Wed May 13, 2009 9:11 am
JoeK wrote:Hi Sociologygeek,
My feelings are that SAP allows a thinner diaper that wears well under clothing but doesn't wick well since there is relatively little fluff. A diaper that is heavy on SAP absorbs a lot...but just in the crotch where the source of wetting occurs. Typically these diapers will leak and require changing while the whole rear of the diaper is virtually dry.
Yes, this is very annoying too.. ive had times where the diaepr got wet, and then the padding fell away..this is what happened with the tena in the libray.. not only did it absorb in the weak part of the diaper with out hte SAP.. but hte padding fell away, making it useless for a rewet..which is probably why i had a leak. Having to rely on disposables makes it kinda tough to go 24/7 should i choose to do so for matters of ease and convinence. I still am on the fence when it comes to that.. and this is partly the reason why.The downside to more fluff, inspite of it's comfort and wicking ability, is it is hard to keep it from clumping when it gets wet. I think we are all aware of the "useless" diapers we have tried where the padding clumps and falls from the back sheet into the crotch, rendering the diaper useless for any further wear. And the clumping and failure of the fluff padding can occur with active folks (such as bike riders or joggers) even when they haven't wet the diaper yet!
Wed May 13, 2009 10:11 am
Wed May 13, 2009 10:30 am
Wed May 13, 2009 10:42 am
Wed May 13, 2009 11:04 am
Wed May 13, 2009 7:20 pm
Thu May 14, 2009 7:37 pm
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:14 pm
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:16 pm
johnstone wrote:Sandy, Sandy, Sandy.......just stay with quality. Junk is junk!
Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:36 pm