did, however, perform the best across the
Machine Translated by Google

594 Mpumelelo Nhlapo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 589–594 Nhlapo et. al./
6 Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

absorbency tests. ComfitexTM pads for low flows represent the best cost performance, which is understood since
they are the cheapest. Prototype B performed similarly to ComfitexTM for light flows, however the price is 69%
higher than ComfitexTM for light flows. Although Prototype C had the highest cost performance (of the prototypes),
it had the poorest performance across the absorbency tests and was too rigid for further development. It is clear
that further research into making Prototype B cheaper is advocating to make a commercial pad that is cheaper than
those currently available. The recommendations for further construction of this prototype would be to reduce the
thickness of the bioplastic bottom layer or find other sources of bioplastic and perhaps investigate cheap and
effective transfer layers (layer two in Table 1) to maximize performance so that the results fall within the standards.

References
[1] Papadimitriou, A., The Evolution of the Age at Menarche from Prehistorical to Modern Times, Journal of Paediatric and Adolescent
Gynaecology, 29(6), 206, pp. 527-530.
[2] UNESCO, Puberty Education & Menstrual Hygiene Management, Good Policy and Practice in Health Education (Vol. 9). Paris, 2014
[3] Crofts, T., Menstruation hygiene management for schoolgirls, WEDC Publications, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.k4health.org/sites/
default/files/wedcmenstruationhygienemanagement_forschoolgirls.pdf [4] SABS Standards Division, SANS 1043:2010 The Manufacture
of Sanitary Towels, Retrieved September 20, 2018, from http://sabs.co.za [5] Madsen, B. & Gamstedt, E., 2013. Wood versus Plant Fibers:
Similarities and Differences in Composite Applications. Advances in Materials
Science and Engineering, 2013, pp. 1-14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/564346