Iso 119480-1

I posted this in a reply on another sub-discussion and thought it was worth it to post here as well. - sorry about cross posting :sad:

While trying to qualify this (Are-the-ABDL-diapers-worth-it/page3) discussion, I looked up some prices and absorbencies and in doing so stumbled upon a ISO standard for it ...amazing... See ISO 11948-1 and references:

https://www.ics.org/Abstracts/Publish/41/000170.pdf
https://www.incontinencechoice.co.uk/information-absorbency-levels

There's a lot of information in this study:

https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta12290/#/abstract


So, I was curious. How do the diapers bantered about in conversations compare? And as any geek would do...

The following table quickly compares a few products (not exhaustively), it is based on prices per package verses by the case. What is interesting is when taking into account ISO 11948-1 (Rothwell method) with a working capacity of 50%, the price per ml changes in favor of lower capacity diapers. Whereas, based solely on maximum capacity, these diapers are equivalent in price per ml. Also, note the Practical column is ml per unit price (higher value is better).

As a data point, I added the Always Discreet Max. Underwear. You should note the capacity is an empirical estimate for Always.


View attachment 31793

- - - Updated - - -

Interpreting the limited data, it is cheaper to buy cheaper and change more often. However, if changing often is impractical or surge capacity is an issue, more absorbency (higher price) is needed. We knew this, the numbers help to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Darn it. I incorrectly referenced the ISO in the thread subject, and cannot seem to edit it.

I like your numbers, (I love working with datasets myself, too) but you're missing a data point. If you use a large capacity diaper and you urinate 130mL once, 370mL second time, and 156mL a third, that can be contained by a single higher-capacity diaper (using the ISO for simplicity). The twist comes in when you're talking about the lower-capacity types like Always, as you can't evenly divide across the entire data set - each and every wetting requires you change, regardless of urine output.

Given the original example above, if you urinate 130mL you still have an ISO absorption amount left of 350mL (we all know it's practically less, but for the sake of picking one we're using ISO), then the next time is 370mL, you will leak. Sure, you could push the limits and hope your next wetting is less than the capacity left, but that's how you end up with wet pants! In this case you run a much higher risk of that, and in order to mitigate that risk you'd have to change your diaper every wetting, which not only increases the price likely double (or more - merely an estimate, you could argue; I don't have any hard numbers here), but the inarguable truth is in the impact to your lifestyle: you end up choosing between having wet pants from time to time due to rolling the dice and losing, or requiring diaper changes and all the added hassle of that (disposing of them, carrying changes, etc) roughly 6-12 times a day. I'd personally consider that even worse than going to the bathroom every 30-60 minutes or at every urge (for me at least).

Or, you wear a higher-capacity diaper and don't worry about it. Of course, this assumes you're not incontinent with a constant-rate slow dribble, and instead have a more unpredictable bladder (like me and many others' experiences I've read here). If you do have a constant rate, then... #1 you're lucky hahaha, and also you do have the option to change more often and save a small amount, but as life is uncertain I'd always opt for the greater protection a higher capacity diaper offers, in case I get stuck somewhere.

Also I personally dislike changing my diaper, so I try to minimize that for myself as much as possible.

Again though, thanks for the engaging numbers!

PlotTwist is right, it is not cheaper to buy cheap diapers and change more often. The reports of only using 30-50% of the ISO rating holds true with what I've also found. Lets say you buy diapers at $0.50 each, and change them every 2 hours (including several times in the middle of the night). You will spend a total of $6.00 per day. Now lets say you buy an expensive diaper for $1.50 each, and change every 8 hours. You will spend a total of $4.50 per day.

Here's the important part though. You won't be using more than 1/3 the ISO capacity of those "expensive" diapers. Meaning you won't be anywhere close to leaking, and won't feel anywhere near as wet. With those "cheap" diapers you will constantly be taking them past 1/2 their total ISO capacity. You will leak more, and you will feel wetter more often. Not to mention you will also be changing way more often than it typically feasible.

