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.
Yeah, that really annoys me.. I get the diaper on, and when it gets wet, it easily leaks if i'm sitting, i think that's what happened with Tena in the library..but not sure. I do know the diapers i wear don't wick very well but do absorb what they can quite well.. as long as i change frequently..
Quote:
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!
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.
So there's my two cents worth....FWIW.....<grin>
JoeK
