Selection of sanitary napkin absorbent core

Selection of sanitary napkin absorbent core

The absorbent core of sanitary napkin is another core besides the surface layer. The amount of absorption is determined by the polymer content and gram weight of the absorbent core, which has little to do with the thickness of the sanitary napkin. On the contrary, too thick sanitary napkins will affect the breathability of the entire product.

The absorbent core structure of sanitary napkins is generally divided into two types: 1. Wood pulp + SAP (polymer absorbent resin); 2. Dust-free paper + absorbent paper. These two structures, whether wood pulp structure or dust-free paper structure, can play a role. The purpose is to make the water diffuse more evenly, and the polymer water-absorbing material is what really affects the water absorption;

In terms of cost, wood pulp + SAP is cheaper, and the advantage is that the product is thick and very soft; the disadvantage is also obvious, it is easy to clump;

The dust-free paper + absorbent paper structure has moderate cost, the finished product is lighter and thinner, and the air permeability is relatively better

Of course, there are many different manufacturers of polymer water absorption factors, and the absorption rate (absorption speed per minute) and absorption rate (absorption per minute) are quite different, which affects the cost and user experience.

The core is the heart of the pad, and the main split is fluff pulp vs. composite (pulp + SAP, often a wrapped or air-laid structure). Fluff is cheap and forgiving; composite is thinner, locks liquid faster, and stays drier on the surface. Most modern pads are composite for exactly that reason.

How we judge a core on samples is in this absorbent-core review note.

Core choice shapes daily use

The core is where absorption happens, but thicker does not always mean better. A high-SAP composite core can be thin and still hold plenty of fluid; a thick fluff-pulp core can sag and feel bulky once wet. The key is matching the core to the use case: light days need less, heavy nights need more, and active users need fast wicking. We compare development approaches in real R&D versus marketing factories, and the surface layer trade-offs in coarse versus fine denier topsheets.