When you really stop and think about it, the more "expensive" AB diapers are cheaper overall, while also working and feeling better. The only down side is they are thicker and harder to hide. Thankfully a few minor wardrobe changes, and lots of people who don't notice anyways, all make that a moot point anyhow.

Oh, and if rashes, bowell movements, or a little wetness feeling isn't a typical problem for you, then you can easily extend the wear time of a premium AB diaper to 12 hours most days. That brings their total cost down even more, which makes more them even more worth it. Conversely though, wanting or needing to change early for any reason will invalidate the need for a premium diaper. "Cheap" diapers could cost less overall if this is the case.

Okay, let us look at it from a numeric point of view. I've expanded the previous table to include additional data:

1. Additional capacity diapers (3) have been added.
2. A practical capacity of 70% (upper end of practical, or I would not want to sit down after reaching this point)
3. Number of voids based on each void consisting of 200 ml (< 1 cup). As stated before, your milage may vary depending on bladder capacity.
4. Number of briefs (diapers) per day and the associated cost. This value is rounded up as one cannot wear a fraction (e.g., 0.5) of a diaper. One could, but that would look odd.

Briefs/Day data (Number of briefs per day) is calculated using 800 ml of urine output over 12 hours. This is based on a 0.8 cc/kg/hr for an adult (180 lbs) of normal urine output (0.5-1.0 cc/kg/hr) consuming 1500ml of liquid (e.g., water or other non-diuretic liquid). Ref: https://www.mdcalc.com/urine-output-fluid-balance

In determining cost the sources of information of unit price to capacity is not easily obtained so, these numbers are based on only a few data points. Also, note the capacity of the Always product was downgraded to 300 ml as the previous value was a bit over optimistic.

Drawing conclusions from the data seems to support a solution that is neither high nor cheap. Rather a middle ground balancing capacity and cost. Note: In each Cost/Day column, the cheapest solution is colored green and the most expensive in red.

Data:

Each of these choices are within a $1 per day. Does that make a difference to what you choose? Maybe. ~$350/year is still $350 that could be saved or applied to bills, 401, food, etc. Is it enough to argue or get mad about? Likely not. To debate, heck yeah!

I can't pull up the attachement, but it seems like you've put some real good and logical though into your calculations. At the very least this might make for a good starting point.

You did leave out one big data point though. Does the cut or shape of each diaper properly conform to one's own body shape. Two diapers side by side could have a 5000ml ISO rating. One is loose around your legs (or waist, or too tight, etc), while the other js snug and just right. The loose one could leak long before even hitting 50% capacity, the snug one could likely hit more than 70% capacity without leaking. Thereby drasticly changing the briefs/cost per day. Unfortunately, this is why we all have to try samples or single bags first. To find out if they fit properly or not.

Iso absorbency,
Oh what a pity.
It was designed,
by a committee.

Just to mention... This is a pretty old standard and not up to date anymore. At last for germany it is replaced by this:

http://www.inda.org/SPEAKERS/archives/htm2015_NWSP.2015.Standards.pdf

you may search the text for "Absorption before Leakage Using an Adult Mannequin" or "NWSP 354.0.R1".

This method is much better then Rothwell but still not perfect, because of the position of the mannequin (laying on the back). How ever, it's a starting point, and its much easier to rate the products because they introduced the ABL Value (absorption before leakage) as well as the absorption speed.

For those who understand a little German also this site may be informativ:

https://hilfsmittel.gkv-spitzenverband.de/produktlisteZurArt_input.action?paramArtId=4514

It is a side from the head organisation of the German health insurances, where you can see the ratings of all products that are allowed to be paid by the insurances.

Mickdl,

Thanks for the reference. Interesting read, definitely a analytical approach of the Nonwovens (2015) verses Cottenden. It will take a couple of passes to digest its contents.

What I like about "Absorbent products.." Fader et. al. is the approach specifically, the data analysis of surveys showing products verses gender differences/preferences.